First, describe the work and worksite
A trained masonry worker will split identified manufacturer-permitted brick units at a separated ground-level station using a Bon 11-590 hand-lever splitter. The opposing blades fracture the supported unit; no rotating saw, motor or water feed is used. Actual equipment instructions govern adjustment, placement and handle operation. The sequence ends with contained fragments and the splitter secured for the next user. This fictional learning example describes planned controls; it records no actual inspection or work authorization.
- The actual unit, permitted brick dimensions/material and required split quality are identified. The manufacturer’s applicable instructions and supplied support arrangement are available; no assumption extends this brick model to every CMU or stone product.
- Stable footing, a supported station and controlled handle, blade and fragment envelopes remain clear of pedestrians. Select actual silica, handling and eye-protection controls.
- Brick/block-cutting coverage is partial: manual brick splitting only. Powered wet or dry saws, hydraulic splitters, installed-wall cutting, hard stone, oversized units, blade replacement and intrusive repair are excluded.
Questions before work
- Which actual units and split geometry are permitted by this splitter’s instructions?
- How will the unit remain supported while hands stay clear of both blades and the handle path?
- What safe condition is required before a jammed piece or adjustment is approached?
Build the analysis one step at a time
What will the worker do? How could someone be harmed? What prevents or reduces that exposure? Who checks the control, and when?
1. Accept the units and splitting method
Hazard: An oversized or unsuitable brick can break unpredictably, overload the splitter or produce an unusable piece.
Control: Cutting lead matches the identified bricks, required split and actual machine to the project’s accepted preparation method. Check material/dimensional limits and required split quality. Reject incompatible units; do not substitute splitting for a specified saw-cut structural face.
Verification: Lead records accepted unit type and the applicable splitter/method requirements.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A machine can fracture a unit without producing an acceptable construction component.
2. Prepare the stable separated station
Hazard: A shifting machine, handle strike or flying fragment can injure the operator and nearby workers.
Control: Establish firm footing and the manufacturer-compatible supported station. Separate the full handle travel, blade approach and fragment area from other work. Arrange eye protection and assessed additional exposure controls, manageable brick supply and a close contained offcut receiver. Keep routes clear; manual operation does not eliminate exposure.
Verification: Lead verifies station stability, clear operating envelopes and the selected protection.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Removing a motor does not remove stored mechanical movement or debris hazards.
3. Inspect and set the unloaded splitter
Hazard: Missing adjustment pins, damaged blades or uncontrolled handle movement can cause a sudden shift during splitting.
Control: Inspect assembly, blades, handle, pins and adjustments under unit instructions. Remove defects from service. With no unit being split and the mechanism in its instructed safe position, set the required height/support arrangement and fully restore retaining parts. Keep hands away from closing blade interfaces; do not adjust components while a brick is loaded in the fracture cycle.
Verification: Operator checks the complete assembly and verifies restored adjustment retention before loading.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A correct setting still needs its retaining parts in place.
4. Place the supported brick and control hand positions
Hazard: The brick can roll or pinch fingers as the upper blade approaches the lower cutting edge.
Control: Position the permitted brick under the actual placement instructions, using the prescribed compatible support or guide. Confirm stable unit contact and clear the offcut path. Complete instructed fine positioning without placing hands between blades. Maintain a stable stance and ensure the helper stays clear before force is applied; do not use an unstable hand-held unit or improvised extended support.
Verification: Operator verifies unit seating and clear hand, helper and fragment positions.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Support and hand clearance must be established before the fracture force rises.
5. Apply the controlled lever split and reset
Hazard: Excessive or sudden handle force can eject fragments, shift the splitter or trap a hand at the fracture.
Control: Operate the handle by the manufacturer’s designated grip and movement method from the protected position. Observe the supported split without reaching into the mechanism. Stop for shifting, unexpected resistance or failed fracture; never add a pipe, jump on the lever or strike the equipment to obtain more force. Return it to the instructed safe state before removing pieces or resetting.
Verification: Operator checks controlled fracture, stable equipment and the safe removal/reset condition.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The end of the handle movement does not by itself clear every pinch point.
6. Contain fragments and secure the station
Hazard: Sharp offcuts, settled dust or a defective unsecured mechanism can expose the next user.
Control: Collect pieces into the planned receiver using suitable tools and assessed dust-controlled cleanup. Hold damaged or incorrectly split units for disposition. Leave the machine in its instructed safe storage condition and identify faults; jam clearing, blade work or repair proceeds only through the authorized safe intervention method. Transfer actual findings and keep unresolved defects out of use.
Verification: Lead verifies contained residue, equipment status and the safe station handover.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A simple manual machine still needs a controlled closeout and defect report.
What does a useful control look like?
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| There is no powered blade, so no protection is needed. | Control opposing-blade and lever movement, flying fragments and the actual dust exposure at the supported station. |
| Jump on the handle until the brick breaks. | Use the instructed grip and force method; stop for failed fracture and obtain the approved safe fault response. |
Decisions that change the analysis
Does this duplicate the stationary masonry-saw resource?
That resource cuts brick and CMU with a powered rotating diamond blade and continuous integrated water. This manually actuated opposing-blade machine fractures a supported brick, requiring adjustment-retention, lever-travel and safe mechanical reset decisions. It makes no dust-free claim or general permission to split every masonry material.
What must the crew record for actual use?
Record the actual work boundary, governing documents, responsible people, acceptance criteria, control findings and unresolved actions. Communicate restrictions and obtain required project authorization; this fictional example records no completed inspection or installed-control acceptance.
Agree when the crew will pause
- Permitted unit identity, actual splitter instructions, stable support or accepted split method is unresolved.
- Pins, blades or handle fail inspection, the unit shifts, force becomes abnormal or a person enters a blade/fragment path.
- A jam needs unsafe reach, an extension or impact method is proposed, or cleanup/exposure controls cannot be maintained.
After a pause, correct the condition, reassess the work, and obtain required authorization before restarting. Keep unresolved actions visible.
Download the worked example and free template
No account required. The worked example contains planned controls. The blank template is for your own work; neither includes fabricated inspection results, signatures or approval.
Your editable working copy
Build and download your draft
Start blank or load the learning example. Replace its assumptions with your actual conditions and involve the people doing the work. Your entries stay in this browser tab; download a copy before leaving or refreshing.
1. Describe your work and site
2. Work through each task
Describe an observable step, how someone could be harmed, and the control that acts on that hazard. Identify who checks it and what evidence is needed.
3. Record changes, checks, and open actions
Walk the work area, review with the crew, and resolve missing controls. Follow the required approval process. This tool does not judge completeness, verify signatures or authorize work.
Open the downloaded file in a browser, then use Print → Save as PDF for a printable copy.
Training needs to confirm
- Identified manual-splitter instruction covering compatible units, complete pin/adjustment checks, supported placement, handle control and safe fault response.
- Fragment and silica assessment, eye protection, safe hand positions, manageable unit supply and contained offcut cleanup.
Confirm applicable qualifications, task instruction and actual training evidence for the people assigned. Related toolbox talks support toolbox talks; they do not establish competence.
Common questions
Can this example be used as a JSA?
Adapt the Task | Hazard | Control sequence to the employer’s JSA and actual worksite. Name control checkers and record findings; this fictional example supplies no completed inspection or authorization.
What changes if the project requires an AHA?
Use the governing AHA format, risk method, records and acceptance process. The published formwork AHA illustrates that structure. Add actual competencies, inspections and reviews; renaming a JHA does not complete them.
Are these resources part of a paid course?
This walkthrough, browser draft builder and downloads are free public resources, separate from Academy course enrollment.
References and source note
- Bon 11-590 Paver and Brick Buster: product and documents
- Bon 11-590 actual splitter instructions, IS11590
- OSHA 1926.1153: construction silica exposure controls
Original instructional scenario with planned controls. Primary references support hazard planning. Use actual equipment and product instructions, project design and employer requirements to establish field criteria. This example supplies no inspection findings or work authorization. Use actual equipment instructions and site requirements alongside these references. Reference review: October 13, 2026.