ERGONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RIG UP WIRELINE PRESSURE CONTROL EQUIPMENT (PCE) IN WELL SERVICE ACTIVITIES

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 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 441 editor@iaeme.com

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. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 442 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 443 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 444 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 445 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 446 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni 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 Medium risk (2 point) points) High risk (3 points) Forward bending 0-20 (Upright) 20-60 Greater than 60 20-60 with trunk support - - Trunk Backward bending With trunk (extension) support - Without trunk support Asymmetric postures - Rotation/lateral Rotation/lateral bending greater bending 0-10 than 10 Other - - Convex lumbar spine when sitting 0-20 20-60 Greater than 60 Flexion/abduction 20-60 with Shoulder Posture full arm support - - Extension/adduction - - Greater than 0 Forward bending 0-25 25-40 Greater than 40 Backward bending - With trunk support Without trunk support (extension) Head & Sideways bending Sideways bending greater than neck - Other Duration Asymmetric postures Elbow flexion/extension Knee angle while sitting Percentage of cycle time - from 0 to 10 Twisting (rotation) from 0 to 45 10 Twisting (rotation) greater than 135 0-20 20-60 Greater than 60 90-135 - Less than 90 or greater than 135 0%-10% 10%-20% Greater than 20% http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 447 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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 Stressful postures duration (percentage of Cycle Work cycle % of Time) Cycle work Asymmetric time (s) No. Title tasks Trunk Shoulder Head/neck Hand 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 12 3 56 16 23 59 17 6 crane Hook 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 2.7 0.5 67 15 16 43 27 8 lines are attached to the Ginpole 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. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 448 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni Work cycle Stressful postures duration (percentage of Cycle Time) % of Cycle time Asymmetric work No. Title (Minutes) Trunk Shoulder Head/neck Hand postures tasks 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 33 2 47 16 29 55 26 8 Tree Adaptor C. Ensure connection is tight 17 1 47 13 33 68 9 12 Making up 3 Lubricator 100 15 Connection A. Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into 7 1 56 16 23 59 17 6 crane Hook B. Lift the lubricator with crane 67 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Connect the lubricator end section on the top of 20 3 48 15 7 40 12 9 BOP 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 3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 body safety harness 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 11 2 67 15 16 43 27 8 Ginpole F. Descend from Ginpole 17 3 57 12 27 48 27 15 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 449 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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. No 1 A B C D 2 A Description Tree Adaptor Installation Open X-Tree Cap Lift up tree adaptor using crane install tree adaptor Tighten the connection BOP Installation Lift up BOP using Crane Table 3 Detail Analysis Work Cycle of Rig up PCE by PERA Task Duration Duration (Minutes) (%Work Duration) 11 3 27 3 27 3 27 2 19 6 3 50 Posture Analyzed 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 No postural risk since the lifting job assisted using crane 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 Trunk forward bending 45, Head and Neck forward bending 45, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30, Knee angle bending 45 No postural risk since the lifting job assisted using crane Duration (D) Score Force (F) Posture (P) Task Score (D x F x P) 3 3 3 27 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 18 2 2 3 12 Work Cycle Average Score: 14.5 1 1 1 1 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 450 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni B C 3 A B C D 4 A B C BOP Connection Installation on top of Tree Adaptor Ensure connection is tight Making up Lubricator Connection Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into crane Hook Lift the lubricator with crane Connect the lubricator end section on the top of BOP Ensure the connection is tight PCE Secure Lines Installation Wear full body safety harness Attach the fall arrestor onto the full body safety harness Climb the Ginpole 2 33 1 17 15 1 7 10 67 3 20 1 7 18 1 5.5 0.5 2.7 4 22.2 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 Trunk forward bending 45, Head and Neck forward bending 45, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30, Knee angle bending 45 No postural risk since the job performed in normal position ( Standing ) No postural risk since the lifting job assisted using crane 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 Trunk forward bending 45, Head and Neck forward bending 45, Head and neck asymmetric twisting rotation 30, Knee angle bending 45 No Postural risk since the task is performed in Normal /standing position No Postural risk since the task is performed in Normal /standing position Trunk Backward bending 45, Trunk Asymmetric posture ( lateral bending 5 ), Shoulder abduction 50, Head and neck backward bending 30, Knee Bending > 90 3 2 3 18 2 2 3 12 Work Cycle Average Score: 10.3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 12 2 2 3 12 Work Cycle Average Score: 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 451 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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 Work Cycle Average Score: 15.3 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 452 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni No Description Task Score (A) 1 Tree Adaptor Installation Table 4 Risk Level Classification of Rig Up PCE by PERA A Open X-Tree Cap 27 High risk B Lift up tree adaptor using crane Classification Recommended of Risk Action Level 1 Low risk C install tree adaptor 18 High risk D Tighten the connection 2 BOP Installation A B C 3 A B C D 4 A B Lift up BOP using Crane BOP Connection Installation on top of Tree Adaptor Ensure connection is tight Making up Lubricator Connection Installing lifting gear on Lubricator and Hook up into crane Hook Lift the lubricator with crane Connect the lubricator end section on the top of BOP Ensure the connection is tight PCE Secure Lines Installation Wear full body safety harness Attach the fall arrestor onto the full body safety harness 12 High risk 1 Low risk 18 High risk 12 High risk 1 Low risk 3 Low risk 12 High risk 12 High risk 1 Low risk 1 Low risk Acceptable; No Acceptable; No Acceptable; No Acceptable; No Acceptable; No Acceptable; No Mitigation 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 Keep the back straight and sit on the scaffolding, Avoid Squat position that creating sit angle and leg force to sustain the body. Use Proper size hammer and proper handle to reduce the head and neck bending., Load share with team crew if to reduce the force exposure. Keep the body straight while rotating the nut or the connection, Bend the knee and body only when it such as fit the pin and the box connector or sitting flange to flange. 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 Sit properly while connect the lubricator, Greasing the thread before make up to get easier connect. 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 453 editor@iaeme.com

Potential Risk H/M/L Residual Risk H/M/L Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service Activities C Climb the Ginpole 27 High risk D E F Lubricant Secure Lines installation Ensure lubricator is secure and lines are attached to the Ginpole Descend from Ginpole 27 High risk 18 High risk 18 High risk Observe the job sequence by engineering control, Eliminate the climb job sequence when it s not really 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. Use special securing tool to reduce the postural and force risk. It s not 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 1 Job Step Sequence of working activities Tree Adaptor Installation Hazard The potential to cause harm (Health, injury, Property damage, environment, etc.) Hand and finger injury or Pinched, Gesture posture injury (LBP,MSDs), Hydrocarbon/toxic gas release to atmosphere, Lifting hazard (Crane sling) Cause (Possible causes that will potentially release a hazard) High wind and rough sea, Failure to adopt safe work practice, Human error, Crane failure, Uncertified Tree adaptor, Seal or O Ring failure Consequences (The harm which could possibly occur). Injury or Fatality, Asset Damage, Oil spill or gas leak, Environment damage (Oil Spill), Explosion (Gas release) High Mitigation Measure (Barrier / Control) Describe all existing barriers / controls for each hazard 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 454 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni 2 3 4 BOP Installation Making up Lubricator connection PCE Secure Line Installation Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury / Pinched, Gesture posture injury ( LBP, MSDs ), Lifting hazard, Incompetent Operator / Banksman, Slips and trips Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury / Pinched, Gesture posture injury ( LBP, MSDs ), Lifting hazard, Incompetent Operator or Banksman, Slips and trips Falling object, Fall from height, Hand and finger injury or Pinched, Gesture posture injury ( LBP, MSDs ) High wind or rough sea, Failure to adopt safe work practice, Human error, Crane failure High wind or rough sea, Human error, Crane failure, Failure to adopt safe work practice High wind or rough sea, Human error, Failure to adopt safe work practice Injury or Fatality, Asset damage, Operation Delay Injury or Fatality, Asset damage, Delay in Operation Injury or Fatality High Medium High Production Engineering standard Procedure to be followed, Apply safe Gesture, posture and manual handling properly, Wear Proper PPE. 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. 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. Certified and Competent crew PTW Control, Stop work during bad weather (Wind speed, Rain, Lightning, etc.), Apply safe Gesture, posture and manual handling properly. Medium Low 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. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 455 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 456 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni 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 http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 457 editor@iaeme.com

Ergonomic Analysis of Rig up Wireline Pressure Control Equipment (Pce) in Well Service 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 workrelated 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 Ergonomics, 357-366. [16] Kemmlert, K. (1995). A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazards- PLIBEL. Applied Ergonomics, 199-211. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 458 editor@iaeme.com

Nasuto SMAZ, Jeffri Yudistira, Talitha Gustiyana, and Taufik Roni Sahroni [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. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 283-301. [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. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40-45. [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 Ergonomics, 142-148. [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. http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/index.asp 459 editor@iaeme.com