ergonomic analysis of rig up wireline pressure … · the rig up pce installation process. there...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 441 [email protected]

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 9, Issue 9, September 2018, pp. 441–459, Article ID: IJMET_09_09_049

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=9

ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

ERGONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RIG UP WIRELINE

PRESSURE CONTROL EQUIPMENT (PCE) IN

WELL SERVICE ACTIVITIES

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni

Industrial Engineering Department, BINUS Graduate Program – Master of Industrial

Engineering, Bina Nusantara University 11480, Jakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT

Working in Oil and gas well service area can exposure workers with potential

musculoskeletal risks caused by repetitive movement and awkward postures. The

workers also can get physical injury risk such as Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSDs).

To reduce the risk, it is necessary to analyze the work task through risk assessment to

observe the posture during using the equipment such as rig up the Pressure Control

Equipment (PCE) to determine the level of risk for each task, and the cumulative risk

for each work cycle. This study uses the Postural Ergonomic Risk Assessment (PERA)

method to analyze and measuring cyclic assembly work. We set the risk criteria for

activity classification (A) into posture, duration, and force which divided into three

groups (A<4 = Low risk, 4≤A≥ 7 = Possible risk, A≥7 = High risk). Time duration

and stressed posture provide high risk exposure, whereas the workers manually

operate and install the component and spare parts can lead to medium and low risk

exposures. We found that the high potential risks to cause harm are when the workers

operate Tree Adaptor Installation and BOP Installation. Whereas, the Making up

Lubricator connection and PCE Secure Line Installation provide medium and low risk

exposures, respectively. Our study can be guidance on the steps of prioritization and

intervention to reduce the musculoskeletal risks.

Keywords: Musculoskeletal disorder; PCE; PERA; Workspace design; Risk analysis.

Cite this Article: Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni

Sahroni, Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in

Well Service Activities, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and

Technology, 9(9), 2018, pp. 441–459.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=9&IType=9

1. INTRODUCTION

When designing a work environment for working in oil and gas well service area, several

ergonomic aspects must be taken into consideration. These key aspects mostly involve

usability, efficiency and safety. However, the workers located in the area also can face

physical injury risk caused by repetitive process for prolonged periods and unmonitored

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service

Activities


working posture [1,2]. This leads to ergonomic issues at the workplace. Many scholars have

proposed that Musculoskeletal Disorder (MSDs) as the key aspects to be considered when

designing an ergonomically work environment [3]. However, there is rare information about

how ergonomic designers can help the workers to accommodate them within work

environment by reducing risk factors that contribute to ergonomic injuries.

Even though there are many ergonomic principles models, however, avoiding awkward

postures or excessive effort is difficult to do in mining tasks. This situations result in fatigue

and discomfort, which greatly impact health and productivity. Under these conditions

muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, and blood vessels can be damaged. Such light injuries

are so-called musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) [4]. MSDs give a significant effect reducing

productivity and job quality [5] especially in field mining.

One of the causes of MSDs is the using of certain high-weight equipment especially the

Pressure Control Equipment (PCE) in Wireline Operation. Mostly the equipment needs to use

lubricator stack or risers that mounted on the top of wellhead to control the well pressure and

fluid when it performed [6]. The high-weight equipment also must be operated by 12-

personel-team to handle their stable position as installed stack of Blow Out Preventer (BOP)

to Isolate the blowout that present from the well activity [7].

In many situation, the workers operates the equipment have frequently reported their

MSDs complaints which lead the Well Service Department (WSD) to take preventive

measure. WSD has numerous incidents within January 2016 until December 2017. Their

report shows that significant increase of total cases reported relating to gesture and posture. In

2016, 761 cases related to gesture and posture have been reported, while in 2017, the number

of cases relating to gesture and posture reported increased to1854. From these cases, the

medium category of gesture and posture cases is common, with 120 cases reported in 2016.

From 120 recorded cases, 40 cases are related to Rig up PCE activities, 30 cases related to

manual handling or lifting, 25 cases related to making tool connection, 20 cases related to

hand and finger injuries, and 5 cases related to using improper tools.

The reports have leaded this study to conduct ergonomic risk assessment toward the

workers and the usage of the Rig up PCE including the activities with the highest potential for

injury. The objective of this research is to identify the risk of gesture posture during Rig up

PCE installation process by measuring the injury risk during the work tasks. The outcome of

this research also to give recommendation to the company to minimize the risk and prevention

of human injury related to wrong implementation of adequate ergonomic concept.

This paper consisted five main parts. Part one explains our motivation. part two consisted

literature review about the methods of risk analysis or risk assessment regarding ergonomics

theories, specifically during the Rig Up activity, equipment installation process and the extent

of the risks or their impact on workers, and the safety levels to reduce MSDs risk faced by the

workers. The part third explains our methodology. Part fourth provides analysis result and the

implementation to be used by workers to avoid the risk of serious injury of MSDs. Finally, in

part five we provide conclusion and solutions that improve the design of how the sequence

works and the intensity or duration of working time and “exposed time” during Rig Up

installation process. The part five also give recommendation for companies to create Standard

Operating Procedure (SOP) based of our study to provide safer work practices that would

better avoid risk of injury for the workers.



2. MATERIAL AND METHODES

In the installation process of Rig up PCE, there are three type of main spare parts which must

be installed correctly which can lead to MSDs. The components of equipment have become

main sources of ergonomic risk experienced by workers during the Rig up installation

process:

a. Ginpole: 12 meters height with Outside Diameter (OD): 8” material S235 (ASTM

A36).

b. PCE: Consist of Tree Adaptor, BOP and 5 sections of Lubricator x 8 feet /section

of OD 4.75” Material SS.

c. Lifting gear (Crane) and Lifting applicants (Shackle, Slings, Hook, etc).

The materials are illustrated in Figure 1-3 to visualize the kind of materials and their

placements. The Ginpole and PCE parts (Tree Adaptor, BOP, and Lubricator) are given in

Figure 1. In Figure 2, we provide the detail of working area and material placement. The

scope of research is focused on the current workspace and worker position as shown in Figure

3.

Figure 1 Ginpole and PCE (Tree Adaptor, BOP, and Lubricator)

Figure 2 Work Area and Material Placements Figure 3 Worker position in the Workspace


Activities


In the equipment installation, the worker postures which faced with the MSDs risks are

trunk, shoulder, head or neck, and elbow. The Rig up PCE consist of several work cycles,

which are Tree Adaptor installation, BOP installation, making the lubricator connection and

PCE secure lines installation. Each of these work cycles has different durations and tasks.

This differentiation in turn affects the type of posture and risk during certain types of work.

Therefore, it is important to measure the worker postures such as trunk, shoulders, head or

neck, knee, and elbow of a participant during each task for every work cycle involved during

the rig up PCE installation process.

There are several risk associated during the rig up PCE activity, as below :

1. Body Posture risks. The risks can be caused by the activity when installing the Tree

Adaptor since the worker position toward the ginpole location is stand side-by-side. In

the installation, the worker must be exposure toward the tree adaptors which requires

long duration till hours. The posture risk has four activities as below.

a. Opening the Christmas tree cap

b. Lifting up tree adaptor by using crane

c. Installing tree adaptor

d. Tightening the connection

2. Hand activity and lifting work risks. The risks can be caused by the installation

process of the Blow Our Preventer (BOP). The BOP installation requires four tasks as

below.

a. Lifting up BOP by using crane

b. Installing BOP connection on top of Tree Adaptor

c. Ensuring the connection is tight as per manual procedure

d. Making up Lubricator Connection

3. Risks of rotated joint angular deviation from neutral which lead to perceived

discomfort. This type of risk can be caused by the worker condition when making the

lubricator connection. This type of risks has four tasks as below.

a. Installing lifting gear on to Lubricator

b. Lifting up the lubricator with crane

c. connecting the lubricator end section on the top of BOP section

d. Ensuring the connection is tight as per manual procedure

4. Upper limb disorder risks. This type of risks can be caused by material handling when

installing the PCE Secure lines which lead to limb disorders. This risk has six types of

risk sources as below.

a. Wearing full body safety harness

b. Attaching the fall arrestor onto the full body safety harness

c. Climbing the Ginpole

d. Installing the lubricator Secure lines into the Ginpole

e. Ensuring the lubricator is secure and the lines is properly attach to the Ginpole

f. Descending the Ginpole

There are several methods to classify the workplace risk ranging from light to medium

category cases. In the Rig up activity, one of the popular approaches to evaluate the

ergonomic postural issues and to help workers avoid injuries is the Ovako working Posture

analysis (OWAS) which provides a time sampling for body postures and force [8]. Compared



with other methods, OWAS is a relatively simple method to verify safety level which is

related to work postures [9] as the most commonly used method. It also contains checklist

analysis to evaluate the assessment of legs, trunk and neck for repetitive task. Other methods

of working posture analysis are Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). RULA was created

to identify working postures that can lead to risks of Work-related Upper Limp Disorder

(ULD) [10,11]. RULA is a categorization method to monitor the body postures and force,

with action levels for assessment. In some workplaces, RULA is mostly used to assess

workstation risk even though it has not specific risk factors during the set-up process [12].

With increasing rate of work-related Low Back Pain (LBP), many scholars have proposed

new methods which so-called NIOSH Lifting Equation. The NIOSH lifting Equation was

proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and as standardized measurement

of posture related to biomechanical load for manual handling [13,14]. However, the method

cannot evaluate different body regions. The method are then used in combination with the

Plan for Identifying the av Belastnings faktore (PLIBEL) as a checklist with questions for

different body regions [15].

In many case, MSDs are caused by repetition of work task which needs to be measured by

more accurate methods. Some scholars have debated about the usability of the Strain Index

combining the index of six exposure factors for work tasks and the Occupational Repetitive

Actions (OCRA) [16]. Both methods similar with Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC) to

measure the exposure levels for main body regions with worker responses, and scores to guide

intervention [17]. However, OCRA prioritize on the Upper Extremity (UE) as exposure

assessment tool used by ergonomics researchers and practitioners globally [16,18]. OCRA

also measures body posture and force for repetitive tasks as checklists for task, equipment,

environment and individual risk. In addition, OCRA also similar to the Rapid Entire Body

Assessment (REBA) which categorizing body postures and force, with action levels for

assessment [19,20]. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH)

Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), which is a threshold limit values for hand activity and lifting

work [21,22]. To classification based on joint angular deviation from neutral and perceived

discomfort are using Upper Body Assessment (LUBA) [23,24]. Some exist Guidance such as

HSG60 for Upper Limb Disorder (ULD) which is checklist for ULD hazards in the workplace

[25], and to obtain a complete view of upper extremity load in various job, all work cycles

should be identified and observed [26]. Meanwhile Material Handling Assessment Chart

(MHAC), which are Flow charts to assess main risk factors to guide prioritization and

intervention [27].

However, the usage of checklist questions on physical load and posture for repetitive tasks

and the measurement of threshold limit values for hand activity and lifting works are rarely to

study which needs other methods. We compare among the methods and found that PERA can

evaluate the limitation of the above methods since it can measure the postural ergonomic risk

of short and long cyclic assembly work [28]

PERA method has robust capability in analysing and measuring cyclic work. It also has

higher capability than other methods to analyze every work task in the work cycle including

identification of high risk sources. PERA will be implemented in this study to measure

stressful postures for the trunk, shoulder, head or neck, and elbow. It has criteria for

classification of posture, duration, and force to determine the risk level. PERA has fourth

steps. Firstly, we will identify the work cycle which may consist of several work tasks.

Secondly, we determine the number of work tasks, a measurement for posture, force, and

duration for each work task could be obtained. Thirdly, we obtain working posture, force, and

duration for each task to be multiplied to give a task score for each work task. Fourth, we add


Activities


task scores into total sum and divide them by the amount of identified work tasks to determine

the overall score. Generally, PERA included these assessment items:

1. Measurement of physical load and posture for repetitive tasks

2. Determination of threshold limit values for hand activity and lifting work

3. Evaluation of joint angular deviation from neutral and perceived discomfort

4. Assessment of upper limb disorder caused by material handling assessment

5. Providing guidance on the steps of prioritization and intervention

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used PERA risk analysis. There are several steps included for this research, which

are the task identification, data collection, and analysis. These steps are necessary in order to

obtain and analyze data accurately. Once the work cycles and tasks have been identified, a

flow chart could be developed to help visualize the research. To answer the research question

about effort to reduce MSDs, we will use PERA risk analysis. As this study has objective to

identify the risk of gesture posture during Rig up PCE installation process. This study will

measure the injury risk during the work tasks. This study also will take the operational aspects

of the Rig up PCE, effort to minimize the risk and prevention of human injury related to

wrong implementation of adequate ergonomic concept.

Figure 4 Research Flow Chart.

The research flowchart as shown in Figure 4, and illustrates the research to collect

information about work cycles.

The first step is to identify relevant tasks during the Rig up process. From the previous

section, 4 work cycles have been identified during the Rig up process with each work cycle

requiring several tasks. In total, there are 17 tasks identified, with the first work cycle having

4 tasks, the second work cycle having 3 tasks, the third work cycle having 4 tasks, and the

fourth work cycle having 6 tasks. Once identified, the potential risk for gesture and posture

for each task will be analyzed using PERA.

Once the tasks have been identified, the next step is to collect data in order to obtain the

potential risk for gesture and posture for each task. It must be noted that, due to the amount of

tasks, the data will be collected per work cycle, which in turn be classified into tasks later on.

Therefore, we will take the data through three steps, e.g. (a) interview for work duration and

complaint after each work cycle; (b) taking pictures and videos for each work cycle; (c) create

table containing the values of posture, duration, and force for each task

In the first step, we will determine the criteria for classification of demands of posture,

duration, and force by PERA such as low risk, medium risk and high risk. We also will



compare the posture trunk, forward bending, backward bending, asymmetric postures,

shoulder flexion/abduction. In the second step, we will measure the duration of stressed

posture with certain score such as the posture score≥2 points then the worker must shift their

task in the different work cycles.

Secondly, as the worker can work in different time duration since they get exposure with

different stressful postures, we will monitor and measure their time of duration as percentage

of cycle time toward the trunk, shoulder, head/neck, hand and also their asymmetric postures.

In the third step, we want to know the detail analysis of work cycle when the worker

perform the Rig up PCE. We will describe the task duration, posture and force especially

when they manually operate and install the component and PCE’s equipment parts.

At the fourth step, we present the risk as risk matrix for Rig up PCE Based on PERA. This

include the Risk Level Classification when the worker installing the Rig Up PCE. This

process includes the description of task score, classification of risk level and mitigation of

action. Finally, in the sixth step, we present the result of risk assessment of rig up PCE

installation process as job step and sequence of working activities including the hazards,

potential to cause harm (health, injury, property damage, environment and mitigation

measure. we also describe all existing barriers / controls for each hazard and residual risk

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Once the data has been collected, the next step would be to analyze the data using PERA. The

posture, duration, and force for each task will be analyzed using PERA by comparing them to

the Criteria for Classification of Demands of Posture, Duration, and Force by PERA as listed

in Table 1.

Table 1 Criteria for Classification of Demands of Posture, Duration, and Force by PERA [28]

Low risk (1

point) Medium risk (2

points) High risk (3 points)

Posture

Trunk

Forward bending

0°-20° (Upright)

20°-60° Greater than 60°

20°-60° with trunk support

- -

Backward bending (extension)

With trunk support

- Without trunk support

Asymmetric postures - Rotation/lateral bending 0°-10°

Rotation/lateral bending greater than 10°

Other - - Convex lumbar spine when

sitting

Shoulder Flexion/abduction

0°-20° 20°-60° Greater than 60°

20°-60° with full arm support

- -

Extension/adduction - - Greater than 0°

Head & neck

Forward bending 0°-25° 25°-40° Greater than 40°

Backward bending (extension)

- With trunk support Without trunk support

Asymmetric postures -

Sideways bending from 0° to 10°

Sideways bending greater than 10°

- Twisting (rotation)

from 0° to 45° Twisting (rotation) greater than

135°

Other

Elbow flexion/extension

0°-20° 20°-60° Greater than 60°

Knee angle while sitting

90°-135° - Less than 90° or greater than

135°

Duration Percentage of cycle

time 0%-10% 10%-20% Greater than 20%


Activities


Force Exertion of physical

effort

Not visible. E.g : Manipulation of light objects

Visible. E.g: smooth and controlled motion, use of both the hands

when the task does not seem very heavy

Clearly visible. E.g: low control over motion, bulging muscles,

facial expressions, gestures

- - Vibrations from powered hand

tools

- -

Counter-shocks or impulses (such as from heavy

hammering)

By comparing the posture, duration, and force to the table above, an overall score could be

obtained for each task. This overall score for each task will then be collected based on the

work cycle and averaged to obtain the work cycle score. These scores will determine which

work cycle has the most risk during the Rig up process.

Table 2 Duration of stressed posture in different work cycles

Work cycle % of work tasks

Cycle time (s)

Stressful postures duration (percentage of Cycle Time)

No. Title Trunk Shoulder Head/neck Hand

Asymmetric postures

Trunk Head/neck

1 Open X-Tree Cap 27 3 27 14 27 6 7 27 27

2 Lift up tree adaptor using crane 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 install tree adaptor 27 3 27 13 27 58 27 27

4 Tighten the connection 19 2 19 6 8 45 12 16

5 BOP Installation 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 Lift up BOP using Crane 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 BOP Connection Installation on

top of Tree Adaptor 50 3 47 16 29 55 26 8

8 Ensure connection is tight 33 2 47 13 33 68 9 12

9 Making up Lubricator

Connection 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Installing lifting gear on

Lubricator and Hook up into crane Hook

12 3 56 16 23 59 17 6

11 Lift the lubricator with crane 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Connect the lubricator end section on the top of BOP

7 1 48 15 7 40 12 9

13 Ensure the connection is tight 67 10 27 16 27 58 27 27

14 PCE Secure Lines Installation 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 Wear full body safety harness 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 Attach the fall arrestor onto the

full body safety harness 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Climb the Ginpole 11.1 18 27 16 29 55 26 8

18 Lubricant Secure Lines

installation 5.5 1 67 15 16 43 27 8

19 Ensure lubricator is secure and

lines are attached to the Ginpole 2.7 0.5 67 15 16 43 27 8

20 Descend from Ginpole 22.2 4 57 12 27 48 27 15

Note 1: Sum of percentage durations s 100 due to the simultaneous presence of multiple

stressful postures.



Work cycle

% of work tasks

Cycle time (Minutes)

Stressful postures duration (percentage of Cycle Time)

No. Title Trunk Shoulder Head/neck Hand

Asymmetric postures

Trunk Head/neck

1 Install tree Adaptor 100 11

A. Open X-Tree Cap 27 3 27 14 27 6 7 27 27

B. Lift up tree

adaptor using crane 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Install tree

adaptor 27 3 27 13 27 58 27 27

D. Tighten the

connection 19 2 19 6 8 45 12 16

2 BOP Installation 100 6

A. Lift up BOP

using Crane 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

B. BOP Connection Installation on top of

Tree Adaptor 33 2 47 16 29 55 26 8

C. Ensure

connection is tight 17 1 47 13 33 68 9 12

3 Making up Lubricator Connection

100 15

A. Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into

crane Hook

7 1 56 16 23 59 17 6

B. Lift the lubricator

with crane 67 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Connect the lubricator end

section on the top of BOP

20 3 48 15 7 40 12 9

D. Ensure the

connection is tight 7 1 27 16 27 58 27 27

4 PCE Secure Lines

Installation 100 18

A. Wear full body

safety harness 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

B. Attach the fall

arrestor onto the full body safety harness

3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Climb the

Ginpole 21 4 27 16 29 55 26 8

D. Lubricant Secure

Lines installation 44 8 67 15 16 43 27 8

E. Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are attached to the

Ginpole

11 2 67 15 16 43 27 8

F. Descend from

Ginpole 17 3 57 12 27 48 27 15


Activities


Figure 5 Overview of analysed work cycle.

The first step is to analyze each work cycle using PERA. This analysis aims to observe the

postures during the rig up process in order to determine the level of risk for each task, and the

cumulative risk for each work cycle. This is explained in Table 3.

Table 3 Detail Analysis Work Cycle of Rig up PCE by PERA

No Description Duration (Minutes)

Task Duration (%Work Duration)

Posture Analyzed

Score Task Score

(D x F x P)

Duration (D)

Force (F)

Posture (P)

1 Tree Adaptor Installation

11

A Open X-Tree

Cap 3 27

Trunk forward bending 45°, Trunk Asymmetric posture

rotation 10°, Shoulder flexion 45°, Head and Neck forward bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 20°, Knee angle with sitting

60°

3 3 3 27

B Lift up tree

adaptor using crane

3 27 No postural risk since the

lifting job assisted using crane 1 1 1 1

C install tree

adaptor 3 27



60°

3 2 3 18

D Tighten the connection

2 19

Trunk forward bending 45°, Head and Neck forward

bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30°, Knee angle bending 45°

2 2 3 12

Work Cycle Average Score: 14.5

2 BOP

Installation 6

A Lift up BOP using Crane





B

BOP Connection

Installation on top of Tree

Adaptor

2 33



60°

3 2 3 18

C Ensure

connection is tight

1 17


bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30° , Knee angle bending 45°

2 2 3 12



15

A

Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into crane Hook

1 7 No postural risk since the job

performed in normal position ( Standing )

1 1 1 1

B Lift the

lubricator with crane



C

Connect the lubricator end section on the top of BOP

3 20



60°

2 2 3 12

D Ensure the

connection is tight

1 7


bending 45°, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30°, Knee angle bending 45°

2 2 3 12

Work Cycle Average Score: 7

4 PCE Secure

Lines Installation

18

A Wear full body safety harness

1 5.5 No Postural risk since the task

is performed in Normal /standing position

1 1 1 1

B

Attach the fall arrestor onto the full body

safety harness

0.5 2.7 No Postural risk since the task

is performed in Normal /standing position

1 1 1 1

C Climb the Ginpole

4 22.2

Trunk Backward bending 45 °, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( lateral bending 5° ), Shoulder abduction 50°, Head and neck backward bending 30°, Knee

Bending > 90 °

3 3 3 27

D Lubricant

Secure Lines installation

8 44.4

Trunk Forward 65°, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( Rotation

15° ), Shoulder Flexion 60°, Head and neck forward

bending 45°, Knee Bending > 90°

3 3 3 27


Activities


E

Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are

attached to the Ginpole

2 11.1

Trunk Forward 65°, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( Rotation

15° ), Shoulder Flexion 60°, Head and neck forward

bending 45°, Knee Bending > 90°

2 3 3 18

F Descend from

Ginpole 3 16.6

Trunk Backward bending 45 °, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( lateral bending 5° ), Shoulder abduction 50°, Head and neck backward bending 30°, Knee

Bending > 90 °

2 3 3 18


Based on Table 3, it is clear that the work cycle with the highest risk is the PCE Secure

line installation, with it having an average work cycle score of 15.3. It can also be seen that

several work during the rig up process has high risk of injury, with most tasks score as high as

27. Aside from high risk tasks, several tasks during the Rig up process has low risk, however,

it must be noted that these low risks tasks only occupy a small amount of duration compared

with the high risk tasks, which makes the overall process categorized as medium to high risk.

Because of this, safety regulations during work have to deeply consider ergonomic aspects in

order to help reduce the risk of injury for workers. This would involve further training,

education, and safety tools implementation for workers so that the work could be done

properly and risks of injury could be avoided.

Once the level of risk for each task and work cycle has been determined, the next step is to

determine recommended actions and mitigation in order to help reduce the risks. This is

shown in Table 4 below. The score given for the is based on the Cube Method and Risk

Matrix based on PERA, shown in Fig.6, which utilize the posture, force, and duration for each

task. The recommended solutions are primary based from a technical standpoint in order to

make it applicable to workers so that each task could be safer and yield fewer risk.

Figure 6 Risk Matrix for Rig up PCE Based on PERA



Table 4 Risk Level Classification of Rig Up PCE by PERA

No Description Task Score (A) Classification

of Risk Level

Recommended Action

Mitigation

1 Tree Adaptor Installation

A Open X-Tree Cap 27 High risk

Unacceptable; Corrective action is

necessary

Install a proper scaffolding to make a proper posture and footstep, Use special

Air rotator tool to loosen the nut easier and shortened task duration

B Lift up tree

adaptor using crane

1 Low risk Acceptable; No

action is necessary

C install tree adaptor 18 High risk


necessary

Keep the back straight and sit on the scaffolding, Avoid Squat position that

creating sit angle and leg force to sustain the body.

D Tighten the connection

12 High risk


necessary

Use Proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending.,

Load share with team crew if necessary to reduce the force exposure.

2 BOP Installation

A Lift up BOP using

Crane 1 Low risk

Acceptable; No action is

necessary

B BOP Connection Installation on top of Tree Adaptor

18 High risk


necessary

Keep the body straight while rotating the nut or the connection, Bend the knee and

body only when it necessary such as fit the pin and the box connector or sitting flange

to flange.

C Ensure connection

is tight 12 High risk


necessary

Use proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending,

Consider the distance while hammering to get enough space and relax position


A

Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into

crane Hook


action is necessary

B Lift the lubricator

with crane 3 Low risk

Acceptable; No action is

necessary

C

Connect the lubricator end

section on the top of BOP

12 High risk


necessary

Sit properly while connect the lubricator, Greasing the thread before make up to get

easier connect.

D Ensure the

connection is tight 12 High risk


necessary

Use proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending,

Consider the distance while hammering to get enough space and relax position

4 PCE Secure Lines

Installation

A Wear full body safety harness


action is necessary

B

Attach the fall arrestor onto the full body safety

harness


action is necessary


Activities


C Climb the Ginpole 27 High risk


necessary

Observe the job sequence by engineering control, Eliminate the climb job sequence

when it’s not really necessary

D Lubricant Secure Lines installation

27 High risk


necessary

New Design for lubricating line form down site is important to improve the job

sequence, Install hose lubricant that connect with the top lubricator before make up to minimize working at high

hazard.

E

Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are attached to the

Ginpole

18 High risk


necessary

Use special securing tool to reduce the postural and force risk.

F Descend from

Ginpole 18 High risk


necessary

It’s not necessary when the new design created, Descend slowly and calm to relax

the muscle

(_^*) A < 4 = Low risk, 4 ≤ A ≥ 7 = Possible risk, A ≥ 7 = High risk

Based on Table 4, it is shown that the Rig up PCE, obtained using PERA, has a 64.7%

high risk and only a 35.3% low risk. This is further visualized by Fig.6 to which illustrates the

high risk tasks as red, medium risk tasks as yellow, and low risk tasks as green. Because of

this, the Rig UP PCE process as a whole can be categorized as having a high level risk. With

the inclusion of recommended actions and mitigation measures, a risk assessment could be

made in order to reduce the risk for each work cycle. In general, this risk assessment

determines the hazard, causes, and consequence for each work cycle, and a score is given to

determine the risk. Once the score has been determined, mitigation and recommended actions

were proposed, to which would yield a final score for the work cycle after mitigation

measures and recommended actions have been implemented.

Table 5 Risk Assessment of Rig up PCE

No

Job Step Sequence

of working activities

Hazard The potential to cause

harm (Health, injury, Property

damage, environment,

etc.)

Cause (Possible

causes that will

potentially release a hazard)

Consequences (The harm

which could possibly occur).

Po

ten

tia

l R

isk

H

/M/L

Mitigation Measure (Barrier / Control)

Describe all existing barriers

/ controls for each hazard

Res

idu

al

Ris

k

H/M

/L

1 Tree

Adaptor Installation

Hand and finger injury or Pinched, Gesture posture

injury (LBP,MSDs),

Hydrocarbon/toxic gas release to atmosphere,

Lifting hazard (Crane sling)

High wind and rough

sea, Failure to adopt safe

work practice, Human error, Crane failure,

Uncertified Tree

adaptor, Seal or O

Ring failure

Injury or Fatality, Asset Damage, Oil spill or gas

leak, Environment damage (Oil

Spill), Explosion

(Gas release)

High

PTW Control, Stop work during

bad weather (Wind speed,

Rain, Lightning, etc.), Certified and Competent crew, History of

well and well condition

available with operator, All

tools and equipment

certifications to verified and

accepted as per standard

procedures,

Medium



Production Engineering

standard Procedure to be followed, Apply

safe Gesture, posture and

manual handling properly, Wear

Proper PPE.

2 BOP

Installation

Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury / Pinched, Gesture posture

injury ( LBP, MSDs ), Lifting

hazard, Incompetent Operator /

Banksman, Slips and trips

High wind or rough

sea, Failure to adopt safe

work practice, Human error, Crane failure

Injury or Fatality, Asset

damage, Operation

Delay

High

Certified and Competent crew,

Certified and valid crane and

all lifting equipment PTW

Control, Stop work during bad weather (Wind

speed, Rain, Lightning, etc.),

Apply safe Gesture, posture

and manual handling properly.

Medium

3 Making up Lubricator connection

Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury / Pinched, Gesture posture

injury ( LBP, MSDs ), Lifting

hazard, Incompetent Operator or

Banksman, Slips and trips

High wind or rough

sea, Human error, Crane failure,

Failure to adopt safe

work practice

Injury or Fatality, Asset damage, Delay in Operation

Medium

Certified and Competent crew,

Certified and valid crane and

all lifting equipment PTW

Control stop work during bad weather (Wind

speed, Rain, Lightning, etc.),

Apply safe Gesture, posture


Low

4

PCE Secure Line

Installation

Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger

injury or Pinched, Gesture posture

injury ( LBP, MSDs )

High wind or rough

sea, Human error,

Failure to adopt safe

work practice

Injury or Fatality

High

Certified and Competent crew PTW Control,

Stop work during bad weather (Wind speed,

Rain, Lightning, etc.), Apply safe Gesture, posture


Medium

From Table 5, it can be seen that most of the work cycle during the rig up process initially

has high level of risk. Because of this, much of the work cycle requires high priority for

mitigation measures which in turn, need more monitoring strategy to get higher safety. Once

implemented, it is clear that the mitigation measures helped reduce the risk for each work

cycle by one level, making most of the work having medium risk. Once the final score for

each work cycle has been given, a design and solution could be determined in order to resolve

this issue.


Activities


There are several things that can be done in order to make the workplace safer. One of the

ways is to decrease the possibility of ergonomic risk of related work. Here are some of the

ways that could help to reduce ergonomic risk.

1. Relocation or redesigning the work place

a. Work that is done from a height or more than 2 meters was changed into less than

2 meters, For example, Scaffolding (Operating Platform) to do T1: Tree adapter

installation, T2: BOP installation, T3: Lubricator installation). This can be done

but generate additional work and additional cost to create Operating platform /

install scaffolding. So in consideration becomes uneconomical.

b. Moving the work from what should be done on the Well Platform to the Work

Barge. For example Connecting a Tree adapter (T1) with BOP (T2) and also

connecting the Lubricator (T3) to 1 unit in the Work barge, so that T1, T2 and T3

jobs are performed only once on the platform. This means minimizing the step is

the same as minimizing hazard. And also work in the work barge is much safer

because it can avoid the risk Weather concern (Rain, Lightning (Lightning), Low

Visibility, etc.) so that risk to the Human also becomes lower. For this option, the

limiting factor of this is the Crane capacity, where the available Crane only has

SWL (Safe Working Load) of 2.3 Tons. If T1 + T2 + T3 is done in the work barge,

the L (total) becomes 3200 kg or 3.2 Tons, whereas SWL crane has a limitation of

only 2.3 Tons.

2. Modify Ginpole design and activities

From PERA calculation we have identified that activity or work related to the Ginpole

(Climbing, Standing on top of Ginpole to install the secure lines) generate High risk. So if it

can do the work without using or involving Ginpole then, by itself, risk or hazard related to

the Ginpole could be eliminated.

Figure 7 Final Recommendation to Change the Workspace

Figure 7 shows a set up PCE without using Ginpole. The PCE (Lubricator + BOP) is

instead secured by using Guy lines so that Workers do not need to climb the Ginpole to secure

line from lubricator to Ginpole. Set up method by using guy lines is very safe to workers

because of the no longer needed climbing activity and work on Ginpole (Fig.7). However, this

method has several following shortcomings:

a. All loads will be held (Hanging load of PCE will be held) by crane all the time.



b. Because the barge is floating and the well platform is fixed, tension changes may

happen on the crane. This will ultimately cause the lifting gear to fatigue.

However, this can be mitigated by a standby crane operator during work to

compensate for tension change.

3. Minimize the activity. Make job Turnover and determine the maximum exposure time.

Based on statistics, it can be determined that the average per person doing the job T1

until T4 Is as much as 1 to 2 times each shift. Then the intensity can be reduced by

changing the working sequence, for example: Worker 1 is doing T1 and T3 only but

not doing T2 and T4, where, based on previous sequence, T1 until T4 is performed by

1 person sequentially. This causes the Total Exposure Time to be longer (Total Time =

tT1 + tT2 + tT3 = tT4) which causes the "Risk" injury LBP and MSDs to be greater,

where Exposure Time per sequence should only be tT1 + tT4.

Solutions that can be recommended for this research are:

1. Eliminate the main hazard. The main hazards that have been identified are:

a. Working at high altitude

b. Working with Ginpole (Awkward GP has high risk to LBP and MSDs)

2. Minimize the hazard

a. Limit Rig Up PCE work. This is certainly counter-productive in terms of job

efficiency because the number of jobs that can be completed in a certain period of

time will decrease if the number of work is restricted. However, this can be done

by increasing the number of workers per shift so that the number of Rig up activity

remain the same. It must be noted that, because of this, the consideration of cost to

increase the number of workers become the determining factor.

b. Minimize Continuous Time Exposure (Change Work Sequence). The time

exposure for each worker can be broken down, because of this 1 worker who

previously performed T1 to T4 in sequence can now work only T1 + T3 where T2

+ T4 is done by another worker

3. Protect the worker with PPE that can be used for T1 until T4 are:

a. Risks of working at altitudes such as falling at high altitudes can be avoided with

appropriate use of PPE such as using Fall arrestor and full body safety harness and

also regular inspection of the PPE used to be done properly by certified or

competence inspector [29]

b. As for minimizing the risk of injury to gesture posture errors can be minimized by

using Spinal Back Support, but this cannot completely eliminate risk factors

because of workplace limitations in Ginpole causing the body to adjust to the

workplace to which the Workplace should be tailored to the needs of GP workers.

4. Use other methods such as Rig up using a hydraulic mast system. Where rig up is

done in horizontal position after connecting then rig up vertically with Hydraulic mast

unit, which establish lubricator from horizontal position to vertical. This method requires

a large area or space to put the Mast unit, because of this, it cannot be done in offshore

installation because the space is very limited.

5. CONCLUSION

In summary, the rig up process involves 4 work cycles and 17 tasks with each task having

their own scores. From the analysis, it can be determined that the PCE Secure line installation

has the highest average work cycle score with the value of 15.3. Aside from obtaining the

work cycle with the highest risk, it can also be concluded that most of the work during the Rig


Activities


up process has high risk of injury with 64.7% high risk and only a 35.3% low risk obtained

using the PERA method. Because of this, safety regulations have to deeply consider

ergonomic aspects in order to reduce the risk of injury for workers. Several solutions that

could be recommended in order to help reduce risk is by eliminating the main hazards,

minimize potential hazards, protect with PPE, and the use of other method such as Rig up

using a hydraulic mast system. Another way to reduce risk is by redesign the workspace to

create a safer environment for workers and support ergonomic work.

REFERENCES

[1] Arjmand , N., Amini, M., Adi, A. S., Plamondon, A., & Parnianpour, M. (2015). Revised

NIOSH Lifting Equation May generate spine loads exceeding recommended limits.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1-8.

[2] Batish, A., & Singh, T. P. (2008). MHAC-An Assessment Tool for Analysing Manual

Material Handling Tasks. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics,

223-235.

[3] Bidiawati, J., & Suryani, E. (2015). Improving The Work Position of Worker's Based on

Quick Exposure Check Method to Reduce the Risk of Work Related Musculokeletal

Disorders. Procedia Manufacturing, 496-503.

[4] Bulduk, S., Bulduk, E., & Suren, T. (2016). Reduction of Work-Related Musculoskeletal

Risk Factors Following Ergonomics Education of Sewing Machine Operators.

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 352-357.

[5] Chander, D. S., & Cavatorta, M. P. (2017). An observational method for Postural

Ergonomic Risk Assessment (PERA). International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 32-

41.

[6] Chiasson, M., Imbeau, D., Major, J., Aubry, K., & Delisle, A. (2016). Influence of

musculokeletal pain on workers' ergonomic risk factor assessment. Applied Ergonomics,

1-7.

[7] David, G. C. (2005). Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-

related musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, 190-199.

[8] Excecutive, H. a. (1992). Manual Handling Operations Regulations. Suffolk: HSE Books.

[9] Executive, H. a. (2002). Upper Limb Disorders in the Workplace HSG60. Suffolk: HSE

Books.

[10] Fehrmann, G. (1994). Safety Issues Regarding Temporary Wellhead Pressure Control

Equipment Used in Wireline Service Operations. Society of Petroleum Engineers.

[11] Ghasemi, M. S., Hosseinzadeh, P., Zamani, F., Dehghan, N., & Ahmadpoor, H. (2016).

Ergonomic design and evaluation of a diagnostic ultrasound transound transducer holder.

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 519-523.

[12] Hignett, S., & McAtammey, L. (2000). Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Applied

Ergonomics, 201-205.

[13] Hutson, M. (2014). Work related upper limb disorders. Indian Journal of Rheumatology,

S6-S12.

[14] Karhu, O., Kansi, P., & Kuorinka, I. (1977). Correcting working posture in industry: a

practical method for analysis. Applied Ergonomics, 199-201.

[15] Kee, D., & Karwowski, W. (2001). LUBA: an assessment technique for postural loading

on the upper body based on joint motion discomfort and maximum holding time. Applied


[16] Kemmlert, K. (1995). A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazards-

PLIBEL. Applied Ergonomics, 199-211.



[17] Ketola , R., Toivonen, R., & ViiKari-Juntura, E. (2001). Inter-observer repeatability and

validity of an observation method to assess physical Loads imposed on the upper

extremities. Ergonomics, 119-131.

[18] Keyserling, M., Brouwer, M., & Silverstein, B. (1992). A checklist for evaluating

ergonomic risk factors resulting from awkward postures of the legs, trunk, and neck.


[19] Klassen, W. (2013). Secondary Intervention of Blow Out Preventers. Society of

Petroleum.

[20] Li, G., & Buckle, P. (1999). Evaluating Change in Exposure to Risk for Muscoloskeletal

Disorders-A Practical Toll. In HSE Books.

[21] Liebregts, J., Sonne, M., & Potvin, J. R. (2015). Photograph-based ergonomic evaluations

using the Rapid Office Strain Assessment (ROSA). Applied Ergonomics, 317-324.

[22] Madani, D. A., & Dababneh, A. (2016). Rapid Entire Body Assessment: A literature

review. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 107-118.

[23] McAtamney, L., & Corlett, E. (1993). RULA: a survey method for the investigation of

work-related upper limb disorders. Applied Ergonomics, 91-99.

[24] Monnington , S., Quarrie, C., Pinder, A., & Morris, L. (2003). Development of Manual

Handling Assessment Charts (MAC) for health and safety inspections. In Taylor, &

Francis, Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 3-8). London: McCabe T.

[25] Moore, J., & Garg, A. (1995). The strain index: a proposed method to analyze jobs for risk

of distal upper extremity disorders. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal,

443-458.

[26] Mosali, P. R. (2016). Multifactor association of job, individual and phychosocial factors in

prevalence of distal upper extremity disorders and qualification of job physical exposure.


[27] Naddeo, A., Cappetti, N., & D'Oria, C. (2015). Proposal of a new quantitative method for

postural comfort evaluation. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25-35.

[28] Occhipinti , E. (1998). OCRA: a concise index for the assessment of exposure to repetitive

movements of the upper limb. Ergonomics, 1290-1311.

[29] Rosecrane, J., Paulsen, R., & Murgia, L. (2017). Risk assessment of cheese processing

tasks using the Strain Index and OCRA Checklist. International Journal of Industrial


[30] Mr. Prakash Salunke, Dr. Srikant Kallurkar and Dr. Nemade. Identifying Anthropometric

Parameters Considered for the Improvement in Ergonomic Design of Classroom

Furniture. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Research and Development,

6(1), 2015, pp. 01-13.

[31] Kathiravan S and Gunarani G I, Ergonomic Performance Assessment (EPA) using RULA

and REBA for Residential Construction in Tamil Nadu, International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 836–843

[32] Rakesh, G Kumar and S.C. Roy, Ergonomic Investigation and Their Effect on

Productivity of Micro, Small & Medium Industry of Jharkhand State, International Journal

of Industrial Engineering Research and Development (IJIERD), Volume 5, Issue 3, May -

June (2014), pp. 01-12

[33] Nkakini, S. O. and Vurasi, N. M.. Ergonomic Evaluation of Lawn Mower Operation for

Comfort in Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced Research in

Engineering and Technology, 6(7), 2015, pp. 43-51.

ergonomic analysis of rig up wireline pressure … · the rig up pce installation process. there...

Documents