ERGONOMICS STUDY ON WORKING POSTURE AT MARINE REPAIR COMPANY

SYED MOHD FARID BIN SYED MOHD FUZI (2009434552)

BACHELOR ENGINEERING (HONS) (MECHANICAL) UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA (UITM) JULY 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah S.W.T., The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful. It is with the deepest sense of the Al-Mighty Allah that gives me the strength and ability to complete this project proposal. All good aspirations, devotions and prayers are due to Allah whose blessing and guidance have helped me throughout the entire project proposal. I would like to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude towards my supervisor Puan Nursalbiah binti Nasir for her concern, valuable time of consultation, and advice, guidance patience in supervising my project from the beginning until the completion of this project proposal. Also, to the other lecturers that give me guidance and moral support to finish this project proposal. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and all my friends for their supports especially, my aunt and uncle, Syed Shaharum and Zakila who personally involved and give me ideas and help me to finish this project proposal. They always give me moral support and help when needed and their honest comments or advcies on my project proposal.

ABSTRACT

Abrasive Blasting process that is being used at shipyard in marine industries involved with many hazards and risks. Ergonomics study on the process is very important to reduce the risks related to the process and could help improve the health of the workers. This study is focused on identifying problem related to abrasive blasting process and suggests method or solution to improve working posture and reduce risks related to the process. The method used to evaluate the risk of the process is Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). The result from the survey will be compared with the assessment result using REBA method.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

i ii iii vi vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1.2 Problem Statement 1.3 Objective 1.4 Scope and Limitation 1.5 Significance of Project

1 2 2 3 3

iii

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Abrasive blasting process 2.1.1 Definition of abrasive blasting 2.1.2 Types of abrasive blasting 2.1.2.1 Mechanical blasting 2.1.2.2 Air pressure blasting 2.1.2.2.1 Direct pressure method 2.1.2.2.2 Induction-siphon method 2.1.2.2.3 Induction-gravity method 2.1.2.3 Hydro-blast process 2.1.2.4 Vapor-blast process 2.1.3 Safety and hazard related to abrasive blasting 2.2 Ergonomics in abrasive blasting 2.2.1 Musculoskeletal disorder 2.2.2 OSHA guidelines on ergonomics for shipyard 2.2.3 Shipyard physical load 2.2.4 Working posture-performance relationship 2.2.5 Studies in other industries related to ergonomics in abrasive blasting in marine industry 2.3 Ergonomics and improvements 2.4 Analysis method 2.4.1 Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) 2.4.1.1 Strength of the method 2.4.1.2 Limitations of the method 2.4.2 Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) 2.4.2.1 Strength of the method 2.4.2.2 Limitations of the method

4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10

12 13 13

14 14 14 14 15

iv

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Methodology flow chart 3.2.4 Survey analysis 3.2.3 Survey distribution and job observation 3.2.2 Literature review 3.2.1 Problem identification 3.2.5 Suggestions of intervention 3.2.7 Result 3.2.8 Conclusion 3.3 Research instrument REFERENCES 3.4 Respondent of the study

16 17 18 18 18 18 18 `19 19 19 24

APPENDICES

27

Appendix A

REBA Employee Assessment Worksheet

28

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

TITLE

PAGE

Table 2.1: Table 3.1:

Summary of Related Literature Reviews A set of tools to be used in observation

10, 11, 12 20

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

TITLE

PAGE

Figure 2.1: Classification of Abrasive Blasting Process Figure 3.2: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 1) Figure 3.3: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 2) Figure 3.4: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 3) Figure 3.5: Sample of REBA assessment worksheet

5 21

22

23

24

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

In span of few decades, marine industry has been related closely with oil and gas industry. The rapid growth of oil and gas industry has influence the expanding of marine industry. Nowadays, ships and vessels not only used to transport people and goods to different continent. It is also used as supporting units to oil and gas platform and widely used to transport oil and gas related product. Due to nature of work that the ships and vessels had to undergo, maintenance needs to be done regularly to ensure longer life span of the ships. One of the most important parts need to be maintained is the hull of the ships that is commonly affect by the corrosion caused by the sea water. One of the methods used to prevent corrosion to ships hull is by applying coating to the hull of the ships using paint. However, the coating need to renewed for certain period of times because sometimes, the coating is damaged by collision and aging. Before the painting works can be done, the old coating and rust need to be removed and the surface need to be prepared to ensure the new coating will adhere to the surface. Abrasive blasting is a common process that is being used in the shipyard to prepare the surface for painting works. It is the most economic way to prepare the surface. However, there is certain hazard related to this process. In United States,
1

NIOSH and OSHA have studied about the process extensively and provided the standards and guidelines for the process to prevent health problem to the worker. In Malaysia, DOSH and OSHA also provide the standards and guidelines for the process in Factories and Machineries Act 1967 and Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994. However, the studies of ergonomics for abrasive blasting process is still new in Malaysia.

1.2

Problem statement

Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Malaysia (MMHE) has been using the abrasive blasting process for surface preparation before the painting works is done in marine repair. The physical demands of the works tasks require strength and endurance as well as high level of coordination due to the static and dynamic standing surface. These workers exposed to many of recognized risk factors for the development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The risks factors include high force exertions, static or awkward posture, repetitive motions, noise, vibrations slip and fall risks and high level of muscular fatigue. However, there is no certain study about musculoskeletal disorder risks being done at MMHE. In this study, the musculoskeletal disorder risks in abrasive blasting process at Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Malaysia (MMHE) will be identified and suggestions will be made to reduce the risks of musculoskeletal disorder in abrasive blasting process at MMHE.

1.3

Objective

1. To identify ergonomic problems related to abrasive blasting workers. 2. To suggest suitable solutions to reduce musculoskeletal disorder risks in abrasive blasting process.
2

1.4

Scope and Limitation

The data measurement will be taken are closely referred to guidelines from NIOSH, A Primer based on Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders. Ten abrasive blasters from MMHE shipyard will be participated in the survey and observations. The observations will be using REBA method developed by Sue Hignett and Lynn McAtamney. The suggestions will be made based on guidelines provided by Niosh, A Primer based on Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders.

1.5

Significance of the project

The solutions suggested to the process will aids the workers to feel more comfortable while working, reduce medication cost and reduce safety risks related to the process. The solution suggested is not only applicable to marine repair industry but also applicable to other related field that used abrasive blasting process in their daily work such as factories and construction fields that used abrasive blasting for surface finishing. The data and findings for the study also might be used for research related to the ergonomics field.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Abrasive blasting process

2.1.1

Definition of abrasive blasting

Enviro-Management & Research, Inc. defined abrasive blasting as a process of cleaning or finishing of materials by forceful direction of an abrasive media applied either dry or suspended in a liquid medium, against the surface of work piece. [1] Dave Hansel defined abrasive blasting in more simple way which is the process of propelling abrasive particles from a blast machine using the power of compressed air. He also listed down three fundamental components that constitute the equipment setup which are, air compressor, blast machine and abrasive. [2] Austin Blair described abrasive blasting as high velocity bombardment of a surface by an abrasive media propelled by hydraulic or pneumatic pressure or centrifugal force. He also divided the process into four categories which are, dry (pneumatic), wet (hydraulic), airless (centrifugal), and vacuum (a pneumatic blast nozzle surrounded by a vacuum cleaner brush arrangement for immediate dust removal). [3] From these definitions, it can be concluded that abrasive blasting is a process of surface preparing and surface cleaning and finishing by using abrasive media that is forced to the work piece by using compressed air.
4

2.1.2

Types of abrasive blasting

Enviro-Management & Research, Inc. has explained the categories of abrasive blasting which include dry and wet blasting. The categories of the abrasive blasting can be represented by the figure below.

Abrasive blasting

Dry blasting Mechanical blasting Air pressure blasting

Wet blasting Hydro-blast process Vapor-blast process

Direct pressure method

Inductionsiphon method

Inductiongravity method

Figure 2.1: Classification of Abrasive Blasting Process

Generally, dry blasting is a blasting process that is not involved the use of liquid or water in the abrasive. Vice versa with the wet blasting that mixed the abrasive with liquid or water that create slurry or only use high pressure liquid for the abrasive blasting process.

2.1.2.1 Mechanical blasting

The process generally used the cabinet type equipment that have blast wheels inside the cabinet house and used centrifugal force produced by the blast wheels to direct the abrasive to the work piece. Different wheels design is available to improve the efficiency of the operation and the equipment can be geared from low to high production requirements. The applications of the equipment include, descaling the cast products, deburring transmission parts, and to clean strip steel and automotive crankshafts, axle shafts, engine blocks and rear axle housings. [1]
5

2.1.2.2 Air pressure blasting

Air pressure blasting employs the use of compressor that will compress to apply abrasive to a surface. Typically, the methods used are direct pressure or induction method.

2.1.2.2.1

Direct pressure method

In this method, the abrasive is contained and fed by pressurized container into blast hose. The air pressure used commonly 80 to 90 psi. The abrasive will fall from the pressure vessel through the aperture into the blast hose and will pick up by the compressed air that conveyed the abrasive to the work piece. Blast machines that used this method can be used as portable units or can be developed into cabinets or blast rooms. [1]

2.1.2.2.2

Induction-siphon method

The difference between this method and direct pressure is the design of the blast gun. The blast gun is connected to a flexible hose that carries the abrasive and a compressed air pipe. As the compressed air flow through the gun and the abrasive hose, a partial vacuum condition is created in the hose and abrasive from the abrasive hose will be drawn a propelled through the nozzle. Usually, it is used in work that need light abrasive due to the velocity of abrasive leaving the nozzle. The approximate velocity is 40% of direct pressure method. [1]

2.1.2.2.3

Induction-gravity method

The equipment for induction-gravity method is quite similar to inductionsiphon method. The difference is the way of the abrasive is stored. In this method, the abrasive storage is stored at overhead place. The drawn of abrasive into compressed air hose caused by the partial vacuum condition and the weight of gravity. This method usually used in shot peening. [1] The concept and method used in wet abrasive is quite similar with dry blasting. Three methods can be used to propel the slurry to the work piece. The methods are: 1. Design of the nozzle that create siphoning action. 2. Used of compressed air with the help of gravity-fed action. 3. Used of centrifugal pump that can produce required speed of projection for the slurry.

2.1.2.3 Hydro-blast process

It is a wet blasting process that uses mixture of sand and water that is propelled by water pressure. [1]

2.1.2.4 Vapor-blast process

In this process, abrasive is suspended in the liquid and projected at high velocity by compressed air. [1]

2.1.3

Safety and hazard related to abrasive blasting

OSHA under United States Department of Labor has provided the guideline for employee that is involved in abrasive blasting. There are several hazards that related to the abrasive blasting including toxic dusts, high noise level and other safety and health hazards. The details of the guidelines can be referred at [4].

2.2

Ergonomics in abrasive blasting

2.2.1

Musculoskeletal disorder

Abrasive blasting in marine industry often related musculoskeletal disorder due to the nature of the work. Cohen, Gjessing, Fine, Bernard and McGlothlin defined musculoskeletal disorder in Niosh manual as: 1. Disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or spinal discs. 2. Disorders that are not typically the result of any instantaneous or acute event (such as slip, trip, or fall) but reflect a more gradual or chronic development (nevertheless, acute events such as slips and trips are very common causes of musculoskeletal problems such as low back pain). 3. Disorders diagnosed by a medical history, physical examination, or other medical tests that can range in severity from mild and intermittent to debilitating and chronic. 4. Disorders with several distinct features (such as carpal tunnel syndrome) as well as disorders defined primarily by the location of the pain (i.e., low back pain) [5]

2.2.2

OSHA guidelines on ergonomics for shipyard

OSHA under U.S. Department of labor has listed down ergonomics-related risk factors that shipyard employees are most often exposed to. The ergonomicsrelated risk factors are force, repetition, awkward and prolonged static body posture, contact stress, vibration and cold temperatures combined with previous risk factors. OSHA also provides the guidelines for preventing musculoskeletal disorder in for shipyard. [6]

2.2.3

Shipyard physical load

In a survey conducted by Berna van wendel de Joode, Alex Burdof and Carolina Verspuy, it is reported that ship maintenance work including abrasive blasting works have high prevalence of back pain and neck or shoulder pain with back pain occurrence of 80% and neck or shoulder pain occurrence of 60%. The result of the workplace survey shows that abrasive blasting works required harmful posture 1.5 to 2.0 times more often than average. They also compared the physical load in ship maintenance work with other occupations and guidelines for material handling. Comparison with other occupations shows that twisted and bent trunk is more common among traditional fishermen and ship maintenance workers, 8% to 10% and 2% to 3% respectively. Also, the prevalence of required force is the highest among ship maintenance workers with over 200 N. Comparison with the guidelines for material handling shows that abrasive blasting works has exceed the recommended capabilities of most workers with range of 180 to 400 N. In conclusion, ship maintenance works characterized by frequent extremely awkward postures and exertion of large forces and the workers are at risk for the development of musculoskeletal disorders especially the back and the neck or shoulder region. It is also suggested that ergonomics improvements is warranted because the ship maintenance work is a strenuous job. [7]

2.2.4

Working posture-performance relationship

Straker, Pollock and Mangharam in their journal mentioned that poor posture could change the mechanical advantage of muscles requiring a sub-optimal neuromuscular utilization, accelerate the onset of muscular fatigue leading to a decrement in movement co-ordination and lead to discomfort that could act as distractor. All of this could affect the performance of a worker. They also suggest that small changes in posture can affect the performance of workers. Therefore, productivity and health can both be improved with good posture. [8] Poor working posture is the main cause of musculoskeletal disorders and could affect the performance of a worker. Cohen, Gjessing, Fine, Bernard and McGlothlin mentioned that work-related musculoskeletal disorders may cause a great
9

deal of pain and suffering among the workers and productivity, and the quality of the product may decrease. The quality of work also would be affected.

2.2.5

Studies in other industries related to ergonomics in abrasive blasting in

marine industry Title/authors Comparing dynamic and stationary standing postures in an assembly line by Venkatesh Balasubramanian, K. Adalarasu, Rahul Regulapati. [9] Summary - This study evaluated the efficiency of a dynamic standing posture over Relevancy to topic - Most of the abrasive blasting works in marine industry involved in

stationary standing posture stationary standing in reducing physical stress. - It is found out that stationary posture fatigues especially when working on scaffolding. - It is proven that stationary standing could

lower extremity muscles at bring bad impact to the a much faster rate than a dynamic posture during an hour's job. - It is also found out that dynamic standing could reduced fatigue and risk of lower extremity disorder compared to the stationary standing. The effect of shoulder posture on performance, discomfort and muscle fatigue whilst working on a visual display unit by L.M. Straker, C.M. Pollock, J.E. Mangharam. [8] - The study was conducted to determine the relationship between posture and performance while working on a VDU. - The study was made to investigate the discomfort in 30 flexion posture
10

worker lower extremity muscles. - The method of dynamic standing might be able to apply to improve the process.

- Most of the abrasive blasting works in marine industry involved in used of shoulder at more than 30 flexion sometimes especially when working at the ship side. - The poor working

compared to 0 flexion posture. - It is found out that the 30 flexion posture show significant discomfort and fatigue compared to 0 flexion posture. - It is also found out that performance is also affected by the discomfort. Ergonomic interventions for commercial crab fishermen by Gary A. Mirka, Xiaopeng Ning, Sangeun Jin, Omid Haddad, Kristen L. Kucera. [10] - The study was conducted to design, develop and testing of two simple

posture in abrasive blasting might cause fatigue and discomfort of shoulder. This might also impact the performance of the worker.

- The risk related to abrasive blasting is quite similar with risk related to

ergonomic interventions to commercial fishing reduce exposure to these risk factors related to commercial fishing industry. - It is found out that with correct interventions, the muscle force requirement and stress could be reduced significantly. industry in term of strength, endurance and repetition. - It is proven that poor posture caused extensive muscle force requirement and increase muscle stress. - It is also proven that with correct interventions, muscle force requirement and muscle stress could be reduced and lower the risk related to the abrasive blasting.

11

Whole body vibration and posture risk factors for low back pain among forklift truck drivers by J. Hoy, N. Mubarak, S. Nelson, M. Sweerts de Landas, M. Magnusson, O. Okunribido, M. Pope. [11]

- The study was conducted to investigate the risks from whole-body vibration and posture demands for low back pain among forklift truck drivers. - It is found out that vibration acts associatively with other factors to precipitate low back pain.

- One of the main risks related to abrasive blasting is vibrations. - It is proven that vibration could associate with poor working posture to cause musculoskeletal disorder.

Table 2.1: Summary of Related Literature Reviews

2.3

Ergonomics and improvements

Based on the experience in ergonomics fields, Hendrick has listed down several lessons learned for ergonomics to improve a system. He explained that: 1. The science and practice of ergonomics are same throughout the world. 2. Ergonomics technology can be applied to any system, product or built environment. 3. Good ergonomics projects typically give a direct cost benefit of from 1 to 2, to 1 to 10, with a typical payback period of 6 to 24 months. 4. Effective ergonomics programs on large system development projects take only 1% of the engineering design budget. 5. The earlier ergonomics is applied in design, the cheaper the cost and greater the benefit. 6. Costs and benefits of ergonomics projects must be measured. 7. Less tangible benefits from ergonomic improvements also can have a significant economic impact. 8. Employee ergonomics training is important to safety and productivity.
12

9. OSHA guidelines really do work. 10. True macroergonomics interventions typically achieve a 50% - 90% improvement in one or more work system effectiveness criteria.

It can be concluded that applications of good ergonomics can bring a good impact on abrasive blasting or other system safety, health, productivity and profit of a company. Even with the cheapest cost, good ergonomics could bring significant benefit to company. [12] Kivi and Mattila in their journal mentioned that the method applied should be practical and tested to improve the ergonomics at work. It is also suggested that all level at a company involved in the improvement including management and employees. It is also proven that the ergonomics in an industry could be improved using the correct method. [13]

2.4

Analysis method

There are several method can be used to evaluate the working posture of abrasive blaster. However, there are only two method is considered for the project. The methods are Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) and Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)

2.4.1

Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS)

OWAS was developed by a steel industry company in Finland and used to describe workloads during the overhauling of iron smelting ovens. The observation using OWAS has 252 possible combinations resulted from weight of the load (three categories), back posture (four postures), arms (three postures), and lower extremities (seven postures). The results is divided into four categories which indicating a need for ergonomic change. Sampling is carried out using fixed-time intervals and through "snapshots" observation. The equipment required is a computerized system named WinOWAS. [14]
13

2.4.1.1 Strength of the method [14]

1. Widely used and documented

2.4.1.2 Limitations of the method [14]

1. Does not separate right and left upper extremities. 2. Assessment of neck and elbows/wrists are missing. 3. Time consuming. 4. Does not consider repetition or duration of the sequential postures. 5. Decisions rules based on frequency distribution are arbitrary. 6. Need a proper observational technique and strategy.

2.4.2

Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)

Rapid entire body assessment (REBA) was developed to assess the type of unpredictable working postures found in health-care and other service industries. Data are collected about the body posture, forces used, type of movement or action, repetition, and coupling. A final REBA score is generated to give an indication of the level of risk and urgency with which action should be taken. In the spectrum of postural analysis tools, REBA lies between the detailed event-driven systems and time-driven tools. The initial developement was based on Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) and OWAS. Tables in REBA are available to transform the 144 posture combinations into a single score that represents the level of musculoskeletal risk. These score are then banded into five action levels that advice on the urgency of avoiding or reducing the risk of the assessed posture. [15]

2.4.2.1 Strength of the method [15]

1. Rapid to use. 2. Computerized registration. 3. Public domain.

14

2.4.2.2 Limitations of the method [15]

1. Not recommended for assessing tasks that are primarily manual material handling tasks. 2. While considering forces and activity, the REBA method focused primarily on work postures. 3. This method does not consider the duration of activity, the recovery period or vibration. 4. This method does not suitable for assessing jobs that involve a number of different and varying tasks. 5. The method only allows for the separate assessment of right and left hand sides of the body and there is no method to combine these scores into total body risk score. 6. The method only allows for looking at either one point of time or at the 'worst' postures observed for a task. 7. The user must use their judgment to decide on or select representative postures of the task. 8. The cumulative effects of all activities performed during a job or task are not considered. 9. If the job or task involve unusual, difficult to categorize, or unobservable, the risk associated with the job or task may not be adequately reflected by the result of the method. 10. A general risk level is provided but it cannot predict injuries to individual operators. 11. This method does not account for individual risk factors including gender, age, or medical history.

15

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1

Introduction

The main purpose of the research is to suggest a few ergonomics interventions in abrasive blasting process in marine industry. Data for this research were collected through a survey form that is working at MMHE. The results of the survey would be analyzed and interventions will be made and tested using REBA method.

16

3.2

Methodology flow chart

Problem identification

Literature review

Survey distribution and job observation

Survey and observation analysis

Suggestions for interventions

Result

Discussion

Conclusion

17

3.2.1

Problem identification

The problem identification was made during my industrial training period at MMHE. The problem was suggested by my industrial supervisor.

3.2.2

Literature review

Find and study journals, websites and other sources related to the project. The literature review is important to guide me to achieve objective of my project.

3.2.3

Survey distribution and job observation

Survey is made using survey form that has been developed from NIOSH guidelines. The information needed is related to musculoskeletal disorder and work nature. The survey will be distributed among the blaster. The job observation will be done to analyze the musculoskeletal disorder risks related to the process. The observation will be done using Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) method.

3.2.4

Survey analysis

The data obtained from the survey and job observation is interpreted into graph and tabular form and the result will be analyzed.

3.2.5

Suggestions of intervention

The suggestion will be made based on the analyzed data and guide by the NIOSH and OSHA guidelines.

18

3.2.7

Result

The result of this project is referring to data obtained from the survey and observation. Both results from the survey and observation. The comparison will determine the successful of this project.

3.2.8

Conclusion

The conclusions will be based on the result of the testing. If it failed, the factors that lead to the failure would be identified.

3.3

Research instrument

The research utilized both quantitative and qualitative research methodology. The instrument used to collect the data was general ergonomics questionnaire. The questionnaire is based on NIOSH guidelines. The information needed is divided into categories. The categories are: 1. Manual material handling and physical energy demand. 2. Other musculoskeletal demands. 3. Environment. 4. General workplace. 5. Tools used. 6. Gloves. 7. Administration. Based on the information obtained, the data will be used to identify ergonomics problems that are related to the abrasive blasting. As mentioned in chapter 2.2.4 in chapter 2, working posture related to musculoskeletal disorder. For further investigations on working posture that caused musculoskeletal disorder, an observation will be conducted. The instrument needed for the observation for used in quantitative measurement is listed in table 3.1.
19

Equipment 1. Weight scale

Description The weight scale is used to measure force or loads required for the task.

2. Camera

The camera is used to take "snapshots" of posture during the work is done.

3. Stopwatch

The stopwatch is used to record time taken for each task to complete.

4. REBA assessment worksheet

The REBA assessment worksheet is developed based on previous REBA assessment worksheet and will be used during observation.

Table 3.1: A set of tools to be used in observation The qualitative data for the research come from survey form includes all information needed as stated previously. The sample of survey form is listed as figure 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. The sample of REBA assessment worksheet is labeled as figure 3.5.

20

Figure 3.2: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 1)

21

Figure 3.3: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 2)

22

Figure 3.4: Sample survey form on ergonomics of abrasive blasting (page 3)

23

Figure 3.5: Sample of REBA assessment worksheet

3.4

Respondent of the study

The respondents of the study would be the abrasive blaster that works in the MMHE shipyard. A total of ten abrasive blasters would be observed and tested, while, the others would be asked to fulfill the survey form. The observation and test would be conducted in real working environment. Respondent personal information such as name, age and sex is recorded with their permission.

24

REFERENCES

[1] Enviro-Management & Research, Inc. Abrasive Blasting Operations Engineering Control and Work Practices Manual. Cincinnati, Ohio : U.S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967. [2] Hansel, Dave. Metal Finishing. Guidebook-directory. Abrasive Blasting System. 2002, Vol. 100. [3] Blair, Austin. Abrasive Blasting Respiratory Protective Practices. Seattle, Washington : U.S Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974. [4] Labor, United States Department of. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Abrasive Blasting Hazards in Shipyard Environment. [Online] U.S Department of Labor, December 2006. http://www.osha.gov/dts/maritime/standards/guidance/shipyard_guidance.html. [5] Cohen, Alexander L., et al. Elements of Ergonomics Programs : A primer on Workplace Evaluations of Musculoskeletal Disorders. Cincinnati : U.S. department of Health and Human Services, 1997. [6] Administration, Occupational Safety and Health. Guidelines for Shipyards. s.l. : U.S. Department of Labor, 2008. [7] Physical load in ship maintenance: Hazard evaluation by means of workplace survey . Joode, Berna van Wendel de, Burdof, Alex and Verspuy, Carolina. 3, Rotterdam, Netherlands : elsevier Science Ltd, 1997, Vol. 28.
25

[8] The Effect of Shoulder Posture on Performance, Discomfort and Muscle Fatigue Whilst Working on a Visual Display Unit . Straker, L.M., Pollock, C.M. and Mangharam, J.E. Perth : Industrial Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1996, Vol. 20. [9] Comparing dynamic and stationary standing postures in an assembly line. Balasubramaniam, Ventakesh, Adalarasu, K. and Regulapati, Rahul. Perth : Elsevier, 1996, Vol. 20. [10] Ergonomic interventions for commercial crab fishermen. Mirka, Gary A., et al. Ames : Elsevier, 2011, Vol. 41. [11] Whole body vibration and posture risk factors for low back pain among forklift truck drivers . Hoy, J., et al. Aberdeen : elsevier, 2004, Vol. 284. [12] Applying Ergonomics to Systems: Some Documented "lessons learned" . Hendrick, Hal W. California : Elsevier Ltd., 2008, Vol. 39. [13] Analysis and improvement of work postures in the building industry: application of the computerised OWAS method . Kivi, P. and M.Mattila. 1, Finland : s.n., 1991, Vol. 22. [14] Observing working postures in industry: Examples of OWAS application. Karhu, Osmo, et al. 12, s.l. : Applied ergonomics, 1981, Vol. 1. [15] Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Hignett, Sue and McAtamney, Lynn. Nottingham, UK : Elsevier, 1999, Vol. 31.

26

APPENDICES

Appendix A:

REBA Employee Assessment Worksheet

27