A Comparative Analysis of a Conventional Versus a Computer-Assisted Technique for Identification of Mechanical Power Press Hazards
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF A CONVENTIONAL VERSUS A COMPUTER-ASSISTED TECHNIQUE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF MECHANICAL POWER PRESS HAZARDS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Darrell R. Wallace, M.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Gary P. Maul, Adviser Professor Robert Lundquist Adviser Industrial, Welding, and Systems Engineering Professor Carolyn Sommerich Graduate Program Copyright by Darrell Richard Wallace 2006 ABSTRACT The safety of the American workplace has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. This improvement is directly correlated with the adoption and enforcement of OSHA regulations (OSHA, “OSHA Facts”). However, despite the great strides that have been achieved, some industry sectors continue to produce unnecessarily high numbers of serious and preventable injuries. Machine-related injuries are responsible for nearly half of the thousands of amputation injuries that occur each year. Making this statistic even more tragic is that most machine injuries are preventable through known methods that are well documented. For most machines, OSHA provides guarding and operational requirements that are very general and broadly applicable. However, in the case of mechanical power presses the codes are quite specific and intended to address the specific hazards associated with such presses. Despite such focused legislation, press injuries continue to represent an unacceptably high risk to operators. This research examines the problem in an effort to identify the underlying causes. This study proposes that the OSHA codes related to mechanical power presses are adequate and address most of the guarding concerns, but employers often fail to comply with the codes, apparently out of a lack of understanding of their implementation. It is hypothesized that an effective tool to help guide personnel through the evaluation of press safety hazards will improve the likelihood of an individual in accurately identifying press hazards. Based on the perceived need, a software tool was developed to assist in the hazard identification process. This tool was tested experimentally to determine its effectiveness. The software, called SafetyNET, was used by a group of individuals who had a general technical background, but who were ii novices with respect to mechanical power presses. The hazard evaluation performance of the software- assisted group was compared with the performances of a peer group and a group of press professionals, both using traditional evaluation methods (specifically ANSI B11.TR3). Each of the experimental groups evaluated three different mechnical power presses. The hazards identified by each experimental group were to address the specific requirements of the applicable OSHA codes for guarding of mechanical power presses (29CFR1910.212 and 29CFR1910.217). The accuracy and completeness of the experimental data were evaluated against those specific codes. The experimental results strongly indicate that the use of the SafetyNET software can allow an individual with no specialized background with mechanical power presses to perform more effective hazard assessments on mechanical power presses than might be achieved with traditional assessment techniques. The SafetyNET users performed assessments that were demonstrably more complete and accurate than those performed by either comparison group using traditional methods. iii For my son, Elliott. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my adviser, Dr. Gary Maul, for his support, encouragement, and guidance throughout my doctoral program. The generosity with which he has shared his time, his trust, and his mentorship are deeply and forever appreciated. I wish to thank all of the members of my advisory committee for their guidance throughout this research. Their thoughtful advice, meticulous attention to detail, and willingness to share their expertise have been invaluable to me. I would like to express my thanks to the many individuals and businesses who donated their time and resources to this research. Without their support, this study would not have been possible. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support I have received from my friends and family – especially my wife, Ellen. Thank you for sharing your endless supply of confidence and love when I needed it most. v VITA June 7, 1972………………………Born – Columbus, Ohio 1995……………………………… B.S. Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 1995-1998……………………….. Staff Engineer, Engineering Research Center for Net-Shape Manufacturing (ERC/NSM), The Ohio State University 1998 ……………………………... M.S. Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 1998-2005 ………………………Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 2005-present …………………….. Lecturer, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. D. Wallace, G. Maul, and M. Reitz, “Magnetorheological Fluid Opens New Horizons in Flexible Manufacturing,” proceedings of the 13th International Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM) conference, June 2003, Tampa, FL 2. J. Breitling, D. Wallace, and T. Altan, “Investigations of different loading conditions in a high speed mechanical press,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 59, 1996, pp. 18-23, Elsevier Science S.A. 3. V. Vazquez, K. Sweeney, D. Wallace, C. Wolff, M. Ober, and T. Altan, “Tooling and process design to cold forge a cross-groove inner race for a constant velocity joint – physical modeling and FEM process simulation” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 59, 1996, pp. 144-157, Elsevier Science S.A.Start here, number consecutively. Single spaced within, double spaced between FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Industrial, Welding, and Systems Engineering vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ........................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v Vita ........................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x List of Figures.................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xv Chapters: 1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 2. Evaluation of the Problem ...................................................................................... 2 2.1 Modeling Significance and Progress ...........................................................2 2.1.1 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data .......................................................3 2.1.2 Cost Models...................................................................................11 2.1.3 Other Models.................................................................................15 2.1.4 Lost-Workdays as a Measure of Significance ...............................17 2.2 Narrative Data............................................................................................26 2.2.1 BLS Survey Narratives ..................................................................26 2.2.2 OSHA Accident Narratives............................................................27 2.3 Laws and Standards ...................................................................................31 2.3.1 The Laws........................................................................................32 2.3.2 The Standards.................................................................................35 2.3.3 Problems with Laws and Standards ...............................................36 2.4 The Role of Enforcement...........................................................................39 2.4.1 Insufficient Penalties......................................................................40 2.4.2 A Politicized and Inconsistent Process ..........................................42 2.4.3 Limited Resources.........................................................................43 2.4.4 OSHA on Press Safety...................................................................47 2.4.5 Safety Improvement and Innovation..............................................48 2.5 Safety Research Activities .........................................................................49 2.6 Enforcement and Liability as Obstacles to Research.................................50 2.7 The Role of Education and Training..........................................................52 2.7.1 Preliminary Survey........................................................................53 2.7.2 Training..........................................................................................60 2.7.3 Education .......................................................................................60 2.8 Professional Licensure...............................................................................63 vii 2.9 Summary of Problem Evaluation...............................................................64