Ergonomics Australia Journal - July 2007

Transcription

ERGONOMICS AUSTRALIA
July 2007
The Official Journal of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc
Contents
Editorial
From the Internet
2
3
Article
Overview
Robin Burgess-Limerick
4
1. Equipment Related issues and
Controls in the USA
Underground Mining Industry
Lisa Steiner, NIOSH,
Pittsburgh Research Laboratory
Robin Burgess-Limerick,
Burgess-Limerick & Associates
4
2. Ergonomics in the Design Process
Justin O’Sullivan, Ergonomics for Work
13
3. Ergonomics in Large Machinery Design
Barbara McPhee, Jim Knowles Group
22
Book Review
The Role of Mathematics on Human Structure
Swapan Kumar Adhikari, India
Reviewed by Anne Murphy,
The University of Sydney
26
Noticeboard
Obituary (Brian Shackel)
27
Conference Calendar
28
Information for Contributors
29
Information for Advertisers
29
Ergonomics Australia On-Line (EAOL)
30
Caveats
30
The Official Journal of the HFESA
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia
Volume 21, Number 2 (July 2007),
ISSN 1033-875
Editor
Dr Shirleyann M Gibbs
Email: [email protected]
National Secretariat
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc.
PO Box 7848 Balkham Hills BC NSW 2153
Tel: +612 9680 9026 Fax: +612 9680 9027
Office Hours: 9.00am - 4.30 pm, Tues, Wed and Thursday
HFESA Website: http://ergonomics.org.au
Design and Layout
Acute Concepts Pty Ltd Tel: 03 9381 9696
Printer
Impact Printing
HFESA Mission Statement
Promoting systems, space and designs for People
Editorial
The articles in this edition have been sourced as
a special mining issue collated by Robin BurgessLimerick. He has suggested this approach might
be followed by other specialist area ergonomists in
future editions of the journal. While the three articles
included in this issue alert readers to many of the
factors associated with safe or unsafe mining activity,
they also highlight concepts that can be readily
adapted to a broad spectrum of industrial ergonomics.
Ergonomics and mine safety issues have been
highlighted in recent news and public debates …
notably prompted by controversial aspects of the
findings in relation to the Gretley mine disaster in the
Hunter Valley of New South Wales. The debate ranges
far beyond the actual incident to include the legal
ramifications of recent legislation in relation to
remote foreseeability and responsibility on the part
of corporate employers for ensuring a duty of care in
their workplace(s). This investigation has highlighted
the complexity of ensuring 100% safety in any given
situation — something which is desirable — but in
practice can only be a best intent rather than an
absolute state.
While most people would expect the goal of risk
management to involve a comprehensive risk
assessment and subsequent provision of maximum
workplace security, hindsight can always illuminate
the gaps following an unwanted incident. In the
Gretley mine disaster, the argument has focused on
the allocation of blame and the penalties that were
imposed on the companies and selected management
personnel as “the legal employer” … while avoiding
the role of the Department of Mines and the Union
(although the latter was the “legal employer” of some
of the workers). From the outset, fellow miners
regarded the incident as a terrible unforeseen accident
— and did not blame their company management
for the mistaken locations shown in the maps made
available by the government department. Apparently
post-incident investigations unearthed an original map
which had been lost in the departmental archives for
many years. Meanwhile, misread and redrawn early
copies had been provided and approved for use in the
application to reopen the mine. Various mine
managers were subsequently blamed for not pursuing
an adequate departmental search to discover these
forgotten files prior to the incident.
Other errors of omission which led to the disaster are
(again with hindsight) contributed to the disaster.
It would seem to represent a classic Reason’s “Swiss
cheese” scenario of complex factors and also
groupthink. Subsequent publications such as Ken
Phillips’ The Politics of a Tragedy (Institute of Public
Affairs Work Reform Unit) and Andrew Hancock’s
Lessons from Gretley: Mindful leadership and the law
2
(Australian National University) have examined the
various factors and the outcomes that will affect a
wide industrial landscape. One group in the editor’s
Master’s class in risk management, chose this scenario
as their research project in Autumn semester.
Earlier this year the editor was approached by a
final year school student who was studying design
technology for her Higher School Certificate. Since
her email contained some strange concepts about the
role of ergonomics in office design — and about
associated research related to occupational injuries, the
headmistress was contacted in an attempt to determine
the basis of this misunderstanding — had it been
ignorance … or a hoax email? The outcome was an
invitation to give a presentation to the students and
staff associated with this subject. It was received with
enthusiasm and all appreciated being shown the video
made by HFESA members Jonathan Talbot and Airdrie
Long, Ergonomics and Design: Matching Products and
Tasks with People, along with further discussion of
issues presented in various slides taken from the
editor’s own files. Finally a selection of past editions
of Ergonomics Australia was donated for use in the
school library with advice about obtaining a copy of
the above video, and a list of recommended textbooks.
Judging by the comments in the hand-written thankyou notes from staff and students, this is an approach
that can be recommended to other ergonomists. It is
a very simple promotional opportunity to enhance
awareness of ergonomics and the HFESA at a precareer level. Think of the impact if all members visited
their former secondary schools to give similar
ergonomics information.
The HFESA Board has been giving considerable
attention to the future of the society and the strategic
outcomes delivered from the workshops conducted
around Australia by Andrea Shaw and Verna Blewett.
While a full report will be made to members later this
year, there is interim detail to be found on the HFESA
website. The website is now offering considerably
more information and the shift from hard copy to
electronic news distribution is steadily escalating.
This is a factor for consideration in future content
inclusions and omissions in this journal. Fortunately
there seems to be an increase in potential papers being
reviewed for future issues. This is a welcome
development but needs to be sustained over the long
term if the membership hopes to support an Australian
journal publication as well as a highly desirable
electronic newsletter and website.
The editor would be delighted to hear from any reader
who would care to follow the example in this edition
by undertaking to source articles for a particular topic
and issue in the future. The Board is also considering
ways and means to enhance state participation in this
HFESA Journal, Ergonomics Australia Vol 21, Number 2, July 2007
effort. How many people source the national and
international ergonomics information updates on
the society’s website? Is it desirable or necessary to
duplicate any of this information in the journal? Are
the Noticeboard items, Standards Australia delegates’
updates and Conference Calendar still desirable
components of the journal or can they be left to
electronic media? The Talking Point Column depends
on issues being discussed by readers. The editor would
be grateful for feedback from the general membership
on these matters.
From the Internet
This is just the beginning of a much broader
transitional stage between paper copy and electronic
provision being experienced by many community
and professional societies. The issue of relative cost
is significant; but just as important is the usage and
preference of readers. At the dawn of the World Wide
Web it was anticipated that all paper publications
would eventually be superseded — the paperless office
of the future — but many people claim they are
inundated with more, not less, paper since electronic
files often are (need to be?) printed by the end user.
An early attempt to establish an IEA electronic
research journal folded because of the lack of active
involvement by sufficient authors and readers. Perhaps
the international community was not yet ready for this
technology … certainly the discrepancy between dialup and broadband access is still a significant factor —
and still critical for off-campus access to the range of
university online/library services.
1. For a considerable period, the oboe players had
nothing to do. Their number should be reduced,
and their work spread over the whole orchestra,
thus avoiding peaks of inactivity.
The book industry sale of books and journals so far has
demonstrated a strong preference for continued hard
copy material. Nevertheless there is an increasing
tendency to use the internet for timely information
distribution. The hard copy journal options involve
a range of issues that will take time to resolve. This
electronic world is in a state of general transition —
but it is vitally important that users’ preferences are
understood and subject to informed discussion on
which to base decisions that will determine the future
tipping point for any significant cultural change.
Shann Gibbs PhD
Editor
Management Review Hits the Wrong Note
A managed care company president was given a ticket
for a performance of Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony.
Since she was unable to go, she passed the invitation
to one of her managed care reviewers. The next
morning, the president asked how he enjoyed it, and,
instead of a few plausible observations, she was
handed a memorandum, which read as follows:
2. All 12 violins were playing identical notes. This
seems unnecessary duplication, and the staff of this
section should be drastically cut. If a large volume
of sound is really required, this could be obtained
through the use of an amplifier.
3. Much effort was involved in playing the 16th
notes. This seems an excessive refinement, and
it is recommended that all notes should be rounded
up to the nearest 8th note. If this were done, it
would be possible to use paraprofessionals instead
of experienced musicians.
4. No useful purpose is served by repeating, with
horns, the passage that has already been
handled by the strings. If all such redundant
passages were eliminated, the concert could be
reduced from two hours to thirty minutes.
5. This symphony has two movements. If Schubert
didn’t achieve his musical goals by the end of the
first movement, then he should have stopped there.
The second movement is unnecessary and should
be cut.
6. In light of the above, one can only conclude that
had Schubert given attention to these matters,
he would probably have had time to finish his
symphony.
Anonymous
3
Articles
Applying ergonomics to underground
coal mining equipment
Robin Burgess-Limerick PhD CPE
President, HFESA
The three papers which comprise this special issue of
Ergonomics Australia summarise presentations made at
a seminar held in Pokolbin NSW on October 17, 2006.
The seminar formed part of a research project funded
by the Australian Coal Association Research Program
(ACARP Project C14016 Reducing injury risks
associated with underground coal mining equipment).
The project began in 2004 with an approach from
Xstrata Coal NSW for assistance with reducing injuries
associated with equipment across the company’s
underground sites. It became apparent that the issues
were not confined to any one company, and a project
involving the industry more widely was undertaken
between April 2005 and March 2007. The project
involved analyses of narratives describing injuries
associated with underground equipment, review of
relevant literature from international research agencies,
and visits by project staff (Robin Burgess-Limerick,
Gary Dennis, Suzanne Johnson & Jenny Legge) to 14
Australian underground coal mines. An aim of these
visits was to document current best practices in the
control of injury risks. Visits were also undertaken to
equipment manufacturers in both Australia and the
USA. The outcomes of the project include a Handbook
for the Control of Injury Risks Associated with
Underground Coal Mining Equipment, which
incorporates the information gathered during the
project, regarding risks and controls and contains a
generic risk assessment tool. The handbook is available
at burgess-limerick.com.
The Pokolbin seminar aimed to communicate the
results of the project to industry, and also brought
together ergonomists with considerable experience in
the area (Barbara McPhee, Justin O’Sullivan, and Lisa
Steiner - NIOSH Pittsburgh) to share their views. The
seminar also included brief presentations by mine staff
and manufacturers, and was attended by 100 people
from 8 manufacturers and 15 mines as well as
regulators and others. It was a very successful day,
particularly in giving the manufacturers motivation
and direction for future improvements in equipment
design. Much of the information has wider applicability
than mining and will be of interest to Ergonomics
Australia readers.
4
1) Equipment Related Issues
and Controls in the USA
Underground Mining Industry
Lisa Steiner, NIOSH, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory
Robin Burgess Limerick, Burgess-Limerick & Associates
While the rate of lost-time injuries in the USA has
steadily decreased over the past 10 years (from over
10 per 100 FTE in 1995, to 6 in 2004), underground
coal mining remains a hazardous industry
(www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/stats). One of the
contributors to this injury risk is working with or near
underground coal mining equipment. Roof bolting
machines, and to a lesser extent continuous mining
machines, have been consistently identified as high risk
equipment, collectively accounting for approximately
24% of all injuries to underground coal miners.(1)
Load-Haul-Dump vehicles (LHD), shuttle cars (sc) and
personnel transport are also associated with injuries
in underground coal mines.(2) Continuous mining
machines (CMM) consist of a rotating cutting head
and a conveyer. The cutting head cuts coal and the
conveyor loads and transfers coal. The SC transports
the coal away to a conveyer, from where the coal is
transported to the surface. After a section of the mine
is cut, the CMM is removed and replaced with a bolting
machine from which miners drill holes (using drill
steels) and place bolts and/or some other type of
permanent support in the roof to maintain its integrity.
These machines are all electrically powered via a
trailing cable. LHD and scoop vehicles are general
purpose diesel or battery powered vehicles used for
carrying materials, cleaning up mined areas and
towing trailers underground. Personnel transport
vehicles are predominantly used to transport miners
underground.
These injury results are consistent with previous
observations(1,3) that roof bolting machines are the
equipment most frequently involved in underground
mining injuries, and that being struck by rock falling
from supported roof as the most common mechanism.
The proportion of injuries associated with bolting
machines in USA underground coal mines appears to
have remained unchanged since the 1970s (cf., 15%,
in 1977(4); 17% in 1989(1); 16% in 1993(5); 17% in 2004).
Similarly the proportion of injuries associated with
continuous miners (8%) is consistent with that
previously reported for USA mines (7% in 1989(1)).
The total percentage of injuries associated with the
equipment considered (37%) is considerably higher
than that reported recently for underground coal mines
in New South Wales, Australia (23%).(6) The differences
may be a consequence of different environmental
conditions (higher roof heights in Australian mines)
and differences in mining methods (in Australia,
bolting is predominantly undertaken by bolters
integrated onto continuous mining machines). Perhaps
in part as a consequence of the higher roof heights,
Australian mines have a much higher prevalence of
the use of screen (wire mesh placed to the roof during
the bolting process) to prevent minor rock fall injuries.
An analysis of injury narratives for 2004 (MSHA
database) suggests the following hazards as the highest
priority for elimination or control (see Appendices A,
B and C):
• rock falling from supported roof;
• rough road while driving or travelling in LHD/scoop,
shuttle cars and personnel transport vehicles;
• collisions while driving LHD/scoop, shuttle cars &
personnel transport vehicles;
• inadvertent or incorrect operation of bolting
controls; and
• handling continuous miner cable.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL)
located in Pittsburgh, PA, conducts research to reduce
injuries, fatalities and illnesses in the mining industry.
The facility is equipped with state of the art
laboratories and technologies to study root causes and
solutions to mining hazards. For each of the above
priority problems, a discussion of root causes based on
literature and field research will follow, along with the
recent research results or, in some cases, a description
of ongoing research studies to resolve the hazards.
Rock falling from supported roof
Rock fall data analyses are remarkably consistent with
previous data, for example Klishis, Althouse & Stobbe
et al(5) analysed 2685 bolting related injury narratives
and found that 911 (34%) involved falls of roof
material (cf. 33% this report). Similarly, Bise,
Masutomi, & Chatterjee(7) determined that in 1987,
57 of 319 continuous miner related injuries (18%) were
due to falling rock (cf. 21%, this report). The total
number of injuries as a consequence of coal or rock
falling from supported roof (477) is reduced from the
650 reported by Robertson, Molinda & Dolinar(8) as
the annual average from 1995 to 2001, suggesting that
there has been a reduction in overall injuries of this
type in recent years. While this reduction reflects the
overall reduction in injury rate occurring during this
period, it is likely that the change is in part a
consequence of the introduction of roof screening
in some US mines, which has been demonstrated to
virtually eliminate injuries of this type.(9) Indeed,
injuries due to rock falling from a supported roof were
almost non-existent in a similar analysis of equipment
related injury narratives from Australian underground
coal mines where screens are routinely put in place
during bolting.(6)
While screening is undoubtedly an effective control,
the low seam heights in some USA coal mining areas
make screen installation difficult. Additional hazards
are also introduced with the use of a screen,
particularly additional risks of musculoskeletal injury
associated with handling the screen, as well as
potential exposure to rock fall while setting the screen.
However, of 959 Australian equipment related injury
narratives, only 27 mentioned a screen,(6) suggesting
that the additional risks of injury associated with
handling and placing a screen are much less than
the risk associated with the rock fall hazard being
controlled, at least in the relatively high seam
conditions which predominate in Australian mines.
Improvements in the handling of a screen are also
being developed at mines sites and have potential
for further reducing the risk associated with handling
and placing a screen.
The importance of preventing rock fall injuries cannot
be overstated. Where low seam heights make screening
with steel mesh difficult, it may be necessary to
develop alternative means of reducing the risk of
minor rock falls such as the use of shotcrete or other
membrane.(10) Preventing minor rock falls, whether
through screening or other means, could prevent nearly
500 injuries per year or 13% of all injuries in US
underground coal mines.
One reason mine companies do not screen is due to
the extra time and materials cost associated and the
possible increased physical effort required. In an effort
to encourage mines to increase the use of screens, a
study to understand the physical requirements and
time costs were conducted for the transporting and
installation of roof screens. An intervention consisting
of a dual rail mounted to the roof bolting machine
was tested to determine its effectiveness in reducing
physical effort and time to install. Muscle activity,
and motion analysis when using two different lifting
techniques (side and overhead) from two different
locations (from the floor / while leaning against the
rib) for two different seam heights (66” and 84”)
were noted.
5
vehicle suspension, and improved seating have
potential to reduce these acute injuries.(11,12) Such
improvements will also reduce exposure to high
amplitude whole body vibration which is strongly
associated with the development of back pain through
cumulative mechanisms.(13)
Fig 1. Dual Rail Intervention for Screening
Results showed that less muscle activity was required
when the screen was lifted from the leaning rib
condition. There was no difference when lifting from
the side or overhead. This suggests that storing the
materials against the rib would lessen the physical
requirements of roof bolter operators. When
transporting screens (carrying the screen overhead, to
the side or dragging) in both 66” and 84” seam heights,
it is not recommended to drag the screen as muscle
activity was significantly greater than the other
conditions. Muscle activity, using EMG technology
and monitored trunk kinematics using the Lumbar
Motion Monitor developed at The Ohio State
University, was collected to determine effectiveness
of screen installation with and without the dual rail
intervention.(34) In both seam heights, muscle activity
was found to be significantly lower when using the
rails. This intervention allows the screen to be glided
easily without materials getting “hung up” on the
supplies and materials on the roof bolting machine.
Fig 2. NIOSH Design
Mid-Seam Shuttle Car Seat
This intervention is undergoing small improvements
and will be tested further. The specifications will be
made available by the end of 2007.
Rough Roads
Injuries associated with driving or travelling in a
vehicle that encounters a pot hole or other roadway
abnormality accounted for 20% of injuries associated
with scoop/LHD, Shuttle car or transport. This is
somewhat lower than the 34% of injuries associated
with this mechanism in recent Australian data,(6) which
may reflect the greater use of rail transport in USA
mines. Even so, improvements to roadway standards
to avoid potholes and other abnormalities would be
an effective means of preventing injuries of this type.
Jarring and jolting often caused by these “potholes”
or other abnormalities is a major contributor averaging
77% of back, neck and head injuries. Provision of
6
Fig 3. NIOSH Design
Low-Seam Shuttle Car Seat
Laboratory studies of foam padding and seat
suspension systems for underground low-seam and
mid-seam shuttle car seats were conducted at PRL and
at several participating coal mines. Accelerometer data
was collected and analyzed both before and after the
proposed seats were installed. The NIOSH developed
seat with lumbar support was preferred by a large
majority of users and quantitative analyses showed a
significant reduction in whole body vibration. Joy
Mining now includes this improved seat design as part
of its product line and independently tested the new
design and confirmed the results of the NIOSH study.
To date, over 26% of the US low-seam mine shuttle
cars are equipped with this new design and a total
of over 510 seats have been sold.
which projects a uniform magnetic field around the
dangerous area or the equipment. A microprocessor in
the receiver determines when a local alarm should be
activated and when data need to be conveyed over a
short-range radio link to enact the alarm and/or shut
down the machine. This technology is commercially
available. The system has been applied to CMMs, haul
trucks and conveyor haulage systems but could be
adapted to shuttle
Vehicle collisions
While vehicle collisions represented a relatively
small proportion (15%) of the injuries associated
with Scoop/LHD, Shuttle car and transport, the
consequences of collisions are frequently severe,
and include fatalities. This figure is also twice the
proportion of “collision” related injuries for these
vehicles found in recent Australian data.(6) The
probability of vehicle collisions is increased
considerably by the restricted visibility inherent in LHD
and shuttle cars, and this is likely to be exacerbated by
the low seam heights in many USA coal mines. This is
not a new observation. Reports by Kingsley, Mason &
Pethick,(14) then Pethick and Mason(15) described the
visibility difficulties associated with the design of freesteered vehicles. Simpson, Rushworth & von Glehn(16)
suggested that many underground vehicle collisions are
at least in part a consequence of restricted driver
visibility. The visibility restrictions while driving LHD
vehicles is one of the few aspects of mining equipment
design which has been the subject of formal research.
The research has largely been limited to documenting
the extent of the problem and providing methods for
assessing the lack of visibility associated with current
designs.(eg.,14,17,18) Recommendations for LHD redesign
arising from the research include raising the sitting
position where possible and cab redesign to remove
visual obstructions. Physical separation of pedestrians
and vehicles as far as practicable, and vehicle mounted
proximity sensors and cap lamp battery mounted
emitters may also be beneficial in preventing
potentially serious injuries.
Fig 4. Hazard transmitter detail cars
and other underground vehicles.
NIOSH PRL has conducted studies of proximity
detection systems in an effort to reduce collisions while
operating machinery.(19) This system warns operators or
other mine workers when they are close to equipment.
This magnetic field based system named HASARD
(Hazardous Area Signalling and Ranging Device)
provides remote alerts or machine shut down functions.
The HASARD transmitter signal feeds into a wire loop
7
Inadvertent or incorrect operation
of bolting controls
1. two-handed fast feed;
The hazards associated with inadvertent operation of
controls, operation of incorrect controls, operating
controls in an incorrect direction, or whilst a person
is located in a pinch point, have long been recognized.
Miller and McLellan(20) commented on the “obvious
need” to redesign roof bolting machines, suggesting,
for example, that of 759 bolting machine related
injuries, 72 involved operating the wrong control,
while Helander, Krohn & Curtin(3) determined that 5%
of bolting machine accidents were caused by control
activation errors.
3. auxiliary controls;
Improvements to guarding to prevent accidental
control operation, standardization of mining equipment
controls, especially drilling and bolting controls, and
the use of shape and length coding has been suggested
on numerous occasions over the past 40 years. (3, 5, 21-27)
Hedling and Folley(21) noted (in the context of
continuous miner controls) that the widespread use of
traditional round control knobs regardless of function
being controlled is another source of error in operation
and proposed that Each control knob is designed to
resemble (at least symbolically) the equipment it
represents.
Other suggestions included in this report included:
Similarly, Helander, Conway, and Elliott et al(23)
suggested that poor human factors principles in the
design and placement of controls and inappropriately
designed workstations contribute to a large percentage
of the reported injuries (p. 18). In particular, a lack of
standardization of controls was noted, with more than
25 different control sequences being identified,
differences existing even on similar machines produced
by same manufacturer. Helander, Conway & Elliott et al
also noted the lack of control coding, violation of
direction stereotypes, a mixture mirror image and
left/right arrangements, and the possibility of
inadvertent operation.
Klishis, Althouse & Stobbe et al(5) in 1993 again noted
a lack of standardization of bolting machine controls,
even among machines from the same manufacturer,
and commented on the potential for injuries due to
incorrect control operation. In a six week period in
1994, three operators of roof-bolting machines in the
USA were killed. Two were crushed between the drill
head and machine frame while bolting; the third was
crushed between the drill head and canopy. A Coal
Mine Safety and Health Roof-Bolting-Machine
Committee was formed by MSHA to investigate, and
a report released(24) which determined the causes to be
the unintentional operation of controls. The solutions
proposed in this report were:
8
2. drill head raise shutoff;
4. guarding;
5. pinch point identification;
6. self-centering controls;
7. hands-off drilling;
8. insertion/retrieval devices;
9. standardized control layouts; and
10. pre-operational inspection.
• provide industry-wide accepted distinct and
consistent knob shapes and relative handle lengths
to identify corresponding control function.
• standardize machine control lever movement and
corresponding machine function movement.
MSHA subsequently called for industry comment on
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking titled
Safety standards for the use of roof-bolting machines
in underground mines.(25) that suggested that MSHA
was developing design criteria for underground bolting
machines. On February 12, 1998 the comment period
was extended to March 9, 1998, however no related
rule or design criteria were subsequently released. On
June 10, 1999, MSHA released a program information
bulletin(26) that reported an investigation of a
subsequent fatal accident as having revealed that a
potential hazard exists on roof bolting machines with
machine controls that are not protected against
inadvertent operation. This bulletin recommended
mines:
• relocate controls to a protected position;
• guard controls;
• redesign controls to prevent operation while the
operator is in a pinch point; and
• ensure proper storage of supplies and materials to
prevent falling on controls.
Analysis of the injury narratives reported to MSHA
in 2004 also revealed that the design shortcomings,
previously identified as increasing the likelihood of
inadvertent and incorrect operation of bolting controls,
remain, at least to some extent. Bolting machine
controls require guarding to prevent inadvertent
operation (while still allowing access for intentional
operation). Improvements to bolting machine design
are required to guard pinch points and provide
interlocks to reduce the probability and consequences
of intentional or unintentional control operation whilst
the operator or other person is in a hazardous location.
Bolting machine controls also require standardization
to an appropriate layout (including shape and length
coding) to reduce the probability of operation of the
wrong control, although open questions remain
regarding whether control layouts should be mirrored,
and the relative importance of shape, location and
length coding for the prevention of “wrong control”
type errors. For example, while Helander, Conway
& Elliott et al(23) noted that the mirror arrangement
question was controversial and drew on the results of
Pigg(28) to conclude that a mirrored control layout was
preferable, a contrary recommendation was made by
Muldoon, Ruggieri, & Gore et al.(27) Control
standardization must also consider carefully the
question of directional control response compatibility
principles to reduce the probability of operation of
controls in the wrong direction. Further research is
required to determine the most appropriate layout and
directional control-response relationships specific to
bolting machines. Chan, Pethick & Collier et al(29)
suggested that conflicting recommendations and gaps
in the literature would need to be resolved before
any standardization of control-response relationships
for mining machines was possible. (see also Simpson
& Chan (31))
This statement remains true and is the reason for
further investigation to clarify the consequences of
standardization of controls, control orientation and
control response expectations. NIOSH and the
University of Queensland along with ACARP
(Australian Coal Association Research Program) and
in collaboration with roof bolter manufacturers plan
to conduct laboratory and field studies to address the
inadvertent or incorrect activation of bolter controls
issues. The studies will help to determine:
• consequences of mirror versus non-mirrored control
layouts on error and reaction time;
• relative importance of location coding, shape coding
and length coding;
• relative strengths of direction control-response
compatibility relationships in different planes;
• consequences for new operators when using different
designs and layouts; and
• consequences for current operators of changing to
a new design and/or layout.
These studies will be conducted beginning in
April 2007.
In response to the crushing and pinning injuries,
regardless of the root cause, NIOSH is currently
conducting studies regarding reaction time of operators
when operating the vertical boom arm, the swing arm
and the tramming functions of the roof bolting
machine. These studies have used roof bolter operator
reaction times obtained from mock up laboratory
studies and then placed into a virtual human
simulation package called JACK to determine
appendage speeds that would not allow operators to
get out of the way. These results are currently being
validated and will provide recommendations for
maximum speeds for appendage movement.(33)
Cable Handling
The injury narratives suggest that, in 2004, handling
cable accounted for 76 of the 283 continuous miner
related injuries (27%), somewhat more than the 11%
noted previously(7), but consistent with recent
Australian data in which 23% of continuous miner
related injuries were associated with handling
cable.(14) Technological changes over the last 10 years
have resulted in longer cuts. It may be speculated that
increases in the length of cable being handled,
combined with reduction in the number of miner
workers and increases in the average age of miners,
may in part account for the increased proportion of
cable handling injuries.
The severity of injuries associated with handling cable
varies from relatively minor shoulder strains to serious
back injuries. While the cumulative nature of most
musculoskeletal injuries implies that other manual
tasks are likely to also have contributed to these
injuries, there is no doubt that handling continuous
miner cable represents a high risk of injury and is
consistent with biomechanical analysis of the task.(30,31)
Engineering controls are required to eliminate or
reduce manual cable handling. Integration of cable
and other services with continuous haulage has been
suggested in the context of remote control.(32)
There is a Monorail cable handling system used in
Australia for the higher seam conditions developed by
Macquarie Manufacturing in Australia; it is a monorail
system and has been installed in Centennial Coal’s
Newstan Mine in New South Wales. This monorail
supply system encompasses all services-related
equipment from the face area out-by, to the incoming
services cut-through. At the face, cables directly
interface with the continuous miner, with no
detachment required during the tramming process,
making it no longer necessary to install or manage
cables. The main requirement to use this system is
the installation of an easily-managed monorail beam
adjacent to the miner, with a series of traction drive
units located throughout the system, which provide
an integrated means of cable management. Macquarie
Manufacturing stated that manual handling of
equipment has been reduced significantly when using
this monorail system. This system or a similar system
may be investigated to be used in the USA and adapted
for lower seam conditions. The system is capable of
handling cable and could potentially be engineered to
move other supplies and materials. This system and
other systems are being investigated in both Australia
and the USA.(2)
9
Summary
In general, the 2004 data analysis showed many
equipment related issues of which the top priorities are
either already being addressed and have preliminary
results or are slated for research in the near future.
NIOSH is currently addressing issues associated with
small falls of rock through the screening studies and
the dual rail intervention; rough roads through the
whole body vibration studies; and the new shuttle car
seat design, and collision with machinery through the
HASARD system research. Future studies include the
inadvertent and incorrect operation of bolting controls
through a joint study with University of Queensland.
NIOSH will continue to study these and other issues
related to the safety and human factors of machine
design to reduce both acute and cumulative type
injuries. In addition, research to prevent these issues
also points to the need for equipment manufacturers
to design for a human interface — to consider the
limitations and capabilities of workers when designing.
In this effort, NIOSH is planning to provide original
equipment manufacturers with the training and
education to integrate human factors principles into
their design and to their distributors. A new project is
planned for 2007 which aims to provide this training
for OEMs. It should enhance communication between
mining operations and OEMs regarding better
equipment design and educated ordering and
retrofitting decisions, and thus introduce human
interface problem solving techniques.
References
1) Sanders, M.S., & Shaw, B.E. (1989). Research to
determine the contribution of system factors in the
occurrence of underground injury accidents. USBM
OFR 26-89.
2) Burgess-Limerick, R. (2005). Reducing injury risks
associated with underground coal mining
equipment. Ergonomics Australia, 19(2), 14-20.
3) Klishis, M.J., Althouse, R.C., Stobbe, T.J., Plummer,
R.W., Grayson, R.L., Layne, L.A., and Lies, G.M.
(1993). Coal Mine Injury Analysis: A Model for
Reduction Through Training.
Volume VIII –
Accident Risks During the Roof Bolting Cycle:
Analysis of Problems and Potential Solutions.
USBM Cooperative agreements C0167023 &
C0178052.
4) Robertson, S.B., Molinda, G.M., Dolinar, D.R.,
Pappas, D.M., & Hinshaw, G.E. (2003). Best
practices and bolting machine innovations for roof
screening. 2003 SME Annual Meeting, Feb 24-26,
Cincinnati, Ohio, preprint 03-158. Littleton, CO:
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Inc. pp.1-8.
10
5) Robertson, S.B. & Hinshaw, G.E. (2002) Roof
screening: Best practices and Roof Bolting
Machines. In: Peng SS, Mark C, Khair AW,
Heasley KA, eds. Proceedings of the 21st
International Conference on Ground Control
in Mining. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia
University, pp. 189-194
6) Pappas, D.M., Barton, T.M. & Weiss, E.S. (2002)
Developments in Sealant Support Systems
for Ground Control. In: Peng SS, Mark C, Khair AW,
Heasley KA, eds. Proceedings of the 21st
International Conference on Ground Control in
Mining. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia
University. pp. 344-353.
7) Mark, C. (2002). The introduction of roof-bolting
to U.S. underground coal mines (1948-1960): A
cautionary tale. 21st International Conference on
Ground Control in Mining. Morgantown, WV:
West Virginia University, pp 150-160.
8) Miller, W.K. & McLellan, R.R. (1973). Analysis
of disabling injuries related to roof bolting in
underground bituminous coal mines – 1973. US
Dept of the Interior Informational report 1107.
9) Hedling, W.G., & Folley, J.D., Jr (1972).
Standardization of Continuous Miner Control
Configurations. USBM report OFR 25-72.
10) Grayson, R.L., Layne, L.A., Althouse, R.C., & Klishis,
M.J. (1992). Risk indices for roof bolter injuries.
Mining Engineering, 44(2) 164-166.
11) Mayton, A.G., Gallagher, S., & Merkel, R. (1997).
Ergonomic Seat With Viscoelastic Foam Reduces
Shock on Underground Mobile Equipment.
Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety
II, IOS Press. pp. 177-180.
12) Mayton, A.G., Merkel, R. & Gallagher, S. (1999).
Improved Seat Reduces Jarring/Jolting for
Operators of Low-Coal Shuttle Cars. Mining Eng
51(12), 52- 56
13) McPhee, B. (2001). Bad vibrations. A handbook on
whole body vibration exposure in mining. Sydney:
NSW Joint Coal Board Health and Safety Trust.
14) Eger, T., Salmoni, A., & Whissell, R. (2004). Factors
influencing load-haul-dump operator line of sight
in underground mining. Applied Ergonomics, 35,
93-103.
15) Tyson, J. (1997). To see or not to see … that is
the question! Designing to maximize operator
visibility in LHD equipment. Ergonomics Australia
On-Line
(www.uq.edu.au/eaol/oct97/tyson/tyson.html)
16) Gill, P. (2005). LHD operator cab and load
monitoring innovations. XCN Health & Safety
Forum, 11th November, Pokolbin, NSW.
17) Schiffbauer, W.H. (2001) An Active Proximity
Warning System for Surface and Underground
Mining Applications. SME Annual Meeting
(Denver, CO; Feb 26- 28, 2001), Preprint
No. 01-117, SME, Inc., pp. 1-8.
18) Grant, D., Dayawansa, D., & Curcio, P. (2005).
Confronting a real underground safety issue —
Improving safety and comfort in underground
personnel transport. In Proceedings of the
Queensland Mining Industry Health and Safety
Conference, Townsville. pp. 149-158.
(www.qrc.org.au)
19) Pendlebury, W. (2003). Shuttle car cab modification.
Queensland mining industry safety and health
innovation awards.
20) Mason, S., Simpson, G.C., Chan, W.L., Graves, R.J.,
Mabey, M.H., Rhodes, R.C. & Leamon, T.B. (1980).
An investigation of face end equipment and the
resultant effects on work organization. Final report
on CEC contract 6245-12/8/047. Edinburgh:
Institute of Occupational Medicine. TM/80/11.
27) Chan, W.L., Pethick, A.J., Collier, S.G., Mason, S.,
Graveling, R.A., Rushworth, A.M., & Simpson, G.C.
(1985). Ergonomic principles in the design of
underground development machines. Edinburgh:
Institute of Occupational Medicine TM 85/11.
28) Gallagher, S., Marras, W.S., Davis, K.G., & Kovacs,
K. (2002). Effects of posture on dynamic back
loading during a cable lifting task, Ergonomics,
45, 380-398.
29) Gallagher, S., Hamrick, C.A., Cornelius, K.M. &
Redfern, M.S. (2001) The Effects of Restricted
Workspace on Lumbar Spine Loading. Occupational
Ergonomics, 2, 201-213.
30) Kingsley, E.C., Mason, S., Pethick, A.J., Simpson,
G.C., Sims, M.T., & Leamon, T.B. (1980). An
investigation of underground haulage and transport
systems. Edinburgh: Institute of Occupational
Medicine TM/80/10.
31) Pethick, A.J. & Mason, S. (1985). Ergonomic
principles in the design of underground freesteered vehicles. Endinburgh: Institute of
Occupational Medicince TM/85/5.
21) MSHA (1994) Coal Mine Safety and Health RoofBolting-Machine Committee. Report of Findings.
July 8, 1994.
32) Simpson, G.C., Rushworth, A.M., Von Glehn, F.H.,
& Lomas, R.H. (1996). Investigation of the causes
of transport and tramming accidents on mines
other than coal, gold and platinum. Vol 1. SIMRAC
project report: OTH 202.
22) MSHA (1997). Safety Standards for the Use of
Roof-Bolting Machines in Underground Coal
Mines. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Federal Register: Dec 9, 1997 (Vol 62, number 236,
pp 64789-64790).
www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/PROPOSED/1997PRO
12/14/2005
P/97-32203.HTM accessed
33) Ambrose, D.H., Bartels, J.R., Kwitowski, A.J.,
Helinski, R.F., Gallagher, S., McWilliams,
L.J., and Battenhouse, T.R. (2005). Mining Roof
Bolting Machine Safety: A Study of the Drill Boom
Vertical Velocity. Information Circular 9477,
Department of Health and Human Services, CDC,
NIOSH, PRL.
23) MSHA (1999) Potential hazard to roof bolting
machine operators due to inadvertent control
actuation. Program information bulletin No. P99-10.
www.msha.gov/regs/complian/PIB/1999/PIB9910.htm accessed 2/16/2005
34) Kotowski S, Gallagher S, Davis K, Baron K,
Compton C (2006). Musculoskeletal Stress on
Miners Performing Roof Screening Operations.
Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San
Francisco CA (October 16-20, 2006), pp. 1370-1374.
24) Muldoon, T.L., Ruggieri, S., Gore, T., & McDonald,
L.B. (1980). Design and develop
standardized controls in roof bolting machines –
preliminary design. USBM OFR 107-80.
25) Gilbert, V.A. (1990). Research support for the
development of SAE guidelines for
underground operator compartments. USBM OFR
8-91.
26) Pigg, L.D. (1954). Orientation of controls in bilateral
transfer of learning. MA Thesis. Ohio State
University.
11
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
12
2) Ergonomics in the
Design Process
In my experience ergonomists also have other goals,
particularly in regard to assisting with design:
• find and apply data on human performance relevant
to the design and demands;
Justin O'Sullivan CPE
Principal, Ergonomics for Work
[email protected]
• assist the designer/engineer by way of ergonomics
specifications;
• assess risk quantitatively, comparing current and
intended designs;
Introduction
Given the type and nature of injuries in underground
mining, the key roles and necessary independence of
operators and the very difficult environment,
ergonomics plays a fundamental role in the design of
underground mining equipment. It is clear that optimal
performance, minimal fatigue and minimisation of
errors are crucial to a productive and safe process.
Ergonomics plays a key role in all of these areas by
ensuring that the dimensions, clearances, space, layout,
efforts, visibility and other factors, incorporated in the
equipment design, are matched to human capabilities
and limitations.
Engineers work hard to ensure that the equipment is
designed for the purpose, is capable of withstanding
the stresses, and is productive and cost effective.
However, in many cases, the design is a slight
modification or progression of existing designs and
without a significant focus on the human factor. In my
experience engineers often see the human as the weak
link in a good design and an element which is difficult
to control and can involve unpredictable outcomes.
• set clear solution goals and specifications which
can act as a design standard; and
• often provide a neutral or objective opinion utilizing
ergonomics data.
Examples of ergonomics data and their application
are discussed below.
Anthropometry
Anthropometry is the science which deals with the size
and shape of people within a population (Standards
Australia Handbook 59-1994). The application of
anthropometry, in design, is to incorporate the relevant
human dimensions, aiming to accommodate at least
90% of potential users, taking account of both static
and dynamic factors. Static factors are such things as
height of a lumbar support on a seat backrest, the seat
pan depth, the doorway size for access. Dynamic
factors relate to movements of the body, reach
distances, movement patterns, viewing angles (where a
person has to move their head to view from one point
to another as part of the process).
Ergonomics data, about humans and their interactions
with tasks, can help take some of the mystery out of
the human factor and provide engineers with useful
specifications to be incorporated in the equipment
design. This presentation discusses the types of
contributions ergonomics can make to the design of
underground equipment, along with some examples.
Ergonomists and Ergonomics Data
According to the International Ergonomics Association
ergonomists contribute to the design and evaluation
of tasks, jobs, products, environments and systems in
order to make them compatible with the needs, abilities
and limitations of people. Ergonomists, in practice,
have to address real world problems and seek the best
compromise under difficult circumstances while aiming
to provide cost effective solutions, according to
Stanton et al.
Photo 1: Roof Bolting
13
A critical example of anthropometry, in this case, is
viewing and reaching angles in roof bolting. In this
case a miner was suffering chronic neck pain (Photo 1).
Analysis of the work revealed typical neck extension
in the order of 40-45° as well as maximum reaching to
insert the bolt and resin. The height of the floor of the
continuous miner was found to be such that most
people would need to adopt near to 40° neck extension
to view the bolt hole as well as significant reach in
order to reach forwards and upwards when inserting
bolts and resin. The solution involved determining the
appropriate floor heights, and forward reach distances
to the bolters, in order achieve a suitable degree of
neck extension based on typical frequency and
duration. The ergonomics data included eye movements
v neck movements, the part of the neck involved in the
neck extension, human dimensions for eye height and
reach capacity, likely forces applied, and other factors.
The result was a recommendation to raise the floor of
the miner 100-200mm and extend the floor forwards
200mm toward the bolters (Photo 2).
An example of a particularly non-ergonomics situation,
where there appears to be little account taken of
biomechanical stresses, is the changing of rollers on
gate road conveyors (Photo 3). Here the problems relate
to limited space, unpredictable forces, tight deadlines,
awkward postures, poor visibility and inability to use
both hands comfortably in the circumstances.
Photo 3: Changing rollers
A further example is shuttle car design where there
are common problems with seat heights, pedal reach
distances, viewing angles and other factors (Photo 4-6).
Shorter workers may be required to half stand up
whilst driving or lean outside the confines of the
vehicle to see. Even tall workers can have problems
with the viewing angles as well as problems fitting
their knees between the two opposing seats.
Photo 2: Refurbished Miner – raised and
extended floor to assist roof bolting
Biomechanical Stress Analysis
Biomechanical factors take in all factors related to
musculoskeletal stress, including postures, movements,
forces, durations and frequencies. There is relevance
to all aspects of underground mining even the walking
demands placed on Deputies.
Ergonomics data is available in relation to muscle
strength, joint range of motion, movement patterns,
endurance, repetition and speed; for example, a rapid
movement can be perhaps 30% weaker than a slow
movement.
14
Photo 4: Shorter worker operating the
shuttle car
Figure 1: Shuttle car layout
Photo 5: Shorter worker leaning out to see ahead
Figure 2: Shuttle car steering wheel position
Photo 6: Taller worker operating a shuttle car
still with obstructed viewing angles and limited
knee room
The ergonomics advice given, included detailed
dimensional specifications, with an adjustment range
to accommodate 90% of operators and to allow for
appropriate viewing angles, good lumbar support (most
T backrests available do not have a good lumbar
support), raising of the floor to improve heights of the
seat, and repositioning the seat relative to the pedals
(Figures 1, 2, 3).
Figure 3: Shuttle car seat profile
15
A new miner being constructed is being designed to
include a swivel seat, swivel through 180°, with toggle
controls on the armrests which would have a switching
mechanism built in so that tilting the toggle lever to
the left steers the machine left while tilting to the right
steers the machine to the right no matter which way
the operator is facing. An important ergonomic factor
here is the armrests must move up and down with the
suspension seat so that support of the forearms is
maintained in order to maintain control of the toggle
levers and prevent sudden and uncontrolled
movements during operation.
Slip and Fall Prevention
A significant area of ergonomics is the analysis and
control of slip/fall risks including slips and falls on a
level surface and the design of access ways and ladders
etc. An example is the access on a continuous miner
where the analysis found significant problems related
to the step heights, lack of poor slip resistance, a
significant step across distance to the tail and lack of
slip resistance on the platform around the edge of the
tail (Photo 7).
Photo 8: Refurbished CM access steps prior
to fitting of slip-resistant nosing strips
Analysis of incident data among the development
crews found that 20% of incidents arose from
access/egress on and off the miner. A more detailed
analysis by Burgess-Limerick has found an even
greater percentage of the incidents are related to
access and egress. The ergonomics specifications for
a refurbished miner included altered dimensions on
the access steps, a lower bottom step height, and
application of slip-resistant nosing strips on the steps
and on the tail.
Control Room Ergonomics
Photo 7: CM access/egress
16
In the control room situation there is a mixture of
office and visual ergonomics as well as cognitive and
computer-human interaction. The ergonomist has the
role of assessing and providing specifications for the
layout, the heights, the viewing angles and distances,
character heights and contrasts on the screen as well
as various other factors. An important issue, shown
by research, is the need to support the whole forearm
when using the mouse in order to greatly reduce
musculoskeletal efforts in the forearm, shoulder
and neck.
In this example, at a hard rock mining situation
(Photo 9), the control room had been designed in a
rudimentary fashion resulting quite inappropriate
dimensions, poor postures, poor viewing angles and
other problems. Solution specifications included the
designing of a new three-person console, a new layout
for the existing room, a layout allowing easy viewing
to the outside to rest the eyes and full forearm support
(Figure 4, Photos 10, 11).
Figure 4: Drawing of new control console
Photo 11: Secondary controllers Position
Photo 9: Old Control Room
Photo 10: Main controllers Position
(prior to completion)
17
New Miner Project
• roof bolting;
Ergonomics specifications were requested for a new
ABM 25 Miner for BMA Crinum Mine with the aim
of assisting the engineer, Alan Bruce, in determining
suitable dimensions, forces, layout factors and other
aspects of the design. Specifications were provided
in regard to the following:
• rib bolting;
• floor height;
• monorail storage and handling;
• mesh handling;
• cassette storage and handling;
• access/egress; and
• guarding and mechanical safety issues.
In regard to working height, the intended floor height
was 993mm, with the floor to roof height being
2300mm. Analysis of various tasks, such as roof bolt
insertion, viewing angles for roof bolts, and monorail
installation indicated that most males would find the
reach distance difficult and neck extension would be
excessive. Basic arthrometry data was extrapolated to
allow consideration of the effect of the roof height.
Some examples are shown in the figures below.
Vertical Reach Capacity for
Gripping Standing on Tip-Toes
Vertical Height of Males with
Shoes and Helmet Worn
Vertical Reach Capacity
for Gripping
5th percentile:
2055mm
50th percentile: 2185mm
5th percentile:
1720mm
5th percentile:
1980mm
Figs. 5–7: Examples of basic anthropometry data
Conclusions reached included the fact that the roof
would be out of reach of 5th and 50th percentile males
(if having to reach to the mesh itself in order to hook
on monorail brackets), the method for monorails
needed to extend reach by 250mm for small males.
The force applied would determine the actual reach
distance limitations. Practical guidelines given included
the capacity to reach forwards from the chest and to
reach forwards in front of the toes (allowing for the
front edge of the platform for roof bolting).
In regard to roof bolting, the original design included
a 550mm forward reach to the bolters which was taken
into account in determining the reach capacity for
males at 550mm forwards of the shoulders. This
showed a reach capacity (vertically) of 1635mm for 5th
percentile and 2052mm for 95th percentile (tall) males.
The required reach was a nominal 2000mm, allowing
for a need to reach to 300mm the roof for easy
insertion for bolts and resin etc.
18
Viewing angles were also considered, allowing for
bolt holes to be 500mm forwards of the eyes and the
2300mm height resulting in 39-53° upward viewing
angles for small to large males. In allowing for some
upward movement of the eyes themselves it was
considered that neck extension would be 38° or more
for small males. The specification given was to limit
neck extension to 25° maximum for all workers.
The overall result was a recommendation to raise
the floor height by 200mm which was achieved by
installing the first adjustable floor on a continuous
miner.
Installation of monorail was examined to consider the
force to slide one piece of monorail into another at a
maximum reach distance. The strength capacities were
provided for movements across overhead or in a fore —
aft direction for this type of action, using one arm as
well as considering the weight of the monorail sections
themselves.
Another key issue was the need to slide mesh from a
pack on top of the machine forwards and over above
the roof bolters. (Figure 8) On the original design it
was found that the height of the top of the pack would
be 1925mm which exceeded the reach capacity of
small males at 300mm forwards of the shoulders,
and was near to the reach capacity of average males.
Figure 8: Continuous Miner (ABM25) with pack of mesh on top
The forward reach distance was also found to be a
problem. The recommendation included raising the
floor height 200mm and limiting any sliding force to
10kg. A further improvement was achieved by having
the platform for the mesh designed to swivel toward
the right side of the machine in the most forward
position to allow the right side worker easier reach
to commence the sliding motion and slide the mesh
across to the right side first with assistance then
provided by the worker on the left side.
In summary, some of the particularly helpful features
of the miner are as follows:
Access/egress issues were also considered where it was
recommended that the miner have a stairway style
configuration with a handrail and slip-resistant
nosings, ensuring that the rises were consistent and
within a suitable range, based on AS1657, and the
bottom step height would be no more than 400mm
above ground level. The latter specification was
achieved by having the steps able to be folded up
for the flitting phase.
• rib mesh holders, just outside the guardrail;
• an adjustable floor height to accommodate a larger
range of users;
• handrails to minimise the risk off falling of the side;
• a stairway style access way with good dimensions
for easy access/egress and slip-resistant nosings;
• a mesh tray which swivels around to the right for
easier reach, also assisted by the raised floor;
• a 450mm forward distance between the platform
and roof bolters;
• push button miner bolter controls; and
• improved space in and around the bolter console.
Photo 12. The new specifications
19
The Design Process and System
• perform in depth task analysis and workflow;
In order to effectively apply ergonomic specifications
to the design of equipment underground or in any
situation, it is necessary to have good consultation
with users and operators, a good working relationship
with engineering personnel and an effective process.
Such a process can be simplified as below:
• identify relevant human performance data, outlining
specific limitations and capacities;
• determine Objectives/Purpose;
• reallocate functions and revise design.
• determine all functions to be performed (by machine,
human software);
Various parties have a role in the process which is
illustrated in the ergonomics loop, including an
Ergonomics Task Force made up of operators and
hopefully engineering and safety personnel (ETF).
• identify functions to be allocated to humans;
• lay down design specifications based on human
performance and Ergonomics Criteria;
• determine the viability or feasibility of ensuring
design meets specifications; if not
The Ergonomics Loop
Acknowledgments: Alan Bruce, Engineer, BMA Crinum and the design team at ABM/Sandvik.
20
3) Ergonomics in large
Machinery Design
Barbara McPhee
Jim Knowles Group
Kurri Kurri, NSW, Australia
Abstract
Until recently in Australia it has been difficult to
convince machinery manufacturers that ergonomics
was worthy of their attention and action. Ergonomics
evaluation of a range of machinery has been hampered
by a lack of accessible, useable design criteria. Formal
Standards, such as the new Australian Standard on
Safety of Machinery give design guidelines on safety,
design parameters and ergonomics but do not cover the
full range of issues associated with useability and
design of large mobile machines. Most other Standards
are out-of-date or are inconsistent with current
practice in Australia. By necessity most occupational
health and safety regulations and standards for heavy
equipment define their design in terms of broad
principles to reduce risks to health and safety.
To assist designers, purchasers and users of heavy
machinery in the application of ergonomics principles
it may be worth developing useability standards such
as those used for computer systems. These may be
applied to generate more specific design and
performance specifications using the consultative
risk assessment process.
Introduction
The safe design and operation of industrial plant
has been the focus of Standards and Regulations in
Australia for the past five to ten years. In that time a
National Standard for Plant (1994, 1995a, 1995b) has
been developed and is an integral part of Occupational
Health and Safety (OHS) legislation throughout
Australia. The National Standard provides for a process
of health and safety risk management including the
process of identification, assessment and control of
risks. However, it gives no material guidance with
respect to general design.
For instance, the Standard specifies that design for
high-risk plant such as boilers, cranes, lifts, escalators
and moving walkways must comply with strict design
criteria to prevent catastrophic injuries. However, it is
far less helpful on design for large mobile machinery
to reduce the risks of lesser injuries (especially sprains
and strains) and operator errors.
22
In New South Wales the Mine Safety Division of the
Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has developed
a number of Mining Design Guidelines (MDGs) that
contain specific design guidance for underground
machinery and these are currently being updated (MDG
1 1995). Purchasers are now asking for improved
guidance because OHS legislation requires that they be
more accountable for the purchase and design of
equipment.
The new Australian Standard on Safety of Machinery
(AS AS4024.1 2006) has gone a long way in addressing
the deficiencies of previous Standards. It specifies such
aspects as safety principles, design parameters and
ergonomics in line with the National Standard.
However, it is too early to determine how influential
it will be in reducing accidents, injuries and errors.
Another issue is the manufacturers’ willingness and
ability to comply with the Standard and the purchasers’
ability to make informed choices with respect to the
Standard.
Current Design and Purchasing Criteria
Many large international machinery manufacturers
have developed sets of design criteria and these are
jealously guarded as commercially sensitive material.
The better their designs, the greater their market edge.
However, this does not provide guidance for purchasers
who are often left with a confusing array of conflicting
design features when trying to select a machine
suitable for their needs and budgets. The machine’s
price; its capabilities in terms of power; running costs;
availability/costs of spares and replacement parts; and
its reliability are the most important features to most
purchasers.
In some cases brand loyalty may be a factor. Rarely is
ergonomics included in the list of criteria. Even when
ergonomics is considered important finding the general
criteria by which a machine should be selected is
complex and confusing. Some information relevant
to the ergonomics design of machinery is contained
in a variety of large ergonomics textbooks, Standards,
codes and guidance notes. However, the information
is incomplete and some specifications must be
interpolated from this range of sources. Other
information may be contradictory or in a form
that makes it difficult for engineers to interpret.
While it is difficult to specify detailed design for each
piece of equipment there is a range of questions that
could be asked and there are some generic guidelines
that could be applied.
Operator performance as the basic
for better machinery design
Are there handrails and handholds where necessary?
Useability standards
2. Does the equipment allow safe and efficient
operation?
Are doorways wide and high enough?
For the last 15 to 20 years ergonomists have been
determining design standards through useability trials.
A good case in point was the development of standards
for computer equipment (Lindgaard 1991, Stewart
1991). The user performance standards that are derived
from these trials have lead to the design of more userfriendly computer systems and have become a method
for re-evaluating the design as needs and technologies
changes. They allow some flexibility in the
development of a product and take into account
variables such as age, experience, education and
stereotypical behaviours in users.
Useability standards for large vehicles
To apply user performance standards to the design
of large pieces of equipment we need to understand
something about the range of people who would be
operating the machine, where they will be working and
what they would be doing with it. If these questions
are not answered correctly the design is likely to fail.
Can the operator see and hear?
Can s/he understand and act appropriately when
given information?
Can s/he manipulate controls easily and without
confusion?
Cans/he work in reasonable comfort without
unnecessary or excessive physical and/or mental
stress or fatigue?
3 Do the environmental conditions in the cab
allow for comfort, communication and adequate
protection from noise, vibration, dust and other
risks to health?
Can the cab be kept at a reasonable temperature for
sedentary work (20 –25o C) i.e. is adequate heating,
cooling or air conditioning provided where necessary?
In any user trial the following questions should be
asked:
Can the operator communicate easily and without
misunderstanding with people outside the cab?
What is the age range of the users/operators?
Can doors and windows be closed and are seals
adequate to prevent the ingress of unwanted,
distracting or dangerous noise, dust, fumes or other
environmental contaminants?
How big, how strong are they?
What are they expected to do with the machine?
i.e. what is the nature of the work?
Where will they be working? i.e. type of industry,
country, climate
When do they do the work? i.e. time of day, seasons,
weather etc
What is their experience with similar machines?
In addition to these questions about the operator and
job requirements the designer needs to know about
the operator/maintenance personnel interface with
the machine.
1. Is there safe and easy access to the machine
by the operator?
Are steps, stairs ladders, walkways and access
platforms provided where necessary and are they safe
to use under all foreseeable conditions? i.e. the risks
of slips, trips and falls are minimised
Is whole-body vibration reduced to an acceptable
level? Does it meet the Australian Standard for WBV
(AS 2670-2001: Evaluation of human exposure to
whole-body vibration – General requirements)?
(McPhee, Foster & Long 2001)
4. Are operators aware of all features on the vehicle,
how to use them optimally and why it is important
that they do?
5. Is there suitable competency training available
for operators and maintenance personnel?
6. Is there easy access to machine parts or areas
requiring attention, and are there suitable tools
readily available in maintenance and servicing
of equipment?
7. Are the demands of maintenance tasks within the
capabilities of all maintenance personnel?
Maintenance does not require undue force, awkward
postures or dangerous practices.
23
If the answers to questions 1 to 7 are ‘yes’ then the
machine can be said to be well designed from an
ergonomics point of view.
or repaired. Recommendations on regular and timely
maintenance of the seat should be provided. Seat belts
should be provided where required
However, rarely, if ever, is this, the case. Some
machines are designed for a particular task with little
input about its operator’s capabilities and limitations
or for ease of maintenance. Some are designed for
abilities quite different from those of the average
operator and for conditions that bear no relationship
to those that may be encountered.
Controls. These should be laid out and designed for
easy and safe operation. Their location, layout, spacing
and grouping, shape, type, size, feel and feedback,
force and resistance, and direction of movement and
travel should enhance the operators’ abilities to do
their job. There should be safeguards against accidental
operation of controls. Where appropriate control force
and function need to comply with conventions, and
movements should be consistent with the natural
movements of the arms or legs. Controls should be
labelled or be identifiable in some other way.
Maintenance personnel often have problems
particularly with access to the machine itself and to
specific parts.
Developing generic useability standards for
large vehicles
These generic questions may then be used in
conjunction with consultative/participative risk
assessments to generate a set of machine-specific
design guidelines (McPhee 2005). The generic areas
requiring consideration should include:
Ingress/egress from the cabin. This includes the design
of steps, stairs walkways, handholds and doorways.
Operator’s space. This must allow for freedom of
movement and comfortable operating postures for the
operator. Any manoeuvres necessary for the operation
of the machine should be able to be performed safely
and without unnecessary fatigue or discomfort. There
should be adequate headroom especially if occupants
are wearing protective headgear. Controls should be
within a 1800 radius of the operator and within easy
reach. There should be good access to the seat and
tripping hazards and obstructions should be eliminated
or modified. Corners should be rounded, protrusions
padded and/or recessed where appropriate.
Seating. Unimpeded access in and out of the seat is
required. The operator must be able to sit at the right
height for comfort, visibility and operation of the
controls. Height adjustment of the seat may be
necessary so operators can reach controls and see
displays comfortably and easily. The seat should be
able to accommodate about 97% of all operators and it
should be designed for the job and conditions, as well
as the type of machine being operated. The longer an
operator is required to sit without a break the more
closely the seat should meet sound ergonomics
specifications. Adjustments should be easy to achieve
from the seated position and recommendations for
adjustment should be provided, preferably attached
to seat. The seat should be robust and not have
components that are easily broken, torn or damaged.
Seat and backrest covers should be easily changed
24
Instruments and displays. The design of information
displays and instruments should enhance the operator’s
capacity to determine the state of the machine
accurately, easily and when it is needed. The aim is
to minimise errors, operator fatigue and wear and tear
on machinery. The location and layout of displayed
information should allow easy reading and
interpretation. Displays should be grouped and/or
located according to their function, the critical nature
of the information and the frequency of usage.
Displays that are used infrequently may be out of the
direct line of sight but all information needs to be
large and clear enough to be seen under sub-optimal
conditions. Do not provide unnecessary information
that may clutter the visual field and/or confuse. The
purpose and location of all displays should be clear.
The design of warning lights should be consistent with
ergonomics guidelines and/or convention. They should
be located directly in front of the operator and should
be clearly visible. Redundancy should be provided
when further information on the status of the system
is required.
Other warning signals. Auditory alarms may be
used to bring the operator’s attention to a problem
immediately. They should not be used simply to
indicate the status of the system. Auditory alarms
should be able to be heard and identified either
through pitch or frequency or both. Extremely loud
signals are not acceptable. They may startle listeners,
may distract them in an emergency or a critical task
and may cause temporary deafness.
The cab environment. Noise generated by the vehicle
should not expose the driver or passengers to levels
that exceed 85dB(A) for an eight-hour equivalent.
Noise generated by the vehicle shall not expose the
driver to peak levels that exceed relevant Standards.
Whole-body vibration levels transmitted to the
operator should not exceed relevant Standards. Cabin
temperature should be in the range of 20 to 25oC.
Controls for air conditioning should be located with
primary or secondary controls. The function of each
control should be identified in some way and should be
easy and simple to use. Displays of information on the
status of the air conditioning unit should be clear and
unambiguous requiring minimum instruction to
understand. Noise from air conditioning units should
be minimal. Airflow should be adjustable and able to
be directed away from the operator. Outlets should be
spread around the cab to ensure an even temperature
in all areas. Temperature of the air flowing into the
cabin should be able to be controlled by the operator.
Visibility inside and from the cab. Specular reflections
should be reduced by ensuring that all surfaces are
matt and non-reflective. Blind spots should be reduced
to a minimum and brought to the attention of the
operator and others in the area. Line of sight should
not be blocked in any critical function by controls,
displays or other parts of the cab. Mirrors must be
large enough and correctly positioned to enable the
operator to see behind and to the sides of the vehicle.
Distortions created by curved mirrors should be
brought to the attention of the operator. Extremities of
the vehicle should be visible at all times from the cab.
Mirrors and other methods may be used to enhance
visibility for difficult areas.
Accessibility of fluid level gauges/sight glasses for
operators. Ease of viewing enables regular checks to be
made without difficulty or error. Each glass or gauge
should be easily visible by the operator from the
ground or in the cab. Misinterpretation of information
should be minimised by the design of the sight
glass/gauge. Cleaning the sight glass or gauge should
be easy.
Accessibility for servicing by operators. Access to filling
and grease lubrication points, batteries and the toolbox
should be from the ground. The toolbox should be
lockable.
Accessibility to regularly replaced or serviced
components for maintenance personnel. Access to
components for regular repair and maintenance should
require minimal equipment and effort.
Training. Programs are needed to raise awareness of
safety and health issues in design; and to communicate
the why as well as the what of good design.
Conclusions
While the new Safety of Machinery Standard covers a
range of safety, design and ergonomics issues there is
still a lack of detailed, useable ergonomics guidelines
for designers, purchasers and operators of mobile
heavy machinery in mining in Australia.
User performance standards, in conjunction with the
consultative risk assessment process, may be valuable
in generating these useable ergonomics machinespecific design specifications.
References
Australian Standard AS 2670-2001: Evaluation of
human exposure to whole-body vibration – General
requirements
Australian Standard AS4024.1- 2006: Safety of
machinery.
Lindgaard G. (1991). Adapting your tools to fit the task.
The HCI business case. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia
(Popovic V and Walker M eds). Coolum, pp21-30.
McPhee B, Foster G and Long A. (2001). Bad
Vibrations. A Handbook of Whole-body Vibration
Exposure in Mining. Coal Services (formerly Joint Coal
Board) Health and Safety Trust, Sydney.
McPhee B. (2005), Practical Ergonomics: Application
of ergonomics principles in the workplace. Coal
Services Health and Safety Trust, Sydney.
Stewart T. (1991). Who sets the video in your house?
or Why do older have problems with machines?
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Ergonomics Society of Australia (Popovic
Barbara McPhee V and Walker M eds). Coolum, pp1120.
NSW Department of Primary Industries (1995). MDG 1
Free-steered vehicles.
Worksafe Australia (1994). National Standard for Plant.
Canberra.
Worksafe Australia (1995). Plant Design. Making It
Safe. Canberra.
Worksafe Australia (1995). Plant in the Workplace.
Making It Safe Canberra.
25
Book Review
The Role of Mathematics
on Human Structure
Swapan Kumar Adhikari
Dipali Publication, West Bengal, India, 2003, 156
pages, paperback, ISBN 8190164309.
Many Australian undergraduates studying Functional
Anatomy in the 1970s were mesmerised by Dr. I.A.
Kapandji’s three-volume work: The Physiology of the
Joints. The interrelationship between form, function
and mathematics was so elegantly demonstrated in its
text and illustrations that young minds grasped it with
eagerness and acclamation.
More than three decades later, Professor Adhikari’s
book explores the same significant nexus with
enthusiasm and awe, and often cites Kapandji’s work.
It was reassuring to this reviewer that the Preface
contained Leonardo da Vinci’s famous statement: An
investigation cannot be strictly called scientific unless
it admits mathematical deductions.
This book contains 14 Chapters (including a Preface
and an Index), each of which considers a specific topic.
Chapter 2 examines some of da Vinci’s contributions to
anatomical knowledge. Given that this legacy has been
the subject of several touring art exhibitions (Australia
and Britain) in recent years, it is disappointing that this
chapter consists almost entirely of quotations from da
Vinci himself and his contemporaries. Chapter 3 covers
the contributions of René Descartes to Anatomy and
Physiology in a similar manner.
In Chapter 4, the author presents a mathematical
explanation of Descartes’ views on the embryological
development of the pineal gland. Chapter 5 covers the
mathematics of the cardiac cycle.
In Chapter 6, the biomechanics of the cervical vertebral
column is considered, as are injuries to the region.
This chapter concludes with a useful tabulation of
recommended traction weights for injuries at each
level of the cervical column.
Mathematical analysis of movements of the shoulder
joint is undertaken in Chapter 7. One of the issues
discussed is the optimal position for arthrodesis of the
joint, with the author defining different positions for
males and females.
Further biomechanics is presented in Chapters 9 and
11. The former examines the transmission of forces
through the bony pelvis. The latter considers weight
distribution through the femur.
Chapter 10 discusses the trabecular geometry of the
proximal femur in relation to weight distribution.
There is an error in line 27 on page 104 — “osteoblasts”
should read “osteocytes”.
Chapter 12 examines the geometry of the femoral head
and the acetabulum. The role of the ligaments of the
hip joint is considered in Chapter 13. In an
examination of articular cartilage (pages 146 to 149),
it is surprising to this reviewer that the author did not
mention the difference in arrangement of collagen
fibres in the lamina splendens and the transitional zone
of the cartilage, given its importance in load-bearing.
It is disappointing that the prose was often difficult
to interpret. Unless readers are already acolytes of
the interrelationship between form, function and
Mathematics, they will remain unmoved by the
author’s enthusiasm.
The fonts utilised are not always effective and would
have benefited from editorial intervention. The
abundant artwork throughout this book is rendered in
black line or halftone. The majority of the illustrations
are from other sources. Unfortunately, many of these
have not reproduced well, particularly those which
were colour originals, radiographic images or clinical
photographs.
Overall, this volume offers detailed content to a
select audience with a strong background in both
Mathematics and Anatomy.
Ann Murphy PhD
Anatomist
Discipline of Biomedical Science
Faculty of Medicine
The University of Sydney
Correspondence to: Dr. Ann Murphy, Discipline
of Biomedical Sciences, Cumberland Campus,
The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe,
NSW 1825
Chapter 8 considers the biomechanics of the vertebral
column as a whole. There is an error in the label of
Figure 7.14 on page 91 - “Circulation” should read
“Circumduction”. There is a similar error in line 16
on page 92.
26
Noticeboard
Obituary (Brian Shackel 1927-2007)
Roger Hall writes:
I was advised of the death of Brian Shackel on 9 May
by his daughter Francesca. Brian was an
internationally, highly esteemed and influential
ergonomist and hci academic and professional. I had
the privilege of being his friend and colleague for 30
years, having first met in the late 70s and worked
together on the International Ergonomics Association
Council in 80s, and later when I was on two
sabbaticals in the Department of Human Sciences at
Loughborough University.
Brian was well ahead of his time - he was doing paper
prototyping (of display & control panels) as early as
1959. His ergonomics research on problems users had
with computer systems, mostly mainframes, covered
design, implementation and usability aspects. The
substance of his operational definitions of usability and
user-centred design can be seen in International
Standards like ISO Standard 9241 - Ergonomics
Requirements for Office Work with VDTs.
Brian was a gentleman and mentor to me both in the
ways of international diplomacy (on the IEA Council)
and human-computer interaction research. However
the many other outstanding things about Brian are best
said by his friend and colleague Ken Eason from
Loughborough University.
Ken writes on The Ergonomics Society website:
Brian Shackel, who died on May 9th at the age of 80,
was one of the most important figures in the shaping
of ergonomics and human-computer interaction in the
second half of the twentieth century. Born in 1927, he
was educated in classics and, after service in the Navy
and the completion of a MA, degree he joined the MRC
Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge.
In 1954 he started the Ergonomics Laboratory at EMI
Electronics, a laboratory that still exists today as part
of Quintec which celebrated the 50th anniversary of its
founding in 2004. In 1970 Brian moved to
Loughborough University as Professor of Applied
Ergonomics and set up the HUSAT (Human Sciences
and Advanced Technology) Research Institute which for
over three decades, was at the centre of the
development of human-computer interaction.
Department of Human Sciences and, in a 10 year
tenure, oversaw its growth to include major
undergraduate programmes in Ergonomics, Human
Biology and Psychology in addition to the well
established MSc in Ergonomics. During this time Brian
also became the Dean of the School of Human and
Environmental Studies.
Brian was a true English gentleman with a mission to
establish solid foundations for ergonomics and humancomputer interaction so they could be successful and
lasting disciplines. He possessed enormous energy,
great tenacity and a capacity for attention to detail and
these enabled him to help create many of the
institutional forms for these disciplines that are so
important to us as professionals today. In addition to
developing HUSAT and the Department of Human
Sciences at Loughborough and the EMIE Ergonomics
Laboratory, he helped launch Applied Ergonomics and
was its first editor.
He was the Chairman of the Council of the Ergonomics
Society, Treasurer of the International Ergonomics
Association and instrumental in the early development
of ergonomic standards.
In the development of human-computer interaction he
created IFIP (the International Federation of
Information Processing) Technical Committee 13 in
Human-Computer Interaction and he chaired the
committee for many years. Under the auspices of IFIP,
in 1984, he launched the INTERACT series of
international conferences on human-computer
interaction, and this conference, a major, international
feature of the human-computer interaction calendar,
now offers the Brian Shackel Award for the best paper
in the conference.
Brian‚s vision and energy has left a legacy that will
last for many years and an indelible mark on the
careers of the many of us he helped along the way. We
send our deepest sympathy to his wife Penni and to
their three children Nick, Julian and Francesca.
Ken Eason
11 May 2007
In the process Brian became a father figure in the
emergence of usability and user-centred design and,
amongst many pioneering ventures, led BLEND one of
the first major projects to evaluate the promise of
electronic journals. Within a few years of arriving in
Loughborough he was Head of what is now the
27
Conference Calendar
2007
23–24 August 2007 — International conference on
slips, trips, and falls 2007: from research to practice at
Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety,
Hopkinton, MA, USA. sponsored by: International
Ergonomics Association, The Ergonomics Society, U.K.,
and Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, USA.
Detailed conference information will be posted at
http://www.slipstripsfalls.org.
Contact: Dr. Chien-Chi (Max) Chang, Communication,
IEA Technical Committee on Slips, Trips and Falls,
E-mail: [email protected].
Tel: 1-508-497-0260
Fax: 1-508-435-8136
27–30 August 2007 — Sixth International Scientific
Conference on Prevention of Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders (PREMUS 2007)
Boston, USA
Pre-Conference Workshops: 26 August 2007
PREMUS 2007 is the first time the conference will be
held in the United States.
For more information about this program, visit:
www.premus2007.org or
Email: [email protected].
17–19 October, 2007 — Eighth Pan-Pacific Conference
on Occupational Ergonomics (PPCOE 2007)
Sofitel Central Plaza Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand
Hosted by the Ergonomics Society of Thailand (EST)
For more information on PPCOE 2007 and the abstract
submission, please visit the conference web site:
http://www.est.or.th/ppcoe2007. Abstracts can be
submitted to the Conference Secretariat at
[email protected].
11–14 November 2007 — International Graphonomics
Society
13th biennial conference, Melbourne, Australia
Contact: Dr Jim Phillips
Conference Co-Chair & Organizer IGS 2007
http://www.graphonomics.org/igs2007/)
Contact:
Conference Secretariat
Damai Sciences Sdn Bhd
Tel: +603 2282 9005
Fax:+603 2282 9004
2008
19–21 March 2008 — Organizational Design and
Management Symposium
IEA Technical Committee on Organisational Design and
Management (ODAM)
Guarujá, São Paulo, Brazil (a top spot by the beach!)
The website for the symposium is:
http://www.pro.poli.usp.br/pro/odam2008/
Contact: Patricia Monteiro
Depto. de Engenharia de Produção - POLI/USP
Tel: (11) 3091-5363 - Ramal 434
Fax: (11) 3091-5399
Horário: 08h00 às 14h00
14–17 July 2008 —2nd International Conference on
Applied Ergonomics (AE International 2008)
Jointly with 12th International Conference on Human
Aspects of Advanced Manufacturing (HAAMAHA)
Caesars Palace • Las Vegas, Nevada USA
Under the auspices of 7 distinguished international
boards of 167 members from 29 countries
Conference Chair: Gavriel Salvendy
[email protected]
Program Chair: Waldemar Karwowski
[email protected]
Conference Administrator: Laura Abell
[email protected]
Fax: + 1 502 852 7397
Communication & Exhibition Chair : Abbas Moallem
[email protected]
URL: www.AEI2008.org
26–28 November 2007— 43rd Annual Conference of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of
Australia
A Healthy Society: Safe, Satisfied and Productive
Perth, Western Australia
Please register your interest with the secretariat at
[email protected]
Jenni Miller and Ian Gibson
Co-chairs
26-29 November 2007 - AEDeC 2007
International Conference on Agriculture Ergonomics in
Developing Countries
28
Information
for Contributors
Information
for Advertisers
Articles published in Ergonomics Australia are subject
to peer review.
Inquiries
Editor
Dr Shirleyann M Gibbs
Gibbs + Associates Pty Ltd
25 Melaleuca Drive St Ives NSW 2075 Australia
Tel: +612 9983 9855 Fax: +612 9402 5295
E-mail: [email protected]
The intended deadline for issues in 2007:
March edition
June edition
September edition
December edition
February 1
May 1
August 1
November 1
All advertising inquiries should be directed to the
National Secretariat of the Society.
Contact
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of
Australia Inc
Tel: +612 9680 9026 Fax: +612 9680 9027
Email: secretariat@ ergonomics.org.au
Size
The finished page size of the Newsletter is A4
(210mm x 297mm)
Contributions
Printed column sizes are 165mm x 225mm (double)
or 80mm x 225mm (single)
Any inquiries about contributions should be directed
in the first instance to the Editor.
Advertising Copy
Must be camera ready and must arrive at the HFESA
Federal Office by the Copy Deadline Submission Date
for the Edition in question.
A professional advertising service is available for
producing camera ready copy if required. For further
inquiries regarding this service contact:
Mr Goro Jankulovski, Acute Concepts Pty Ltd
Tel: 03 9381 9696
Mobile: 0414 605 414
Rates for Advertising
These rates are inclusive of GST
Single issue
2 issues
3 issues
4 or more
Full page
$ 330.00
$ 297.00
$ 264.00
$ 231.00
1/2 page
165.00
148.50
132.00
115.50
1/4 page
82.50
74.80
66.00
58.30
1/8 page
41.80
37.40
33.00
29.70
Enclosures
Pre-printed enclosures (leaflets, brochures) etc are
welcome for inclusion with the Journal.
Enclosures should be pre-folded to fit inside the
finished Journal.
Rates for enclosures
Enclosure not requiring folding
Enclosure requiring folding
$ 412.50
$ 462.00
29
These rates may increase if the enclosure weighs more
than the equivalent of 2 standard weight A4 pages.
These rates are inclusive of GST
640 copies should be sent to arrive at the ESA Federal
Office by the Copy Deadline Submission Date for the
Edition in question.
Address for mailing Advertising copy
and/or enclosures
National Secretariat
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
of Australia Inc.
Advertising copy and enclosure submission deadlines
for 2007 are the same as for Contributions — 1st of
month prior to publication
Edition
Submission Deadline
March
June
September
December
February 1
May 1
August 1
November 1
Circulation
The Journal is published four times a year and is
received by approximately 620 professional’s Australia
wide working in the areas of ergonomics, occupational
health and safety, and design.
Ergonomics Australia On-Line (EAOL)
Advertising and sponsorship opportunities also exist in
the electronic version of this journal (EAOL) which is
managed by Dr Robin Burgess-Limerick at Department
of Human Movement at Queensland University. It is
downloaded by more than 100 Australian and
International readers each week.
To view EAOL: http://www.uq.edu.au or enter
via the HFESA website.
Caveats
The views expressed in the Journal are those of the
individual authors and contributors and are not
necessarily those of the Society.
The HFESA Inc reserves the right to refuse any
advertising inconsistent with the Aims and Objectives
of the Society and Journal Editorial Policy.
The appearance of an advertisement in the Journal
does not imply endorsement by the Society of the
product and or service advertised.
The Society takes no responsibility for products or
services advertised therein.
Editor
Shirleyann M Gibbs PhD
30
Notes
31
32

Ergonomics Australia Journal - July 2007

Transcription

Similar documents

Ergo Desk Set Up - Healthwise Global

View paper - Institute of Industrial Engineers

Ergonomics in the Classroom: Position for Learning

NEN AFS18 - News

Modern Office Ergonomics

PDF - Monex Europe

PDF

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance

towards the professional engineering team

ERL-0631-GD PR