http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 441 [email protected]
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)
Volume 9, Issue 9, September 2018, pp. 441–459, Article ID: IJMET_09_09_049
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=9
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
ERGONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RIG UP WIRELINE
PRESSURE CONTROL EQUIPMENT (PCE) IN
WELL SERVICE ACTIVITIES
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
Industrial Engineering Department, BINUS Graduate Program – Master of Industrial
Engineering, Bina Nusantara University 11480, Jakarta, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Working in Oil and gas well service area can exposure workers with potential
musculoskeletal risks caused by repetitive movement and awkward postures. The
workers also can get physical injury risk such as Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSDs).
To reduce the risk, it is necessary to analyze the work task through risk assessment to
observe the posture during using the equipment such as rig up the Pressure Control
Equipment (PCE) to determine the level of risk for each task, and the cumulative risk
for each work cycle. This study uses the Postural Ergonomic Risk Assessment (PERA)
method to analyze and measuring cyclic assembly work. We set the risk criteria for
activity classification (A) into posture, duration, and force which divided into three
groups (A<4 = Low risk, 4≤A≥ 7 = Possible risk, A≥7 = High risk). Time duration
and stressed posture provide high risk exposure, whereas the workers manually
operate and install the component and spare parts can lead to medium and low risk
exposures. We found that the high potential risks to cause harm are when the workers
operate Tree Adaptor Installation and BOP Installation. Whereas, the Making up
Lubricator connection and PCE Secure Line Installation provide medium and low risk
exposures, respectively. Our study can be guidance on the steps of prioritization and
intervention to reduce the musculoskeletal risks.
Keywords: Musculoskeletal disorder; PCE; PERA; Workspace design; Risk analysis.
Cite this Article: Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni
Sahroni, Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in
Well Service Activities, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology, 9(9), 2018, pp. 441–459.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=9
1. INTRODUCTION
When designing a work environment for working in oil and gas well service area, several
ergonomic aspects must be taken into consideration. These key aspects mostly involve
usability, efficiency and safety. However, the workers located in the area also can face
physical injury risk caused by repetitive process for prolonged periods and unmonitored
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 442 [email protected]
working posture [1,2]. This leads to ergonomic issues at the workplace. Many scholars have
proposed that Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSDs) as the key aspects to be considered when
designing an ergonomically work environment [3]. However, there is rare information about
how ergonomic designers can help the workers to accommodate them within work
environment by reducing risk factors that contribute to ergonomic injuries.
Even though there are many ergonomic principles models, however, avoiding awkward
postures or excessive effort is difficult to do in mining tasks. This situations result in fatigue
and discomfort, which greatly impact health and productivity. Under these conditions
muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, and blood vessels can be damaged. Such light injuries
are so-called musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) [4]. MSDs give a significant effect reducing
productivity and job quality [5] especially in field mining.
One of the causes of MSDs is the using of certain high-weight equipment especially the
Pressure Control Equipment (PCE) in Wireline Operation. Mostly the equipment needs to use
lubricator stack or risers that mounted on the top of wellhead to control the well pressure and
fluid when it performed [6]. The high-weight equipment also must be operated by 12-
personel-team to handle their stable position as installed stack of Blow Out Preventer (BOP)
to Isolate the blowout that present from the well activity [7].
In many situation, the workers operates the equipment have frequently reported their
MSDs complaints which lead the Well Service Department (WSD) to take preventive
measure. WSD has numerous incidents within January 2016 until December 2017. Their
report shows that significant increase of total cases reported relating to gesture and posture. In
2016, 761 cases related to gesture and posture have been reported, while in 2017, the number
of cases relating to gesture and posture reported increased to1854. From these cases, the
medium category of gesture and posture cases is common, with 120 cases reported in 2016.
From 120 recorded cases, 40 cases are related to Rig up PCE activities, 30 cases related to
manual handling or lifting, 25 cases related to making tool connection, 20 cases related to
hand and finger injuries, and 5 cases related to using improper tools.
The reports have leaded this study to conduct ergonomic risk assessment toward the
workers and the usage of the Rig up PCE including the activities with the highest potential for
injury. The objective of this research is to identify the risk of gesture posture during Rig up
PCE installation process by measuring the injury risk during the work tasks. The outcome of
this research also to give recommendation to the company to minimize the risk and prevention
of human injury related to wrong implementation of adequate ergonomic concept.
This paper consisted five main parts. Part one explains our motivation. part two consisted
literature review about the methods of risk analysis or risk assessment regarding ergonomics
theories, specifically during the Rig Up activity, equipment installation process and the extent
of the risks or their impact on workers, and the safety levels to reduce MSDs risk faced by the
workers. The part third explains our methodology. Part fourth provides analysis result and the
implementation to be used by workers to avoid the risk of serious injury of MSDs. Finally, in
part five we provide conclusion and solutions that improve the design of how the sequence
works and the intensity or duration of working time and “exposed time” during Rig Up
installation process. The part five also give recommendation for companies to create Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) based of our study to provide safer work practices that would
better avoid risk of injury for the workers.
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 443 [email protected]
2. MATERIAL AND METHODES
In the installation process of Rig up PCE, there are three type of main spare parts which must
be installed correctly which can lead to MSDs. The components of equipment have become
main sources of ergonomic risk experienced by workers during the Rig up installation
process:
a. Ginpole: 12 meters height with Outside Diameter (OD): 8” material S235 (ASTM
A36).
b. PCE: Consist of Tree Adaptor, BOP and 5 sections of Lubricator x 8 feet /section
of OD 4.75” Material SS.
c. Lifting gear (Crane) and Lifting applicants (Shackle, Slings, Hook, etc).
The materials are illustrated in Figure 1-3 to visualize the kind of materials and their
placements. The Ginpole and PCE parts (Tree Adaptor, BOP, and Lubricator) are given in
Figure 1. In Figure 2, we provide the detail of working area and material placement. The
scope of research is focused on the current workspace and worker position as shown in Figure
3.
Figure 1 Ginpole and PCE (Tree Adaptor, BOP, and Lubricator)
Figure 2 Work Area and Material Placements Figure 3 Worker position in the Workspace
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 444 [email protected]
In the equipment installation, the worker postures which faced with the MSDs risks are
trunk, shoulder, head or neck, and elbow. The Rig up PCE consist of several work cycles,
which are Tree Adaptor installation, BOP installation, making the lubricator connection and
PCE secure lines installation. Each of these work cycles has different durations and tasks.
This differentiation in turn affects the type of posture and risk during certain types of work.
Therefore, it is important to measure the worker postures such as trunk, shoulders, head or
neck, knee, and elbow of a participant during each task for every work cycle involved during
the rig up PCE installation process.
There are several risk associated during the rig up PCE activity, as below :
1. Body Posture risks. The risks can be caused by the activity when installing the Tree
Adaptor since the worker position toward the ginpole location is stand side-by-side. In
the installation, the worker must be exposure toward the tree adaptors which requires
long duration till hours. The posture risk has four activities as below.
a. Opening the Christmas tree cap
b. Lifting up tree adaptor by using crane
c. Installing tree adaptor
d. Tightening the connection
2. Hand activity and lifting work risks. The risks can be caused by the installation
process of the Blow Our Preventer (BOP). The BOP installation requires four tasks as
below.
a. Lifting up BOP by using crane
b. Installing BOP connection on top of Tree Adaptor
c. Ensuring the connection is tight as per manual procedure
d. Making up Lubricator Connection
3. Risks of rotated joint angular deviation from neutral which lead to perceived
discomfort. This type of risk can be caused by the worker condition when making the
lubricator connection. This type of risks has four tasks as below.
a. Installing lifting gear on to Lubricator
b. Lifting up the lubricator with crane
c. connecting the lubricator end section on the top of BOP section
d. Ensuring the connection is tight as per manual procedure
4. Upper limb disorder risks. This type of risks can be caused by material handling when
installing the PCE Secure lines which lead to limb disorders. This risk has six types of
risk sources as below.
a. Wearing full body safety harness
b. Attaching the fall arrestor onto the full body safety harness
c. Climbing the Ginpole
d. Installing the lubricator Secure lines into the Ginpole
e. Ensuring the lubricator is secure and the lines is properly attach to the Ginpole
f. Descending the Ginpole
There are several methods to classify the workplace risk ranging from light to medium
category cases. In the Rig up activity, one of the popular approaches to evaluate the
ergonomic postural issues and to help workers avoid injuries is the Ovako working Posture
analysis (OWAS) which provides a time sampling for body postures and force [8]. Compared
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 445 [email protected]
with other methods, OWAS is a relatively simple method to verify safety level which is
related to work postures [9] as the most commonly used method. It also contains checklist
analysis to evaluate the assessment of legs, trunk and neck for repetitive task. Other methods
of working posture analysis are Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). RULA was created
to identify working postures that can lead to risks of Work-related Upper Limp Disorder
(ULD) [10,11]. RULA is a categorization method to monitor the body postures and force,
with action levels for assessment. In some workplaces, RULA is mostly used to assess
workstation risk even though it has not specific risk factors during the set-up process [12].
With increasing rate of work-related Low Back Pain (LBP), many scholars have proposed
new methods which so-called NIOSH Lifting Equation. The NIOSH lifting Equation was
proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and as standardized measurement
of posture related to biomechanical load for manual handling [13,14]. However, the method
cannot evaluate different body regions. The method are then used in combination with the
Plan for Identifying the av Belastnings faktore (PLIBEL) as a checklist with questions for
different body regions [15].
In many case, MSDs are caused by repetition of work task which needs to be measured by
more accurate methods. Some scholars have debated about the usability of the Strain Index
combining the index of six exposure factors for work tasks and the Occupational Repetitive
Actions (OCRA) [16]. Both methods similar with Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) to
measure the exposure levels for main body regions with worker responses, and scores to guide
intervention [17]. However, OCRA prioritize on the Upper Extremity (UE) as exposure
assessment tool used by ergonomics researchers and practitioners globally [16,18]. OCRA
also measures body posture and force for repetitive tasks as checklists for task, equipment,
environment and individual risk. In addition, OCRA also similar to the Rapid Entire Body
Assessment (REBA) which categorizing body postures and force, with action levels for
assessment [19,20]. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH)
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), which is a threshold limit values for hand activity and lifting
work [21,22]. To classification based on joint angular deviation from neutral and perceived
discomfort are using Upper Body Assessment (LUBA) [23,24]. Some exist Guidance such as
HSG60 for Upper Limb Disorder (ULD) which is checklist for ULD hazards in the workplace
[25], and to obtain a complete view of upper extremity load in various job, all work cycles
should be identified and observed [26]. Meanwhile Material Handling Assessment Chart
(MHAC), which are Flow charts to assess main risk factors to guide prioritization and
intervention [27].
However, the usage of checklist questions on physical load and posture for repetitive tasks
and the measurement of threshold limit values for hand activity and lifting works are rarely to
study which needs other methods. We compare among the methods and found that PERA can
evaluate the limitation of the above methods since it can measure the postural ergonomic risk
of short and long cyclic assembly work [28]
PERA method has robust capability in analysing and measuring cyclic work. It also has
higher capability than other methods to analyze every work task in the work cycle including
identification of high risk sources. PERA will be implemented in this study to measure
stressful postures for the trunk, shoulder, head or neck, and elbow. It has criteria for
classification of posture, duration, and force to determine the risk level. PERA has fourth
steps. Firstly, we will identify the work cycle which may consist of several work tasks.
Secondly, we determine the number of work tasks, a measurement for posture, force, and
duration for each work task could be obtained. Thirdly, we obtain working posture, force, and
duration for each task to be multiplied to give a task score for each work task. Fourth, we add
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 446 [email protected]
task scores into total sum and divide them by the amount of identified work tasks to determine
the overall score. Generally, PERA included these assessment items:
1. Measurement of physical load and posture for repetitive tasks
2. Determination of threshold limit values for hand activity and lifting work
3. Evaluation of joint angular deviation from neutral and perceived discomfort
4. Assessment of upper limb disorder caused by material handling assessment
5. Providing guidance on the steps of prioritization and intervention
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study used PERA risk analysis. There are several steps included for this research, which
are the task identification, data collection, and analysis. These steps are necessary in order to
obtain and analyze data accurately. Once the work cycles and tasks have been identified, a
flow chart could be developed to help visualize the research. To answer the research question
about effort to reduce MSDs, we will use PERA risk analysis. As this study has objective to
identify the risk of gesture posture during Rig up PCE installation process. This study will
measure the injury risk during the work tasks. This study also will take the operational aspects
of the Rig up PCE, effort to minimize the risk and prevention of human injury related to
wrong implementation of adequate ergonomic concept.
Figure 4 Research Flow Chart.
The research flowchart as shown in Figure 4, and illustrates the research to collect
information about work cycles.
The first step is to identify relevant tasks during the Rig up process. From the previous
section, 4 work cycles have been identified during the Rig up process with each work cycle
requiring several tasks. In total, there are 17 tasks identified, with the first work cycle having
4 tasks, the second work cycle having 3 tasks, the third work cycle having 4 tasks, and the
fourth work cycle having 6 tasks. Once identified, the potential risk for gesture and posture
for each task will be analyzed using PERA.
Once the tasks have been identified, the next step is to collect data in order to obtain the
potential risk for gesture and posture for each task. It must be noted that, due to the amount of
tasks, the data will be collected per work cycle, which in turn be classified into tasks later on.
Therefore, we will take the data through three steps, e.g. (a) interview for work duration and
complaint after each work cycle; (b) taking pictures and videos for each work cycle; (c) create
table containing the values of posture, duration, and force for each task
In the first step, we will determine the criteria for classification of demands of posture,
duration, and force by PERA such as low risk, medium risk and high risk. We also will
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 447 [email protected]
compare the posture trunk, forward bending, backward bending, asymmetric postures,
shoulder flexion/abduction. In the second step, we will measure the duration of stressed
posture with certain score such as the posture score≥2 points then the worker must shift their
task in the different work cycles.
Secondly, as the worker can work in different time duration since they get exposure with
different stressful postures, we will monitor and measure their time of duration as percentage
of cycle time toward the trunk, shoulder, head/neck, hand and also their asymmetric postures.
In the third step, we want to know the detail analysis of work cycle when the worker
perform the Rig up PCE. We will describe the task duration, posture and force especially
when they manually operate and install the component and PCE’s equipment parts.
At the fourth step, we present the risk as risk matrix for Rig up PCE Based on PERA. This
include the Risk Level Classification when the worker installing the Rig Up PCE. This
process includes the description of task score, classification of risk level and mitigation of
action. Finally, in the sixth step, we present the result of risk assessment of rig up PCE
installation process as job step and sequence of working activities including the hazards,
potential to cause harm (health, injury, property damage, environment and mitigation
measure. we also describe all existing barriers / controls for each hazard and residual risk
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Once the data has been collected, the next step would be to analyze the data using PERA. The
posture, duration, and force for each task will be analyzed using PERA by comparing them to
the Criteria for Classification of Demands of Posture, Duration, and Force by PERA as listed
in Table 1.
Table 1 Criteria for Classification of Demands of Posture, Duration, and Force by PERA [28]
Low risk (1
point) Medium risk (2
points) High risk (3 points)
Posture
Trunk
Forward bending
0°-20° (Upright)
20°-60° Greater than 60°
20°-60° with trunk support
- -
Backward bending (extension)
With trunk support
- Without trunk support
Asymmetric postures - Rotation/lateral bending 0°-10°
Rotation/lateral bending greater than 10°
Other - - Convex lumbar spine when
sitting
Shoulder Flexion/abduction
0°-20° 20°-60° Greater than 60°
20°-60° with full arm support
- -
Extension/adduction - - Greater than 0°
Head & neck
Forward bending 0°-25° 25°-40° Greater than 40°
Backward bending (extension)
- With trunk support Without trunk support
Asymmetric postures -
Sideways bending from 0° to 10°
Sideways bending greater than 10°
- Twisting (rotation)
from 0° to 45° Twisting (rotation) greater than
135°
Other
Elbow flexion/extension
0°-20° 20°-60° Greater than 60°
Knee angle while sitting
90°-135° - Less than 90° or greater than
135°
Duration Percentage of cycle
time 0%-10% 10%-20% Greater than 20%
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 448 [email protected]
Force Exertion of physical
effort
Not visible. E.g : Manipulation of light objects
Visible. E.g: smooth and controlled motion, use of both the hands
when the task does not seem very heavy
Clearly visible. E.g: low control over motion, bulging muscles,
facial expressions, gestures
- - Vibrations from powered hand
tools
- -
Counter-shocks or impulses (such as from heavy
hammering)
By comparing the posture, duration, and force to the table above, an overall score could be
obtained for each task. This overall score for each task will then be collected based on the
work cycle and averaged to obtain the work cycle score. These scores will determine which
work cycle has the most risk during the Rig up process.
Table 2 Duration of stressed posture in different work cycles
Work cycle % of work tasks
Cycle time (s)
Stressful postures duration (percentage of Cycle Time)
No. Title Trunk Shoulder Head/neck Hand
Asymmetric postures
Trunk Head/neck
1 Open X-Tree Cap 27 3 27 14 27 6 7 27 27
2 Lift up tree adaptor using crane 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 install tree adaptor 27 3 27 13 27 58 27 27
4 Tighten the connection 19 2 19 6 8 45 12 16
5 BOP Installation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 Lift up BOP using Crane 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 BOP Connection Installation on
top of Tree Adaptor 50 3 47 16 29 55 26 8
8 Ensure connection is tight 33 2 47 13 33 68 9 12
9 Making up Lubricator
Connection 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Installing lifting gear on
Lubricator and Hook up into crane Hook
12 3 56 16 23 59 17 6
11 Lift the lubricator with crane 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Connect the lubricator end section on the top of BOP
7 1 48 15 7 40 12 9
13 Ensure the connection is tight 67 10 27 16 27 58 27 27
14 PCE Secure Lines Installation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Wear full body safety harness 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 Attach the fall arrestor onto the
full body safety harness 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 Climb the Ginpole 11.1 18 27 16 29 55 26 8
18 Lubricant Secure Lines
installation 5.5 1 67 15 16 43 27 8
19 Ensure lubricator is secure and
lines are attached to the Ginpole 2.7 0.5 67 15 16 43 27 8
20 Descend from Ginpole 22.2 4 57 12 27 48 27 15
Note 1: Sum of percentage durations s 100 due to the simultaneous presence of multiple
stressful postures.
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 449 [email protected]
Work cycle
% of work tasks
Cycle time (Minutes)
Stressful postures duration (percentage of Cycle Time)
No. Title Trunk Shoulder Head/neck Hand
Asymmetric postures
Trunk Head/neck
1 Install tree Adaptor 100 11
A. Open X-Tree Cap 27 3 27 14 27 6 7 27 27
B. Lift up tree
adaptor using crane 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. Install tree
adaptor 27 3 27 13 27 58 27 27
D. Tighten the
connection 19 2 19 6 8 45 12 16
2 BOP Installation 100 6
A. Lift up BOP
using Crane 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
B. BOP Connection Installation on top of
Tree Adaptor 33 2 47 16 29 55 26 8
C. Ensure
connection is tight 17 1 47 13 33 68 9 12
3 Making up Lubricator Connection
100 15
A. Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into
crane Hook
7 1 56 16 23 59 17 6
B. Lift the lubricator
with crane 67 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. Connect the lubricator end
section on the top of BOP
20 3 48 15 7 40 12 9
D. Ensure the
connection is tight 7 1 27 16 27 58 27 27
4 PCE Secure Lines
Installation 100 18
A. Wear full body
safety harness 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
B. Attach the fall
arrestor onto the full body safety harness
3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
C. Climb the
Ginpole 21 4 27 16 29 55 26 8
D. Lubricant Secure
Lines installation 44 8 67 15 16 43 27 8
E. Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are attached to the
Ginpole
11 2 67 15 16 43 27 8
F. Descend from
Ginpole 17 3 57 12 27 48 27 15
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 450 [email protected]
Figure 5 Overview of analysed work cycle.
The first step is to analyze each work cycle using PERA. This analysis aims to observe the
postures during the rig up process in order to determine the level of risk for each task, and the
cumulative risk for each work cycle. This is explained in Table 3.
Table 3 Detail Analysis Work Cycle of Rig up PCE by PERA
No Description Duration (Minutes)
Task Duration (%Work Duration)
Posture Analyzed
Score Task Score
(D x F x P)
Duration (D)
Force (F)
Posture (P)
1 Tree Adaptor Installation
11
A Open X-Tree
Cap 3 27
Trunk forward bending 45°, Trunk Asymmetric posture
rotation 10°, Shoulder flexion 45°, Head and Neck forward bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 20°, Knee angle with sitting
60°
3 3 3 27
B Lift up tree
adaptor using crane
3 27 No postural risk since the
lifting job assisted using crane 1 1 1 1
C install tree
adaptor 3 27
Trunk forward bending 45°, Trunk Asymmetric posture
rotation 10°, Shoulder flexion 45°, Head and Neck forward bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 20°, Knee angle with sitting
60°
3 2 3 18
D Tighten the connection
2 19
Trunk forward bending 45°, Head and Neck forward
bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30°, Knee angle bending 45°
2 2 3 12
Work Cycle Average Score: 14.5
2 BOP
Installation 6
A Lift up BOP using Crane
3 50 No postural risk since the
lifting job assisted using crane 1 1 1 1
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 451 [email protected]
B
BOP Connection
Installation on top of Tree
Adaptor
2 33
Trunk forward bending 45°, Trunk Asymmetric posture
rotation 10°, Shoulder flexion 45°, Head and Neck forward bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 20°, Knee angle with sitting
60°
3 2 3 18
C Ensure
connection is tight
1 17
Trunk forward bending 45°, Head and Neck forward
bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30° , Knee angle bending 45°
2 2 3 12
Work Cycle Average Score: 10.3
3 Making up Lubricator Connection
15
A
Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into crane Hook
1 7 No postural risk since the job
performed in normal position ( Standing )
1 1 1 1
B Lift the
lubricator with crane
10 67 No postural risk since the
lifting job assisted using crane 3 1 1 3
C
Connect the lubricator end section on the top of BOP
3 20
Trunk forward bending 45°, Trunk Asymmetric posture
rotation 10°, Shoulder flexion 45°, Head and Neck forward bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 20°, Knee angle with sitting
60°
2 2 3 12
D Ensure the
connection is tight
1 7
Trunk forward bending 45°, Head and Neck forward
bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30°, Knee angle bending 45°
2 2 3 12
Work Cycle Average Score: 7
4 PCE Secure
Lines Installation
18
A Wear full body safety harness
1 5.5 No Postural risk since the task
is performed in Normal /standing position
1 1 1 1
B
Attach the fall arrestor onto the full body
safety harness
0.5 2.7 No Postural risk since the task
is performed in Normal /standing position
1 1 1 1
C Climb the Ginpole
4 22.2
Trunk Backward bending 45 °, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( lateral bending 5° ), Shoulder abduction 50°, Head and neck backward bending 30°, Knee
Bending > 90 °
3 3 3 27
D Lubricant
Secure Lines installation
8 44.4
Trunk Forward 65°, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( Rotation
15° ), Shoulder Flexion 60°, Head and neck forward
bending 45°, Knee Bending > 90°
3 3 3 27
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 452 [email protected]
E
Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are
attached to the Ginpole
2 11.1
Trunk Forward 65°, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( Rotation
15° ), Shoulder Flexion 60°, Head and neck forward
bending 45°, Knee Bending > 90°
2 3 3 18
F Descend from
Ginpole 3 16.6
Trunk Backward bending 45 °, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( lateral bending 5° ), Shoulder abduction 50°, Head and neck backward bending 30°, Knee
Bending > 90 °
2 3 3 18
Work Cycle Average Score: 15.3
Based on Table 3, it is clear that the work cycle with the highest risk is the PCE Secure
line installation, with it having an average work cycle score of 15.3. It can also be seen that
several work during the rig up process has high risk of injury, with most tasks score as high as
27. Aside from high risk tasks, several tasks during the Rig up process has low risk, however,
it must be noted that these low risks tasks only occupy a small amount of duration compared
with the high risk tasks, which makes the overall process categorized as medium to high risk.
Because of this, safety regulations during work have to deeply consider ergonomic aspects in
order to help reduce the risk of injury for workers. This would involve further training,
education, and safety tools implementation for workers so that the work could be done
properly and risks of injury could be avoided.
Once the level of risk for each task and work cycle has been determined, the next step is to
determine recommended actions and mitigation in order to help reduce the risks. This is
shown in Table 4 below. The score given for the is based on the Cube Method and Risk
Matrix based on PERA, shown in Fig.6, which utilize the posture, force, and duration for each
task. The recommended solutions are primary based from a technical standpoint in order to
make it applicable to workers so that each task could be safer and yield fewer risk.
Figure 6 Risk Matrix for Rig up PCE Based on PERA
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 453 [email protected]
Table 4 Risk Level Classification of Rig Up PCE by PERA
No Description Task Score (A) Classification
of Risk Level
Recommended Action
Mitigation
1 Tree Adaptor Installation
A Open X-Tree Cap 27 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Install a proper scaffolding to make a proper posture and footstep, Use special
Air rotator tool to loosen the nut easier and shortened task duration
B Lift up tree
adaptor using crane
1 Low risk Acceptable; No
action is necessary
C install tree adaptor 18 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Keep the back straight and sit on the scaffolding, Avoid Squat position that
creating sit angle and leg force to sustain the body.
D Tighten the connection
12 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Use Proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending.,
Load share with team crew if necessary to reduce the force exposure.
2 BOP Installation
A Lift up BOP using
Crane 1 Low risk
Acceptable; No action is
necessary
B BOP Connection Installation on top of Tree Adaptor
18 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Keep the body straight while rotating the nut or the connection, Bend the knee and
body only when it necessary such as fit the pin and the box connector or sitting flange
to flange.
C Ensure connection
is tight 12 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Use proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending,
Consider the distance while hammering to get enough space and relax position
3 Making up Lubricator Connection
A
Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into
crane Hook
1 Low risk Acceptable; No
action is necessary
B Lift the lubricator
with crane 3 Low risk
Acceptable; No action is
necessary
C
Connect the lubricator end
section on the top of BOP
12 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Sit properly while connect the lubricator, Greasing the thread before make up to get
easier connect.
D Ensure the
connection is tight 12 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Use proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending,
Consider the distance while hammering to get enough space and relax position
4 PCE Secure Lines
Installation
A Wear full body safety harness
1 Low risk Acceptable; No
action is necessary
B
Attach the fall arrestor onto the full body safety
harness
1 Low risk Acceptable; No
action is necessary
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 454 [email protected]
C Climb the Ginpole 27 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Observe the job sequence by engineering control, Eliminate the climb job sequence
when it’s not really necessary
D Lubricant Secure Lines installation
27 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
New Design for lubricating line form down site is important to improve the job
sequence, Install hose lubricant that connect with the top lubricator before make up to minimize working at high
hazard.
E
Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are attached to the
Ginpole
18 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
Use special securing tool to reduce the postural and force risk.
F Descend from
Ginpole 18 High risk
Unacceptable; Corrective action is
necessary
It’s not necessary when the new design created, Descend slowly and calm to relax
the muscle
(_^*) A < 4 = Low risk, 4 ≤ A ≥ 7 = Possible risk, A ≥ 7 = High risk
Based on Table 4, it is shown that the Rig up PCE, obtained using PERA, has a 64.7%
high risk and only a 35.3% low risk. This is further visualized by Fig.6 to which illustrates the
high risk tasks as red, medium risk tasks as yellow, and low risk tasks as green. Because of
this, the Rig UP PCE process as a whole can be categorized as having a high level risk. With
the inclusion of recommended actions and mitigation measures, a risk assessment could be
made in order to reduce the risk for each work cycle. In general, this risk assessment
determines the hazard, causes, and consequence for each work cycle, and a score is given to
determine the risk. Once the score has been determined, mitigation and recommended actions
were proposed, to which would yield a final score for the work cycle after mitigation
measures and recommended actions have been implemented.
Table 5 Risk Assessment of Rig up PCE
No
Job Step Sequence
of working activities
Hazard The potential to cause
harm (Health, injury, Property
damage, environment,
etc.)
Cause (Possible
causes that will
potentially release a hazard)
Consequences (The harm
which could possibly occur).
Po
ten
tia
l R
isk
H
/M/L
Mitigation Measure (Barrier / Control)
Describe all existing barriers
/ controls for each hazard
Res
idu
al
Ris
k
H/M
/L
1 Tree
Adaptor Installation
Hand and finger injury or Pinched, Gesture posture
injury (LBP,MSDs),
Hydrocarbon/toxic gas release to atmosphere,
Lifting hazard (Crane sling)
High wind and rough
sea, Failure to adopt safe
work practice, Human error, Crane failure,
Uncertified Tree
adaptor, Seal or O
Ring failure
Injury or Fatality, Asset Damage, Oil spill or gas
leak, Environment damage (Oil
Spill), Explosion
(Gas release)
High
PTW Control, Stop work during
bad weather (Wind speed,
Rain, Lightning, etc.), Certified and Competent crew, History of
well and well condition
available with operator, All
tools and equipment
certifications to verified and
accepted as per standard
procedures,
Medium
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 455 [email protected]
Production Engineering
standard Procedure to be followed, Apply
safe Gesture, posture and
manual handling properly, Wear
Proper PPE.
2 BOP
Installation
Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury / Pinched, Gesture posture
injury ( LBP, MSDs ), Lifting
hazard, Incompetent Operator /
Banksman, Slips and trips
High wind or rough
sea, Failure to adopt safe
work practice, Human error, Crane failure
Injury or Fatality, Asset
damage, Operation
Delay
High
Certified and Competent crew,
Certified and valid crane and
all lifting equipment PTW
Control, Stop work during bad weather (Wind
speed, Rain, Lightning, etc.),
Apply safe Gesture, posture
and manual handling properly.
Medium
3 Making up Lubricator connection
Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury / Pinched, Gesture posture
injury ( LBP, MSDs ), Lifting
hazard, Incompetent Operator or
Banksman, Slips and trips
High wind or rough
sea, Human error, Crane failure,
Failure to adopt safe
work practice
Injury or Fatality, Asset damage, Delay in Operation
Medium
Certified and Competent crew,
Certified and valid crane and
all lifting equipment PTW
Control stop work during bad weather (Wind
speed, Rain, Lightning, etc.),
Apply safe Gesture, posture
and manual handling properly.
Low
4
PCE Secure Line
Installation
Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger
injury or Pinched, Gesture posture
injury ( LBP, MSDs )
High wind or rough
sea, Human error,
Failure to adopt safe
work practice
Injury or Fatality
High
Certified and Competent crew PTW Control,
Stop work during bad weather (Wind speed,
Rain, Lightning, etc.), Apply safe Gesture, posture
and manual handling properly.
Medium
From Table 5, it can be seen that most of the work cycle during the rig up process initially
has high level of risk. Because of this, much of the work cycle requires high priority for
mitigation measures which in turn, need more monitoring strategy to get higher safety. Once
implemented, it is clear that the mitigation measures helped reduce the risk for each work
cycle by one level, making most of the work having medium risk. Once the final score for
each work cycle has been given, a design and solution could be determined in order to resolve
this issue.
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 456 [email protected]
There are several things that can be done in order to make the workplace safer. One of the
ways is to decrease the possibility of ergonomic risk of related work. Here are some of the
ways that could help to reduce ergonomic risk.
1. Relocation or redesigning the work place
a. Work that is done from a height or more than 2 meters was changed into less than
2 meters, For example, Scaffolding (Operating Platform) to do T1: Tree adapter
installation, T2: BOP installation, T3: Lubricator installation). This can be done
but generate additional work and additional cost to create Operating platform /
install scaffolding. So in consideration becomes uneconomical.
b. Moving the work from what should be done on the Well Platform to the Work
Barge. For example Connecting a Tree adapter (T1) with BOP (T2) and also
connecting the Lubricator (T3) to 1 unit in the Work barge, so that T1, T2 and T3
jobs are performed only once on the platform. This means minimizing the step is
the same as minimizing hazard. And also work in the work barge is much safer
because it can avoid the risk Weather concern (Rain, Lightning (Lightning), Low
Visibility, etc.) so that risk to the Human also becomes lower. For this option, the
limiting factor of this is the Crane capacity, where the available Crane only has
SWL (Safe Working Load) of 2.3 Tons. If T1 + T2 + T3 is done in the work barge,
the L (total) becomes 3200 kg or 3.2 Tons, whereas SWL crane has a limitation of
only 2.3 Tons.
2. Modify Ginpole design and activities
From PERA calculation we have identified that activity or work related to the Ginpole
(Climbing, Standing on top of Ginpole to install the secure lines) generate High risk. So if it
can do the work without using or involving Ginpole then, by itself, risk or hazard related to
the Ginpole could be eliminated.
Figure 7 Final Recommendation to Change the Workspace
Figure 7 shows a set up PCE without using Ginpole. The PCE (Lubricator + BOP) is
instead secured by using Guy lines so that Workers do not need to climb the Ginpole to secure
line from lubricator to Ginpole. Set up method by using guy lines is very safe to workers
because of the no longer needed climbing activity and work on Ginpole (Fig.7). However, this
method has several following shortcomings:
a. All loads will be held (Hanging load of PCE will be held) by crane all the time.
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 457 [email protected]
b. Because the barge is floating and the well platform is fixed, tension changes may
happen on the crane. This will ultimately cause the lifting gear to fatigue.
However, this can be mitigated by a standby crane operator during work to
compensate for tension change.
3. Minimize the activity. Make job Turnover and determine the maximum exposure time.
Based on statistics, it can be determined that the average per person doing the job T1
until T4 Is as much as 1 to 2 times each shift. Then the intensity can be reduced by
changing the working sequence, for example: Worker 1 is doing T1 and T3 only but
not doing T2 and T4, where, based on previous sequence, T1 until T4 is performed by
1 person sequentially. This causes the Total Exposure Time to be longer (Total Time =
tT1 + tT2 + tT3 = tT4) which causes the "Risk" injury LBP and MSDs to be greater,
where Exposure Time per sequence should only be tT1 + tT4.
Solutions that can be recommended for this research are:
1. Eliminate the main hazard. The main hazards that have been identified are:
a. Working at high altitude
b. Working with Ginpole (Awkward GP has high risk to LBP and MSDs)
2. Minimize the hazard
a. Limit Rig Up PCE work. This is certainly counter-productive in terms of job
efficiency because the number of jobs that can be completed in a certain period of
time will decrease if the number of work is restricted. However, this can be done
by increasing the number of workers per shift so that the number of Rig up activity
remain the same. It must be noted that, because of this, the consideration of cost to
increase the number of workers become the determining factor.
b. Minimize Continuous Time Exposure (Change Work Sequence). The time
exposure for each worker can be broken down, because of this 1 worker who
previously performed T1 to T4 in sequence can now work only T1 + T3 where T2
+ T4 is done by another worker
3. Protect the worker with PPE that can be used for T1 until T4 are:
a. Risks of working at altitudes such as falling at high altitudes can be avoided with
appropriate use of PPE such as using Fall arrestor and full body safety harness and
also regular inspection of the PPE used to be done properly by certified or
competence inspector [29]
b. As for minimizing the risk of injury to gesture posture errors can be minimized by
using Spinal Back Support, but this cannot completely eliminate risk factors
because of workplace limitations in Ginpole causing the body to adjust to the
workplace to which the Workplace should be tailored to the needs of GP workers.
4. Use other methods such as Rig up using a hydraulic mast system. Where rig up is
done in horizontal position after connecting then rig up vertically with Hydraulic mast
unit, which establish lubricator from horizontal position to vertical. This method requires
a large area or space to put the Mast unit, because of this, it cannot be done in offshore
installation because the space is very limited.
5. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rig up process involves 4 work cycles and 17 tasks with each task having
their own scores. From the analysis, it can be determined that the PCE Secure line installation
has the highest average work cycle score with the value of 15.3. Aside from obtaining the
work cycle with the highest risk, it can also be concluded that most of the work during the Rig
Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service
Activities
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 458 [email protected]
up process has high risk of injury with 64.7% high risk and only a 35.3% low risk obtained
using the PERA method. Because of this, safety regulations have to deeply consider
ergonomic aspects in order to reduce the risk of injury for workers. Several solutions that
could be recommended in order to help reduce risk is by eliminating the main hazards,
minimize potential hazards, protect with PPE, and the use of other method such as Rig up
using a hydraulic mast system. Another way to reduce risk is by redesign the workspace to
create a safer environment for workers and support ergonomic work.
REFERENCES
[1] Arjmand , N., Amini, M., Adi, A. S., Plamondon, A., & Parnianpour, M. (2015). Revised
NIOSH Lifting Equation May generate spine loads exceeding recommended limits.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1-8.
[2] Batish, A., & Singh, T. P. (2008). MHAC-An Assessment Tool for Analysing Manual
Material Handling Tasks. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics,
223-235.
[3] Bidiawati, J., & Suryani, E. (2015). Improving The Work Position of Worker's Based on
Quick Exposure Check Method to Reduce the Risk of Work Related Musculokeletal
Disorders. Procedia Manufacturing, 496-503.
[4] Bulduk, S., Bulduk, E., & Suren, T. (2016). Reduction of Work-Related Musculoskeletal
Risk Factors Following Ergonomics Education of Sewing Machine Operators.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 352-357.
[5] Chander, D. S., & Cavatorta, M. P. (2017). An observational method for Postural
Ergonomic Risk Assessment (PERA). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 32-
41.
[6] Chiasson, M., Imbeau, D., Major, J., Aubry, K., & Delisle, A. (2016). Influence of
musculokeletal pain on workers' ergonomic risk factor assessment. Applied Ergonomics,
1-7.
[7] David, G. C. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-
related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, 190-199.
[8] Excecutive, H. a. (1992). Manual Handling Operations Regulations. Suffolk: HSE Books.
[9] Executive, H. a. (2002). Upper Limb Disorders in the Workplace HSG60. Suffolk: HSE
Books.
[10] Fehrmann, G. (1994). Safety Issues Regarding Temporary Wellhead Pressure Control
Equipment Used in Wireline Service Operations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[11] Ghasemi, M. S., Hosseinzadeh, P., Zamani, F., Dehghan, N., & Ahmadpoor, H. (2016).
Ergonomic design and evaluation of a diagnostic ultrasound transound transducer holder.
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 519-523.
[12] Hignett, S., & McAtammey, L. (2000). Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Applied
Ergonomics, 201-205.
[13] Hutson, M. (2014). Work related upper limb disorders. Indian Journal of Rheumatology,
S6-S12.
[14] Karhu, O., Kansi, P., & Kuorinka, I. (1977). Correcting working posture in industry: a
practical method for analysis. Applied Ergonomics, 199-201.
[15] Kee, D., & Karwowski, W. (2001). LUBA: an assessment technique for postural loading
on the upper body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time. Applied
Ergonomics, 357-366.
[16] Kemmlert, K. (1995). A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazards-
PLIBEL. Applied Ergonomics, 199-211.
Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 459 [email protected]
[17] Ketola , R., Toivonen, R., & ViiKari-Juntura, E. (2001). Inter-observer repeatability and
validity of an observation method to assess physical Loads imposed on the upper
extremities. Ergonomics, 119-131.
[18] Keyserling, M., Brouwer, M., & Silverstein, B. (1992). A checklist for evaluating
ergonomic risk factors resulting from awkward postures of the legs, trunk, and neck.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 283-301.
[19] Klassen, W. (2013). Secondary Intervention of Blow Out Preventers. Society of
Petroleum.
[20] Li, G., & Buckle, P. (1999). Evaluating Change in Exposure to Risk for Muscoloskeletal
Disorders-A Practical Toll. In HSE Books.
[21] Liebregts, J., Sonne, M., & Potvin, J. R. (2015). Photograph-based ergonomic evaluations
using the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA). Applied Ergonomics, 317-324.
[22] Madani, D. A., & Dababneh, A. (2016). Rapid Entire Body Assessment: A literature
review. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 107-118.
[23] McAtamney, L., & Corlett, E. (1993). RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 91-99.
[24] Monnington , S., Quarrie, C., Pinder, A., & Morris, L. (2003). Development of Manual
Handling Assessment Charts (MAC) for health and safety inspections. In Taylor, &
Francis, Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 3-8). London: McCabe T.
[25] Moore, J., & Garg, A. (1995). The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk
of distal upper extremity disorders. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,
443-458.
[26] Mosali, P. R. (2016). Multifactor association of job, individual and phychosocial factors in
prevalence of distal upper extremity disorders and qualification of job physical exposure.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40-45.
[27] Naddeo, A., Cappetti, N., & D'Oria, C. (2015). Proposal of a new quantitative method for
postural comfort evaluation. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25-35.
[28] Occhipinti , E. (1998). OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to repetitive
movements of the upper limb. Ergonomics, 1290-1311.
[29] Rosecrane, J., Paulsen, R., & Murgia, L. (2017). Risk assessment of cheese processing
tasks using the Strain Index and OCRA Checklist. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 142-148.
[30] Mr. Prakash Salunke, Dr. Srikant Kallurkar and Dr. Nemade. Identifying Anthropometric
Parameters Considered for the Improvement in Ergonomic Design of Classroom
Furniture. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development,
6(1), 2015, pp. 01-13.
[31] Kathiravan S and Gunarani G I, Ergonomic Performance Assessment (EPA) using RULA
and REBA for Residential Construction in Tamil Nadu, International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 836–843
[32] Rakesh, G Kumar and S.C. Roy, Ergonomic Investigation and Their Effect on
Productivity of Micro, Small & Medium Industry of Jharkhand State, International Journal
of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), Volume 5, Issue 3, May -
June (2014), pp. 01-12
[33] Nkakini, S. O. and Vurasi, N. M.. Ergonomic Evaluation of Lawn Mower Operation for
Comfort in Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Research in
Engineering and Technology, 6(7), 2015, pp. 43-51.