Interventions for Overhead Drilling

Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR)Billy Gibbons, MBA (Portland, OR)Ira Janowitz, PT, CPEAlan Barr, MSDavid Rempel, MD

University of California, San FranciscoUniversity of California, Berkeley

Center for Occupational and Environmental HealthErgonomics Program

Overhead Drilling into Concrete

Sheet metal work

inserts/anchors/racks/straps for ducts/pipes/conduits

Building trades: sheet metal, plumbing, electrical

Risks from Overhead Drilling

• Falls• Dust Exposure• Noise• Shoulder and Arm Disorders

Shoulder/arm loads

Interventions

5 year project

• Phase I (YR1) – Develop Interventions• Phase II (YR2-4) – Evaluate Interventions• Phase III (YR 5) – Disseminate Findings

• Funding– Center to Protect Workers Rights– NIOSH

Phase I - Development

• 20 construction workers

• Use 3 devices on one day – 1 hour each

• Outcomes– Device Questionnaire– Comparison Questionnaire

• Modify devices

• Repeat

Phase II - Evaluation

• 120 Construction workers• Use ‘best’ 2 interventions, each for 1 day• Outcomes

– Arm, shoulder and neck pain – Shoulder and neck posture (inclinometer)

• Peter Johnson (UW)• Steve Robinovitch (SFU)

– Shoulder and forearm EMG– Handle vibration (Bernard Martin (UM))

– Productivity

Phase III - Dissemination

• Trades

• Contractors

• Purchasers

• Tool Manufacturers

• H&S Construction Professionals

Phase I - Development

Gen 1 Gen 2

Inverted Drill Press

Gen 1 Gen 2

Inverted Drill Press Close Up of Gears

Gen 1 Gen 2

Foot LeverDrill Press

Drills and Saddles

Successful Outreach

ContractorsRosendin Electric Cherry City ElectricJH Kelly Advanced Technology GroupTemp Control Mechanical Interstate Mechanical IndustriesStreimer Sheetmetal LH SowlesElectric Construction Co Oregon Electric Group

ConstructionSkanska TurnerLayton Anderson

OwnerIntel Sea-Tac

UnionsIBEW Local 48UA Local 290SMWIA Local 16

GOSH Conference Booth

GOSH Conference Booth

Cross Industry Partnerships

• Toyota Logistics-Portland, Oregon

• Toyota safety committee member (Teamster) saw our display at a conference

• ODP /Toyota team consultation to incorporate modified version of our inverted drill press into their operation

Presentations

UBC/UW Annual Safety and Health Conference, 2005TNO, Amsterdam, 2005International Ergonomics Association, Maastricht, 2006

Phase I - Development

• 20 workers• Usual Overhead drilling

– Demographic Questionnaire

• Each device for 1 hr– Observer notes– Device Questionnaire

• End of day– Comparison Questionnaire

Phase I - Development

Phase I - Development

Device Questionnaire

Ease of DeviceOn a Scale of 0-5 where 0 is difficult and 5 is easy, how would you rate this device for the following characteristics:

Difficult EasySetting-Up 0 1 2 3 4 5Moving 0 1 2 3 4 5Fine Positioning 0 1 2 3 4 5Activating Drill 0 1 2 3 4 5Drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5Knowing when drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5 is complete

Device Questionnaire

Appeal On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is poor and 5 is excellent, please rate the following:

Poor ExcellentAccuracy 0 1 2 3 4 5Control 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stability 0 1 2 3 4 5Looks (aesthetics) 0 1 2 3 4 5Durability 0 1 2 3 4 5Feel 0 1 2 3 4 5

Device Questionnaire

How would you describe this device compared to your usual method of drilling? (circle one)

Slower Same Faster

What would you change to improve the ease of using this device?

Device Questionnaire

Fatigue (Tiredness)On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigued and 5 is very fatigued, please rate the following after using the device:

No Fatigue Very FatiguedNeck 0 1 2 3 4 5 Shoulders 0 1 2 3 4 5Hands & Forearms 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Back 0 1 2 3 4 5 Legs 0 1 2 3 4 5

How would you change this device to reduce pain or fatigue to the operator?

Device Questionnaire

What three things do you like about this device?

What three things do you dislike about this device?

If available, would you use this device again next time? Yes No

Why or why not?

Comparison Questionnaire

Rank the drilling method for each characteristic, where 1 is the best, 2 is the second best, 3 is the worst.

Photo Photo UsualDevice 1 Device 2 Method

Set-Up _______ _______ _______Moving _______ _______ _______Ease of Use _______ _______ _______Accuracy_______ _______ _______Productivity _______ _______ _______Comfort _______ _______ _______Overall _______ _______ _______

Phase I - Development

• 14 workers– 14% female– 7% hispanic

• Outcomes– Subject preferred usual method for ease and speed– Video analysis: device drilling faster– Less fatigue with devices– Preference: inverted drill press over foot lever– Improve

• Mobility, balance• Decrease weight• Handle design• Ease of set-up – leveling, hitting hole mark• Cord handling

Phase Ib - Development

• Phase 1b designs (3rd generation)– Modular (3 bases)– Rebuild gearing system– Change handles– Use aluminum for saddles and bases– Add locking castors– Channel power cords– Add depth stop

Phase Ib - Development

Adjustable Castor Base

Phase Ib - Development

Collar Base

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development

FeedbackVery positiveCollar and spring - top ratings3 wheel base not 4 wheelImprove depth stop (add light)Add dust controlScissor lift

device too tall – hinge drillbase too large – attach to railing

Not tall enoughadd extension

Move switch closer to handle

Problems

•Construction site access•Each setting learn something new•Redesigning and building devices takes time•Budget•Involving tool companies (e.g., Hilti, Milwaukee)

•patent

Plans

•Complete Phase I testing by May 31•Begin Phase II testing August 1

•Inclinometers purchased and being field tested•Vibration measurement system purchased

•Dissemination planning underway

Comments?