上海理工大学本科毕业（设计）论文
附录一：科技文献翻译
英文原文：
Shared risk
An ANSI technical report and soon-to-be-adopted standards make risk assessment the responsibility of metalformers and equipment suppliers. How are you affected?
BY LOUIS A. KREN, SENIOR EDITOR Operator and bystander safety in a metalforming operation should be of paramount concern. If such concern doesn’t reside in the heart, it certainly will in the wallet. The trend is forever upward in terms of regulation, liability and insurance costs. The recent issuance of ANSI B11 TR3-2000 continues the trend. Officially titled, Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction—A Guide to Estimate, Evaluate and Reduce Risks Associated with Machine Tools, the report provides procedures and methods to assess risks associated with the design, construction, care and use of machine tools as included in the ANSI B11 series.
MetalForming discussed the finer points of this report, as well as risk assessment and reduction in general, with James O’Laughlin of Sick Inc., Minneapolis, MN, a supplier of industrial sensors and safety systems. As a member of the Precision Metalforming Association Safety Committee，O’Laughlin will discuss the topic of risk reduction at length in a seminar presentation at METALFORM’ 03,March 23-26, at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont, IL.
The recent prominence of risk assessment as discussed in TR3 arises from European practices. Across the ocean, a movement has been a foot to establish risk-assessment responsibilities for equipment suppliers as well as end users (i.e. metalformers), according to O’Laughlin.
Suppliers, Metalformers Must Work Together “Until about 2000, most risk assessment, if done at all, fell on the shoulders of those using the equipment,” he explains. “In 1999, adoption of a robotic standard, ANSI/RIA R15.06, established responsibilities for performing risk assessment related to the supplier. That started the supplier/user risk-assessment trend in North America.”
That standard, and TR3, makes it clear that as suppliers hand equipment over to the end user, they must provide an overview of the remaining hazards that have not been remediated.“
A lot of metalformers say they finally have a process to determine what hazards exist and
- 31 -
相机胶卷压簧多工位级进模设计
how they can mediate those hazards,” says O’Laughlin. “Before, it was left, to some degree, to guesswork. Some hazards are obvious and some aren’t. Common sense tells you that whoever built the new piece of equipment on a plant floor knows more about that piece of machinery than those who will operate it. The technical report supplies a methodology that allows the metalformer to say, ‘I should be able to expect from the supplier at least some limits of the machinery that determine what risks still remain.’”
But the report does not remove all risk-assessment challenges for the metalformer. “ The supplier can’t remediate all the risks because it is not dealing with the final installation, only with the machinery as it sits on the supplier shop floor,” O’Laughlin explains. “Challenges to metalformers include assessing risks associated with packing and transportation, installation, commissioning and machine setup prior to each run.”
Though technically not a standard itself, the report is referenced in B11 standards currently being adopted. “
Prior to B11-TR3 and the updated B11 standards,” says O’Laughlin, “the end user had to determine what hazards existed and identify tasks, identify the hazards associated with each task, determine the level of risk, then after performing that assessment of risk, remediate the risk as best as possible. Employers always have been able to formally request that suppliers provide machinery information that can be used to make informed decisions regarding safe working conditions. With the adoption of TR3, this information should be more structured and useful. Ideally, suppliers should be able to provide the initial risk assessment for the employer to build on.”
When looking at the basic OSHA requirements, employers are ultimately responsible for providing a safe working environment for employees. This is true no matter what ANSI standards are applicable. What Metalformers Can Do That’s great that suppliers become part of the risk-assessment process, you say. Supplier input in risk assessment typically relates to machine design and addition of safeguards to machine hazard areas. Also included may be training in safe machine operation and associated manuals. But, you say, how can I, the metalformer, remain in compliance with the new standards and perform correct risk assessment on my end?
Though each piece of equipment is different, O’Laughlin does offer general guidelines. “First, identify all the tasks associated with a particular machine,” he says. “Those tasks deal with normal everyday operation, and also deal with maintenance. Once you identify all foreseeable tasks accomplished with that machine throughout its lifecycle, identify the hazards associated with each task. Some hazards are obvious. For example, with a press ram descending
- 32 -
上海理工大学本科毕业（设计）论文
to bend material, hands placed in that area create an obvious hazard. But some hazards are not so obvious. For example, removing the machine without proper lifting equipment can cause grievous harm to anyone within the moving area.
“Once you’ve identified tasks and performed hazard analysis, then perform a risk estimation—how likely is that hazard to occur,” he continues. “That likeliness of occurrence dictates what the metalformer should do to limit exposure to that hazard. B11.TR3 rates likeliness as high, medium, low and negligible. Risk assessment is based on that estimation as well as possible severity of harm, from catastrophic down to minor.”
The next step is risk reduction, according to O’Laughlin. “
For example, high likeliness of occurrence with the possibility of severe injury typically necessitates some type of protective device that prevents intentional exposure of any part of the body to the hazard,” he says.“ This may include barrier guards or other protective devices with special fasteners that prevent an employee from gaining access to the hazard. In applying control systems to such situations, they must be self-checking to ensure that safeguards perform up to speed, and they also must be redundant. The lowest degree of risk—negligible—means that you are aware of the hazard and you want to prevent inadvertent exposure. Remedies may include a moveable screen in the area or signage. Controls may not have to be redundant.”
With risk reduction completed, O’Laughlin advises reevaluation to identify any remaining, or residual risks. Metalformers should determine if residual risk is tolerable or if something additional should be done. Training can bring employees up to speed on residual hazards, letting them know that some hazard still exists. This training should be documented and updated annually. Risky Business
Enforcing newly adopted standards fall on the shoulders of OSHA and its state-sponsored agencies. We’re all familiar with the stress that OSHA investigations and inspections can cause. A proactive approach to standards is the best approach to easing such a process, says O’Laughlin. And, he says, document everything.
“If you don’t document what you did, then you didn’t do it,” he’s fond of saying. “If I don’t document what I did or didn’t do and why, it is very difficult for me to establish that down the road in a court of law—typically more than a year for injury cases.”
Some of us cringe when we see a new set of standards in the works. It means one more rule to follow and one more opportunity to be in noncompliance for something. But, like it or not, standards are a fact of life, especially in a business as inherently dangerous as metalforming. Attend the METALFORM’03 seminar and do your homework on risk assessment, because it is here.
- 33 -
相机胶卷压簧多工位级进模设计
“Savvy lawyers will note an industry standard that was not followed, and that will bring higher levels of penalties,” notes O’Laughlin. “Some shops have not performed any safety work on their equipment, and they are running on borrowed time. Some think that it is cheaper to pay the fine and medical expenses when someone is hurt than it is to stress safety. But more and more states are implementing stiffer penalties. Sometimes, if willful, noncompliance can be a felony offense with jail time.”
译文：
风险共享
美国国家标准协会的一个科研报告提出使得金属成型工艺师和设备供应商的职责冒险的估计得以标准化，这一标准很快的被广泛接受和采纳。 你自己在其中冒多大的风险呢？
作者：LOUIS A. KREN主编
在金属成型过程中，操作者和旁观者的安全问题应该得到足够的重视。如果不能从内心去关注这些问题，那它必然会在表面上显现出来。这种问题会一直因为规则，责任和保险费的增长而呈上升趋势。美国国家标准协会的近一期杂志就引用了这种趋势。正式命名为风险估计和冒、风险减少——这是对与机床相关的冒险进行预计、估算以及减少冒险的一个导引。这份报告给出了对在美国国家标准系列丛书B11涉及到的设计、建模、查看及使用机床等过程中的危险的估算过程和方法。
金属成型杂志和Sick Inc.,Minneapolis, MN 公司的James O’Laughlin先生（一个工业传感器及安全系统的供应商）对这份报告的可取的观点，以及普通意义上的冒险估算和减少冒险进行了讨论和分析。作为金属精密成型协会安全委员会的一员，O’Laughlin将最终就减少冒险这个话题于3月23至26日在Rosemont, IL.的Donald E. Stephens Convention中心举办的金属成型学术讲座上作报告。
最近在TR3上发表的有关冒险估算的显著成果是在欧洲发起，后在各大洲普遍得以应用。O’Laughlin认为这项成果奠定了对设备供应商及最终使用者（例如金属成型工艺师）所应担负责任的冒险估算这项运动的基石。
供应商与成型工艺师应该共同努力
“直到大约2000年，大部分的冒险估算，如果有的话，就都落到了这些使用设备的人身上”O’Laughlin解释说，“在1999年，一个机器人标准ANSI/RIA R15.06把对跟供应商有关的冒险估算确定为一项义务。这样就启动了在北美供应商/使用者之间冒险估算的趋势。
- 34 -
上海理工大学本科毕业（设计）论文
这项标准及TR3明确提出，供应商在把设备提供给最终使用者时，他们必须把现实存在但是暂时没有发现的潜在危险的概况提供给使用者。
O’Laughlin说“许多金属成型工艺师最终都有一个确定存在的危险和设法处理这些危险的过程。在过去，这在一定程度上来说是一个‘猜’的工作过程。有些危险是很明显的，但有些不是。直觉告诉你，无论是谁建立了这套新的设备，他都比这些即将操作这些设备的使用者懂得更多。它的技术报告提供给金属成型师一种说法：我应该可以从供应商那儿得到决定这些这些机器依然存在的危险的一些缺陷部位的信息”
但是这份技术报告并没有去除对于金属成型师所要面临的所有的挑战和冒险。 供应商并不能发现所有的可能存在的危险，因为他并不参加最终的安装。而只是在供应商的场地上进行了安装和调试状态进行了解。O’Laughlin解释说“对于金属成型工艺师来说，他们要面临的可能的危险存在于包括包装、运输、安装、调试以及在每次运行之前的机器设定”
虽然技术上来讲它自身并不能成为一个标准，但是这份技术报告被B11标准应用参考，在现阶段已经得到接受和认同。
O’Laughlin 解释说，“在B11-TR3以及经过更新的B11的新标准之前，终端用户必须能判别仍然存在的潜在危险并确定任务，确定与每个任务相关的危险，确定危险的等级，然后在每个危险过后，尽可能详细的把这些危险记录下来。雇主往往已经可以正式的要求供应商提供详细的机床信息数据，来用于使得记录的这些情况下工作环境中的工人的安全。在TR3广泛采纳应用的情况下，这些信息应该会更加的结构化，更加的有用。理论上，供应商至少应该可以提供对于雇主使用状态下的主要的一些危险情况。
对照职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA——Occupational Safety and Health Administration）的一些基本的要求，不管ANSI美国国家标准协会标准怎么演变，雇主都要最终负责给雇员提供安全的工作环境。
金属成型工艺师能做什么呢？
人们说，供应商成为冒险估算中的一部分是非常好的。供应商在估算中的投入一般包括了与机床设计及机器危险区域的起保护作用的附加物。同时也包括了可能对机器安全操作的培训及相关的劳动力投入。但是你也说了，作为金属成型工艺师，我怎么作才能顺应新的标准，在最后得到正确的冒险估算呢？
虽然各种设备是各不相同的，但O’Laughlin却提供了一个普遍通用的准绳。 “首先，确定在一种特定机器上所能完成的所有的任务。”他说，“这些任务处理完成了每天日常的运行，同时也包含了维修。一旦你能在这台机器的生命周期内所能完成的所有的可见性的任务，识别出在完成每个任务时的所出现的危险。有些危险是非常明显的。例如，当压力机进入弯曲材料时，如果手放在这个区域就是一个非常明显的危险。但是一些危险就不是这么显而易见。例如，如果不利用正确的起重设备而来移动机器，就会对在
- 35 -