Big Buzz on Ergonomics

Vibration solutions reap mixed reviews

How does the discussion of jobsite ergonomics shake out across the construction industry?

By Bruce Buckley

Image courtesy of Atlas Copco

Strains, sprains and other physical ailments have long been recognized as a drain on construction productivity and a risk to overall worker health and safety, but there’s limited agreement in the industry about how to implement sound solutions.

Many safety professionals tout the need for improved jobsite ergonomics, but there are few regulations to guide the way on a national level.

A wave of inspiration could come from across the Atlantic. Europe is in the midst of instituting strict new construction safety regulations that are leading equipment manufacturers to take large leaps in tool and equipment ergonomics.

The European Union mandate, known as the EU Physical Agents Directive, aims to limit risks to workers. Under the directive, instituted in 2005, companies must limit vibration from power tools to five meters per second squared per eight-hour work period. That represents a significant drop in acceptable vibration from high-impact tools such as paving breakers. Some traditional 90-lb breakers can produce more than 20 m/s2.

Heavy demand for low-vibration tools in Europe has prompted manufacturers to develop solutions, and much of that technology has made its way to the U.S. market. Still, U.S. construction firms have been slow to warm, says Peter Bigwood, vice president of Sweden-based Atlas Copco Construction Equipment.

“We do bring over the tools that we design to meet EU standards, but it’s been a tough sell,” he says. “There’s a cost premium to them, but they bring value. It takes a while for people to come around to that.”

In addition to its Atlas Copco brand, the company owns the Chicago Pneumatic brand, which includes more traditional U.S. offerings for tools. An Atlas Copco 90-lb breaker with vibration-dampening technology can cost roughly 20% more than a comparable Chicago Pneumatic breaker without the vibration dampening.

“Chicago Pneumatic is a more traditional design and by far the more popular design in the U.S. by a ratio of five to one,” Bigwood adds.

From a safety standpoint, researchers  point to a clear need for more ergonomic tools. In 2005, more than one-third of days away from work due to nonfatal injuries and illnesses were the result of sprains and strains, according to the Center for Construction Research and Training in Silver Spring, Md.

In the case of hand vibration, damage can be permanent. Workers who use high-vibration tools are at risk of hand-arm vibration syndrome, often known as white finger disease. Symptoms can include painful tingling, debilitating numbness and intermittent or permanent whitening of the fingers. Severe cases can lead to gangrene.

“Data show that ergonomic injuries are costly in construction,” says Scott Schneider, director of occupational safety and health at the Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund of North America in Washington, D.C. “When you reduce injury risk, you improve productivity. A lot of early retirement from the trades is due to disability. If you can reduce injuries, you can retain workers.”

advertisement

Schneider concedes that it is often difficult for firms to recognize the benefits of ergonomic equipment, especially when dealing with an ever-changing workforce.

Without regulations forcing the issue, educating construction firms on the productivity gained through ergonomic tools is key to their adoption in the U.S., says Eric Bernstein, spokesperson at DeWalt in Baltimore, Md. Bernstein says little statistical data can back up productivity gains, but customers often estimate a 20% rise in productivity with tools that use vibration-dampening.

“It’s critical that the superintendent realizes that ergonomics bring productivity benefits, not just comfort. When we put one in their hands that doesn’t vibrate [as much], all of a sudden the operator gets it. They can work with it longer without taking breaks.”

Another hurdle is the lack of standards on measuring performance, says David Schimmel, director of electric tools and accessories at Hilti in Tulsa, Okla.

“Customers want to know how to accurately compare brand to brand, but there are no ANSI standards you can use to benchmark to,” he says. “A company can say it’s ‘low vibration,’ but that’s one of those terms like ’all natural.’ It doesn’t mean anything when there are no standards.”

While the power tool market ramps up its ergonomic efforts, heavy equipment manufacturers are moving  ahead on improvements such as increasing operator visibility, reducing noise and controlling cab temperatures. Among the most notable evolutions is the shift toward making pilot controls standard on more machines.

Although many see it as a comfort, such controls bring significant health and safety benefits, says Doug Meyer, director of construction engineering at John Deere in Moline, Ill.

“When we put [electro-hydraulic] controls at the end of the armrest, the controls swivel with the operator,” he says. “Customers tell us that at the end of the day, they feel a lot fresher than with the old controls.”

Future improvements could come with the seat itself. Deere is producing an active-suspension system in its seat to reduce whole-body vibration. The seat, which is powered by the equipment’s hydraulics system, measures vertical, side-to-side and fore-aft movement of the vehicle to reduce seat movement.

Deere currently offers the system on some of it agriculture machines, but Meyer says that someday it could be seen on construction equipment as well.

Meyer adds that although Deere is monitoring the regulations in Europe, ergonomic improvements are already being driven by customer demand. Today’s options could be tomorrow’s standards, he says.

Many companies are already willing to make the investments. John Langford, corporate safety director at McHugh Construction in Chicago, says that based on feedback from workers, the company is generally willing to invest in more ergonomic equipment and tools.

“You get an older guy who ran a 90-lb hammer for years, and all he did was go home with sore hands,” Langford says. “Now he runs a hammer with shock absorption and he says, ’This is really nice because my hands don’t go numb.’”

Such testimonials remain the main driver of ergonomic equipment, but advocates continue to push for more oversight. Despite considerable opposition from industry groups, ANSI last year adopted a voluntary consensus standard for musculoskeletal injuries in construction, which promotes ergonomic solutions.

Critics argued that although the standard is voluntary, OSHA could use it to generate citations.

Langford says that even without regulations, the industry is beginning to view ergonomic advances as less of an option and more of a necessity.

“Every time we lose a guy to injury, we have to replace him and that’s not easy,” he adds. We’re trying to do it for our own survival.”