2010-10-21 01-Worksafe BC Report Feb2010

FOCUS ON TOMORROW
RESEARCH FUNDED BY WORKSAFEBC

An Intervention for Overhead
Drilling into Concrete
February 2010
Principal Investigator/Applicant
Dr. Stephen Robinovitch
RS2006-OG15

AN INTERVENTION FOR OVERHEAD DRILLING INTO CONCRETE

February 2010

Stephen Robinovitch
*,
David Rempel
,
Timothy Chueh
, Anne-Kristina Arnold
*
, Marcus Yung
*

*
Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology, Faculty of Science, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby
School of Engineering Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby
Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of California, San Francisco


i
Main Messages
The construction industry, which employs a significant portion of working British Columbians, exposes workers to
risk factors associated with the development of musculoskeletal disorders. Particularly problematic in the neck
and shoulders are tasks requiring overhead work. Plumbers, electricians and sheet metal workers who frequently
drill overhead to attach anchors for hanging pipes, ducts, conduit, and wiring trays are particularly at risk.
Few intervention devices aimed at reducing these disorders have been developed for commercial use. This study
used a participative approach involving workers, contractors and researchers to develop and evaluate an inverted
drill press with different attachments to be used in construction. The intervention device supported a hammer drill
at the top of a column and the column was advanced up during drilling using a rotary handle and linear gear.
Four drilling methods were compared: the usual method where the worker uses a drill with the hands while
standing on a ladder, the intervention device alone, the intervention device with a mirror system, and the
intervention device with a camera and display system. Neck and shoulder angles, body fatigue, productivity and
subjective ratings of usability were compared between methods.
Our study revealed several important points:
Fatigue levels in the neck, shoulders, hands and forearms, lower back, and legs were less with all three
intervention devices compared to the usual method.
Awkward shoulder postures were not reduced with the intervention devices but overall risk factors for
musculoskeletal disorders were reduced based on lowered force on the joint and less fatigue.
Neck extension did not worsen when using the intervention device alone compared to the usual method.
Neck extension and neck fatigue were reduced by using the intervention device with the camera and display
system.
Usability ratings of ease and speed of drilling were better with all intervention devices than the usual drilling
method. No usability differences were found between the different configurations of the Inverted Drill Press.
Setup and accuracy of targeting the next hole were rated better with the usual method than with the
intervention devices.
On average, the intervention devices were somewhat slower compared to the usual method; however,
workers reported that the intervention devices performed faster in certain scenarios such as straight lines or
worksites with less clutter on the ground and ceiling.
Performance with the intervention device improves when it is used for more than 20 holes.
The results support the need for stakeholders to encourage the development and on-site use of this type
of intervention device. We recommend the use of the overhead drilling device under certain conditions:
The device should be used when 20 or more overhead holes are being drilled consecutively;
The device was most successful in straight run applications, where the floor is relatively clear, such as
underground parking and tunnels;
The device is slower in renovations or cluttered workplaces, but if many holes are required, the device
may still be beneficial;
The device may be considered as a useful tool in helping workers who are recovering from surgery or
injuries in the shoulder and neck, return to work more quickly;
A training program should be developed outlining the situations that would benefit from the use of the
device and proper use procedures.
While further research and development into IDPs is merited, the device can currently be used in a
variety of construction scenarios to reduce fatigue and risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries.

ii

Executive Summary
Musculoskeletal Injury (MSI) to the neck, back, and upper extremity is the leading cause of time-loss injury for
workers in the construction sector, representing 18% of compensation costs (WorkSafeBC, 2009). One of the
most physically demanding tasks associated with disorders in these body parts is overhead work, and in
particular, overhead drilling.
The purpose of this research was to develop and expand on an intervention for overhead drilling (IDP) so that the
task can be performed with less shoulder force, reduced awkward shoulder and neck postures, and reduced
exposure to falls and dust. The plan for the study was divided into 7 phases:
1. Focus group meetings
2. Design system for overhead drilling
3. Build overhead drilling system
4. Pilot test overhead drilling system
5. Build two robust overhead drilling systems
6. Evaluation Study
7. Disseminate Findings
At the start of this project, the IDP originally developed by Rempel et al. (2007), had reached its 3
rd
generation
and was composed of a locking 3-wheeled base, a telescoping column, and a drill saddle on top of the column.
During Phase 1 of our study, we conducted 4 focus groups in order to gain insight into the overhead drilling task
as well as elicit feedback on the 3
rd
generation IDP. The focus groups were composed of 19 participants including
electricians, plumbers and pipe fitters, sheet-metal workers, and employers. Results from these sessions
informed the design of the 4
th
generation IDP. Modifications included two interchangeable attachments to aid in
visibility of the ceiling while working from the ground. The first was a mirror on an adjustable arm meant to allow a
user to look into the mirror while keeping their neck in a neutral posture and giving them a field of view of the
ceiling. The second attachment was a camera system that included a display attached to the same adjustable
arm as the mirror, and a camera that attached below the drill saddle that provided a constant field of view of the
drill and the ceiling above it. Further modifications included:
a 3-wheeled base with locking hard castors;
a triple-nested design in order to reach higher ceiling heights;
scoring on the column at 1cm and 1inch marks in order to aid in reducing neck extension;
a Hilti TE-6s Hammer Drill was used providing an opportunity to use the vacuum attachment for the drill
as a method to reduce the dust output during drilling.;
a new hinged design for the drill saddle that allowed the drill to be flipped over in order to change bits and
reduce the height of the device;
a depth rod used to create the depth stop distance.

Pilot Study
The pilot study evaluated four methods of overhead drilling: the usual method (standing on a ladder and drilling
using a hand held drill), the 4
th
generation IDP, the device with a camera system (IDPw/C), and the device with a
mirror (IDPw/M). The aim was twofold: to test our evaluation methods and refine the intervention design. Seven
construction workers (6 male, 1 female) with no prior history of upper limb MSI participated: 4 sheet-metal
workers, 2 piping/mechanical workers, and 1 electrician.
The IDPs were found to be less fatiguing than the usual method of drilling. The IDP on its own did not reduce
neck extension; however, the IDP with camera and display system (IDPw/C) was more effective in maintaining a
neutral neck posture. The camera system was ranked higher in key qualities such as comfort and overall use.

iii
Based on its positive postural results and higher rankings in key categories, we chose the camera system to be
the better solution than the mirror, and selected it for use in the final evaluation study.
On-site experience and feedback from the construction workers gathered during the pilot testing led to further
changes to the IDPs in preparation for the full field tests. The changes included:
Castors replaced with larger pneumatic tires in order to provide better mobility over small debris and
higher ground clearance.
The flexible arm used to support the display was replaced with a more robust adjustable and locking arm.
A new video and power cable management system for the hammer drill, camera, and display.

Evaluation Study
Three drilling methods were evaluated in the field evaluation study: the usual drilling method (standing on a ladder
or lift and drilling using a hammer drill held by the hands), using the IDP, and using the IDP with a camera system
(IDPw/C). 17 subjects without history of musculoskeletal injuries in the neck or shoulder evaluated the methods.
The four drilling conditions were evaluated on three parameters:
1. Ability to reduce awkward postures in the neck and shoulder (measured by inclinometers);
2. Ability to maintain performance (measured by time to complete tasks analyzed from video tape);
3. Subjective measures of fatigue, comfort, productivity and usability (from self-reported questionnaires).
Fatigue
Both of the IDPs produced less rated fatigue in the shoulder, hand, forearm, lower back and the legs more than
the usual method of drilling. The IDPw/C also worked as intended and reduced neck fatigue compared to both the
usual method and the IDP on its own.
Shoulder and neck posture
The design of the interventions aims to keep the shoulder and neck in neutral postures. Both the IDPs reduced
time spent with the shoulder in the least harmful position (0 to 45 degrees) and the most harmful position (more
than 90 degrees). More time is spent in a 60 to 90 degree postures (which is also considered problematic) when
using the IDPs. Due to the triple-nested column design, 2 cranks are required to fully extend the IDP. The second
crank in particular could cause awkward shoulder posture depending on the height of the user. While the display
system was designed to be adjustable for user height, the cranks on the device could not be moved. To reduce
awkward shoulder posture, future iterations of the device should position the cranks at a lower position.
Neither of the IDPs increased the percent time spent in neck extension compared to the usual method. In fact, the
IDPw/C substantially reduced the percent time in neck extension compared to both the IDP on its own, as well as
the usual method. We believe continued exposure to the IDPw/C can further reduce awkward neck posture as
users get accustomed to taking full advantage of the camera and display.
Usability
Perception of usability of the device is critical to its acceptance on the construction site. A few qualities were
found to be better with the usual method compared to either of the IDPs including: ease of setting up, accuracy
when targeting the next hole, ease of making adjustments and speed of making adjustments. These qualities are
all related to the tasks of setting up and moving to the next hole.
Importantly, workers found it easier and quicker to know when they had reached the desired drill depth with both
the IDPs. There are a variety of ways trades people gauge depth when drilling holes including wrapping electrical
tape around the drill bit, or using a marker to mark the depth on the drill bit. Both techniques require looking at the
drilling site and focusing on when the mark or the tape has become flush with the ceiling. This causes added neck
extension and dust exposure with the person looking directly at the drilling site. With the IDP, the desired depth is

iv
set with the depth rod on the saddle. Knowing when drilling was complete became a simple matter of feeling
when the drill could no longer progress and did not require a visual check.
The IDPs outperformed the usual method in key categories of interest: drilling ease, drilling accuracy and drilling
speed.
Performance
Productivity is important on a construction site. Although an intervention may impact injuries, discomfort and
usability, it is unlikely that the intervention will be used if it significantly slows down the production on site. We can
conclude from the results that both the IDPs took longer to drill a hole compared to the usual method of overhead
drilling. The reason for the increased time was due to longer targeting and longer approach times. No differences
were found between methods in the drilling and departure times.
The longer targeting time reveals that users took longer to move from one hole to the next with the IDPs
compared to a worker moving a ladder and a drill. From observations, this is particularly true for construction sites
with debris on the ground. Even when carrying a ladder, it is much quicker to step over a small pile of debris than
it is to navigate the IDPs over or around it. Also, when arriving at the next hole to be drilled, subjects spent more
time positioning the IDPs so that they lined up directly below the target before they began their approach.
Compared to positioning a ladder with the usual method, less care was needed to line the ladder up directly below
the hole because positioning the drill to the target was done by hand at the top of the ladder during the approach.
When approaching the target (start to climb the ladder or begin to raise the column), the IDPs were also slower
than conventional overhead drilling. This was the result of 2 primary factors. First, climbing up a ladder to reach
the ceiling took less time than cranking the IDPs to a ceiling of the same height. This factor is sometimes negated
when the user does not have to completely lower the IDP when moving to the next hole. This is often the case
when the ceilings are clear or if there are not many other utilities already hung. The second factor is the time it
takes to position the drilling bit against the ceiling at the target location. With the usual method, the worker is in
close proximity to the ceiling and is positioning the drill directly with their hands which allows them to position the
drill quickly and accurately. With the IDP, the worker is further from the ceiling by virtue of working from the
ground, and is positioning the drill through the IDP which adds a level of complexity.
Several factors should be considered in assessing performance. Firstly, subjects had over an average of 5 years
experience and were all very comfortable with the overhead drilling task. Conversely, few subjects had the
opportunity to spend more than a morning or afternoon with the IDP. Based on this, and the possible learning
curve of using a new tool, workers may be able to learn to use the IDPs faster over time. This finding was
confirmed in a prior study where productivity improved during the first 20 holes but was level after that.
Secondly, the fatigue, postural, and usability benefits of the IDPs may also factor in when looking at performance
long term. During this study, we required subjects to drill a minimum of 4 holes. The IDP could gain a
performance advantage over the long run when drilling many holes because fewer and shorter breaks are needed
due to reduced fatigue and increased comfort.
Lastly, workers described scenarios where the IDP would be particularly useful such as straight runs or cleaner
job sites. The results from our analysis allow us to focus our attention on improving the performance of targeting
and the approach during future research and development of the IDP.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from this study demonstrate that the use of the intervention device with a camera system can reduce
the risk of neck and shoulder injuries and discomfort associated with overhead drilling for electricians, plumbers
and sheet metal workers drilling overhead into concrete. Our results showed however, that there is a learning
period with the device during which productivity is slower than acceptable. This appears to be short (about 20
holes), but may be an impediment to a tradesperson who uses the device infrequently. We can recommend the
use of the overhead drilling device under certain conditions:

v
The device should be used when 20 or more overhead holes are being drilled consecutively;
The device was most successful in straight run applications, where the floor is relatively clear, such as
underground parking and tunnels;
The device is slower in renovations or cluttered workplaces, but if many holes are required, the device
may still be beneficial;
The device may be considered as a useful tool in helping workers who are recovering from surgery or
injuries in the shoulder and neck, return to work more quickly;
A training program should be developed outlining the situations that would benefit from the use of the
device and proper use procedures.
Anecdotal evidence from construction workers and employers indicates that the device (possibly with other
attachments) may be useful in other overhead work applications within the construction industry (such as setting
anchors). Furthermore, there are likely applications for a similar type of device in other industries doing overhead
work. To maximize its applicability, future research should focus on modifying the IDP characteristics and method
of use to reduce the time required for targeting and approach to the drill site.

vi

Table of Contents
Main Messages ............................................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ vi
1. Research Problem................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Musculoskeletal Injuries in Overhead Work................................................................................ 1
1.2. Other Health and Safety Risks.................................................................................................... 1
2. Methodology......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1. Development of the Inverted Drill Press ..................................................................................... 2
2.2. Pilot Test ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1. ConLrasLlng mlrror and camera sysLems ............................................................................................ 3
2.2.2. Cvervlew of changes made Lo Lhe lu ............................................................................................... 3
2.3. Evaluation Study Subjects and Locations................................................................................... 3
2.4. Evaluation Study Protocol ........................................................................................................... 4
2.5. Evaluation Study Outcome Measures......................................................................................... 4
2.3.1. lncllnomeLers...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2. ulglLal vldeo ....................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.3. CuesLlonnalres ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.6. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 5
3. Research Findings ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Fatigue ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2. Posture........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2.1. Shoulder llexlon and AbducLlon ........................................................................................................ 6
3.2.2. neck llexlon and LxLenslon................................................................................................................ 7
3.3. Usability....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.4. Performance................................................................................................................................ 9
4. Implication for Future Research on Occupational Health................................................................... 11

vii
4.1. Future Research ....................................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Future Development ................................................................................................................. 12
5. Policy and Prevention......................................................................................................................... 12
5.1. Prevention Implications............................................................................................................. 12
5.2. Relevant user groups................................................................................................................ 12
5.3. Policy-related interactions undertaken...................................................................................... 13
6. Dissemination..................................................................................................................................... 13
6.1. Professional Audiences ............................................................................................................ 13
6.2. Scientific Audiences.................................................................................................................. 14
7. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 15
8. References ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A................................................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix B................................................................................................................................................. 25


1

- FINAL REPORT -
1. Research Problem
1.1. Musculoskeletal Injuries in Overhead Work
Musculoskeletal Injury (MSI) to the neck, back, and upper extremity is the leading cause of time-loss
injury for workers in the construction sector, representing 18% of all compensation costs (WorkSafeBC,
2009). One of the most physically demanding tasks associated with these disorders is overhead work,
and in particular, overhead drilling.
Overhead drilling into concrete to attach anchors into the ceiling in order to hang pipes, ducts, conduit,
and wiring trays is a strenuous task frequently performed by construction trades. Workers from electrical
(Hunting et al., 1994), plumbing (Hildebrandt, 1995), and sheet-metal (Welch et al., 1995) trades
experience high musculoskeletal loads in the upper limbs, neck, back, shoulders, and knees when drilling
holes into ceilings (Albers et al., 2005). In these trades more than 66.7% perform overhead work at least
10 hours/week. According to Rosencrance et al. (1996), 41% of sample construction workers complain of
work-related shoulder pain associated with overhead work.
Shoulder muscle load is a function of the amount of elevation of the upper arm, and the load (e.g., weight
of the tool) held in the hand (Sigholm, 1984). With the arm held horizontally (90 degrees of shoulder
flexion or abduction), the weight of the arm alone is enough to induce significant fatigue in 5 minutes
(Hagberg, 1981). Shoulder elevation between 60 to 120, observed while working overhead may lead to
degeneration of the rotator cuff tendons (Flatow et al., 1994). Increasing hours of overhead work is also
strongly associated with shoulder pain and disorders of the shoulder rotator cuff and the biceps muscles
(Hagberg 1981; Olson 1987; Holmstrom 1995). Sandmark et al. (1994) found that sustained neck
extension with hands above shoulder height led to increased neck muscle loads and increased neck pain.
1.2. Other Health and Safety Risks
While the risk of MSI caused by overhead work justifies the need for an intervention, there are other
safety concerns with overhead drilling. Falls from an elevation are the second most common accident
claim made by construction workers over the past 5 years (WorkSafeBC, 2009). Over shoulder work can
lead to increased body sway and increased upper extremity fatigue resulting in decreased whole-body
postural stability (Nussbaum 2003). This may increase the risk of falls on construction sites, and is of
particular concern in the target population of workers, who are often working at height using ladders,
scaffolding, and scissor lifts. In addition to falls, overhead drilling also exposes workers to concrete dust,
noise, and vibration.
Although there is clearly a need for an overhead drilling intervention, devices to decrease the risk of
shoulder abduction and flexion and load associated with overhead drilling are not widely used and have
not been systematically evaluated (Lindberg, 1991). The intervention device developed for this study aims
to address the key issue of MSI while considering other health and safety risks.
2. Methodology
The purpose of this research was to develop and expand on an intervention for overhead drilling so that
the task can be performed with less shoulder force , reduced awkward shoulder and neck postures, and
reduced exposure to falls and dust. The study was divided into 7 phases:
1. Focus group meetings
2. Design system for overhead drilling
3. Build overhead drilling system
4. Pilot test overhead drilling system
5. Build two robust overhead drilling systems
6. Evaluation study
7. Disseminate findings

2

- FINAL REPORT -

2.1. Development of the Inverted Drill Press
The inverted drill press (IDP) is a device first developed by co-investigator David Rempel et al. based on
rudimentary devices found in the field to assist in overhead drilling. At that start of this project, the IDP
had reached its 3
rd
generation and was composed of a locking 3 wheeled base, a telescoping column,
and a drill saddle that sits on top of the column. Figure 1 is a photograph of the IDP used in this study.

Figure 1: Inverted Drill Press
During Phase 1 of our study, we conducted 4 focus groups in order to gain insight into the overhead
drilling task as well as elicit feedback based on the 3
rd
generation IDP. The focus groups were composed
of 19 participants including electricians, plumbers and pipe fitters, sheet-metal workers, and employers.
After meeting with the trades people, we began Phase 3 of our study and designed a 4
th
generation IDP
based on feedback received during the focus groups.
One of the key concerns that arose from observations made on the 3
rd
generation IDP was the increase
in neck extension due to working on the ground. Targeting marks on the ceiling was also more difficult
from the ground. Based on these concerns, the 4
th
generation IDP included two interchangeable
attachments to aid in visibility of the ceiling while working from the ground. The first was a mirror on an
adjustable arm meant to allow a user to look into the mirror while keeping their neck in a neutral posture
and giving them a field of view of the ceiling. The second attachment was a camera system that included
a display attached to the same adjustable arm as the mirror, and a camera that attached below the drill
saddle that provides a constant field of view of the drill and the ceiling above it.
The base for the 4
th
Generation IDP was 3-wheeled and used locking hard castors. The column featured
a triple-nested design in order to reach higher ceiling heights. Sitting on the wheeled base, the tip of a
standard 1/2 drill bit was 246cm above the ground when the column was fully lowered and reached
477cm full extended. The centre of the two cranks for the column stood at 145cm and 171cm from the
ground. The column was scored with 1cm and 1inch marks so that drilling progress was easier to monitor
in order to aid in reducing neck extension.
For the 4
th
Generation IDP, a Hilti TE-6s Hammer Drill was used exclusively based on its widespread use
in the field. This provided an opportunity to use the vacuum attachment for the drill as a method to reduce
the dust output during drilling. The saddle that the drill sat in employed a new hinged design that allowed
the drill to be flipped over in order to change bits and reduce the height of the device. The saddle was
also fitted with a depth rod used to create the depth stop distance. Once set, the depth rod would hit the
ceiling and prevent the IDP from progressing when the desired drill depth was reached. The design
changes to the IDP were then built during Phase 3 of the project and prepared for pilot testing in Phase 4.
2.2. Pilot Test
The pilot study evaluated the biomechanical demands and usability of four methods of overhead drilling:
the usual method (standing on a ladder and drilling using a hand held drill), an intervention device (IDP),
the device with a camera system (IDPw/C), and the device with a mirror (IDPw/M). Seven construction
workers (6 male, 1 female) with no prior history of upper limb MSI participated: 4 sheet-metal workers, 2
piping/mechanical workers, and 1 electrician.
The studies were conducted at 4 worksites. An inclinometer with data logger was used to measure neck
angles. Work tasks were videotaped to capture productivity. After using each method, subjects completed
a questionnaire that rated drilling parameters and body fatigue levels using a 6-point (0-5) Likert scale.
Improvements to the device, safety issues and user opinions were elicited using open-ended questions.

3

- FINAL REPORT -
Repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the differences in rated body fatigue and usability
between drilling method. Postural analysis from the inclinometers was synced to the recorded video
divided into 4 subtasks: targeting, approach, drilling, and departure. Mean neck angles and percent of
time in 10 angle bins for each hole drilled were compared for each method within all subtasks. Time to
complete subtasks was also recorded.
Perceived neck fatigue results suggested improvement when any of the intervention devices was used in
comparison to the usual method. However, the postural data showed that the intervention device on its
own was associated with the same amount of neck extension as the usual method for all subjects. This
finding justified the need evaluate the effect of a mirror or camera system on reducing neck extension
with the device.
The intervention devices were favored over the usual method in speed of drilling however performance
data showed that overall speed of drilling appeared to be faster with the usual method. Intervention
devices were also given better ratings in perceived drilling stability; however subjects preferred the usual
method for drilling accuracy. Subjects found overall ease, which encompasses all aspects of drilling, to
be significantly better with all configurations of the intervention device than the usual method.
2.2.1. Contrasting mirror and camera systems
No significant differences were found for the neck or shoulder fatigue ratings between the mirror and the
camera system. Neck angle frequency suggested that the camera was more effective in maintaining a
neutral neck posture compared to the mirror.
Usability ratings and task time measures for the mirror and camera system showed no significant
differences. The camera system was ranked significantly higher than the mirror for comfort, a key criterion
in our evaluation of the two configurations. The camera system was also ranked higher overall. The mirror
was ranked significantly higher than the camera system for stability, durability, and storage. These issues
were weighted less than comfort in our comparison since both issues are heavily influenced by the
prototype nature of the device and camera system. Based on its positive postural results and higher
rankings in key categories, we chose the camera system to be the better solution and it was used in the
next tests.
2.2.2. Overview of changes made to the IDP
On site experience and feedback from the construction workers gathered during the pilot testing led to
several changes to the inverted drill press in preparation for the full field tests. The changes included:
Castors replaced with larger pneumatic tires in order to provide better mobility over small debris
and higher ground clearance.
The flexible arm used to support the display was replaced with a more robust adjustable and
locking arm.
A new video and power cable management system for the hammer drill, camera, and display.
Figure 2 shows the inverted drill press with camera and display system as it was for the field tests.

Figure 2: Inverted Drill Press with Display
2.3. Evaluation Study Subjects and Locations
Trade unions and construction associations were informed and supportive of the project. Recruitment
began with contacting general contractors for specific job sites. After gaining permission and support from
general contractors, sub-contractors for specific trades would be contacted to participate. When sub-
contractors were ready to participate, field tests occurred on days when our required minimum amount of
overhead drilling was needed for their days tasks.

4

- FINAL REPORT -
Field tests ran from April 2008 through January 2009 across Metro Vancouver. Sixteen construction
workers participated in this study. Nine were pipefitters and plumbers, 5 were electricians and 2 were
sheet metal workers. Subjects had no prior history of upper limb musculoskeletal injuries and performed
overhead drilling on a regular basis. All subjects were male and between 19 and 51 years of age ( =
28.9 8.7 years). All but one participant were right hand dominant and had a mean 5.4 6.9 years of
experience in the trade. The mean subject height was 179.4 7.4 cm and mean weight was 83.4 14.7
kg. All subjects gave their written consent to participate in this pilot study and all study procedures were
approved by the Office of Research Ethics of Simon Fraser University.
2.4. Evaluation Study Protocol
Three drilling methods were evaluated in the field: the usual drilling method (standing on a ladder or lift
and drilling using a hammer drill held by the hands), using the IDP, and using the IDP with a camera
system (IDPC/C). The order of evaluation was randomized. The task of drilling a hole was divided into 4
subtasks: Targeting, Approach, Drilling, and Departure. Definitions for these subtasks for conventional
drilling and the drilling with the IDP are given in Appendix A.
An equal number of holes were drilled using each method. The total number of holes varied between
subjects depending on the number of holes they were required to drill for their work that day. We required
a minimum of 4 holes for each drilling method in order for the subject to participate in the study.
Participants were given practice time with each drilling method, prior to data collection, to reduce error
due to learning effects. All 3 drilling methods were observed on the same work day.
2.5. Evaluation Study Outcome Measures
Inclinometers, questionnaires, and video recordings were used to gather data for the study. The following
sections describe their purpose and methods used.
2.5.1. Inclinometers
Neck posture (extension/flexion) and shoulder posture (abduction and flexion) for the dominant arm were
measured using inclinometers. Three inclinometers with built in data loggers (MicroStrain, Inc. Virtual
Corset) were used. One inclinometer was attached to a hard hat. The other two inclinometers were
placed perpendicular to one another in a custom enclosure and strapped to the upper arm of subjects.
The inclinometers continuously sampled data at 15 Hz. The reference position (0 neck flexion/extension,
0 shoulder abduction and flexion) was recorded when the participant was standing upright, hands at their
sides, while looking straight ahead. Collected data was downloaded to a computer after completing the
field test with each subject. Data markers were set using a button on the inclinometers at the start and
end of each drilling method. Positive angles in the neck were assigned to extension and negative angles
were assigned to flexion. Shoulder flexion and abduction were recorded as positive angles in the two
shoulder inclinometers.
2.5.2. Digital Video
Work tasks during all three methods were videotaped using a Canon Optura Xi Digital Video Camcorder.
Captured video was downloaded to an off-site computer. Measures from the video were gathered using
CAPTIV (TEA, France), a video analysis software designed to synchronize video with visual observations
(post coding) and measurements from sensors. Inclinometer data was manual synchronized to the video
using the data markers set at the start and end of each drilling method and the video recording of the
actual button presses. Task and sub-task duration measures were gathered using the post coded video.
Posture measures were also isolated to match up with actual performance of the tasks.
2.5.3. Questionnaires
After subjects completed drilling holes with a method, they completed a questionnaire which rated drilling
parameters and body fatigue levels. Drilling parameters and fatigue were scored using a 6 point (0-5)
Likert scale. Improvements to the device, safety issues and user opinions were elicited using open-ended
questions.

5

- FINAL REPORT -
After completing all three drilling methods, a questionnaire ranking the three drilling methods from best to
worst on a variety of factors was administered. See Appendix B.
2.6. Data Analysis
Posture data was analyzed by comparing collected data to ergonomic guidelines for safe postures in the
neck and shoulder (McAttamney and Corlett, 1993; Persson and Kilbom, 1983). McAttamney and
Corletts RULA divided shoulder angle into 0-20, 20-45, 45-90, and 90+ bins while Persson and Kilboms
VIRA divided angles into 0-30, 30-60, 60-90, and 90+ bins. We adopted a hybrid division with angular
bins for shoulder elevation divided into 0-45, 45-60, 60-90, and 90+ degrees. Both the RULA and VIRA
consider neck flexion > 20 or any neck extension > 0 problematic. As the concern with overhead work is
primarily with neck extension, neck posture was divided into extension (> 0 degrees) and flexion (< 0
degrees) for analysis. Our posture analysis calculated percent time joints angles were in these ranges.
Ratings results from the questionnaires on usability and fatigue was analyzed using the Friedman test. A
pair-wise Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used as a post-hoc test when the Friedman tests showed
significant results (p < 0.05). Posture and performance data was analyzed using repeated measures
ANOVA with a paired sample t-test used as a post-hoc test when the ANOVA showed significant results.
3. Research Findings
3.1. Fatigue
Subjects rated their level of fatigue (tiredness) after drilling the required number of holes per method. The
ratings were made on a 6-level scale from 0 to 5, where 0 represented no fatigue and 5 represented very
fatigued. The results are given in Figure 3 and in Table 2 in Appendix A.

Figure 3: Mean Fatigue Ratings (Lower is better)
It is important to note that the prevalence of fatigue ratings above 0 for the usual method even after
drilling only 4 holes supports the need for an intervention. Users only reported no fatigue in 19% of ratings
for the usual method. Combined, users reported feeling no fatigue in 65% of all ratings for the IDP and
IDPw/C.
0 1 2 3 4 3
neck
Shoulder
Pand and
lorearm
Lower 8ack
Leg
usual MeLhod
lnverLed urlll ress
lnverLed urlll ress w/ Camera

6

- FINAL REPORT -
Results from the Friedman test and the Wilcoxon post hoc are given in Table 3. Only significant results
from the post hoc are reported.
Significant differences in perceived fatigue were found in all body segments of interest. Results showed
that both the IDP and IDPw/C significantly reduced fatigue in the shoulder, hand and forearm, lower back,
and legs compared to the usual drilling method. No reduction in neck fatigue was found between the
usual method and the IDP. While it is satisfactory that the IDP did not increase neck fatigue, the need to
reduce neck fatigue is still evident with the IDP on its own.
The camera and display system was introduced to the IDP with the goal of reducing awkward neck
postures and reducing neck fatigue when using the IDP. The results show that the IDPw/C significantly
reduced perceived neck fatigue compared to both the usual method and the IDP on its own. Other than
neck fatigue, no differences were found between the IDP and the IDPw/C. This result was expected since
the camera and display system did not affect any aspect of drilling beyond providing an alternate place to
look while performing the task.
Results from the fatigue ratings showed that the IDP configurations reduced fatigue in the shoulder, hand
and forearm, lower back and the legs. The IDPw/C also worked as intended and reduced neck fatigue
compared to both the usual method and the IDP on its own. The next section presents the postural data
in order to determine if the fatigue levels correlated with the neck and shoulder postural changes.
3.2. Posture
Postural data was recorded for the neck and the shoulder of the dominant arm of the test subjects using
inclinometers. A summary and analysis of the results are presented in the following sections.
3.2.1. Shoulder Flexion and Abduction
By removing the drill from the hand the IDP decreases the direct load of the drill and the force required to
drill on the arm and shoulder. This is a critical advantage of the IDP. However, an additional concern was
whether the postural loading on the shoulder was affected by using the interventions. Table 4 in Appendix
A presents the mean percent time spent in each angular range for the three drilling methods tested. The
final column presents the results from the repeated measures ANOVA analysis and the post hoc t-test.
Figure 4 presents the mean values.

Figure 4: Shoulder Posture (Mean Percent Times)
0
10
20
30
40
30
60
70
80
90
100
usual MeLhod lnverLed urlll ress lnverLed urlll ress
w/ Camera
!
"
#
$
"
%
&

(
)

*
+
,
"

0 Lo 43
43 Lo 60
60 Lo 90
90+

7

- FINAL REPORT -
Differences were found in the 0 to 45 degree bin and the 60 to 90 degree bin between the usual method
and the IDPs. All the differences found between the Usual Method and the IDP were also found with the
IDPw/C. The posture results reveal that the camera and display system do not affect shoulder posture
when using the device IDP and as such, the following discussion refers to both devices as the IDPs.
The IDPs reduced time spent with the shoulder from 0-45 degrees and increased time spent with the
shoulder between 60 to 90 degrees. The results indicated that the IDPs did not reduce awkward shoulder
postures. However, based on the results from our fatigue analysis the IDPs still reduced the overall
musculoskeletal load on the shoulder during the drilling task. This can be attributed to the reduced load
on the shoulder joint during drilling when using the IDPs as well as the opinions given by subjects during
field tests that drilling with the IDPs was easier.
One of the main reasons for the increase in shoulder flexion when using the IDPs was the position of the
cranks. Due to the triple-nested column design, 2 cranks are required to fully extend the IDP. The height
of the two cranks stood at 145cm and 171cm from the ground. The second crank in particular could
cause awkward shoulder posture depending on the height of the user. While the display system was
designed to be adjustable for user height, the cranks on the device could not be moved. To reduce
awkward shoulder posture, future iterations of the device should position the cranks at a lower position.
3.2.2. Neck Flexion and Extension
One of the key concerns of this study was whether or not the IDP increased awkward neck postures, and
whether our modified IDP with a camera and display system could reduce that awkward neck posture.
Any neck posture above the neutral position is considered a risk factor for MSI (McAttanmey, 1993).
Table 5 in Appendix A presents the mean percent time workers spent with their neck in an extended
posture using each of the different drilling methods. The final column shows the results from the repeated
measures ANOVA analysis and the pos-hoc t-test. Summary data is also shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Neck Extension (Mean Percent Times)
The first interesting result from the neck posture analysis was the fact that using the IDP did not increase
the percent time spent in neck extension compared to the usual method. This corroborates the fatigue
rating results, where users found no difference in neck fatigue when comparing the IDP with the usual
method.
The second key result is also in agreement with the results from our fatigue analysis. The IDPw/C
substantially reduced percent time in neck extension compared to both the IDP on its own as well as the
0
10
20
30
40
30
60
70
80
90
100
usual MeLhod lnverLed urlll ress lnverLed urlll ress w/
Camera
!
"
#
$
"
%
&

(
)

*
+
,
"


8

- FINAL REPORT -
usual method. We believe continued exposure to the new tool can further reduce awkward neck posture
as users get accustomed to taking full advantage of the camera and display.
Use of the IDPw/C and to a lesser extent, the IDP on its own, creates bi modal neck posture. Users
spend time either looking up directly at the ceiling, or looking forward at the display and resting their neck.
Based on observations during the study, increased exposure to the device allows users to increase time
spent looking at the display rather than the ceiling.
3.3. Usability
Usability and general qualities were evaluated through the questionnaire using a 5-level scale from 1-5. 1
being the most positive (e.g. Very Easy, Very Good) and 5 being the most negative (e.g. Very Difficult,
Very Bad). Mean ratings are given in Table 6.
The statistical analysis performed was similar to the fatigue ratings. Results from the Friedman test are
given in Table 7. Table 8 presents results from the pair-wise Wilcoxon post hoc for significant results from
the Friedman test. Only significant results from the post hoc are reported in Figure 4.

Figure 6: Significantly Different Usability Ratings
No significant differences in usability were found in 12 out of 21 categories. Although this means the IDP
did not make improvements in those categories compared to the usual method, it also means that the IDP
did not reduce usability in those categories. In designing an intervention for adoption, the intervention
must create the desired improvements and benefits without creating a negative impact on other aspects
of a task. Any negative impacts must be minimal, or justifiably outweighed by the benefits the intervention
device creates. Thus, we consider the lack of significant differences in 12 of the categories as a positive
result.
1 2 3 4 3
knowlng when Lhe drllllng ls
compleLe: Speed
knowlng when Lhe drllllng ls
compleLe: Lase
urllllng: Speed
urllllng: Lase
Maklng Ad[usLmenLs: Speed
Maklng Ad[usLmenLs: Lase
Movlng Lo Lhe nexL hole: ConLrol
Movlng Lo Lhe nexL hole: Accuracy
Semng up: Lase
usual MeLhod
lnverLed urlll ress
lnverLed urlll ress
w/ Camera

9

- FINAL REPORT -
In all the categories where a difference was found, no differences were found between the IDP and the
IDPw/C. This shows that the camera and display system was able to reduce awkward neck posture
without reducing the overall usability of the IDP.
All differences in usability categories found in the questionnaire were found between the usual method
and both the IDP and IDPw/C. As such, any reference made to the IDP in this section includes both the
IDP and IDPw/C.
Ease of setting up was found to be better with the usual method compared to the IDP. This was an
expected result because the IDP is a more elaborate tool than a hammer drill and ladder. With many
interventions, it is often the case that while the setup may more complex, the benefits of using the
intervention over the conventional method outweigh the inconvenience of a more complicated setup. An
example of this in construction would be the use of a lift rather than a folding ladder.
Accuracy when targeting the next hole was found to be better with the usual drilling method compared to
the IDP. The distance between the worker and the ceiling is the likely cause of reduced accuracy. Even
with the camera and display system, the view provided is still far from the ceiling until the worker begins
to elevate the column. While targeting accuracy is important, no difference was found between methods
when it came to the accuracy in drilling and thus, the reduced accuracy in moving to the next hole did not
affect the accuracy of the end result.. With regards to control when moving to the next hole, the post hoc
test revealed no significant differences between any pair of methods.
The ease and speed of making adjustments were both found to be better with the usual method. This was
also an expected result because the IDP was a new tool that the subjects had never used before. Also,
the more complex a tool, the more complicated its use may be. Consider the ease and speed in making
adjusts, such as changing nail size, between a hammer and a nail gun. As long as the intervention
provides added benefits elsewhere and overall performance meets requirements, poorer performance in
the ease and speed of making adjustments can be negligible. Ease and speed for making adjustments
can also improve over time with increased exposure to a new intervention.
The IDP outperformed the usual method in key categories of interest: Drilling ease, and drilling speed.
Subjects found the actual task of drilling into concrete easier with the IDP. Although this does not reflect
the specific quantitative goals for the intervention device, it is the one key subjective result that suggests
the intervention device is doing what it was designed to do. Also important is that subjects felt the IDP
was faster in drilling holes than the usual method. This is important, because while subjectively we want
the IDP to make drilling holes easier, it must do so without reducing the speed at which holes can be
drilled. Quantitative numbers are compared in the Section 3.4 but it is noted that the perception of speed
can prove to be just as important in the adoption of a new intervention.
As part of the overall ease in the drill task, subjects found it easier and quicker to know when they have
reached the desired depth with the IDP. There are a variety of ways trades people have devised to gauge
depth when drilling holes. Techniques include wrapping electrical tape around the drill bit at the desired
depth, or using a marker to mark the depth on the drill bit. Both common techniques require the person
drilling to look at the drilling site and focus on when the mark or the tape on the drill bit has become flush
with the ceiling. This causes added dust exposure with the person looking directly at the drilling site and
can also slow down drilling since slowing or stopping the drill temporarily reduces the dust being expelled
while the person checks on the drill bit. With the IDP, the desired depth is set with the depth rod on the
saddle. Knowing when drilling was complete became a simple matter of feeling when the drill could no
longer progress.
The subjective usability results showed that for the most part, the IDP did not significantly change many
factors in overhead drilling. Although some factors were found to be poorer with the IDP, the key factor of
ease and speed of drilling were found to be better with the IDP.
3.4. Performance

10

- FINAL REPORT -
Performance of the intervention device is key to its adoption in the construction industry. The bottom line
in industry is that improved tools, techniques, and workflows in construction will not be adopted unless
overall performance is improved or unhindered. Figure 7 summarizes the performance results and these
data are presented and analyzed in more detail in Table 9 in Appendix A. Mean subtask times were
calculated for each subject and Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare subtask times
between drilling methods. Paired sample T-Tests were used as a post hoc test when significant
differences were found. Only significant results from the post hoc test are reported. The overall
completion time is the average time it took to complete one hole and not necessarily the sum of the 4
subtasks because not all subtasks are performed for each hole drilled. For example, a worker can climb a
ladder (Approach) and drill (Drilling) more than one hole from the top of the ladder before descending
(Departure) and moving the ladder (Targeting). Definitions of subtasks can be found in Table 1.

Figure 7: Mean Task Times by Method
There were no differences found between the IDP and the IDPw/C. We can conclude from this result that
the camera and display system neither hindered nor improved the speed at which workers were able to
use the IDP. Comparing the IDPs to the usual method, we found that overall, the IDPs took longer to drill
a hole compared to usual overhead drilling. The reason for the increased time was due to longer targeting
and longer approach times. No differences were found between methods in the drilling and departure
times.
The longer targeting time reveals that users took longer to move from one hole to the next with the IDPs
compared to a worker moving a ladder and a drill. From observations, this is particularly true for
construction sites with debris on the ground, which tends to be the majority of sites. Even when carrying a
ladder, it is much quicker to step over a small pile of debris than it is to navigate the IDPs over or around
it. Also, when arriving at the next hole to be drilled, subjects spent more time positioning the IDPs so that
they lined up directly below the target before they began their approach. Compared to positioning a
ladder with the usual method, less care was needed to line the ladder up directly below the hole because
positioning the drill to the target was done by hand at the top of the ladder during the approach.
When approaching the target (start to climb the ladder or begin to raise the column), the IDPs were also
slower than conventional overhead drilling. This was the result of 2 primary factors. First, climbing up a
ladder to reach the ceiling took less time than cranking the IDPs to a ceiling of the same height. This
factor is sometimes negated when the user does not have to completely lower the IDP when moving to
0
10
20
30
40
30
60
70
80
90
usual MeLhod lnverLed urlll ress lnverLed urlll ress w/
Camera
-
"
.
%

/
0
#
.
1
(
%

2
3
4

ueparLure
urllllng
Approach
1argeung

11

- FINAL REPORT -
the next hole. This is often the case when the ceilings are clear or if there are not many other utilities
already hung. The second factor is the time it takes to position the drilling bit against the ceiling at the
target location. With the usual method, the worker is in close proximity to the ceiling and is positioning the
drill directly from their hands which allows them to position the drill quickly and accurately. With the IDP,
the worker is further from the ceiling by virtue of working from the ground, and is positioning the drill
through the IDP which adds a level of complexity.
Several conclusions can be made from the performance numbers. One factor that should be considered
is that the subjects had over an average of 5 years experience in their trade and they were all very
comfortable with the overhead drilling task. Conversely, we tested subjects on the first day they were
introduced to the IDP, and few subjects had the opportunity to spend more than a morning or afternoon
with the device. Based on this, and the possible learning curve of using a new tool, workers may be able
to learn to use the IDPs faster over time. This finding was confirmed in a prior study where productivity
improved during the first 20 holes but was level after that.
The fatigue, postural, and usability benefits of the IDPs may also factor in when looking at performance
long term. During this study, we required subjects drill a minimum of 4 holes. Based on the fatigue and
comfort benefits of the IDP described in the previous sections, the IDP could gain a performance
advantage over the long run when drilling many holes because fewer and shorter breaks are needed due
to fatigue and comfort.
Based on feedback from subjects, the performance of the IDP is acceptable as is but there is still room for
improvement. Subjects also described scenarios where the IDP would be particularly useful such as
straight runs or cleaner job sites. The results from our performance analysis allow us to focus our
attention on improving the performance of targeting and the approach during future research and
development of the IDP.
There are also design improvement that may make improve the productivity of the IDP (e.g., lighter
device without a wheeled base that can be carried from hole to hole).
4. Implication for Future Research on Occupational Health
4.1. Future Research
The results from this study demonstrate that the use of the intervention device with a camera system can
reduce the risk of neck and shoulder injuries and discomfort associated with overhead drilling for
electricians, plumbers and sheet metal workers drilling overhead into concrete. Our results showed
however, that there is a learning period with the device during which productivity is slower than
acceptable. This appears to be short (about 20 holes), but may be an impediment to a tradesperson who
uses the device infrequently. Future research could address this concern by assessing the effectiveness
of other design features (such as an augmented scoring system on the column, improved targeting and
setup methods) and training materials aimed at teaching construction workers how to use the device
optimally.
It may be that there are other methods of reducing neck extension with the overhead drilling device that
should be evaluated in future studies. Future research may involve the development of a lighter weight
column to support the drill that can be easily used in a scissor lift. Research could also address design
features which support other tasks involved in the process of drilling overhead that require neck extension
such as setting anchors.
There are research opportunities related to addressing other tasks within construction and in other
workplaces. It has been suggested that a device for supporting a heavier rock drill (8 to 20 kg) that is
used for drilling 1" diameter holes in concrete on highway and bridge retrofitting should be developed.
Such a device will likely reduce musculoskeletal risk and hand vibration exposure. A review of application
areas would help to identify target industries.

12

- FINAL REPORT -
4.2. Future Development
There is interest in developing the device further. Design features for secondary tasks such as carrying
and storing need to be refined before the device is marketable. We are currently working with two tool
manufacturers (DeWALT and Milwaukee Tool) to determine their interest in taking the device to market.
There is some hesitancy on their part, in the current down market, to develop such a new device. In the
mean time, we will work with a local machine shop to make the device available to interested contractors.
Future iterations of the inverted drill press should also include design changes based on the results and
experience from this study. The base height of the device should be lowered to 76 to allow it to operate
and low ceiling situations. The location of the cranks should also be lowered to reduce shoulder elevation
while cranking.
5. Policy and Prevention
5.1. Prevention Implications
This research has clearly shown that it is possible to reduce awkward neck and shoulder postures
amongst construction workers drilling overhead. Significant improvements in neck and shoulder postures
and discomfort were found with each of the intervention designs over the usual method of drilling. Using
the intervention device with the camera showed the best improvement overall. The intervention device
had a negative impact on productivity, particularly for setup and moving to the next hole. This increased
time may be an impediment to using the device, particularly for situations where there are few holes to
drill and the floor is cluttered. With extended use of the device, it is anticipated that further gains in
productivity will be seen.
Based on our findings, we can recommend the use of the overhead drilling device for overhead drilling
into concrete ceilings under certain conditions:
The device should be available in situations where 20 or more holes are being drilled
consecutively;
The device was found to be most successful in straight run applications, where the floor is
relatively cleared of debris so that the device can be wheeled from hole to hole, most notably
parkades and tunnels;
The device is slower in renovations or cluttered workplaces, but if a number of holes are required,
the device will still be beneficial;
The device should be considered as a useful tool in helping workers with musculoskeletal injuries
or recovering from surgery in the shoulder and neck return to work more quickly;
A training program should be developed outlining the benefits of use of the device and proper use
procedures;
A 1 page flyer which illustrates the above points should be distributed to all construction
contractors and union halls;
Construction equipment suppliers and rental facilities should be encouraged to stock and supply
the devices to reduce cost to contractors.
5.2. Relevant user groups
Our research is relevant to three distinct user groups: construction workers and contractors, construction
equipment manufacturers and health and safety researchers.
Our research focused on specific trade workers within the construction industry who had reported high
levels of neck and shoulder discomfort in previous studies: electricians, plumbers and sheet metal
workers performing overhead drilling into concrete. Our study showed that the intervention device with the

13

- FINAL REPORT -
camera has the potential to reduce musculoskeletal discomfort and injury in the shoulder and neck for
these specific workers. Although other workers and tasks were not investigated, anecdotal evidence from
construction workers and employers indicates that the device (possibly with other attachments) may be
useful in other overhead work applications within the construction industry (such as setting anchors).
Furthermore, there are undoubtedly applications for a similar type of device in other industries doing
overhead work as well.
Construction equipment manufacturers can use the results of this study to direct their development efforts
and to refine their equipment designs. Our research has shown a market need for a device that reduces
neck and shoulder disorders in the construction industry. The research has also pinpointed specific
design features that are effective and practical in the construction environment. Our results clearly show
that the use of a camera system is promising. This information clearly provides a jumping off point for
future development activities for manufacturers.
The results of our study may also be useful to health and safety researchers who are embarking on
intervention studies in the workplace. We have developed a methodology that was found to be both
successful at determining specific design features that were effective at reducing neck and shoulder
injuries, and practicable for the physical and organizational environment within the construction industry.
Our approach provides a framework for analysis that allows for participative design through early and
consistent involvement of workers and contractors in identifying and assessing design opportunities. Our
use of a number of different criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the intervention (biomechanical,
subjective, performance/productivity) follows good ergonomic design practice and allows for triangulation
in determining the best design features. This methodology can be applied by health and safety
researchers to other interventions intended for use in the workplace. This report is not written in detail for
the research audience. Our academic publications will cover the study methods and results in
considerable more depth.
5.3. Policy-related interactions undertaken
This project focused on an early stage of the research cycle the development of specific design features
on the intervention device rather than policy changes in the workplace. However, we were attentive to
such issues throughout the project. For example, in the development of the device, researchers met with
Mr. Gord Theisen to review safety features on the device to ensure that design elements comply with
WorkSafeBC standards.
6. Dissemination
An effort was made to ensure wide dissemination of information to all relevant parties throughout the
project. Knowledge transfer activities have targeted stakeholders in multiple ways.
6.1. Professional Audiences
Meetings were held within British Columbia throughout this project with representatives of:
The Council of Construction Associations (COCA)
Local plumbing, electrical, and sheet-metal unions (SMW Local 280, IBEW Local 213, UA Local
170) throughout the project.
Project information was exchanged with other BC construction associations:
SMACNA-BC
MCABC
ECABC
Several presentations were made to contractors and unions in the US:
Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council: general meeting

14

- FINAL REPORT -
Rosendin Electric health & safety, including director and staff, and company superintendents:
health/safety meeting
Cal/OSHA Ergonomics: meeting of health & safety professionals
Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California. Vic Macias, Director of
Training.
National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) - Northern California Chapter: Safety
Committee meeting
McCarthy General Contractor: Oakland Kaiser Permanente construction site visit with safety
director, and presentation to subcontractors at general meeting
Alameda Building Trades Council: general meeting
UA Local 393 Joint Labor Management Committee Meeting (South Bay Pipe Trades Training
Center
San Francisco Building Trades Council: Aug 26, 2008
A pamphlet detailing the project was printed and distributed to contractors, sub-contractors, and
workers (see appendix).
A website (www.sfu.ca/drilling) was designed and updated on a regular basis to reflect project
status.
An article was published in WorkSafeBC magazine (Sept, 07) describing the objective of the
study, the developed intervention devices and future protocols. Photographs of the intervention
devices were included in the article directed at our target audiences of construction companies
and workers.
The American Society of Safety Engineers Professional Safety Magazine (Nov 07) and the
Association of Canadian Ergonomists (Fall 08) also profiled the project in their publications.
6.2. Scientific Audiences
A scientific conference paper was prepared and presented at the Association of Canadian
Ergonomists 39
th
Annual Conference in Gatineau Quebec (Fall 2008). This paper outlines the
work done in the pilot project. It summarizes results to date and supports the direction for the
larger study. The audience at this conference includes ergonomics consultants/practitioners,
researchers and industry specialists who are responsible for implementing intervention in the
workplace.
The project was presented at the 18th Annual Construction Safety Conference& Exposition on
February 13, 2008 in Rosemont, IL sponsored by the Construction Safety Council and the Center
for Construction Research and Training (CPWR). The presentation was entitled "An ergonomic
solution to overhead drilling on construction sites."
The project was selected as one of three finalist for the 2008 Safety Innovation Award held at the
4th Annual Safety Expo at Sacramento State University on April 1, 2008 sponsored collectively by
the Golden State Builders Exchange (GSBE).
A manuscript outlining the pilot project has been submitted to Applied Ergonomics (March 2009)
and is currently being reviewed for publication.
A follow-up paper will be submitted to Applied Ergonomics outlining the final results in late 2009.
We will submit our results for presentation at the 41
st
ACE conference, and the Health and Safety
Canada IAPA (Industrial Accident Prevention Association) Conference and Trade Show, a forum
to share current occupational health and safety innovations.

15

- FINAL REPORT -
7. Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia
(WordSafeBC) Focus on Tomorrow research program. The research project had the support from Council
of Construction Associations, BC and Yukon Building Trades Council, SMW Local 280, IBEW Local 213,
UA Local 170, SMACNA-BC, MCABC, and ECABC. The research team is also grateful for the voluntary
participation of the construction workers and the following companies: Ledcor, GML Mechanical,
Crosstown Metal Industries Ltd., Sasco Systems Ltd., PCL Constructors Inc., Fred Welsh Ltd., Apollo
Sheet Metal Ltd., and Dominion Construction.

16

- FINAL REPORT -

8. References

Albers, J., Estill, C., MacDonald, L. 2005. Identification of ergonomics interventions used to reduce
musculoskeletal loading for building installation tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 427-439.
Flatow, E., Soslowsky, L., and Ticker, J.E.A., 1994. Excursion of the rotator cuff under the acromion:
Patterns of subacromial contact. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 22, 779-788.
Hagberg, M. Electromyographic signs of shoulder muscle fatigue in two elevated arm positions. American
Journal of Physical Medicine. 1981; 60(3):111-21.
Holmstrom EB, Lindell J, Moritz U, Low back and neck/shoulder pain in construction workers:
occupational workload and psychosocial risk factors. Part 2: Relationship to neck and shoulder pain.
Spine. 1992 Jun;17(6):672-7.
Hunting KL, Welch LS, Cuccherini BA, Seiger LA. "Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Electricians."
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 25:149-163, 1994.
Lindberg, J.; Wos, H.; Norlander, S.; Jakus, R. Support stand for hand-held tools used for overhead work.
Bygghalsan Bulletin. 91-09-16. English Abstract.
McAtamney, L, and Corlett, E.N., 1993. RULA: A method for the investigation of work-related upper limb
disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 24, 91-99.
Nussbaum, M.A. (2003) Postural stability is compromised by fatiguing overhead work. American Industrial
Hygiene Association Journal , 64, 56-61.
Olson, P. Musculoskeletal disorders of the neck-shoulder region related to working positions in the
construction industry. Bygghalsan Bulletin.: 1987-05-01.English Abstract.
Persson, J., and Kilbom, A., 1983. VIRA en enkel videofilmteknik fr registrering och analys av
arbetsstllningar och rrelser. Underskningsrapport, 10, 23. (English Summary)
Rempel, D., Star, D., Gibbons, B., Barr, A., and Janowitz, I., 2007. Overhead Drilling: Development and
evaluation of a new device. Professional Safety, 11, 30-35.
Rosecrance, J., Cook, T., and Zimmermann, C., 1996. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among
construction workers in the pipe trades. Work, 7, 13-20.
Sandmark, H., and Nisell, R., 1994. Measurement of pain among electricians with neck dysfunction.
Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 26, 203- 209.
Sigholm, G.; Herberts, P.; Almstrom, C.; Kadefors, R. Electromyographic analysis of shoulder muscle
load. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 1984; 1(4): 379-86.
Welch L, Hunting K, Kellogg J. Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms among sheet metal workers.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 1995; 27:783-791.
WorkSafeBC, http://www2.worksafebc.com/Portals/Construction/Statistics.asp. Accessed March 13,
2009.

17

- FINAL REPORT -
WorkSafeBC,http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/health_and_safety/bulletins/constructive_ideas/ass
ets/pdf/ci0616.pdf Accessed May 5, 2009

18

- FINAL REPORT -

Appendix A. Tables

Table 1: Drilling Subtask Descriptions
Usual Drilling Method Inverted Drill Press
Targeting Time after departure when subjects
navigate and position themselves
beneath the next marked location.
May require moving and positioning
a ladder or lift to the marked
locations.
Starts with subject either visually
finding the next marked location by
looking up or when subject begin to
move towards the next hole.
Includes lateral movements of the
drill, ladder, or lift to ensure proper
alignment before approach.
Time after departure when subjects
navigate and position themselves
beneath the next marked location.
Starts with subject either visually
finding the next marked location by
looking up or when subject begin to
move towards the next hole.
Includes lateral movements of the
inverted drill press to ensure proper
alignment before approach.
Approach Time after targeting
Begins when subjects start to climb
the ladder, or raise a lift.
Ends when the drill bit contacts
ceiling.
Time after targeting
Begins when subjects start to crank
the column up.
Includes subtle lateral movements
to make fine adjustments to hit the
target.
Ends when the drill bit contacts the
ceiling.
Drilling The time between bit-concrete penetration and the drill bit releasing from the
ceiling
Audibly discernable based on the pitch change when the drill bit is in contact
with the ceiling.
Departure Time after drilling and before
targeting.
Starts once the drill bit has left the
ceiling and includes all time during
the decent from the ladder or
lowering of the lift.
Ends once the subject begins
targeting for the next hole.
Time after drilling and before
targeting.
Starts once the drill bit has left the
ceiling and includes all the time
during which the column is being
lowered.
Ends once the subject begins
targeting for the next hole.


19

- FINAL REPORT -

Table 2: Mean (SD) Fatigue Ratings by method, N=16
Usual Method Inverted Drill Press Inverted Drill Press w/
Camera
Neck 2.2 (1.1) 2.1 (1.6) 0.7 (0.8)
Shoulder 3.6 (0.9) 0.6 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6)
Hand and Forearm 2.5 (1.6) 0.6 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6)
Lower Back 1.9 (1.5) 0.4 (1.0) 0.2 (0.5)
Leg 1.0 (1.1) 0.3 (0.6) 0.1 (0.3)

Table 3: Fatigue mean ranks, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon Post Hoc. N=16.
Mean Ranks Friedman test Wilcoxon Post Hoc
Usual
Method
Inverted Drill
Press
Inverted Drill
Press w/
Camera
Chi-Square p-value Pair-wise p-values
Neck 2.4 2.3 1.3 13.1 .001 UM v IDPw/C: .001
IDP v IDPw/C: .005
Shoulder 3.0 1.6 1.4 28.3 .000 UM v IDP: .000
UM V IDPw/C: .000
Hand and
Forearm
2.7 1.7 1.6 16.3 .000 UM v IDP: .002
UM v IDPw/C: .002
Lower Back 2.7 1.7 1.6 20.4 .000 UM v IDP: .003
UM v IDPw/C: .002
Leg
2.5 1.9 1.6 12.6 .002 UM v IDP: .027
UM v IDPw/C: .006


20

- FINAL REPORT -

Table 4: Mean (SD) Percent Time Shoulder Angle Bins. Repeated Measures ANOVA and
Paired Sample T-Test.

Degrees
Usual Method
N=13
Inverted Drill
Press
N=14
Inverted Drill
Press w/
Camera
N=14
F (p-value)
0 to 45 71.5 (20.3) 50.2 (29.8) 49.4 (25.2) 5.158 (0.014)
UM IDP: 0.019
UM IDPw/C: 0.027
45 to 60 13.7 (11.0) 23.3 (14.0) 23.6 (15.0) 3.317 (0.053)
60 to 90 9.4 (11.0) 22.8 (17.8) 24.4 (17.0) 4.571 (0.021)
UM IDP: 0.014
UM IDPw/C: 0.037
90+ 5.3 (7.3) 3.6 (7.3) 2.6 (4.3) 0.591 (0.562)

Table 5: Mean (SD) percent time in neck extension. Repeated Measures ANOVA and Paired
Sample T-Test. N=16.
Usual Method Inverted Drill
Press
Inverted Drill
Press w/ Camera
F (p-value)
1

% Time
in Neck
Extension
72.5 (13.3) 72.2 (15.4) 49.8 (23.1) 12.350 (.000)
UM IDPw/C: .001
IDP IDPw/C: .001
1
Only significant results shown for the post-hoc test.


21

- FINAL REPORT -

Table 6: Mean (SD) Usability Ratings, N=16.
Usual Method Inverted Drill Press Inverted Drill Press
w/ Camera
Ease 1.6 (0.9) 2.6 (1.0) 2.5 (1.2) Setting Up
Speed 1.7 (0.9) 2.9 (1.2) 2.6 (1.2)
Ease 1.7 (0.8) 2.5 (1.2) 2.3 (1.0)
Speed 1.7 (0.8) 2.5 (1.1) 2.5 (1.1)
Accuracy 1.5 (0.6) 2.8 (1.0) 2.7 (1.4)
Control 1.8 (1.0) 2.6 (1.1) 2.3 (0.9)
Moving to the
next hole
Stability 2.1 (0.9) 2.4 (1.2) 2.6 (1.0)
Ease 1.5 (0.6) 2.5 (0.9) 2.3 (1.1) Making
Adjustments
Speed 1.6 (0.8) 2.6 (1.0) 2.7 (1.2)
Ease 1.4 (0.6) 1.2 (0.4) 1.2 (0.4) Activating the
Drill
Speed 1.4 (0.5) 1.3 (0.6) 1.3 (0.6)
Ease 2.8 (0.9) 1.3 (0.4) 1.3 (0.4)
Speed 2.2 (0.8) 1.1 (0.3) 1.4 (0.7)
Accuracy 1.7 (1.0) 2.3 (0.8) 2.1 (1.2)
Control 2.1 (0.9) 1.6 (0.7) 1.6 (0.7)
Stability 2.6 (1.1) 1.9 (0.7) 2.1 (0.7)
Drilling
Feel
(Handling)
2.4 (1.0) 2.3 (1.1) 2.3 (0.9)
Ease 2.3 (0.9) 1.3 (0.6) 1.3 (0.8) Knowing when
the drilling is
complete
Speed 2.0 (0.8) 1.4 (0.8) 1.3 (0.8)
Looks
(Aesthetics)
1.9 (1.1) 1.9 (1.1) 2.0 (1.3) General
Durability 1.6 (0.8) 2.3 (0.9) 2.6 (1.4)


22

- FINAL REPORT -

Table 7: Mean Usability Ranks by method, Friedman Test, N=16.
Mean Ranks Friedman Test
Press
Inverted Drill
Press w/
Camera
Chi-Square p-value
Ease 1.56 2.34 2.09 6.936 .031 Setting Up
Speed 1.63 2.31 2.06 5.277 .071
Ease 1.63 2.28 2.09 4.776 .092
Speed 1.63 2.16 2.22 4.844 .089
Accuracy 1.31 2.50 2.19 14.923 .001
Control 1.56 2.34 2.09 6.520 .038
Moving to the
next hole
Stability 1.78 1.94 2.28 3.526 .172
Ease 1.84 2.69 1.47 18.136 .000 Making
Adjustments
Speed 1.53 2.22 2.25 7.860 .020
Ease 2.25 1.88 1.88 4.571 .102 Activating the
Drill
Speed 2.13 1.94 1.94 1.143 .565
Ease 2.84 1.59 1.56 25.442 .000
Speed 2.66 1.59 1.75 15.674 .000
Accuracy 1.72 2.28 2.00 4.050 .132
Control 2.22 2.00 1.78 2.000 .368
Stability 2.34 1.75 1.91 4.311 .116
Drilling
Feel
(Handling)
2.22 2.09 1.69 4.158 .125
Ease 2.56 1.69 1.75 12.842 .002 Knowing when
the drilling is
complete
Speed 2.47 1.78 1.75 9.657 .008
Looks
(Aesthetics)
2.00 2.03 1.97 .050 .975 General
Durability 1.66 2.06 2.28 5.024 .081


23

- FINAL REPORT -

Table 8: Pair-wise Wilcoxon Signed Rank Post Hoc Test for Significant Results from
Friedman Test
Usual Method
VS
Inverted Drill Press
Usual Method
VS
Inverted Drill Press w/
Camera
Inverted Drill Press
VS
Inverted Drill Press w/
Camera
Setting up: Ease 0.025 0.062 N/A
Moving to the next
hole: Accuracy
0.001 0.006 N/A
Moving to the next
hole: Control
N/A N/A N/A
Making adjustments:
Ease
0.017 0.037 N/A
Making adjustments:
Speed
0.022 0.020 N/A
Drilling: Ease 0.001 0.001 N/A
Drilling: Speed 0.003 0.005 N/A
Knowing when the
drilling is complete:
Ease
0.004 0.010 N/A
Knowing when the
drilling is complete:
Speed
0.013 0.022 N/A


24

- FINAL REPORT -

Table 9: Mean (SD) subtask completion times. Repeated Measures ANOVA and Paired
Sample T-Test. N=16
Press
Inverted Drill
Press w/ Camera
F (p-value)
1

Targeting 9.3 (1.3) 24.7 (6.9) 26.6 (7.0) 6.4 (.016)
2

UM IDP: .026
UM IDPw/C: .016
Approach 10.0 (1.3) 19.5 (3.7) 25.2 (4.9) (.002)
UM IDP: .018
UM IDPw/C: .006
Drilling 20.1 (3.8) 22.5 (5.1) 17.2 (2.0) 1.9 (.180)
2

Departure 8.8 (2.6) 9.8 (1.4) 10.7 (2.5) 0.3 (.773)
Overall 42.4 (5.9) 76.4 (11.5) 79.6 (11.6) 8.7 (.001)
UM IDP: .004
UM IDPw/C: .007
1
Spherical assumption met unless indicated
2
Greenhouse-Geisser degrees of freedom correction


25

- FINAL REPORT -

Appendix B. Questionnaires

Comparison Questionnaire
Subject #: F __ __ __ __

Date: _____ / ____ /_____
mm dd yy
Rank the drilling method for each characteristic, where 1 is the best/most
favourable, 2 is the second best, and 3 is the worst/least favourable.

Press
Inverted Drill
Press w/ Camera
System
Example

a. Moving/Mobility
b. Ease of Use
c. Accuracy
d. Work Speed
e. Comfort
f. Stability
g. Adjusting
h. Durability
i. Knowing when
drilling complete
j. Feel (Handling)
k. Looks
l. Overall
1
st

__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________

__________
__________
__________
__________
2
nd

__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________

__________
__________
__________
__________
3
rd

__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________

__________
__________
__________
__________


26

- FINAL REPORT -

Inverted Drill
Press w/ Camera
Subject #: F __ __ __ __

Date: _____ / ____ /_____
mm dd yy

1. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very good and 5 is very bad, rate this
method for the following characteristics:
Very Good Very Bad
Setting Up
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Moving to the next hole
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
c. Accuracy 1 2 3 4 5
d. Control 1 2 3 4 5
e. Stability 1 2 3 4 5
Making adjustments
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Activating the drill
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Drilling
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
f. Feel (Handling) 1 2 3 4 5
Knowing when the drilling is complete
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
General
a. Looks (Aesthetics) 1 2 3 4 5
b. Durability 1 2 3 4 5
2. What would you change to improve the ease of using this method?

27

- FINAL REPORT -

3. Fatigue (Tiredness)
On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigue and 5 is very fatigued; please rate the following
after you used this method:
No Fatigue Very Fatigued
a. Neck 0 1 2 3 4 5
b. Shoulders 0 1 2 3 4 5
c. hands and Forearms 0 1 2 3 4 5
d. Lower Back 0 1 2 3 4 5
e. Legs 0 1 2 3 4 5

4. How would you change this method to reduce pain or fatigue to the
operator?

5. What three things do you like
about this method?
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
6. What three things do you dislike
about this method?
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
7. If available, would you use this method again next time?
Yes / No
Why or why not?

8. Did you notice any safety issues (pinch-points, sharp edges,
stability, etc)?
Yes / No
If yes, what and where are they?

28

- FINAL REPORT -

Usual Method
Subject #: F __ __ __ __

Date: _____ / ____ /_____
mm dd yy

1. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very good and 5 is very bad, rate this
method for the following characteristics:
Very Good Very Bad
Setting Up
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Making adjustments
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Drilling
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
General


29

- FINAL REPORT -
On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigue and 5 is very fatigued; please rate
the following after you used this method:
a. Neck 0 1 2 3 4 5
e. Legs 0 1 2 3 4 5

operator?

about this method?
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
about this method?
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
Yes / No
Why or why not?

stability, etc)?
Yes / No

30

- FINAL REPORT -

1. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very good and 5 is very
bad, rate this method for the following characteristics:
Very Good Very Bad
Setting Up
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Making adjustments
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
Drilling
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
a. Ease 1 2 3 4 5
b. Speed 1 2 3 4 5
General

Inverted Drill
Press
Subject #: F __ __ __ __

Date: _____ / ____ /_____
mm dd yy


31

- FINAL REPORT -
On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigue and 5 is very fatigued; please rate
the following after you used this method:
a. Neck 0 1 2 3 4 5
e. Legs 0 1 2 3 4 5
operator?

about this method?
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
about this method?
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
Yes / No
Why or why not?

stability, etc)?
Yes / No

32

- FINAL REPORT -

Overhead Drilling Project Subject #: F __ __ __ __
Subject Demographics
Date: ________ /_________/ _________ (mm/dd/yy)
Tape Number(s): _____________________________________
Age: _______________ Gender: M / F Dominant Hand: Right / Left
Height: _____________Ft _____________ Inches Weight: _______________Lbs
Trade: Electrical Plumbing/Pipefitting Sheetmetal Apprentice / Journeyman
Years of Experience: _______________ Days with drilling in the past year: _____________ Days/Month

Site Information
Contractor / Company: ________________________________________________________________
Project: ____________________________________________________________________________
Location of Project: ___________________________________________________________________
Weather Conditions: __________________________________________________________________
Ceiling Height: _______________________________________________________________________
Drill (Make, Model): ___________________________________________________________________
Drill bit: ____________________________________________________________________________
# of Holes: __________________________________________________________________________
Whats being installed: ________________________________________________________________
General Comments: __________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

Data Collectors Initials: _______________________________________________________________

All rights reserved. The Workers Compensation Board of B.C. encourages
the copying, reproduction, and distribution of this document to promote
health and safety in the workplace, provided that the Workers
Compensation Board of B.C. is acknowledged. However, no part of this
publication may be copied, reproduced, or distributed for profit or other
commercial enterprise or may be incorporated into any other publication
without written permission of the Workers Compensation Board of B.C.
Additional copies of this publication may be obtained by contacting:

Research Secretariat
6951 Westminster Highway
Richmond, B.C. V7C 1C6
Phone (604) 244-6300 / Fax (604) 244-6299
Email: resquery@worksafebc.com

2010-10-21 01-Worksafe BC Report Feb2010

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2010-10-21 01-Worksafe BC Report Feb2010

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FOCUS ON TOMORROW

RESEARCH FUNDED BY WORKSAFEBC

Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

Potrebbero piacerti anche