Thanks For Coming

Thanks For Coming

Friday, August 20, 2010

Upgrating The Submarine

History of The Earliest Submarine

Early submarines were incapable of diving very deep or moving very fast because their engines required air. When they submerged deep enough that their conning tower or snorkel went underwater, they had to switch to battery-powered electric engines with limited life and power.

Published reports describe how in the 1950s, this problem was solved with the introduction of nuclear power, which did not require air to generate large amounts of electricity. This change permitted submarines to stay submerged for longer periods of time. These more powerful nuclear engines also allowed the subs to move much faster, while their smooth turbines made them quieter than the banging pistons of internal combustion engines.

In 1954, under the leadership of Admiral Hyman C. Rickover, nuclear power was introduced to the fleet on the U.S.S. Nautilus. Together with advances in hull design, silencing techniques, and sonic detection, nuclear power dramatically improved the speed, stealth, and range of U.S. submarines. The USS Thresher, which became the submarine class name as well, was launched in July of 1960 and, after preliminary trials for seaworthiness, was commissioned a little over a year later in August of 1961.

As the first in her class, she underwent lengthy trials at sea over the next two years, of the new design, such as the ability to travel 1300 feet deep at over twenty knots. While on exercises in Florida, she was hit by a tug while moored at Port Canaveral and in the spring of 1963, after repairs and an overhaul for upgrades, she was sent back to sea off the coast of Massachusetts for post-overhaul trials. participating in exercises that demonstrated the capability.

Launched in 1960, the USS Thresher

A submarine disaster in April of 1963 destroyed the USS Thresher and killed 129 American Sailors.

The proximate causes :
1. Bad brazing in the sea water cooling system
2. Poor quality assurance in the installation process

Underlying Issues :
1. Poor ballast system design
2. Extreme depth of water for initial deep dive test after extensive overhaul

What Happened??

Deep Waters

On April 9th, as described in public documents, the USS THRESHER was escorted by another Navy vessel, the USS SKYLARK, out to the edge of the continental shelf off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where the Atlantic Ocean floor drops precipitously to 8000 feet.

The USS SKYLARK was standing by for rescue if anything went wrong at a few hundred feet, though at the depths at which they were operating there would have been little she could do if the USS THRESHER went too deep. At 6:35 AM on the morning of April 10th, USS THRESHER spotted USS SKYLARK through her periscope to ensure she was in range, and prepared to dive in stages down to their maximum depth for testing.

The crew presumably attempted to restart the reactor and probably also attempted to get their crippled vessel back to the surface. This would explain the “positive angle” as they attempted to point upward and climb with the propellers. Without the reactor, however, they would have been relying on auxiliary power, with far weaker thrust than the reactor had. The boat probably also had negative buoyancy, meaning that it would sink if no active measures were taken, and simply didn’t have enough thrust to lift its weight to the surface.

A section of brass sea water piping recovered from the USS thresher

Emergency Measures

In order to lighten the vehicle, so that the weakened propellers could get it to the surface, or even allow the sub to float up on its own, the normal procedure would be to blow the water out of the ballast tanks and fill them with air, increasing the submarine’s buoyancy. That the sub’s crew were attempting to do so is evidenced by the next message from the stricken craft, shortly after the first troubling message—“Attempting to blow.” The microphone then picked up sounds of compressed air being blown through the lines to the ballast tanks.

At this point, Navy investigators believe, based on tests performed later on another vessel, strainers in the lines upstream of the ballast tank valves iced up. This occurs because the high volume of air moving past the strainers at such high velocity would have caused them to cool rapidly. Icing up of the strainers would have reduced the air flow such that either the tanks couldn’t be cleared at all, or at least not fast enough, because it’s clear that the boat continued to sink. There was only one more ominous voice communication: “...test depth.”

From this point on, the only sounds picked up by the open microphone were the distinctive and dismaying creaks of straining metal and fasteners as the craft sank deeper and started to crush under the unimaginable external pressure.

The submarine eventually broke into several pieces, killing almost instantly all 129 crew and observers aboard. It continued to sink, falling almost two miles to the floor of the Atlantic, prematurely ending the career of the most advanced submarine built to that date.


Proximate Cause

According to the Navy investigation, the proximate cause of the disaster was the leak of seawater into the reactor control electronics. This shut down the reactor, resulting in the inability of the boat to control itself or get back to the surface.

Underlying Issues

According to published reports, there were perhaps
several factors that came together to destroy the USS
THRESHER and its crew. The leak itself probably
occurred because of faulty brazing of the piping at the
shipyard. Prior to the USS THRESHER loss, the
installation procedure for pipes less than four inches in
diameter was to put a silver ring at the joint between two
points and braze it with a torch.

Poor Brazed Pipes led to the electrical shortage that led to the loss of the USS THRESHER

Subsequent investigation of other ships after the accident
showed that, though joints created in this manner
appeared solid, when broken apart there was no silver in
them, indicating that they were much weaker than had
been previously estimated. In general, the design and
standards for the non-nuclear portions of the vessel
seemed to have been more lax than those for the nuclear
reactor and its associated systems.

The icing of the line strainers, resulting in the failure of
the ballast tanks to empty themselves of water fast
enough, also contributed to events. This latter problem
was a failure to meet design specification. Had either of
these methods for surfacing been effective, the reactor
loss would likely not have been catastrophic, because the
crew could have dealt with the leaks and reactor problems
on the surface.

Finally, had the testing occurred in shallower water
(perhaps with the ocean bottom just slightly below test
depth), in which the USS SKYLARK could have
potentially come to their aid, the crew might have been
saved, if not the USS THRESHER itself.

Wreckage from the USS THRESHER's sonar dome can be seen on the ocean floor

Problem and Solution

As a result of the loss of the USS THRESHER, a major
new initiative was undertaken by the Navy, called
“SUBSAFE,” to reform design and manufacturing
processes (similar in many ways to changes at NASA
following the Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia
disasters). Part of this initiative was to end the practice of
brazing smaller pipes, and to instead start welding and
doing x-ray inspection of joints to verify their integrity.
It also resulted in changes in designs of the system that
blows out the ballast tanks, providing a capability to do
so seven times faster than the system used in the USS
THRESHER.

It had another effect in that during the search for debris
and clues on the deep ocean floor, the Navy recognized
the need for better deep submersibles. This (combined
with other requirements) helped result in the remarkable
new designs that can now explore some of the deepest
trenches of the seas, and that helped discover the remains
of the Titanic. In fact, part of the legacy of this accident
was the development of the kinds of undersea rescue
vehicles that recently saved seven Russian sailors trapped
at six hundred feet off the Kamchatka peninsula, in early
August of 2005.

Applicability To NASA

Like the Navy, NASA operates vessels that must endure
harsh external environments (in this case a radiationdrenched
vacuum), though the pressure differential of
space is much lower (one atmosphere at most, compared
to potentially many atmospheres under the ocean’s
surface). It is also somewhat easier to deal with, because
constructing pressure vessels to keep pressure in is
structurally easier than to keep it out.

Nonetheless, both
types of failures are equally unforgiving, and can kill
people very quickly. This incident shows the importance
of having multiple layers of defense against harsh outside
environments, with redundant means of keeping
functional those vital systems that protect us from it.

It is
also critical from a safety perspective that NASA
simulate as close as possible to the real environments that
a spacecraft or manned system will experience during
flight and even include some margin above the flight
expected loads and environments. These factors would
include: Vibration; Acoustics; Thermal; Radiation;
Vacuum, etc.

This accident also indicates the importance
of redundant systems and that NASA must assure that
these systems will operate successfully when or if they
are called upon. Finally, highly coupled and complex
systems should have the benefit of a Failure Mode and
Effect Analysis (FMEA) to identify potential failure
modes and to control and mitigate them.


Refferences

Generally, for the common pressure :-

1 atm = 100 kPa = 760 mm per Hg (in manometer) = 10 m of H2O = 1 kg/ cm2 = 1 Bar
1 oz (ounce) = 28.35g
1 fl oz = 28ml
1 lb (pounds) = 454 g = 32 oz

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

WORKERS' WELLBEING & STRESS

Recession Has Had Devastating Effect On British Workers' Mental Wellbeing.

The recession has had a significant impact on the mental wellbeing of the British workforce, with a considerable number of people seeing their doctors and taking antidepressants formental health problems and stress, apparently linked directly with the pressures of the recession in the workplace. The findings of MIND, a leading British mental health charity, have prompted fears for the mental health of hundreds of thousands of employees who face pressures as businesses tighten their belts.



According to MIND's Populus poll of 2,050 employees, as a direct result of recession in the UK:
  • 10% have visited their GP (general practitioner, primary care physician)
  • 28% were putting in more hours of work each week
  • 5% have consulted a counselor
  • 50% informed there was a slump in morale
  • 7% have started on a course of medical therapy fordepression
  • Approximately 1/3 said employees were competing against one another
The findings coincide with new UK governments figures which reveal the largest ever increase in antidepressant prescriptions - 39.1 million were issued in 2009, compared to 35.9 million the year before.

Badly managed stress and problems related to mental health have for a long time been workforce issues. MIND informs that according to previous research, approximately 1 in every 6 people of working age experiences a mental health problem each year in the UK, and 5 million individuals believe work-related stress has made them very or extremely stressed.

According to MIND:
  • A mere 38% of employees believe their current employer is providing enough support
  • About 25% were brought to tears at work because of"unmanageable pressure"
  • Approximately 20% of individuals blamed their work for making them physically ill
  • Nearly half of all people have lost sleep due to work
  • Over one fifth had developed depression

MIND's Taking Care of Business campaign aims to improve working lives and environments over the next five years, with a strong focus on altering attitudes to mental wellbeing in the workplace. Large companies, such as BT (British Telecom), AXA, as well as several trade unions have backed the campaign. MIND's Chief Executive Paul Farmer said:

"Considering how much time we spend at work, it is hardly surprising that it can have a huge impact on our mental wellbeing. A bad work environment can be damaging and can trigger a wide range of problems from exhaustion to depression, while having a good working life is proven to be an asset for our overall mental health. Employers and employees have a responsibility to recognise that mental health is an issue in every workforce and make sure they are doing what they can to promote a healthy workplace.

Working conditions have been incredibly tough for the last couple of years, and the emotional fall out of the recession doesn't just centre on people who have lost their jobs, but on people who are struggling to cope with the extra demands of working harder, longer hours, and under more pressure as their employers battle for survival. It is more important than ever that businesses look at how they can manage stress levels and improve the working environment for all their employees. Investing in wellbeing doesn't have to be expensive, and businesses who look after their staff reap the rewards in reduced sickness absence and increased productivity. Small changes can have big results, such as making sure staff take their breaks and making time to listen to their concerns. Not investing in wellbeing can be damaging to staff and eat into the success of a business. No employer can afford to ignore mental health."

Workplace safety - manual handling injuries

One in three injuries to Australian workers are caused by manual handling, with inexperienced workers at greatest risk.

Manual handling injuries are not limited to those sustained by lifting or carrying heavy loads. A person can be injured when handling objects in a variety of ways including pulling, pushing, holding or restraining. The object can be anything from an animal to a piece of equipment.

Good posture and lifting techniques can help reduce the risks, but research indicates that making changes to workplace design is the most effective way to prevent manual handling injury.

Identifying the hazards
Some factors in the workplace may increase the risk of an injury occurring. These hazards can be identified in different ways:

  • Walk through the workplace and look for potential hazards.
  • Talk over risk factors with workers.
  • Check through injury records to help pinpoint recurring problems.
  • Regularly monitor and update risk identification.
A detailed process, including manual handling regulations and the code of practice for manual handling, is available from WorkSafe Victoria.

Assessing the risks
The next step is to assess which factors are contributing to the risk of injury.

Typical risk factors include:
  • Type of work – working in a fixed posture for a prolonged period of time can increase the risk of injury.
  • Layout of the workspace – a cramped or poorly designed workspace can increase the risk of injury by forcing people to assume awkward postures, such as bending or twisting.
  • Weight of an object – a heavy load may be difficult to lift and carry and can increase the risk of injury.
  • Location of an object – heavy objects that have to be lifted awkwardly, for example above shoulder height or from below knee level, can increase the risk of injury.
  • Duration and frequency – increasing the number of times an object is handled or the length of time for which it is handled can increase the chance of injury.
  • Condition of an object – more effort may be required to manipulate badly designed or poorly maintained equipment
  • Awkward loads loads that are difficult to grasp, slippery or an awkward shape can increase the risk of injury.
  • Handling a live person or animal – lifting or restraining a person or animal can cause sprains and other injuries.
Reducing or eliminating the risk
After identifying workplace hazards and controlling the risks, you can do several things to reduce the risk of manual handling injuries. These tips can help reduce injury at home as well as at work.

Safety suggestions include:
  • Change the task - does this task need to be carried out? If so, does it have to be done this way?
  • Change the object – for example, repack a heavy load into smaller parcels.
  • Change the workspace – for example, use ergonomic furniture and make sure work benches are at optimum heights to limit bending or stretching.
  • Use mechanical aids – like wheelbarrows, conveyor belts, cranes or forklifts.
  • Change the nature of the work – for example, offer frequent breaks or the chance to do different tasks.
  • Offer proper training – inexperienced workers are more likely to be injured.
Protecting your back
The back is particularly vulnerable to manual handling injuries. Safety suggestions include:
  • Warm up cold muscles with gentle stretches before engaging in any manual work.
  • Lift and carry heavy loads correctly by keeping the load close to the body and lifting with the thigh muscles.
  • Never attempt to lift or carry loads if you think they are too heavy.
  • Pushing a load (using your body weight to assist) will be less stressful on your body than pulling a load.
  • Use mechanical aids or get help to lift or carry a heavy load whenever possible.
  • Organise the work area to reduce the amount of bending, twisting and stretching required.
  • Take frequent breaks.
  • Cool down after heavy work with gentle, sustained stretches.
  • Exercise regularly to strengthen muscles and ligaments.
  • Lose any excess body fat to improve fitness.

Monday, August 16, 2010

HAZARDS cited by OSHA.

OSHA fines USPS nearly $500,000 for exposing workers to electrical hazards at two Philly facilities.



OSHA announced that it has cited the US Postal Service for workplace safety violations related to electrical hazards found at two Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, facilities following an investigation conducted as a result of complaints received by the agency about both locations. Proposed penalties total $497,000.

OSHA’s inspections of Philadelphia’s Network Distribution Center (NDC) and the Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) found inadequately trained employees performing work, without proper personal protective equipment, while also exposing employees to live parts, risking electric shock and burn hazards. As a result of these conditions, OSHA cited the NDC with four willful violations, with a proposed penalty of $280,000, and the P&DC with three willful violations, with a penalty of $210,000, and one serious violation, with a penalty of $7,000.

“The Postal Service’s disregard for workplace safety standards has left workers at these facilities exposed to unnecessary dangers including electric shock, electrocution, fires and explosions,” said Al D’Imperio, director of OSHA’s Philadelphia Area Office. The Postal Service has 15 business days from receipt of its citations to comply, meet with the OSHA area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. This inspection was conducted by OSHA’s Philadelphia Area Office.

The Philadelphia violations are the fifth set of citations issued to the Postal Service since April 29, confirmed the American Postal Workers Union. Other safety citations were issued in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; in Bedford Park, Illinois; in Denver, Colorado; and in Providence, Rhode Island. These most recent charges bring the Postal Service’s total OSHA fines to nearly $1.8 million.

Friday, August 13, 2010

The Benefits of Applying Ergonomics

To help companies appreciate the potential business impact of ergonomics programs, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries compiled reports of ergonomic investments and successes. The following brief summaries show the potential for significant economic benefits as a result of implementing ergonomic interventions.

Success Stories

1. A military repair service invested $35,212 in equipment, including a vacuum life, anti-vibration gloves, keyboard trays, and anti-fatigue mats. Injuries due to strains decreased 23% in one year, saving the business $87,400. The benefit-to-cost ratio? 2.5-to-1.

2. A gravity feed roller system set at waist height reduced lifting and twisting at a packaging plant. The company experienced a five-fold decrease in days lost due to musculoskeletal injuries, sickness, and workers’ compensation costs. A 25% increase in productivity accompanied a 100% reduction in lost workdays.

3. Waist-high carts for carrying goods to wrapping machines in the packaging section of a manufacturing plant reduced walking and bending. As a result, productivity jumped 400%.

4. Adjustable assembly tables made it easier for workers at a window treatment fabricator to reach parts and raise and lower their worktables. The incidence of compensable claims went from twenty claims to two claims over five years.

5. A manufacturer paid $300,000 for an automatic palletizer to replace hand palletizing. The company experienced a return on investment of 23.6% per year over 10 years.

6. An automotive parts manufacturer purchased 20 tilt stands for parts baskets and 100 anti-fatigue mats. An investment of $22,986 yielded an 88% reduction in musculo-skeletal disorders in seven months.

7. A screen manufacturer spent $40,000 on semi-automated tables, which reduced awkward postures and high forces. As a result, quality improved, production increased, operator fatigue went down, and employee morale shot up. In 18 months, the incidence rate for musculoskeletal disorders went from 69 per 200,000 work hours to 0. The lost days rate went from 2342 per 200,000 work hours to 0.

8. A large electronics manufacturer spent $355,000 on an ergonomics program that included workstation redesign, training, and elimination of high-risk tasks. Productivity went up 37%. The return on investment was 1,675%. The company saved $100,000 per year in reduced labor costs and $2.1 million per year overall.

9. A large communications equipment manufacturer purchased scissor lifts, installed sit/stand adjustable workstations, and instituted job enlargement. In two years the number of ergonomics-related lost workdays went from 298 to 0. The company saved $1.48 million in workers’ compensation costs in five years.

10. An electronics assembly plant installed adjustable sit/stand workstations for $57,000 and realized savings of $490,000. Lost workdays decreased 57% over 12 years.

Comprehensive Ergonomics Program

Success with ergonomics entails more than just buying the right equipment. Employees must participate in the process, giving input and suggestions. They often know what is needed to make their jobs safer and easier. Employees must also receive training in how to use any new equipment. Without employee involvement, companies may not realize the full benefit of ergonomic investments.

97% of Worst Industry Violations Found at BP Refineries

“The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, SYSTEMIC safety problem in their company,”

Two refineries owned by oil giant BP account for 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the refining industry by government safety inspectors over the past three years, a Center for Public Integrity analysis shows. Most of BP’s citations were classified as “egregious willful” by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and reflect alleged violations of a rule designed to prevent catastrophic events at refineries.

BP is battling a massive oil well spill in the Gulf of Mexico after an April 20 platform blast that killed 11 workers. But the firm has been under intense OSHA scrutiny since its refinery in Texas City, Texas, exploded in March 2005, killing 15 workers. While continuing its probe in Texas City, OSHA launched a nationwide refinery inspection program in June 2007 in response to a series of fires, explosions and chemical releases throughout the industry.

Refinery inspection data obtained by the Center under the Freedom of Information Act for OSHA’s nationwide program and for the parallel Texas City inspection show that BP received a total of 862 citations between June 2007 and February 2010 for alleged violations at its refineries in Texas City and Toledo, Ohio.

Of those, 760 were classified as “egregious willful” and 69 were classified as “willful.” Thirty of the BP citations were deemed “serious” and three were unclassified. Virtually all of the citations were for alleged violations of OSHA’s process safety management standard, a sweeping rule governing everything from storage of flammable liquids to emergency shutdown systems. BP accounted for 829 of the 851 willful violations among all refiners cited by OSHA during the period analyzed by the Center.

Top OSHA officials told the Center in an interview that BP was cited for more egregious willful violations than other refiners because it failed to correct the types of problems that led to the 2005 Texas City accident even after OSHA pointed them out. In Toledo, problems were corrected in one part of the refinery but went unaddressed in another. Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, said it was clear that BP “didn’t go nearly far enough” to correct deficiencies after the 2005 blast.

“The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company,” Barab said.