18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015...18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015 – El-Aqua WSH workplace injuries & occupational diseases in 2013 & 2014 Injury Type % of 13/14’s

EL – AQUA Fatigue Free Hull Flat Bottom Hydro Blaster

18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015

Presented By:

Painting Department

Team Dynamic Seahorse

Sembcorp Marine Admiralty Yard

Picture

Team Introduction

Project Facilitator

Mr. Ahmad Rosli Team Leader

Mr. Rais Bin Taib Mr. Lee Zhao Qi Mr. Patrick Kok Mr. Saurabh Bajaj Mr. Ren KeYing Mr. Indra Lal Datta

18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015 – El-Aqua

Dynamic Seahorse Team Members

Department Operation Introduction

Corrosion control & Coating Preservation

- Removal of existing paint & rust

- Prepare the surface for coating application

- Laborious, long & tedious

- High risk in nature

Higher probability of injuries & accident occurrence


Project Execution P-D-C-A Cycle


PLAN DO CHECK ACT

Project Selection

To reduce injuries arising from:

1. Abrasive Blasting operations

2. Painting operations

1. Hydro Jetting operations

2. Power Tooling operations


D A P C

Data Collection & Analysis


WSH workplace injuries & occupational diseases in 2013 & 2014

Injury Type % of 13/14’s

Injuries

Safety

Crushing, fractures & dislocation (Major) 52.7 %

Amputations (Major) 19.2 %

Cut & bruises (Minor) 39.7 %

Crushing, fractures & dislocation (Minor) 24.3 %

Health Back injuries due to ergonomic risk

(Occupational Diseases)

30.4 %

* Recorded workplace injuries & confirmed occupational dieseases in 203 & 2014, obtained from WSH

Insitute Annual Report



Serious Cuts & Back Injuries are

common injuries found within our operations

Hand, Finger

& Arm

43% Leg

19%

Others

12%

Back

11%

Eyes

6%

Head / Face

5%

Multiple

4%

Admiralty Yard HSE Reported Injuries in 2013 & 2014

(150 in total)



Hydro-blasting identified as the Most Hazardous operation

Power Tooling

(Project 1)

9%

Hydro-Jetting

at 30k psi

(Project 3)

34% Grit Blasting

(Project 2)

30%

Painting

(Project 4)

26%

Survey on Hazardous Operations of Painting Department

(2013 to 2014)

High Pressure Jet & Ergonomics

identified as the Most Hazardous

Ergonomics

29%

Close

proximity with

high pressure

jet

32%

Tripping

7%

Noise

5%

Wet

Environment

8%

Low Visibility

14%

Flying Debris

5%

Hydro-Jetter’s Survey on Hazards (2013 to 2014)



Hazard & Risk Identification

1. Permanent / Temporary disability

a. Cuts

b. Amputations

1. Insufficient reaction time

2. Extreme concentration demands

Close Proximity to

High Pressure Jet

Factor 1

Factors contributing to potential hydro-jetting injuries & accidents




1. Fatigue due to task load or duration

2. Limited ability to sustain body position

1. Musculoskeletal disorders & injuries

Ergonomic Hazards

Factor 2


Hazard & Risk Identification Factors contributing to potential hydro-jetting injuries & accidents


Poor Visibility

1. Vision constraints

2. Poor coordination

3. Inadequate orientation

4. Lack of situation awareness

Factor 3



1. Slipping hazards

2. Fatigue due to task load or duration

3. Exposure to health hazards

Wet Environment


Factor 4

Hazard & Risk Identification Factors contributing to potential hydro-jetting injuries & accidents


1. Tripping hazards

2. Constraint movement

3. Focal distractions

Poor Hose

Management

Factor 5

Hazard & Risk Identification Impacts of Hydro-jetting operations

Operating Specification of a Hydro-Jetting Gun

Gun discharge pressure 2,200 Bar / 31,900 Psi

Water discharge velocity 663.3 ms-1

Flow rate 4.99 kg/min

Back pressure force 55 N

2 x Speed of Handgun Bullet 5kg Rice Bag



Current Practices of Manual Hydro-Jetting Operation

Project Selection – Decision Matrix

To reduce injuries arising from

Hull Flat Bottom Hydro Jetting operations


Criteria Requiring Improvement Team’s Ability Total

(max

30) Project Urgency Beneficial Feasibility

HSE

Impact

Resource

Availability

Time

saving

1 4 5 3 4 3 4 23

2 2 5 4 4 3 3 21

3 4 5 4 4 3 4 24

4 2 3 3 3 2 3 16


Steps Activities May – Jun 14

Jul – Aug 15

Sep – Oct 15

Nov – Dec 14

Jan – Feb 15

Mar – Apr 15

May – Jun 15

PLAN

1. Project Selection

2. Project Schedule

3. Data Collection

4. Target Setting

5. Cause Analysis

6. Solution Recommendation

7. Management Approval

DO 8. Implementation

CHECK 9. Result Evaluation

ACTION

10. Standardization

11. Follow-up Action

Planned

Actual

Risk Assessment (Before)

Low Medium High

18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015 – El-Aqua S

EV

ER

ITY

CONSEQUENCE LIKELIHOOD

People

Asse

ts a

nd

Co

nse

qu

en

tia

l

Lo

ss

En

viro

nm

en

t

Re

pu

tatio

n

A=1 B=2 C=3 D=4 E=5

So unlikely it

can be

assumed

occurrence

may not be

experienced

Not likely to

occur in

company but

possible

Likely to

occur

sometimes

in company

(1–3 times a

year)

Likely to

occur

several

times in

company

(4–10 times

a year)

Likely to

occur

repeatedly

in company

(>10 times

a year)

5 Fatality Extensive

Damage

Massive

Effect

Internal/

National

Impact

4 Permanent

Total

Disability

Major

Damage Major Effect

Industrial

Impact

3

Major

injuries or

Health

Effect

Localised

Damage

Localised

Effect

Considerable

Impact

2

Minor

Injuries or

Health

Effect

Minor

Damage Minor Effect

Limited

Impact

1 No Injuries

or Health

Effect

No Damage No Effect No Impact

Before

Root Cause Analysis


To reduce hands, fingers,

arms & back

injuries during hydro

blasting on

hull flat bottom

MACHINE MATERIAL MAN

METHOD ENVIRONMENT

Inexperienced

Poor working

posture

Poor

working

posture

Failure to follow safe working procedure

Complacent

Lack of Focus

Fatigue

Defective equipment

Wet / Slippery

Low

Poorly lilted

Misty

Take shortcuts

Limited fail safe

Unsuitable equipment

Heavy

Lack of grip

Unable to carry out

sustainable operation

Flying debris

High pressure jet

Target Setting

Hand,

Finger

& Arm

Leg Others Back Eyes Head

&

Face

Multiple 0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

65

29

18 16

9 7 6

0

Frequency of Injury Type Report Reported (2013 – 2014)

x

x

x x

Before Implementation Pareto Diagram

62.6 %

74.6 %

85.3 %

43.3% x

x x

91.3 % 96.0 %

Target: Reduce by 100% for

Hydro Blasting Operation


Generation of Solutions 3 concepts / solutions:

1. Aquablast & Bobcat

2. Aquablast & Scissor Lift

3. Aquablast & Frame


Selection of Solution

Concept \ Criteria Feasible to

implement

Easy to

fabricate

Cost

effective

High health &

safety benefits

Total

Aquablast & Bobcat 2 3 2 3 10

Aquablast & Scissor Lift 3 3 3 2 11

Aquablast & Frame 4 5 5 4 18

4 deciding factors:

Feasible to implement

Easy to fabricate

Cost effective

High health & safety benefits


El-Aqua – Conceptual Design

Incorporate Aquablast

Mount inverted Aquablast onto a portable frame

Design considerations for body frame

Extended arm

Adjustable height

Light & portable

Simple design & operation

Easy to fabricate


1. Stress acting on the critical member (boom)

2. Stability of the structure from overturning

3. Efficient Structural Mobility

El-Aqua – Engineering Design


D A P C

Stress analysis

El-Aqua – Engineering Design


Professionally designed and certified

by Engineering Design Office for safe work operation

Fabrication & Assembly

El-Aqua – Type I Fabrication Process


Combined Gun Head System

1. 3-in-1 mounted gun head

2. Rubber coaming

3. Spring absorption system




Turret System

1. Turret with handle

2. Rotatable turret

(swing angle of 15° on each

side)

3. Adjustable height mechanism




Leg Foundation System

1. Stable foundation

1. 360° free-rotating rear wheel

with two forward wheels

2. Hose manifold

3. 3-in-1 hose connector

Evaluation of Results – HSE Performance

Close proximity to

high pressure jet


D A P C

No contact with water jets – Safety

Force transmitted through El-Aqua – Health

Ergonomics –

Large back

pressure force

(absorbed by operator)



Overhead blasting by El-Aqua – Health

Ergonomics –

Overhead blasting

by operator



Better situational awareness – Safety



Poor visibility

Higher Lower

Better work environment – Safety & Health


Direct Exposure to

Wet Environment

Dry Wet



Tripping Hazards


Improved hose management – Safety

Abrasive blasting



Hydro-jetting

Expended grit generated

Cleaner and greener – Environment

Improving safety through productivity – Safety



Three operators per UHP One operator per UHP

Benefits

Environmental hazards

Faster & better finishing – Productivity

& Quality

Fatigue & Miss-outs


Hazard elimination through engineering controls


Evaluation of Results – Hierarchy of Hazard Controls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heirarchy_of_hazard_control_diagram_01.jpg

Leg Others Back Eyes Head &

Face

Multiple 0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

65

29

18 16

9 7 6

0

Frequency of Injury Type Report (2013 – 2014)

Before Implementation Pareto Diagram

Target: Reduce by 100%

for Hydro Blasting

Operation (Hand, Finger

& Arm and Back Injuries)

After Implementation Pareto Diagram

Overall Reduction of

Problems by 90%


Frequency of Injury Type Reported

Hand, Finger & Arm

Evaluation of Results – Pareto Diagram (After)

SE

VE

RIT

Y

CONSEQUENCE LIKELIHOOD P

eople

Asse

ts a

nd

Co

nse

que

ntia

l L

oss

Environ

me

nt

Re

pu

tatio

n

A=1 B=2 C=3 D=4 E=5

So unlikely it

can be

assumed

occurrence

may not be

experienced

Not likely to

occur in

company but

possible

Likely to

occur

sometimes

in

company

(1–3 times

a year)

Likely to

occur

several

times in

company

(4–10

times a

year)

Likely to

occur

repeatedly

in

company

(>10 times

a year)

5 Fatality Extensive

Damage

Massive

Effect

Internal/

National

Impact

4 Permanent

Total

Disability

Major

Damage

Major

Effect

Industrial

Impact

3

Major

injuries or

Health

Effect

Localised

Damage

Localised

Effect

Considerable

Impact

2

Minor

Injuries or

Health

Effect

Minor

Damage

Minor

Effect

Limited

Impact

1 No Injuries

or Health

Effect

No

Damage No Effect No Impact

After

Before


Evaluation of Results – Risk Assessment (After)

Tangible


Evaluation of Results – Benefits

Operating Specification Hydro-Jetting Gun El-Aqua % Change

No. of Operator per UHP 3 1 - 66 %

Back Pressure Force

absorbed by Operator 55 N / 5.6 kg 0 N - 100 %

Removal Rate 15 m2 hr-1 21m2 hr-1 + 40 %

Time Taken to Blast 1 m2 12 mins 2.9 mins - 75.8 %

Cost $ 19,500 $ 19,950 + 2.3 %

Effective solution for

safer, healthier and greener operations

Intangible

Gives a sense of achievement & morale booster

Improvement in work process & method

Projects a professional image

Promotes greener operations

Improves safety awareness


Evaluation of Results – Benefits

Future Improvement and Standardization

A) Future development

B) Standardization


D A C

Mark II

Mark I

P

Mark I

A) Improvement – Type II


Mark II

A) Type II Improvement


Mark I

Better Hose Management

Dual Rear Wheels

Mark II

Rubber Coaming

A) Future Improvement – Type III Development


Brush Coaming Reduce friction between surface and device

Adjustable Shaft To accommodate different dock block height

Seat Allows workers to work in a more comfortable position

Ergonomic Knob Design Easier adjustment of header

Lights around the Base Better navigation in dark dock bottom

Higher Lumen Light Better vision of blasting surface

Dead-man Switch Emergency cut-off to stop water supply

Shielding Screen Protection from the mist and debris produced

Whip Arrestor To prevent whipping to run-away hoses


Operation of El Aqua

B) Standardization

Risk Assessment

OJT Log

Safe Work Procedure


Integrate into existing hull vertical hydro blasting operation

Work-at-height operation; aerial platforms

Design & fabricate for mounting onto the aerial platform baskets

Incorporate into abrasive blasting operations

Similar work hazards in flat bottom operations

Target to improve HSE elements

Future Project


El – Aqua Fatigue Free Hull Flat Bottom Hydro Blaster

Presented By:

Painting Department

Team Dynamic Seahorse

Sembcorp Marine Admiralty Yard

P D C A

Operating Specification El-Aqua

No. of Guns 3

No. of Nozzles 9

No. of Operator 1

Operating System Manual

Gun Discharge Pressure 2,200 Bar /

31,900 Psi

Water Discharge Velocity 663.3 ms-1

Flow Rate 14.97 kg/min

Back Pressure Force 165 N / 16.8 Kg

Productivity /

Removal rate 21 m2hr-1

Working Width 215 mm

Arc Width 0.5 m


Operating

Specification

Hydro-Jetting

Gun

DockBoy El-Aqua

No. of Guns 1 12 3

No. of Nozzles 3 36 9

No. of Operator 1 1 1

Working Width 50 mm 375 mm 215 mm

Working Height - 5.85 m 1.6 ~ 1.9 m

Operating System Manual Hydraulic Manual

Arc Width - 4.32 m 0.5 m

Removal rate 5 m2hr-1 30 m2 hr-1 21 m2 hr-1

Cost $ 19,500 $ 300,000 $ 19,950


Operating

Specification

Hydro-Jetting Gun El-Aqua

No. of Guns 1 3

No. of Nozzles 3 9

No. of Operator 1 1

Gun Discharge

Pressure 2,200 Bar / 31,900 Psi

Water Discharge

Velocity 663.3 ms-1

Flow Rate 4.99 kg/min 14.97 kg/min

Back Pressure

Force 55 N / 5.6 Kg 165 N / 16.8 Kg

Productivity /

Removal rate 5 m2 hr-1 21m2 hr-1


Duration to Blast

5,000 m2 Flat Bottom

El-Aqua

Rate: 21 m2hr-1

5 units over

14 work-hr day: 3.4 days

Hydrojetting Gun

Rate: 5 m2hr-1

To complete in 3.4 days

over 14 work-hr day:

21 blasters

(consistent operation)

Documents

18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015...18th ASMI WSH Innovation Convention 2015 – El-Aqua WSH workplace injuries & occupational diseases in 2013 & 2014 Injury Type % of 13/14’s