Development of a Biomechanical Method for Ergonomic Evaluation: Comparison with Observational Methods

Authors: M. Zare, S. Biau, M. Croq, Y. Roquelaure

Abstract:

A wide variety of observational methods have been developed to evaluate the ergonomic workloads in manufacturing. However, the precision and accuracy of these methods remain a subject of debate. The aims of this study were to develop biomechanical methods to evaluate ergonomic workloads and to compare them with observational methods.

Two observational methods, i.e. SCANIA Ergonomic Standard (SES) and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), were used to assess ergonomic workloads at two simulated workstations. They included four tasks such as tightening & loosening, attachment of tubes and strapping as well as other actions. Sensors were also used to measure biomechanical data (Inclinometers, Accelerometers, and Goniometers).

Our findings showed that in assessment of some risk factors both RULA & SES were in agreement with the results of biomechanical methods. However, there was disagreement on neck and wrist postures. In conclusion, the biomechanical approach was more precise than observational methods, but some risk factors evaluated with observational methods were not measurable with the biomechanical techniques developed.

Keywords: Ergonomic, Observational Method, Biomechanical method, Workload.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1090456

References:

[1] G. C. David, "Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders,” Occupational Medicine, 55(3), 2005: 190-199.
[2] Li, Guangyan, and Peter Buckle. "Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods." Ergonomics 42, no. 5 (1999): 674-695.
[3] F. Gerr, R., Letz, P. J. Landrigan. "Upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders of occupational origin,” Annual Review of Public Health, 12, 1991: 543-566.
[4] A. Burdorf, "Exposure assessment of risk factors for disorders of the back in occupational epidemiology,” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 18, 1992: 1-9H.
[5] A. Ê . Kilbom, Repetitive work of the upper extremity: Part II The scientific basis (knowledge base) for the guide,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 14, 1994a:59-86.
[6] C. Berlin, R. Örtengren, D. Lämkull, L, Hanson. "Corporate-internal vs. national standard–A comparison study of two ergonomics evaluation procedures used in automotive manufacturing." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(6), 2009: 940-946.
[7] E-P., Takala, I., Pehkonen, M., Forsman, G-A, Hansson, SE, Mathiassen, P. Neumann,et al. "Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work” 17th World Congress on Ergonomics, IEA2009; Aug 9-14, 2009; Beijing, China: International Ergonomics Association.
[8] Foltran, F. A., Silva, L. C., Sato, T. O., & Coury, H. J. "Wrist electrogoniometry: are current mathematical correction procedures effective in reducing crosstalk in functional assessment?” Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 17(1), 2013: 32-40.