Interventions for Overhead Drilling

1

• Interventions for Overhead Drilling
• Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR)
• Billy Gibbons, MBA (Portland, OR)
• Ira Janowitz, PT, CPE
• Alan Barr, MS
• David Rempel, MD
• University of California, San Francisco
• University of California, Berkeley
• Center for Occupational and Environmental Health
• Ergonomics Program

2
Overhead Drilling into Concrete

• Sheet metal work

inserts/anchors/racks/straps for
ducts/pipes/conduits
Building trades sheet metal, plumbing,
electrical
3
Risks from Overhead Drilling

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

4
Shoulder/arm loads
5
Interventions
6
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

7
Phase I - Development

• 20 construction workers
• Use 3 devices on one day 1 hour each
• Outcomes
• Device Questionnaire
• Comparison Questionnaire
• Modify devices
• Repeat

8
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

9
Phase III - Dissemination

• Trades
• Contractors
• Purchasers
• Tool Manufacturers
• HS Construction Professionals

10
Phase I - Development
11
Inverted Drill Press
Gen 1
Gen 2
12
Gen 1
Gen 2
Inverted Drill Press Close Up of Gears
13
Gen 1
Gen 2
Foot Lever Drill Press
14
Drills and Saddles
15
Successful Outreach
Contractors Rosendin Electric Cherry City
Electric JH Kelly Advanced Technology
Group Temp Control Mechanical Interstate
Mechanical Industries Streimer Sheetmetal LH
Sowles Electric Construction Co Oregon Electric
Group Construction Skanska Turner Layton A
nderson Owner Intel Sea-Tac Unions IBEW
Local 48 UA Local 290 SMWIA Local 16
16
GOSH Conference Booth
17
GOSH Conference Booth
18
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

19
Presentations
UBC/UW Annual Safety and Health Conference,
2005 TNO, Amsterdam, 2005 International
Ergonomics Association, Maastricht, 2006
20
Phase I - Development

• 20 workers
• Usual Overhead drilling
• Demographic Questionnaire
• Each device for 1 hr
• Observer notes
• Device Questionnaire
• End of day
• Comparison Questionnaire

21
Phase I - Development
22
Phase I - Development
23
Device Questionnaire
Ease of Device On a Scale of 0-5 where 0 is
difficult and 5 is easy, how would you rate this
device for the following characteristics
Difficult Easy Setting-Up 0 1 2 3 4 5
Moving 0 1 2 3 4 5 Fine Positioning 0 1 2 3 4
5 Activating Drill 0 1 2 3 4 5 Drilling 0 1 2 3
4 5 Knowing when drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5 is
complete
24
Device Questionnaire
Appeal On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is poor
and 5 is excellent, please rate the
following Poor
Excellent Accuracy 0 1 2 3 4 5 Control
0 1 2 3 4 5 Stability 0 1 2 3 4 5 Looks
(aesthetics) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Durability
0 1 2 3 4 5 Feel 0 1 2 3 4 5
25
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?
26
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 Fatigued Neck 0 1 2 3 4
5 Shoulders 0 1 2 3 4 5 Hands
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?
27
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?
28
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 Usual
• Device 1 Device 2 Method
• Set-Up _______ _______ _______
• Moving _______ _______ _______
• Ease of Use _______ _______ _______
• Accuracy _______ _______ _______
• Productivity _______ _______ _______
• Comfort _______ _______ _______
• Overall _______ _______ _______

29
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

30
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

31
Phase Ib - Development

• Adjustable Castor Base

32
Phase Ib - Development

• Collar Base

33
Phase Ib - Development
34
Phase Ib - Development
35
Phase Ib - Development
36
Phase Ib - Development
37
Phase Ib - Development
38
Phase Ib - Development
39
Phase Ib - Development
40
Phase Ib - Development
41
Phase Ib - Development
Feedback Very positive Collar and spring - top
ratings 3 wheel base not 4 wheel Improve depth
stop (add light) Add dust control Scissor
lift device too tall hinge drill base too
large attach to railing Not tall enough add
extension Move switch closer to handle
42
Problems

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

43
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

44
Comments?