Volume 9, Issue 1 (Spring 2022)
johe 2022, 9(1): 1-11 |
Back to browse issues page
1- Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
2- Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran , javad.g1374@gmail.com
2- Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran , javad.g1374@gmail.com
Abstract: (1620 Views)
Background and Objective: Operators of mining and construction machinery are more exposed to the risks and accidents of these machines, as well as the possibility of injuries and occupational diseases. Ergonomic design parameters and the current condition of the machines play a significant role in reducing the risk factors associated with occupational injuries.
Materials and Methods: The study population in this study includes 80 machines of the two contractors of road construction and tailings. The total negative score of each machine was calculated using a checklist containing 25 questions on such indicators as cabin access, user location, access to control levers, visibility, as well as environmental factors, such as sound level and vibration sensation in the cabin space, based on the method of scoring cabin ergonomic indicators. In this classification, any machine that receives a lower negative score will be better ergonomically.
Results: The negative score of machines rises with their age. The highest level of dissatisfaction pertained to cabin noise, vibration, cabin and operator seat design, cabin air conditioning, and ease of access, respectively.
Conclusion: Due to financial constraints in most mining and construction companies, it seems that the ergonomics of existing machines can be improved by the implementation of machine maintenance programs using up-to-date and efficient equipment, replacement of outdated parts with new ones, as well as training users to adapt the cabin to personal needs.
Materials and Methods: The study population in this study includes 80 machines of the two contractors of road construction and tailings. The total negative score of each machine was calculated using a checklist containing 25 questions on such indicators as cabin access, user location, access to control levers, visibility, as well as environmental factors, such as sound level and vibration sensation in the cabin space, based on the method of scoring cabin ergonomic indicators. In this classification, any machine that receives a lower negative score will be better ergonomically.
Results: The negative score of machines rises with their age. The highest level of dissatisfaction pertained to cabin noise, vibration, cabin and operator seat design, cabin air conditioning, and ease of access, respectively.
Conclusion: Due to financial constraints in most mining and construction companies, it seems that the ergonomics of existing machines can be improved by the implementation of machine maintenance programs using up-to-date and efficient equipment, replacement of outdated parts with new ones, as well as training users to adapt the cabin to personal needs.
Article number: 1
Type of Study: Research Article |
Subject:
Ergonomics
References
1. Limaei M. Evaluation of Some Ergonomic Indicators of Primary wood Transportation Machines in Hyrcanian Forests Logging. J Res Appl Agri Eng. 2019;8(1):49-55.
2. Hämäläinen P, Takala J, Kiat TB. Global estimates of occupational accidents and work-related illnesses 2017. Singapore; Workplace Safety and Health: 2017.
3. Duarte J, Baptista JS, Marques AT. Evidence of occupational accidents with equipment in mining - a systematic review protocol. Int J Occup Environ Safe. 2018;2(2): 84-88. DOI:10.24840/2184-0954_002.002_0009 [DOI:10.24840/2184-0954_002.002_0009]
4. de Arruda AF, Gontijo LM. Application of ergonomics principles in underground mines through the Occupational Safety and Health Management System-OSHMS OHSAS 18.001: 2007. Work. 2012;41(1): 4460-7. PMID: 22317408 DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0119-4460 [DOI:10.3233/WOR-2012-0119-4460] [PMID]
5. Amiri S, Naserkhaki S, Parnianpour M. Effect of whole-body vibration and sitting configurations on lumbar spinal loads of vehicle occupants. Comput Biol Med. 2019;107:292-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.02.019 [DOI:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.02.019] [PMID]
6. Jamalizadeh Z, Asivandzadeh E, Zare K, Nazifipour M, Yari P. Can exposure to whole body vibration in operators of construction vehicles affect the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders? A research study in construction projects. J Occup Hyg Eng. 2020;6(4):41-9. DOI: 10.52547/ johe.6.4.41 [DOI:10.52547/johe.6.4.41]
7. Häggström C, Lindroos O. Human, technology, organization and environment-a human factors perspective on performance in forest harvesting. J For Eng. 2016;27(2):67-78. DOI: 10.1080/14942119.2016.1170495 [DOI:10.1080/14942119.2016.1170495]
8. Horberry T, Burgess-Limerick R, Steiner LJ. Human factors for the design, operation, and maintenance of mining equipment. New York: Rotledge, Taylor and Francis Group: 2011.
9. Schettino S, Costa Campos JC, Minette LJ, de Souz AP. Work precariousness: ergonomic risks to operators of machines adapted for forest harvesting. Rev Árvore . 2017;41(1):1- 9. DOI: 10.1590/1806-90882017000100009 [DOI:10.1590/1806-90882017000100009]
10. Mathesan K, Mohan A, Visagavel K, Deepakraja V, Balaji P, Selvakumar A. Study and Analysis of Body Postures Using Ergonomic Assessment Tools in Drilling Operations. J Saf Eng. 2015;2(1):28-42.
11. Keyserling WM, Brouwer M, Silverstein BA. A checklist for evaluating ergonomic risk factors resulting from awkward postures of the legs, trunk and neck. Int J Ind Ergon. 1992;9(4):283-301. DOI: 10.1016/0169-8141(92)90062-5 [DOI:10.1016/0169-8141(92)90062-5]
12. Schutte PC, Shaba MN. Ergonomics of mining machinery and transport in the South African mining industry. Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee. 2003.
13. Kittusamy NK. A checklist for evaluating cab design of construction equipment. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2003;18(10):721-3. DOI: 10.1080/10473220301446 [DOI:10.1080/10473220301446] [PMID]
14. Gellerstedt S. European ergonomic and safety guidelines for forest machines. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 2006.
15. Nasarwanji MF, Pollard J, Porter W. An analysis of injuries to front-end loader operators during ingress and egress. Int J Ind Ergon. 2018;65:84-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2017. 07.006 [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2017.07.006] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Hakimi HA, Mohammadi TA. Reducing the exposure of operators with sound by acoustic insulation of mining machine in Sarcheshmeh copper mine. 6th Conference on Safety, Health and Environment in Mines and Mining Industrie. 2006.
17. Mayton A, Jobes C, Miller R. Comparison of whole-body vibration exposures on older and newer haulage trucks at an aggregate stone quarry operation nternational Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. 2008;5:685-91. [DOI:10.1115/DETC2008-50120]
18. Hakimi HA, Mohammadi TA. Investigation and control of human vibration in the heavy vehicles of the Sarcheshmeh copper mine. 6th Conference on Safety, Health and Environment in Mines and Mining Industrie. 2006.
19. Ferrone CW. Heavy Equipment Controls Guarding to Prevent Unintended Contact and Inadvertent Machine Motion (A Mechanical and Human Factors Analysis). ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Conference. 2010. [DOI:10.1115/IMECE2010-37336]
20. Earth-moving machinery Safety Requirements for trenchers. (2007). Standard Number: BS EN 474-10:2006+A1:2009. BSI Group.
21. Earth-moving machinery - Operator's field of view - Test method and performance criteria. 2017. https://www.iso.org/ standard/45609.html
22. Earth-moving machinery-Laboratory evaluation of operator seat vibration. 2000. https://www.iso.org/standard/ 68965.html
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |