Your author, PPE attired for the task at hand and feeling rather pleased at having broken a big


piece of concrete. The vacuum unit was left off to demonstrate the usual amount of dust produced.


“Rather than seeing safety as something bureaucratic and cumbersome, site managers and users can achieve practical benefits from adopting appropriate measures - in addition to helping to protect lives. For example, if you remove dust at source with on-tool extraction, productivity will increase. Cutting materials will take less time, operators will have better visibility and less time will need to be spent clearing up afterwards. And that is in addition to the Health & Safety benefits.”


Against this backdrop, Hilti’s DCH 300-X Diamond Cutter, fitted with a 305mm diameter SP-S 305/22 blade and the VC 40-UM vacuum unit, was recently featured in a HSE report entitled ‘Dust Extraction System Solutions on Hand-held Electric Diamond Cutters to BS EN 50632’. In a scientific process, three comparable systems (each comprising tool, insert and vacuum unit) were tested in a 200m2


airtight room. Over the course of an hour, trained independent


operators then made a minimum of a 13.2 metre, 40mm deep cut into concrete slabs for ten minutes at a time, resting for two minutes in between. One or two such tests were undertaken each day, allowing considerable time between each for the room to be cleared of dust and cleaned thoroughly. All systems were used as per each manufacturers’ operating instructions.


“Hilti believes that the issue of workplace dust is as important as that of Hand Arm Vibration 20 years ago, when EHN reported on discussions about the likely impact of new regulations on the hire industry. Controlling RCS exposure is just as significant.” - Matias Järnefelt, Hilti General Manager GB and Region Head Northern Europe


In spite of such rigorous procedures the results were surprisingly disparate - system one (Hilti) produced 0.85 mg/m3 silica dust, compared to 7.65 mg/m3 and 15.65 mg/m3


of respirable produced by the second system for the third. Such figures illustrate clear water


between three major manufacturers, but I wanted to see Hilti’s dust extraction system in action for myself.


Duly decked in hi-vis, hard hat, steel toecaps, goggles, dust mask, gloves and ear protectors - and to the obvious amusement of my hosts - I was first let loose on Hilti’s TE 60 cordless combihammer. Drilling a hole in the thick concrete slab provided, and with the vacuum switched off, I produced a neat pyramid of visible dust - it’s the invisible particles that do the damage, of course. I then tried the same with the dust extraction switched on and with a hollow drill bit, and the process produced nothing that I was able to detect whatsoever. I was told that


17


the hole would be good enough to secure an anchor without any need for prior cleaning or blasting with compressed air.


I repeated the same test with Hilti’s DCH 300-X saw fitted with a 305mm diameter SP-S 305/22 blade, without the vacuum unit switched on - with predictably cloudy results, it must be said. Doing the same with the extraction on, the dust produced was negligible to the point of not being at all apparent. The VC 40-UM vacuum system, meanwhile, reminding us that it was doing its job by making periodic thumping noises every time it shook its filters clear.


It was a convincing demonstration, although I was not able to compare the other equipment used in the HSE test and none of this is to suppose that any of the rival systems tested are immediately unsafe under general working conditions. It will be interesting, however, to see how such products develop now that Hilti’s test results are in the wild.


Hilti is demonstrably moving in the right direction right now, though. In the meantime, my eyes fell on the TE-2000 AVR concrete breaker. The pile of rubble left in my wake attesting to an interesting, edifying and hugely enjoyable day at Hilti’s UK HQ.


•


The Hilti DCH 300-X Diamond cutter with dust extraction performed best in the independent HSE dust test report.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36