Ergonomics:
Problem Identification and
Financial Support
GE Aviation Services - Strother
Presented by members of the Strother VPP
Ergonomics Team:
Jason Hawpe, Mike Kendall, Eli Coury
1/
GE /
Ergonomics:
What is Ergonomics?
The study of the design and
arrangement of equipment so that
people will interact with the
equipment in healthy, comfortable,
and efficient manner.
2/
GE /
Ergonomics:
How will it help?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Decrease injury.
Increase productivity.
Reduce cost.
Increase quality.
3/
GE /
Ergonomics:
Getting
Started
Team Formation
1. Identify Key People
a.Representatives from all areas/departments
b.No personal agenda’s
2. Set Meeting Times, Agenda, and Location
3. Schedule meetings to combine shifts
4. Involvement ,Open door policy
5. Hourly/Salary team effort
4/
GE /
Ergonomics:
Contractor Providing Training to GE Team
Donald E. Day, M. S.
Consultant in Ergonomics and Health Promotion
5840 S. Goldsmith Place
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(303)773-0261 FAX(303)773-0271
e-mail: ergoday@earthlink.net
web site: www.ergonomicsprocess.com
5/
GE /
GE Strother/Winfield
Ergonomics
VPP Team Members
(alphabetically)
Members Names in Red are Here!
Jake Auguinaga, Maintenance
Danny Beard, Engine Mechanic
Drew Beard, Process Engineer
Eric Befort, Maintenance Mechanic
Scott Branine, Supervisor
Flo Bruner, Engine Mechanic
Mike Evinger, Engine Mechanic
William Pirlot, Engine Mechanic
Felicia Hall, Engine Mechanic
Jesse Hollingsworth
, Supervisor
Eli Courey, Engine Mechanic
Kenny Burg, Machinist
Mike Kendall, Engine Mechanic
John Klick
, Engine Mechanic
Brad Ziegler, Engine Mechanic
Kirk Lewis, Process Engineer
Brett Brown, Process Engineer
Jason Hawpe, Environmental Health and Safety Specialist
Louis Zink
, Engine Mechanic
Jamie Brazda, Process Engineer
Dave Coberley, Engine Mechanic
Amber Quint, Process Engineer
Danny Herman, Machinist
Art Saavedra, Welder
Bob Thomas, Process Engineer
6/
GE /
Ergonomics:
Finding Projects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Ask Employees
Housekeeping Audit, look for problems
Productivity
Quality Escapes
Injury Data
Near Misses
Damaged equipment
7/
GE /
Ergonomics:
Project Identification
1. Collect Data
2. Start a Prioritization list
3. Follow-up
8/
GE /
Ergonomics:
Things to look for
1. Reach
2. Weights
3. Work height
4. Frequency
5. Grips
6. Travel distance
7. Posture
9/
GE /
Data Collection
Handling Requirements
Weight/Force
Item
Dimensions
lbs./kg
lbf./kg
Frequency
Location Heights Reaches Visibility Clearances Tools (types, handles, etc.) Environment Lighting (type, amount) Temperature / Humidity Pacing -
Parts or rate per hour or shift -
Complexity / Control Issues (Information transfer, no flexibility in job, etc.) –
Other Issues – vibration, localized pressure, gloves, others – determine magnitude of each factor)
Duration of Job/Task (continuous minutes or hours/shift)
Interaction with Other Jobs or Tasks During Day or Job
10 /
GE /
Times (X)/shift
Duration
Data Collection
How was Job Identified?
___ Known "Problem Job/Operation"
___ Musculoskeletal Disorders
___ Quality Performance Problems
___ Productivity Problems
___ Others (Please Specify – complaints, safety, etc.) _________________________________)
List Body Part & Risk Factors & Extra Effort Associated with the Injury/Illness or Other Ergonomics Problem
or Other Problem:
1. neck/shoulders
2. back
3. arms/elbows
4. wrists/hands/fingers
5. legs/ankles/feet
6. others
Contributing factors, root cause or reason for the problem: (Why are the above problems
present?)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
11 /
GE /
Data Collection
Body Part
Right
or Left
Effort
Level (a)
Continuous
Effort Time (b)
Effort Level (a)
Continuous
Effort Time (b)
1=<6 secs
2=6 to 20 secs
3=>20 to <30 secs
Efforts/
Minute (c)
Priority
(d)
Neck/
Shoulders
L
(Upper Back)
R
Back
L
Arms/Elbows
R
Wrists/Hands/
L
Fingers
R
Legs/Knees
L
R
Ankles/Feet/
L
Toes
Categories:
R
(Assume one 3 sec.
effort in 5 min.)
1=Light
2=Moderate
3=Heavy
Efforts per
Minute (c)
1 = <1/min
2 = 1 to 5/min
3 = >5 to <15/min
(d) Priority for Change (Time to recover after 5 min. of continuous work on task):
*Moderate = 1 2 3
30 to 90 secs of fatigue accumulation
132
213
222
*Usually acceptable for 1 hour
231
continuously: rotate with lighter
232
task beyond 2 hours, or modify
312
to lower priority.
High =
**
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
Very High = 3 2 3
**
331
332
90s to 3 minutes of fatigue accumulation
**Make job improvements to
lower the priority; not good
job rotation candidates.
> 3 minutes of fatigue accumulation
**Same as High.
12 /
GE /
Carry
Over
Example of Niosh Lifting Equation
SINGLE TASK NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION - ENGLISH VERSION
JOB TITLE: Engine Mechanic lifting AGB
ANALYST NAME: J.Postelwait/M.Kendall
Model Inputs
Horizontal Location (in.) =
(min. 10", max. 25")
Vertical Location (in.) =
(min. 0", max. 70")
Multipliers
Model Outputs
20
HM = 0.50
Recommended Weight
Limit in pounds:
8
VM = 0.84
RWL = 15.8
FIRWL = 15.8
Travel Distance (in.) =
(min. 10", max. 70")
20
Angle of Asymmetry (deg.) =
(min. 0°, max. 135°)
45
DM = 0.91
Lifting Index =
(=Load/RWL)
Coupling =
(enter 1=good; 2=fair; 3=poor)
AM = 0.86
LI = 5.08
2
CM = 0.95
Frequency (lifts/min.) =
(min. 0.2 lifts/min.)
0.2
FM = 1.00
Load (lbs.) =
80
Duration (hrs.) =
(enter 1, 2, or 8)
FILI =5.08
Recommendation:
Engineering or Ergonomic
Intervention Should Be
Implemented
1
13 /
GE /
Example of Rodgers Muscle Fatigue Analysis
RODGERS
MUSCULAR
FATIGUE
ANALYSIS
Department: CF34 Modules
Project #:1168-10
Cell: Disassembly
Part: OTL Seal Retainer
*Effort level so high most individuals could not exert the effort
Body
Part
Neck
Shlders
(Upper
Back)
Back
Arms/
Elbows
Hands/
Fingers/
Wrists
Legs/
Knees
Ankles/
Feet/
Toes
Light (or 1)
Moderate (or 2)
Head turned partly
to side or back
or forward slightly
Head turned to
side; head fully
back; forward
about 20 degrees
Arms away from
body, no support;
working overhead
Arms slightly away
from sides; arms
extended with
some support
Leaning to side or
bending; arching
back
Arms away from
body, no load; light
forces/lifting near
body
Light forces or
weights handled
close to body;
straight wrists;
comfortable
power grips
Standing, walking
without bending
or leaning; weight
on both feet
Heavy (or 3)
Same as moderate
but with force
or weight; head
stretched forward
Exerting forces or
holding weight
with arms away from
body or overhead
Bending forward no Lifting or exerting
load; lifting mod-hvy force while twisting;
loads near body;
high force or load
overhead work
while bending
Rotating arm
High forces
while exerting
exerted with
moderate force
Grips with wide
or narrow span
moderate wrist
angles, esp.
flexion; use of
gloves with
moderate forces
Bending forward,
leaning on table;
weight on one
side; pivoting
while exerting
force
rotation; lifting
with arms extended
Pinch grips;
strong wrist
angles; slippery
surfaces
Exerting high
forces while
pulling or lifting;
crouching while
exerting force
14 /
GE /
Effort
Continuous
Efforts per
Level
(a)
Effort Time
(b)
Minute
(c)
1=L
2=M
3=H
4=H *
1=<6 s
2=6 - 20 s
3=>20 - 30 s
4=>30 s
1 = <1/m
2 = 1 - 5/m
3 = >5 - ≤15/m
4=>15/min
Effort
Level
(a)
Contin.
Effort
Time(b)
1
4
Efforts
per
Min(c)
1
Priority
(d)
Carry
Over
VH
X
L3
4
4
VH
X
R3
4
4
VH
X
3
4
4
VH
X
L3
4
4
VH
X
R3
4
4
VH
X
L4
4
4
VH
X
R4
4
4
VH
X
L1
1
1
L
R1
1
1
L
Example of Rodgers Muscle Fatigue Analysis
(d) Priority for Change Categories: Time to recover after 5 min. of
continuous work on task. (Assume one 3 sec effort in 5 min.)
Low = not listed below No action required
*Moderate =
High=
**
123
132
213
222
231
232
312
30 to 90 sec. of fatigue accumulation
223
313
321
322
90s to 3 min. of fatigue accumulation
**Make job improvements to
lower the priority; not good
job rotation candidates.
*Usually acceptable for 1 hour
continuously: rotate with lighter
task beyond 2 hours, or modify
to lower priority.
Very High=
**
3 2 3 > 3 min. of fatigue accumulation
331
3 3 2 **Same as High.
4xx
x4x
xx4
(Rodgers 1987, 1988, 1992, 2004)
15 /
GE /
Effort Ratings:
(Psychophysical Scaling, Borg 1998)
Absolute Maximum (** Anchor)
11
Extremely Strong (Almost Max) 10
9
HEAVY
8
or 3
Very Strong 7
6
MODERATE
Strong/Heavy 5
or 2
4
Moderate 3
2.5
Weak/Light 2
LIGHT
1.5
or 1
Very Weak 1
Extremely week/Just noticeable 0.5
0.3
Nothing At All 0
Category Description:
0 - 3 = Light Effort or 1 Effort
4 - 6 = Moderate Effort or 2 Effort
7 – 11 = Heavy Effort or 3 Effort
**Anchor – So much effort
you want to “throw up”
Example of Rodgers Muscle Fatigue Analysis
TABLE 1:
DEFINITIONS OF HEAVY EFFORT IN MANUAL HANDLING TASKS
Heavy Effort
Condition
Values
Lifts Below 30" (76 cm), Next to Body
Lifts Below 30" (76 cm), Arms Partially Extended
Lifts Below 30" (76 cm), Arms Fully Extended
>50 # (22.7 kg) Mass
>35 # (15.9 kg)
>25 # (11.4 kg)
Lifts From 30 to 53" (76-135 cm) Next to Body
Lifts From 30 to 53" (76-135 cm) Arms Partially Extended
Lifts From 30 to 53" (76-135 cm) Arms Fully Extended
>40 # (18.2 kg)
>35 # (15.9 kg)
>20 # (9.1 kg)
Lifts Above 53" (135 cm), Next to Body
Lifts Above 53" (135 cm), Arms Partially Extended
Lifts Above 53" (135 cm), Arms Fully Extended
>12 # (5.4 kg)
>15 # (6.8 kg)
>5 # (2.3 kg)
Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 2" (5 cm)Span
Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, 1 Minute, 2" (5 cm) Span
>60 # (27.3 kg) Force
>30 # (13.6 kg)
Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 1" (2.5 cm) Span
Power Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 3.5" (8.9 cm) Span
>24 # (10.9 kg)
>30 # (13.6 kg)
Power Grip, Flexed Wrist, < 6 Seconds, 2" (5 cm) Span
Power Grip, Flexed Wrist, 1 Minute, 2" (5 cm) Span
>25 # (11.4 kg)
>15 # (6.8 kg)
Power Grip, Wrist Extended or To One Side, < 6 Seconds
Power Grip, Wrist Extended or To One Side, 1 Minute
>45 # (20.4 kg)
>25 # (11.4 kg)
Pinch Grip, Neutral Wrist, < 6 Seconds
Pinch Grip, Neutral Wrist, 1 Minute
>15 # (6.8 kg)
> 5 # (2.3 kg)
Horizontal Push or Pull, Mid-Chest Height, < 6 Seconds
Horizontal Push or Pull, Mid-Chest Height, 1 Minute
>50 # (22.7 kg)
>25 # (11.4 kg)
Horizontal Push, Kneeling, Mid-Chest, < 6 Seconds
Horizontal Push, Kneeling, Mid-Chest, 1 Minute
>40 # (18.2 kg)
>20 # (9.1 kg)
Horizontal Push, Sitting, Arms Extended, < 6 Seconds
Lateral Push Across Chest, Standing, < 6 Seconds
16 /
GE /
>30 # (13.6 kg)
>15 # (6.8 kg)
Ergonomics:
20/20 Rule activity
17 /
GE /
Priority List
18 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
Project Identification (cont.)
4. Patience
a.Timing
b.Start with projects that require
minimal effort with maximum
results
c.Don’t Try to Boil the Ocean
19 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
• Education
• How do you get funding?
1. Budget
2. Plan
3. ROI
4. Project Justification
20 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
Continue Education
• Most of our Ergonomics Team training stems from the
Original training from outside contractor. Each year we
compete as a company in the Ergo cup competition. The
categories are:
1. Team-driven Improvements
2. EHS driven Improvements
3. Program Improvement
• We leverage within GE at every opportunity.
21 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
Continue Education
• There is an APP available for Niosh lift equation (htLiftCalc).
• Rodgers muscle fatigue downloadable
http://www.theergonomicscenter.co
m/graphics/ErgoAnalysis%20Softwa
re/Rodgers%20Smart%20Form.xls
• We attend VPP Conferences to share best practices with
other companies.
22 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
Continue Education
• Training for Engineering and design
personnel at a local level.
• Training for Sourcing personnel at a local
level.
• Basic Ergonomics training to all employees
on site annually.
23 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
Describe and calculate (where possible) the financial
“payback” of the project. Use the following equation
to calculate the simple ROI.
Simple
ROI
Annual Operational
Savings
+
Injury Prevention
Savings
=
Cost of Solution
• Injury Prevention Savings calculations should use the following cost
per injury or illness value. This value includes both direct and indirect
costs. The direct costs were determined using GE US WC data. The
indirect costs were calculated using the OSHA recommended multiplier
of 1.1.
GE Average Cost per Musculoskeletal Injury or Illness = $38,500
• The Cost of the Solution should include the cost of materials &
24 /
equipment, as well as the costs related
to the implementation of the
GE /
solution.
GE Strother Ergonomics Projects
A.Examples of Strother Projects
1.LPT Shaft Cleaner
2.Hydraulic Lifts
3.AGB Transport/Ass’y/Dss’y Fixture
4.CF34 OTL Retainer Removal Tool
5.Fixture Storage Rack
25 /
GE /
CFM56 Low Pressure
Turbine Shaft Cleaning
The TEAM
Operation
Ergo Cup Project Leader: Eric Befort - Maintenance
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #1: Steve Holtke - Maintenance
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #2: Mike Kendall – Ergo Team Leader
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #3: Brad Ziegler – Ergo Team Member
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #4: Donnie Welch – Maintenance Supv.
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #5: John Postelwait – EHS Specialist
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #6: Nick Bowker – Component Repair Team
Leader
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #6: Bill Hartman – Component Repair Supv.
Ergo Cup Project Team Member #7: Tina Lister – Chem Clean Mechanic
Background
The Problem
•
Coking, a build up of carbon deposits from overheated oil,
becomes caked on the inside of Low Pressure Turbine Shafts in
jet engines. This must be removed for the engine to perform
effectively.
•
Because of the manual cleaning process, inconsistency in the
quality of cleaning the shafts existed. The performance of this
cleaning activity was often very labor intensive, with the
operator forced to spend hours running the drill motor to get
the shafts clean.
•
Often this work had to be repeated because the shafts were not
cleaned sufficiently the first time. This caused severe stress to
the person performing cleaning operation.
Injury History (past two years)
 Two reported first aid cases
 One OSHA Recordable case
27 /
GE /
“Before” Situation:
Tina, our model, is
about 5’ 4”.
Bottle brush mounted on air drill used to clean inside diameter of hollow
Low Pressure Turbine Shaft. Bottle brush is almost six foot long, and very
unwieldy. High torque from air motor caused injuries to employees.
28 /
GE /
Background: Injuries
Injury Extract
System U.S. OSHA
Case ID Recordable?
Detailed Body
Part(s)
435 No
Left Little Finger
694 Yes
Right
Forearm,Right
Upper Arm,Right
Hand,Right
Shoulder,Right
Wrist
Cause Injury
Object Type
Description
Immediate Cause
drill
shaft
Cut/lac Ee states he was running an air
eration powered drill with a long brush on it
and his glove got caught on shaft when
pulling hand out.
Air
Pain/s Employee was cleaning the inside of a
motor welling/ shaft with an airmotor. The shaft was
and fan muscul spinning while it was being cleaned
shaft
oskelet and at some point it stopping spinning.
al
The air motor kept going and it caused
discom her hand and arm to rotate toward the
fort
outside.
Root Cause
Descriptive Root Cause
Unsafe Act:
Improper force /
posture / position
Personal Factor: Ee placed left hand on/near rotating shaft
Human Error
Unsafe Condition:
Ergonomically
inadequate
workstation or
rotation
Unsafe Act:
Wrong/defective
item used
Job Factor:
Inadequate
engineering
Personal Factor:
Difficult for
employee to
execute
Root cause is two fold: First tool design
is ergonically inadequate. Second;
employee installed a new bristle brush of
a greater diameter and bristle stiffness
which contributed to the drill brush
hanging up in the LPT shaft resulting in
the drill torque
Injuries had been reported regarding the use of the old drill
motor. One of the two reported within the past two years was
severe enough to become a recordable injury.
Analysis tools were then used to evaluate and understand the
true scope of the problem……
29 /
GE /
Defining the Problem
Background Using the “STEPS”
Process
30 /
GE /
Defining the Problem
Background Using the “STEPS”
Process
31 /
GE /
Defining the Problem
Background Using the “STEPS”
Process
32 /
GE /
Design Phase:
Maintenance
designed this
machine in a matter
of minutes on some
scratch paper.
Maintenance then
fabricated this new
machine in just a
few days. It was
installed and
operational in less
than a month.
Original Concept Drawing
33 /
GE /
“After”: Simplicity
Using original part transfer cart,
machine is loaded, start button is
pushed and operator “Walks-Off” to do
another task while part is being
cleaned.
34 /
GE /
Machine is capable of being
run in either automatic or
manual mode. Manual mode
allows the brush to “dwell” in a
heavy coking area inside the
shaft if necessary.
“As-Built”
Solution:
Finished Machine
35 /
GE /
Improvement: Return on
Investment
The project cost less than $5k to implement.
Savings projected came to $97K over a one year
period with one injury, less the cost of the
machine.
$$$ ACCOUNTANTS TAKE NOTE: $$$
This is a R.O.I of about three weeks.
IT HAS PAID FOR ITSELF 10 TIMES AS OF FW35!
36 /
GE /
Component Repair Solvent
Spray Booth Lift Mechanism
The Team:
Project Leader: Eric Befort – Maintenance Mechanic (Ergo Team Member)
Project Team Member #1: John Postelwait – EHS Specialist (Ergo Team
Member)
Project Team Member #2: Shawn Czaplinski – Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #3: Mike Kendall – Engine Mechanic (Ergo Team
Leader)
Project Team Member #4: Tina Lister – Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #5: Kerry Hoskins – Engine Mechanic
“Before”
S
•Solvent Spray Booth was
previously installed as provided i
by the manufacturer at a fixed
t
height of 33” from the floor to
the working height of the booth u
tabletop.
a
•The top of the cabinet was at a
t
fixed height of 69”.
i
•The mechanics load parts into
the booth and degrease them o
with pressurized PD-680 type II
n
solvent contained within an
internal pump system in the
:
machine.
38 /
GE /
Solution:
12” of height
adjustment
“Bottom” Position of Booth
Simple,
2 button
Controls
39 /
GE /
“Top” Position of Booth
Solution:
Video of Booth in Action
Variance in Height
of Affected Employees
The guys in the pictures are 6’3” and 6’4”.
The young lady is 5’4”.
40 /
GE /
Solution: Details
Flexible
Connections
Installed Hydraulic Lifts to physically raise/lower
entire machine.
This required that we also install flexible exhaust
stack to allow movement of the booth, and also to
install flexible conduit and air lines.
41 /
GE /
Innovation
• The team was faced with ways to make existing
equipment ergonomically usable.
• This ergonomic solution was successfully achieved
with minimal modification to existing
equipment/process.
• This ergonomic improvement now provides
employees a selection of different potential working
heights using existing equipment .
• The team has plans to leverage this technology to
other process equipment in the shop.
• Wet Blast Booths (4 each)
• Solvent blast Booths (3 each)
• Shot Peen Booths (2 each)
42 /
GE /
Business Impact
Potential Injury
Prevention Savings
ROI
($26.7K)
=
=
Cost of Solution
7 Weeks
($3.5K)
Average Cost per Musculoskeletal Injury or Illness = $26,700
New equipment modifications to existing equipment makes this
workstation more tolerable for all employees, providing a
better work environment.
43 /
GE /
AGB Transport Container
Project Leader: Clint Austin, Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #1: Eric Befort, Maintenance
Project Team Member #2: Kevin Myers, Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #3: Danny Beard, Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #4: Mike Kendall, Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #5: Jeff Tipton, Maintenance
Project Team Member #6: Karl Murphy, Engine Mechanic
Project Team Member #7: Dale Luce, Engine Mechanic Work
Leader
“Before” Situation:
1
The AGB
weighs
~150 lbs.
2
Mechanics had to manually
turn the AGB to allow
tooling attachment & safe
transport.
4
3
45 /
GE /
“Before” Details
•
Engine mechanics designed this solution after suffering
injuries. Their feedback drove this ergonomic project.
•
Summary of the injuries & illnesses:
 Experienced multiple first aid injuries including pinched fingers
and strained backs
Risk Factor Evaluation
Ergo Risk Ranking
Job / Task Name
Installing/Removing
CFM56/CF34-10 AGB
Injury History
Ergo Risk Factors
Employee Perception
High: Task has multiple
Moderate: 1 or
ergo risk factors
more ergo (strain /
(force, posture,
sprain / MSD) first
repetition, etc.)
aid cases
affecting multiple body
High: Most employees
attributable to task 3 parts
9 rate the task poor
46 /
GE /
Overall Ergo Risk Priority
9
HIGH
Risk Factor
Evaluation
ranked as
High
“Before” Details
SINGLE TASK NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION - ENGLISH VERSION
JOB TITLE: Engine Mechanic lifting AGB
ANALYST NAME: J.Postelwait/M.Kendall
Model Inputs
Horizontal Location (in.) =
(min. 10", max. 25")
Vertical Location (in.) =
(min. 0", max. 70")
Multipliers
Model Outputs
20
HM = 0.50
Recommended Weight
Limit in pounds:
8
VM = 0.84
RWL = 15.8
Department of Health and Human
Services
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
FIRWL = 15.8
Travel Distance (in.) =
(min. 10", max. 70")
20
Angle of Asymmetry (deg.) =
(min. 0°, max. 135°)
45
DM = 0.91
Lifting Index =
(=Load/RWL)
Coupling =
(enter 1=good; 2=fair; 3=poor)
AM = 0.86
LI = 5.08
2
CM = 0.95
Frequency (lifts/min.) =
(min. 0.2 lifts/min.)
0.2
FM = 1.00
Load (lbs.) =
80
Duration (hrs.) =
(enter 1, 2, or 8)
FILI =5.08
Recommendation:
1
Engineering or Ergonomic
Intervention Should Be
Implemented
47 /
GE /
NIOSH Lifting
Equation
Recommended
Ergonomic
Intervention
New Cart Solution:
• Solution Specifications:
 Needed cart that was easy to load/unload and
transport
 Minimized the footprint of the storage
 Able to load/unload using equipment already
available to the engine mechanics, without
manual lifting
 Allow for safe transport between areas
• Material Requirements: All materials were
locally purchased. Manufactured in-house by our
maintenance department from steel tubing, casters,
etc.
48 /
GE /
Judging Criteria #2: Study &
Experimentation
A hydraulic engine lift was already available.
Four versions were built, with the fourth being our ultimate
solution.
Prototype
Difficult to load
2nd Prototype
Still turning part.
Not secured
Originally, the 1st prototype
was a long wooden box with
pallet style feet. It could only
be moved with forklifts.
The 2nd prototype was a modified plastic
basket with casters and 3 sides removed
to allow employees closer access to the
part when lifting and turning.
1st
49 /
GE /
Judging Criteria #2: Study &
Experimentation
The third prototype looked much like the final
product with casters, but was widened in the
final version so it could accommodate gearboxes
from multiple engine models.
3rd Prototype
Strap point in
wrong position
50 /
GE /
The final version also
required the hold down strap
location be modified,
because the original location
created a trip hazard and an
“ankle-biter”. It is also
equipped with a brake.
Final SolutionTooling Drawing
51 /
GE /
Judging Criteria #3:
• No other fixture or dolly is required to store, or transport this
Simplicity
gearbox. It can all be done using this fixture.
• The part is positioned to make it easy to load and unload with
lift devices (hoist or hydraulic lift).
• NO MANUAL LIFTING REQUIRED!
The part is now
secure,
eliminating/mitigatin
g potential for
damage to this
expensive hardware.
The cart takes up 1/2
the floor space,
effectively doubling
storage capacity.
52 /
GE /
All lifting is performed
using mechanical assist
devices. Ergonomic risk
thereby eliminated.
Final Solution
Click Picture
53 /
GE /
Judging Criteria #5: Business Impact
Simple
ROI
Injury Prevention
Savings
$26,700
=
= 6.36
Cost of Solution
$420 X 10 ea = $4200
This is a payback time of 56 days.
• Operational Savings
• No danger to the part shifting during transport, and
causing potential damage.
• Movement of the AGB throughout the shop was made
easier.
• Less floor space required for storage.
54 /
GE /
CF34 OTL Retainer Removal
Tool
Project Leader: Louis Zink, Engine Mechanic
Team Member #1: J.Postelwait, EHS Specialist
Team Member #2: Eric Befort, Maintenance
Team Member #3: John Klick, Engine Mechanic
Team Member #4: Mike Evinger, Engine
Mechanic
Team Member #5: Todd Leftwich, Engine
Mechanic
“Before” Situation:
Tool
Engagement on
Seal edge.
OTL Seal
Penny to show
scale
OTL Seals must be removed. They
are hard to remove after having
been in the engines for a while.
The parts have a very small edge to
catch with the removal tool.
56 /
GE /
“Before” Situation:
Video of experienced employee using old tool to remove one seal:
Only nine more to go…..
57 /
GE /
“Before” Details
• Performed Roger’s Muscle Fatigue Analysis of the task.
Ergonomic Risk Factors were rated as “Very High” in 8 out of
10 categories.
• Employees brought this task to the Ergo Team’s attention as a
problem they hoped the Team could help address.
• Slide Hammer usage provided potential opportunities for risk of
injuries. No documented injuries, but several hazards existed
that caused discomfort to employees.
• Existing tool provided to employees was being damaged during
use, and was scrapping 100% of the parts being removed.
58 /
GE /
CF34 OTL Retainer Removal
Tool
Rogers Muscle
RODGERS
MUSCULAR
FATIGUE
ANALYSIS
Department: CF34 Modules
Project #:1168-10
Cell: Disassembly
Part: OTL Seal Retainer
*Effort level so high most individuals could not exert the effort
Body
Part
Neck
Shlders
(Upper
Back)
Back
Arms/
Elbows
Hands/
Fingers/
Wrists
Legs/
Knees
Ankles/
Feet/
Toes
Light (or 1)
Moderate (or 2)
Head turned partly
to side or back
or forward slightly
Head turned to
side; head fully
back; forward
about 20 degrees
Arms away from
body, no support;
working overhead
Arms slightly away
from sides; arms
extended with
some support
Leaning to side or
bending; arching
back
Arms away from
body, no load; light
forces/lifting near
body
Light forces or
weights handled
close to body;
straight wrists;
comfortable
power grips
Standing, walking
without bending
or leaning; weight
on both feet
Heavy (or 3)
Same as moderate
but with force
or weight; head
stretched forward
Exerting forces or
holding weight
with arms away from
body or overhead
Bending forward no Lifting or exerting
load; lifting mod-hvy force while twisting;
high force or load
loads near body;
while bending
overhead work
High forces
Rotating arm
exerted with
while exerting
moderate force
Grips with wide
or narrow span
moderate wrist
angles, esp.
flexion; use of
gloves with
moderate forces
Bending forward,
leaning on table;
weight on one
side; pivoting
while exerting
force
rotation; lifting
with arms extended
Pinch grips;
strong wrist
angles; slippery
surfaces
Exerting high
forces while
pulling or lifting;
crouching while
exerting force
Effort
Continuous
Efforts per
Level
(a)
Effort Time
(b)
Minute
(c)
1=L
2=M
3=H
4=H *
1=<6 s
2=6 - 20 s
3=>20 - 30 s
4=>30 s
1 = <1/m
2 = 1 - 5/m
3 = >5 - ≤15/m
4=>15/min
Effort
Level
(a)
Contin.
Effort
Time(b)
1
4
Efforts
per
Min(c)
Priority
(d)
1
Carry
Over
VH
X
L3
4
4
VH
X
R3
4
4
VH
X
3
4
4
VH
X
L3
4
4
VH
X
R3
4
4
VH
X
L4
4
4
VH
X
R4
4
4
VH
X
L1
1
1
L
R1
1
1
L
59 /
GE /
Fatigue Analysis
Tool
Rated “Very High”
Priority To Address
Ergonomic Issues in
8 of 10 categories Due
to Duration and
Repetitive Motion
Requirements.
Because of this it was
decided no more
study required.
“JUST FIX
IT”
“After” or “Solution”:
Finished Tool
Drawing
Completed Tool
60 /
GE /
• Tips are designed to be replaceable when tool gets
worn or damaged.
• Replacement of tips is less frequent with the new
tool.
• New design provides uniform, controllable pressure
when used.
61 /
GE /
“After” or “Solution”:
Video of 1st time tool was used
62 /
GE /
Solution: Details
• Manufactured “In-House” by Maintenance
Personnel using recycled material.
• Easy to use.
• Reduced scrap rate by 90%
• Replaceable tip makes tool repair fast if tool
is damaged
• Reduced “turn time” to perform task
63 /
GE /
Innovation
 The new tool was designed and proven
by employees on site.
 It was manufactured from recycled
materials provided by Maintenance and
Machine Shop.
 The concept was completely different
from the original tool design.
 It not only reduces potential injury but
reduces cost.
64 /
GE /
Study & Experimentation
 During the Ergonomics Team meeting where
the process was first explained, solutions were
“spit-balled”.
 The prototype was first described and
designed during this session.
 Attendants at the meeting all contributed their
ideas, and the first “napkin drawing” was
made.
 A week later, the prototype was introduced to
the shop floor. After a couple of alterations,
the final product was completed.
65 /
GE /
Simplicity and Ergonomic Risk
• The new tool uses less force and is more
controllable than using the old “Slide Hammer”
tool.
• This results in a more repeatable/stable process
with less scrap and reduction in potential injury.
“Slide Hammer”
New Tool
66 /
GE /
Ergonomic Risk After New Tool
Intro
RODGERS
MUSCULAR
FATIGUE
ANALYSIS
Department: CF34 Modules
Project #:1168-10
Cell: Disassembly
Part: OTL Seal Retainer
*Effort level so high most individuals could not exert the effort
Body
Part
Neck
Shlders
(Upper
Back)
Back
Arms/
Elbows
Hands/
Fingers/
Wrists
Legs/
Knees
Ankles/
Feet/
Toes
Light (or 1)
Moderate (or 2)
Head turned partly
to side or back
or forward slightly
Head turned to
side; head fully
back; forward
about 20 degrees
Arms away from
body, no support;
working overhead
Arms slightly away
from sides; arms
extended with
some support
Leaning to side or
bending; arching
back
Arms away from
body, no load; light
forces/lifting near
body
Light forces or
weights handled
close to body;
straight wrists;
comfortable
power grips
Standing, walking
without bending
or leaning; weight
on both feet
Heavy (or 3)
Same as moderate
but with force
or weight; head
stretched forward
Exerting forces or
holding weight
with arms away from
body or overhead
Bending forward no Lifting or exerting
load; lifting mod-hvy force while twisting;
loads near body;
high force or load
overhead work
while bending
Rotating arm
High forces
while exerting
exerted with
moderate force
Grips with wide
or narrow span
moderate wrist
angles, esp.
flexion; use of
gloves with
moderate forces
Bending forward,
leaning on table;
weight on one
side; pivoting
while exerting
force
rotation; lifting
with arms extended
Pinch grips;
strong wrist
angles; slippery
surfaces
Exerting high
forces while
pulling or lifting;
crouching while
exerting force
Effort
Continuous
Efforts per
Level
(a)
Effort Time
(b)
Minute
(c)
1=L
2=M
3=H
4=H *
1=<6 s
2=6 - 20 s
3=>20 - 30 s
4=>30 s
1 = <1/m
2 = 1 - 5/m
3 = >5 - ≤15/m
4=>15/min
Effort
Level
(a)
Contin.
Effort
Time(b)
1
1
Efforts
per
Min(c)
1
Priority
(d)
L
L1
1
1
L
R1
1
1
L
1
1
1
L
L2
1
2
L
R2
1
2
L
L2
1
2
L
R2
1
2
L
L1
1
1
L
R1
1
1
L
67 /
GE /
Carry
Over
Rogers Muscle
Fatigue Analysis
Tool
Rated “Low” Priority
To Address
Ergonomic Issues in
all 10 categories after
introduction of new
tool.
Business Impact
Simple
ROI
=
+
$371,899
$26,700
$200
=
1993
• Operational Savings: Before this tool was implemented, all parts were
scrapped 100%. There are 10 parts per engine @ $723 ea. After the new tool
was introduced, less than 10% of parts were scrapped, resulting in savings of
$6507 per engine. Average # of engines per year for 2011 & 2012 is 95. More
than 60% of engines are disassembled to the level requiring this work
performance.
This results in annual savings of $371,899
• Injury Prevention Savings: This value includes direct and indirect costs. The
direct costs were determined using GE US WC data. The indirect costs were
calculated using the OSHA recommended multiplier of 1.1.
Average Cost per Musculoskeletal Injury or Illness = $26,700
•
Cost of the Solution: This project used recycled materials and about 4
hours labor for one maintenance employee. = $200
68 /
GE /
Business Impact
Payback
Time
=
24 Hours/day
X
365 Days/Year
=
4.24 Hours
1993 Paybacks/Year
This tool paid for itself
in the first 4.24 hours of use!
• Operational Savings:
$371,899
Annual savings =
• Injury Prevention Savings:
$26,700
• Cost of the Solution:
=
= $200
69 /
GE /
Example of leveraging from other
sites
Swing Arm Storage
Ergo Cup Project
System
Primary Contact:
Kelvin Sanborn
EHS Leader
919-405-3213
Kelvin.Sanborn@GE.com
Aviation
Durham Engine Facility
3701 S. Miami Blvd
Durham, NC
“Before” Situation: Photo
Storyboard &/or
Process Map
• Drawers were heavy and difficult to
slide open and closed
• 140 lb push/pull (on bottom drawer)
• Storage rack did not provide good
visibility to staged discs.
• Ergonomic issues reaching center of
disks to attach lifting fixtures
• Grease contamination from drawer
slides got onto parts and people
• Multiple pinch points
Rack stores 6 stages of disks for GE90 low pressure turbine (LPT) assem
71 /
GE /
“After” or “Solution”: Photo
Storyboard and/or
Process
Map
• New shelving system utilizes
lightweight arms that allow for easy
handling
• Arms pivot outwards for access
• 18 lb push/pull fully loaded
72 /
GE /
“After” or “Solution”: Photo
Storyboard and/or
Process Map
Open design of storage rack allows visibility to staged discs
Quickly assess if ready for next operation
73 /
GE /
“After” or “Solution”: Photo
Storyboard and/or
Process Map
Easy access to center for attaching lifting fixtures
74 /
GE /
Similar issue redesign tool storage
rack
Before
75 /
GE /
Similar issue redesign tool storage
rack
After
76 /
GE /
Similar issue redesign tool storage
rack
After
Requires 5
lbs. of
push/pull to
move shelf.
77 /
GE /
Closing
Take the time to use scrap parts or old tooling. Don’t be afraid to dig
through the warehouse of junk to look for things that can be repurposed.
Look for the jobs that are less desirable. Show me a job that no one likes
and I will show you a job that has an Ergonomics issue.
Don’t rely on Engineers to design tooling. Some of our best tooling has
come from the people that do or have done the job.
Try to spread the wealth. Don’t concentrate in one area. Ergonomics
problems are the most visible in the shop. More areas helped equals
more concerns submitted.
Spend money to make money. Often the Ergonomics solution also
increases productivity, quality, and decreases risk of injury.
Keep trying until there is a good solution that works. Occasionally it takes
three or four prototypes to get to a good solution.
Don’t give up, learn from mistakes. Eventually you will find a solution no
matter how hard the task.
78 /
GE /
Ergonomics:
Questions?
79 /
GE /