1 | 30 International ergonomics g standards (ISO & CEN) and relevant methods for risk assessment and management in WMSDs area by Karlheinz Schaub Institute of Ergonomics; Darmstadt University of Technology with input from Enrico Occhipinti & Daniela Colombini (IRCCS) Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico di Natura Pubblica; Milano Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 List of contents 2 | 30 ‰ WMSDs S iin Europe ‰ Background information on relevant CEN and ISO standards ‰ Applying standards at shopfloor level ‰ Emulating CEN & ISO standards by means of new methods ( (e.g. EAWS) ‰ Features & limitations of these new methods ‰ conclusions l i Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 3 | 30 p provided by Enrico o Occhip pinti Fourth European Working Conditions Survey - 1 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 4 | 30 p provided by Enrico o Occhip pinti Fourth European Working Conditions Survey - 2 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 5 | 30 p provided by Enrico o Occhip pinti Fourth European Working Conditions Survey - 3 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 6 | 30 p provided by Enrico o Occhip pinti Fourth European Working Conditions Survey - 4 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 7 | 30 p provided by Enrico o Occhip pinti Fourth European Working Conditions Survey - 5 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 8 | 30 p provided by Enrico o Occhip pinti Fourth European Working Conditions Survey - 6 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005-2 / 1 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics 9 | 30 Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005-2 / 2 10 | 30 1 Scope p This European Standard specifies ergonomic recommendations for the design of machinery involving manual handling of machinery and component parts of machinery, including tools linked to the machine, in professional and domestic applications. This European Standard applies to the manual handling of machinery, component parts of machinery and objects processed by the machine (input/output) ( ) of 3 kg or more, for carrying less than 2 m. Objects of less than 3 kg are dealt with in prEN 1005-51). The standard provides data for ergonomic design and risk assessment concerning i lifti lifting, llowering i and d carrying i iin relation l ti tto th the assembly/erection, bl / ti transport and commissioning (assembly, installation, adjustment), operation, fault finding, maintenance, setting, teaching or process changeover and decommissioning, disposal and dismantling of machinery. machinery This standard provides current data on the general population and certain subpopulations (clarified in annex A). This part of the standard does not cover the holding of objects (without walking), walking) pushing or pulling of objects, hand-held machines, or handling while seated. This document is not applicable to specify the machinery which are manufactured before the date of publication of this document by CEN CEN. Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005-2 / 3 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics 11 | 30 Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005-2 / 4 12 | 30 The first method is a quick screening method. Method 22, an easy to handle method method, shall be applied if the screening method indicates risks. Some additional risk factors can be ta ca taken e into to account accou t in method et od 2.. Method 3 is an extended assessment method, which assesses g wayy and is supplemented pp byy risks in a more thorough additional risk factors not presented in methods 1 and 2. All three methods have different levels of complexity. The most efficient approach is to begin the risk assessment by applying method 1 (the most simple one) and use methods 2 and/or 3 only if the assumptions and/or operational situations identified in method 1 are not met. Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005-2 / 5 Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics 13 | 30 Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN1005-3 / 1 Figure B.3 — Example of force distribution functions of male and female subgroups Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics 14 | 30 Figure B.4 — Example of weighting and combining of all subgroup distributions Karlheinz Schaub Figure B.5 — Example of calculation of percentiles © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005 series 15 | 30 CEN EN 1005-1:2001+A1:2008 1005 1:2001+A1:2008 Safety of machinery - Human physical performance – Part 1: Terms and definitions 08.09.2009 CEN EN 1005-2:2003+A1:2008 A 8 Safety of machinery - Human physical performance – Part 2: Manual handling of machinery and component parts of machinery 08.09.2009 CEN EN 1005-3:2002+A1:2008 Safety of machinery - Human physical performance – Part 3: Recommended force limits for machinery operation 08.09.2009 CEN EN 1005-4:2005+A1:2008 S f t off machinery Safety hi - Human H physical h i l performance f – Part 4: Evaluation of working postures and movements in relation to machinery 08.09.2009 CEN EN 1005-5 Safety of machinery - Human physical performance – Part 5: Risk assessment for repetitive handling at high frequency Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EN 1005-2 carrying 16 | 30 4.3.2.2.5 Manuall carrying i off loads l d In general general, machines should be designed so that manual carrying is avoided. Where this is not possible, the maximum manual carrying y g distance should be as low as possible (less than 2 m). Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 The Dual European System of Health & Safety at Work 17 | 30 Machinery-Directive Machinery Directive Framework-Directive Framework Directive 89/392/EEC 89/391/EEC Annex I: Essential health and safety requirements relating to the design and construction of machinery “Under the intended conditions of use, the discomfort, fatigue and psychological stress faced by the operator must be redureduced to the minimum possible taking g ergonomic g principles p p into account.” Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Preamble: ... Whereas Article 118a of the Treaty provides that the Council shall adopt, p p, by means of Directives, minimum requirements for encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, environment to guarantee a better level of protection of the safety and health of workers; Whereas this Directive does not jjustifyy any reduction in levels of protection already achieved in individual Member States, the Member State being committed under the Treaty, committed, Treaty to encouraging improvements in conditions in this area and to g conditions while harmonizing maintaining the improvements made ... Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 Relations between CEN and ISO 18 | 30 CEN (draft) standards EN 1005 - 5 Safety of Machinery Manual handling of low loads at high g frequencies eque c es EN 1005 - 4 Safety of Machinery Evaluation of working postures i relation in l ti tto machinery hi ISO (draft) standards ISO 11228 - 3 Ergonomics - Manual handling - low loads at high frequencies ISO 11226 Ergonomics Evaluation of working gp postures EN 1005 - ? Safety of Machinery Pushing & pulling in relation to machinery ISO 11228 - 2 Ergonomics - Manual handling - Pushing and pulling EN 1005 - 3 Safety of Machinery Recommended force limits for machinery operation ISO 11228 - ? Ergonomics g – Recommended force limits EN 1005 - 2 Safety of Machinery Manual handling of machinery and component parts of machinery Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics ISO 11228 - 1 Ergonomics - Manual handling - Lifting and Carrying Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 Key Indicator Method on Lifting, Holding & Carrying Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub 19 | 30 © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 Risk evaluation / basic philosophy Stressors simultaneous / consecutive task / environment 20 | 30 Individual characteristics, abilities and skills limit value strain classical stress - strain concept complex specific load situation e.g. manual materials handling relevant characteristics of the intended user population risk evaluation according to traffic light scheme ergonomic risk assessment according to CEN / ISO complex load situations in various stress situations (e.g. manual materials handling AND action forces) relevant characteristics of the intended user population summed risk scores for all modes of stressors per time unit risk evaluation according to traffic light scheme ergonomic g risk analysis y according g to EAWS Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EAWS – sides 1 and 2 21 | 30 header 2D / 3D working postures overall evaluation additional loads comments & improvements time aspects f repetitive for titi lloads d Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EAWS – sides 3 and 4 22 | 30 forces repetitive loads extract from force atlas manual materials handling Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 EAWS - overview - evaluation (2) 23 | 30 By total score from: WHOLE BODY or z UPPER LIMBS z derive action class Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Low risk - recommended; Green No action is necessary Possible risk - not recommended; Yellow Redesign, if possible, or take actions to control the risk Red High risk - to be avoided; action to lower the risk is necessary Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 Features & limitations of these new methods 24 | 30 ‰ Screening methods (with a holistic concept) work proper in the field of short cycled work (0,5 – 5 min.) ‰ They Th are nott properly l applicable li bl for f longer l cycle l ti times (i (i.e. >10 min.) ‰ or non-cyclic work ‰ For longer cycles or non-cyclic work, holistic methods are not available ((do g green p postures, forces and materials handlings last into overall green situations?) Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 conclusions 25 | 30 ‰ Efforts are needed to complete the system of standards ‰ Efforts are needed to transform standards into easy applicable methods ‰ Efforts Eff t are needed d d to t develop d l risk i k assessmentt ttools l for f longer cycle times or non-cyclic work (simultaneous & successive superposition of physical workload) ‰ Efforts Eff t are needed d d to t create t awareness for f poor ergonomics i and WMSDs as a possible consequence (especially SMEs) ‰ Efforts are needed to show that good ergonomics & high productivity d ti it are li linked k d tto each h other th (and ( d nott contradictory) t di t ) Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009 Thank you for your attention! 26 | 30 Ciao Enrico & Dani Darmstadt University of Technology Institute of Ergonomics Karlheinz Schaub © IAD Darmstadt, 2009