Forensic Engineers and Consultants

Tag Archive: machine design

  1. The Role of Interlocking Guards in Injury Prevention

    Leave a Comment

    In the three-part series on the CE mark, we scratched the surface of some of the requirements an equipment manufacturer must meet in order to earn this designation. Part three of the series dealt with some of the requirements for the design of a guard.  One of the items for consideration with the design of a guard is the frequency that someone will need to access the area protected by the guard.  If access is needed on a routine basis, often defined as more than once per shift, the guard needs to be designed to be movable instead of fixed.  Movable is defined as able to be opened without the use of tools.  Otherwise the frustration and time requirements of obtaining tools and removing a fixed guard will often lead to the guard being discarded. (more…)

  2. What’s Behind That CE Mark Part Three, Machine Guard Requirements

    Leave a Comment

    In the first blog in this series, we discussed the story behind the CE mark, the Machinery Directive, and the associated requirements regarding the design, production, and sale of machinery bearing the mark. The second blog discussed a cornerstone of safer machine design, the risk assessment. This installment will discuss another crucial piece of the safety puzzle, machine guard design. (more…)

  3. Working on the Waves While Working the Waves…

    Leave a Comment

    The rumors of my pending retirement have been greatly exaggerated…..

    Ever since I heard about The Great Loop I have wanted to cruise it (www.greatloop.org).  To successfully complete the Loop, one needs to have 3 things: adequate equipment, adequate time, and adequate health. I had the first and third.  To secure the second, I had floated the idea of a two-year sabbatical.  A year to complete any existing cases and a year to execute The Great Loop.

    With the arrival of COVID-19, our firm went to remote work. (more…)

  4. The CE Mark and What Should It Mean to You? Part Two

    Leave a Comment

    In the previous blog (Part One) we discussed the backstory behind the two stylized letters CE and what it means to the design of machinery bearing the mark.   We outlined some of the requirements of the “Machinery Directive” (MD) which include what are known as “Essential Health and Safety Requirements.” The Essential Health and Safety Requirements incorporate an iterative risk reduction process during design that takes into account (more…)

  5. Machine Guarding and Risk Assessment

    Leave a Comment

    The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) “Top 10 for 2018” violations once again have Machine Safeguarding earning a position on the list. Machine safeguarding was the 9th most cited standard as noted in the list below:

    1. Fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
    2. Hazard communication standard, general industry (29 CFR 1910.1200)
    3. Scaffolding, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.451)
    4. Respiratory protection, general industry (29 CFR 1910.134)
    5. Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
    6. Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)]
    7. Powered industrial trucks, general industry (29 CFR 1910.178)
    8. Fall Protection–Training Requirements (29 CFR 1926.503
    9. Machinery and Machine Guarding, general requirements (29 CFR 1910.212)
    10. Eye and Face Protection (29 CFR 1926.102)

    (Source: www.osha.gov/Top_Ten_Standards.html)

    (more…)

  6. Case Study: Fatality Servicing Unsupported Excavator Boom

    Leave a Comment

    A mini-excavator at a job site developed a leak at a hydraulic fitting at the base of the cylinder that raises and lowers the boom. A subcontractor foreman at the site raised the boom to search for the leak. The foreman found and attempted to tighten the leaking fitting. When he did, the fitting separated from the base of the cylinder, releasing the hydraulic pressure that held the boom aloft. The boom fell and the bucket struck a nearby superintendent for the general contractor.

    (more…)

  7. Defective Vertical Baler Causes Serious Crush Injury to Operator’s Arm

    Leave a Comment

    I recently worked on an interesting case involving a box baler. An employee of a butcher shop put some empty cardboard boxes in a vertical box baler and pushed the control switch to compact the boxes. After the 30 by 60 inch platen weighing 851 pounds returned to its raised position, the employee reached into the open space above the bottom door on the baler and began to clear cardboard from the bale tie slots in the bottom of the raised platen. Suddenly, and without warning, the steel pin attaching the platen to the raised hydraulic cylinder rod failed. The heavy steel platen fell and crushed his arm which was outstretched over the baler door into the compaction space.

    (more…)

  8. Improper Design Leads to Fatigue Failure In Blower Shaft

    Leave a Comment

    A blower used to exhaust air from an industrial process stopped functioning when the blower wheel drive shaft fractured.  The process, and thereby most of the plant, had to operate at a reduced volume until the blower wheel could be replaced.  The blower wheel had been installed during a shutdown a week before the incident.  The blower wheel was a spare installed when the existing blower wheel was sent for scheduled remanufacturing. (more…)

  9. Case Study of an Injury Involving a Soil Mixer

    Leave a Comment
    Co-Authored with Aron Olson, P.E.

    In May, 2014, a plant farm worker was seriously injured when he fell into the hopper of an electrically powered soil mixer.  The mixer in question used a rotating steel ribbon powered by a 7-1/2 hp electric motor to mix batches of materials such as sand, mulch, wood shavings, fertilizers and other landscaping materials to create potting soil. At the top of the hopper sidewalls, within 6 inches of the ribbon, was a steel grate. (more…)

  10. A Case Study in a Coal Mine: What are a Machine Rebuilder’s Responsibilities?

    Leave a Comment
    Co-Authored with Aron Olson, P.E.

    In November of 2010, a miner was injured by a roof bolting machine (roof bolter) in an Alabama underground coal mine. The roof bolter in question had undergone a complete rebuild intended to return the machine to the original equipment manufacturer’s (OEM’s) specifications. Warren was hired to analyze both the design of the roof bolter and the actions of the rebuilder to determine if either contributed to the unfortunate coal miner’s serious injury. Background information on coal mining and roof bolters, as well as an analysis of the roof bolter and the actions of the rebuilder are included. (more…)

Type ofLoss

Not sure what you're looking for?
Browse All

Select Loss Category