ejsr_30_2_05

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

1/12

European Journal of Scientific ResearchISSN 1450-216X Vol.30 No.2 (2009), pp.224-235

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009

http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Assessment of Postural Loading among the Assembly

Operators: A Case Study at Malaysian

Automotive Industry

A. R. Ismail

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering

and Built Environment, National University of Malaysia

43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +603-89216775; Fax: +603-89259659

M. L Yeo




M.H.M. Haniff




R. Zulkifli




B.M. Deros




N.K. Makhtar




Abstract

Many occupational tasks in industrial are still associated with strenuous working

postures and movement. Combined with a heavy physical workload, they result in a highfrequency of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). The intention of this study

is to reveal the empirical study of discomfort experience by the operators during

performing the task at the Malaysia automotive industries. The OWAS (Ovako WorkAssessment System) tool is used in order to assess the area of discomfort reported by the

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

2/12

Assessment of Postural Loading among the Assembly Operators: A Case Study atMalaysian Automotive Industry 225

operators by filling the survey questionnaire prior than the analysis being done. The

working posture is modeled in the WinOWAS software and the analyses will be donerespectively. OWAS analyses are able to detect the awkward posture. From the analysis

result, a comparison among work discomfort survey questionnaire, OWAS posture analysis

method been done and new optimum posture is created for the awkward posture. Oneoptimum working posture is achieved at the end of this research in order to increase safety

level and to avoid discomfort occur. The results of analysis were used to improve themethod of work, design of workstation and also improving the work posture to increase thecomfort level of operators.

Keywords: WMSD, OWAS, Posture, Optimum.

1. IntroductionMusculoskeletal disorders have proved to be a major problem for modern industrialized countries(Markku Mattila et al. 1993). Several researches have shown that the application of ergonomic

principles and programs in almost all workplaces result in increasing productivity and decreasing

WMSDs (J.N.Saraji et al. 2004). Besides, J.Hoy et al (2004) also clarify a worker friendly workplace

can generate short term advantages such as cost reduction and productivity improvement as well aslong term benefits from increased employee motivation and reduced staff turnover, reduced absence

due to sickness and reduced insurance costs. There are many researcher studies on the discomfort

working postures by using different methods.Manufacturing Industry is playing an important role on economic development in Malaysia.

Based on the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) profile in various sectors in Malaysia, the

occupational health issues common to construction workers, automotive workers and steel industryworkers are manual handling that causes body strain and pain, ergonomic risk factor due to repetitive

work or prolong standing and shift work. Several physical risk factors for WMSDs can be identified in

working life such as postures, manual handling high peak load, static load, vibration, repetitive work,

contact stress, speed or acceleration of movement (Pinzke and Kopp, 2001). The symptoms of WMSDsare discomfort, pain, fatigue, swelling, stiffness, numbness and tingling (Oregon OSHA, 2007).

Kivi and M.Mattila (1991) were also analyses and improved the work postures in the building

industry by using the computerized OWAS method. The total 6457 postures were observed and theobservations were always made at 30 second intervals and the total observation period was about 1.5

hours per task. From their finding, 27.8% of cement worker were category in poor work postures and

which need to be corrected soon or immediately. P.Kivi and M.Mattila (1991) said that the OWASanalysis provided the opportunity to compare the jobs studies according to the number of postures

which need to be corrected soon or immediately. Besides, the computer programs show the detailed

about the distribution of posture observations into categories in need of corrective measures. Somecorrective measures on work redesign, work environment or the equipment used at work and correct

work postures were suggested to minimize the WMSDs problems.Markku Mattila et al. (1993) were analyses the working postures in hammering task on building

construction sites by using the computerized OWAS method. According to their study, 593 differentpostures were analysed and a total 7.8% of postures adopted by the workers during various hammering

tasks were classified into OWAS categories III or IV, it indicating that the postures should be corrected

either soon or immediately. Their also clarify that for the workers using the non-powered tools duringtheir work, the parts of the body most affected were upper extremities, back, lower extremities, trunk,

head and neck. The computerized OWAS method for postural data analysis proved to be a very useful

way to reduce postural load of dynamic hammering task.

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

3/12

226 A. R. Ismail, M. L Yeo, M.H.M. Haniff, R. Zulkifli, B.M. Deros and N.K. Makhtar

J.N.Saraji et al. (2004) were evaluation of WMSDs risk factors among the crew of the Iranian

Ports and shipping organizations vessels. This paper clarify the WMSDs are major problem in almost

all countries and are important causes of work incapacity and loss of work days. The aim of theirstudies is evaluation of WMSDs symptoms among the workers by using Nordic Musculoskeletal

Questionnaire (NMQ) and determination of WMSDs risk factors by application of OWAS. After

determination of risk factors, the OWAS methods can be used to identify any possible correction inworking posture that leads to a better and less harmful posture.

According to their finding from the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire, the highestprevalence of MSDs symptoms among all participants, there are 32.9% of workers were related in lowback pain, 26.4% in knee pain and 18.8% related in shoulder pain. If category it to the different job.

For driver, the result show that 33.3% have MSDs symptoms in elbow, 30.8% in feet, 32.7% in ankle

and 27.3% in shoulder. For captain also showed highest rate of symptoms at low back, back and legwhich are 22.9%, 29.6% and 28.6% respectively.

The OWAS results rated postures of captains, deck officers and wheelmen in action category 1;

it meant that their postures were harmless for musculoskeletal system. Postures of electrician officers,

dredger offices, seamen and cooks were rated in action category 2 of OWAS. Postures of chiefengineers, chief officers, motorists and boatswains were rated in action category 3 of OWAS, which

meant that preventive measures should be taken as soon as possible. If considering the working hours,

in 33.7% of working hours crew had a posture that was related in action category of 1 (no harmfuleffect), 37.9% in category 2 (some harmful effect), 19.6% in category 3 (distinctly deleterious effect)

and 8.8% in category 4 (extremely deleterious effect). For chief engineers, chief officers and motorists

rated in action category 3 of OWAS and dredger officers, risk factors that resulted to MSDs symptomsin shoulder region were cause by the awkward postures and excessive workload during most of

working time.

According to Graham B.Scott and Nicola R.Lambe (1996) clarify the potential for

musculoskeletal discomfort or injury can be related to the amount of time spent in a particular position.Their studies were investigated the working posture in a manual collection of eggs by using OWAS

method. According to the result get from OWAS system, climbing on the perches was considered

extremely uncomfortable during the exercise. Similarly, bending to inspect nest boxes can potentially

cause posture discomfort and strain. Through the finding from the OWAS assessment, the result mayhelp to improve the working posture and to minimize the WMSDs.

J.Hoy et al. (2005) were clarified that the postural analyses were conducted by using theOWAS and RULA techniques. OWAS seeks to identify postures, which put the body in positions

where force exertions can be dangerous. In applying the technique, postures are recorded according to

a coding system. The first three cells is to code the number of postures, the fourth cell is use to codethe load or force used and the final two cells is use to code the stage in the cycle or task. Base on the

code numbers for each limb, an action category value is then determined.Figure 1.0 had shown the

example of OWAS technique for forklift driver.

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

4/12


Figure 1: OWAS technique for forklift driver

2. MethodGenerally, the methods of this study can category in four, which are collecting data about the work

discomfort from the workers and observation of work tasks and working postures, analyze the posturedata by using software, identify the awkward postures and give a recommendation of new working

postures to minimize the WMSDs problem. Figure 1 show the step of the methods use in this study.

2.1. Observation of the Motion and Work Task

After accomplish data compilation from the survey questionnaire. One of the workers with higher

percentage of pain or discomfort during work will be choose as our study subject. Before theergonomic study, observer needs to know the work task perform by the worker and their motion such

as reach, grasp, move position and release (Santos et. Al, 2007). Record each work phases need to go

through by the worker to form one complete work task. Before start collection data, observer needs to

identify the total load lifting, total distance of lifting and the cycle time of one complete work task.

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

5/12


Make sure subject performs their job according to the work task and the time is not longer than the

original cycle time.Figure 2: Flow diagram for the methods of the study.

Work Discomfort Survey

Identify the level of work discomfort on the subject

Observation

Observe the working postures and work tasks on thesub ect

Data Collection

Video recorder method

Data Analysis

Use OWAS methods

Result Comparison

Identify the awkward postures

Recommend an optimum posture

2.2. Postures Data Collection by Using Video Recorder

Subject working postures will be record by using video recorder. The observations are always made at

30 seconds or 60 seconds intervals between observations, because that is often too hard for the

observer to use shorter intervals (Kivi and Mattila, 1991; Saurin and Guimaraes, 2006). Observershould maintain the recording distance around 4.5 m from the subject to ensure a full view of body

segment (Karwowski and Marras, 2003). The advantage of using video recorder is that the observerhas much time to look at the observed postures. Besides, the video recorder can also easily and

effectively be used in recalling the actual work situation.

2.3. Data Analysis by Using OWAS Method

The OWAS method is collects observation information on worker postures on back, arms and legs. It

has 252 (4 x 3 x 7 x 3) posture and load combination, which are combination of four back postures,

three arm postures and seven leg postures with three estimate loads. Each posture of the OWAS isdetermined by the four digit code in which the numbers indicates the postures of the back, the arms and

the load needed. Observer need to identify OWAS posture code of each selected posture from the videoimage for each work task. Table 1 shows the OWAS postures code definition.

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

6/12


Table 1: OWAS postures code definition

Body parts OWAS code Description of position

1 Back straight

2 Back bent

3 Back TwistedBack

4 Back bent and twisted

1 Both arms below shoulder level

2 One arm at or above shoulder levelArm

3 Both arms at or above shoulder level

1 Sitting

2 Standing on both straight legs

3 Standing on one straight legs

4 Standing or squatting on both feet, knees bent

5 Standing or squatting on one foot, knee bent

6 Kneeling on one or both knee

Leg

7 Walking or moving

1 Load < 10kg

2 10 < Load < 20kgLoad Handle

3 Load > 20kgResource : (Karwowski and Marras, 2003)

The each OWAS posture code then will be analysis by using the individual OWAS classified

posture combination to get the action category for each work phases. The classification for individual

posture combination indicates the level of risk injury for the musculoskeletal system. If the risk formusculoskeletal disorder is high, then the action category indicates the need and urgency for corrective

actions. The action categories for each individual postures are presented in Figure 2 and explanation

about OWAS action categories for prevention shows at Table 2. Prolong time spending in oneparticular posture may cause musculoskeletal injury. Therefore, the next analysis is identifying the

OWAS action category by calculate the total time spent in different postures for each body part for one

complete work task. WinOWAS software will be use to identify the OWAS action category.

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

7/12


Figure 3: Action category for each individual OWAS classified posture combination

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3

2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4

3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 1

3 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1

1 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4

2 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4

3 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4

Back

Arms

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Legs

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2Load

Handled

1

2

2 3 1 21 2 3

3

4

313 1 2 3

Number 1 to 4 in the boxshow the OWAS Action

Category

1 Category 12 Category 2

3 Category 3

4 Category 4

Table 2: The OWAS Action Categories for prevention

Action Category Explanation

1Normal and natural postures with no harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system No action

required

2Posture with some harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system Corrective actions

required in the near future

3 Postures have a harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system Correction actions should bedone as soon as possible

4The load caused by these postures has a very harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system

Corrective actions for improvement required immediately.

Resource : (Karwowski and Marras, 2003)

2.4. Identify the Awkward Postures by Using the Result from OWAS Analysis

The result from OWAS analysis will be use to identify the awkward postures. From OWAS action

category, we can identify which body segments bring discomfort or pain to the worker. Besides, thelevels of action category for both methods give a guideline to the observer whether the working

postures are in harmful or not and whether it needs to be change immediately or not.

2.5. Recommend an Optimum Working Posture

After identify the awkward postures bring discomfort and pain to the worker, recommend an optimum

working postures to minimize the WMSDs problem. The discomfort posture will be change bychanging the posture positions. The new recommend will be analysis again by the using CATIV V5

R16 to get the optimum working posture.

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

8/12


3. Results and Discussions3.1. Postures Selection from the Original Video Image

Nine postures will be select from the original video image to put into the frames. Figure 3 shows the

nine postures selection from the original video image and table 3 shows the activities of the ninepostures.

Figure 4: Selected frames from the original video image

Posture 1 Posture 2 Posture 3

Posture 4 Posture 6

Posture 7 Posture 8 Posture 9

`

Posture 5

Table 3: Activities subject for each posture

Postures Activities

1 Subject hold and arrange the cutting products cut from the roll forming machine

2 Subject grasps a total 9 pieces cutting products with the load 0.70 kg

3 Subject start to turn and twisting the body to transfer the cutting products to the wooden box

4 Subject transfer the cutting products to the wooden box, the total movement distance is 0.91 m

5 Subject start to bend down and put the cutting products into the wooden box

6 Subject bends down and put the cutting products into the wooden box7 Subject arrange the cutting products at the wooden box

8 Subject start to turn back to the roll forming machine after finish arrange the cutting products

9 Subject turn back to the roll forming machine, the total movement distance is 0.91 m

3.2. OWAS Analysis

(a). OWAS Action Category for each Individual OWAS Classified Posture Combination

Table 4 shows the result of OWAS action category for each posture. It was indicate that posture 7 havea harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system and corrective actions should be done as soon as

possible. In additional, except posture 9 all postures were assigned in action category 2 and it indicated

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

9/12


these postures with some harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system and corrective actions required

in the near future.

Figure 4 shows the posture observed during handling the cutting products from roll formingmachine to wooden box. Figure 4 illustrates that the back and legs were in the most awkward postures

during transfer the cutting products and arrange into the wooden box. Observations also revealed that

back being bent and twisted 56% of the time and bent 33 % of the time. Also, the subject was standing56 % of the time on one straight leg. All these postures were classified either as categories 2 or 3.

Table 4: OWAS action category for each posture

OWAS CodePosture

Back Arm Leg Load Work Phase

Action

Category

1 4 2 2 1 0 2

2 2 1 2 1 0 2

3 4 1 7 1 1 2

4 4 1 3 1 1 2

5 2 1 3 1 1 2

6 2 1 3 1 1 2

7 4 2 3 1 2 3

8 4 1 3 1 3 2

9 1 1 7 1 3 1

(b). OWAS Action Category with Calculated the Total Time Spent in Different Postures for Each

Body Part

Figure 5: Posture observed during handling cutting products from roll forming machine to wooden box

(WinOWAS software, 2007)

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

10/12


(c). Posture Assessment for Posture 7 at Three Stages

Figure 6: OWAS code for posture 7 at three stages

3 1 3

Action Category

3 4 3

3 1 32 4 2

OWAS CodePostureStage

1

Leg Loa d

2 2 2 1 2

Back Arm

Stage one was represent the product quantity in the wooden box is empty (0 piece). Subject

need bend down more to reach the base of the wooden box. Posture 7 for stage 1 at figure 5 shows theback bent below the red color line and assigned OWAS code 2221. Posture 7 for stage 1 was classified

into OWAS action category 2. It indicates this posture with some harmful effect on the musculoskeletal

system and corrective actions required in the near future. For stage 2, it represents the product quantityin the wooden box is half (900 pieces). Posture 7 for stage 2 at table show the subject bent and almost

aligns with the red color line. It assigned OWAS code 4231 and classified into action category 3. This

posture has a harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system and corrective actions should be done as

soon as possible.Whereas for stage 3, it represents the product quantity in the wooden box is almost full (2300

pieces). Posture 7 for stage 3 at table show the subject back bent above the red color line. It assigned

OWAS code 4331 and classified in action category 3 also. Although posture 7 at stage one angle backbend larger than posture 7 at stage two and three, but it assigned in OWAS action category 2. It can be

clarified that posture 7 at stage one back bent without twisted but posture 7 at stage two and three bent

and twisted. If consider about the percentage of times, posture 7 at stage one, two and three areconsider in action category 3. It indicates that this posture has a harmful effect on the musculoskeletal

system in long duration and corrective actions should be done as soon as possible.

4. ConclusionThis study presented an ergonomic assessment of the operators of manual handling in automotiveindustrial. The results show that the operator are work in an inadequate working environment with

awkward postures. Transfer the products and arrange at the wooden box involved the poor postures and

high motion repetitiveness.

Regarding to the work discomfort survey questionnaire, majority operators are complaintsevere pain at lower back and foot and next is lower leg, knee, thigh and shoulder. 62.5% operator

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

11/12


applied sick leave when their felt pain or discomfort during their work. In long term, it may cause loss

to company due to the compensation payment. Through the OWAS analysis method, worker body

postures were classified in risk categories 3 in 56% of times when arrange the products involve thepostures bending and twisting. By calculate the working hours, OWAS method found out the awkward

postures in each body segments. Prolong bending and twisting may cause musculoskeletal disorder to

the worker.

5. AcknowledgementThe author acknowledge Ingress Engineering Sdn Bhd for their full commitment and cooperation

throughout this study.

References[1] C.Stuart-Buttle. 1994. A discomfort survey in a poultry-processing plant. Applied Ergonomics,

25(1): 47-52[2] Chew, Bok Kim. 2008. Musculoskeletal Discomfort Survey Questionnaire. Universiti

Kebangsaan Malaysia.

[3] Cornell University Ergonomics Web. Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaires(English).http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Pub/AHquest/mmsquest.pdf [5 August 2007]

[4] Darliana Mohamad. 2007. Analisis RULA dan CARRY ke atas Operator Pengeluaran di industriPembungkusan. Universiti Kebangsaaan Malaysia.

[5] E.J.Wright & R.A.Haslam. 1999. Manual handling risks and controls in a soft drinks distributioncentre. Applied Ergonomic 30: 311-318

[6] Giuliano Franco & Leonardo Fusetti. 2003. Bernardino Rammazzinis early observations of the linkbetween musculoskeletal disorder and ergonomic factors. Applied Ergonomic 35: 67-70

[7] Graham B.Scott & Nicola R.Lambe. 1996. Working practices in a perchery system, using theOVAKO Working posture Analysing System (OWAS). Applied Ergonomic Vol 27. no.4 pp

281-284

[8] Heng-Leng CHEE, Krishna Gopal RAMPAL & Abherhame CHANDRASAKARAN. 2004.Ergonomic Risk Factors of Work Processes in the Semiconductor Industry in Peninsular Malaysia.42: 343-381

[9] http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Pub/AHquest/mmsquest.pdf [5 August 2007][10] I.J.Kant, L.C.G.M.deJong, M.vanRijssen.Moll & P.J.A.Born. 1992. A survey of static and dynamic

work postures of operating room staff. Occupational Environment health 63: 423-428

[11] J.A.Bolognese, T.J.Schnitzer & E.W.Ehrich. 2003. Response relationship of VAS and Likertscales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthritis and Catilage 11: 499-507

[12] J.A.Engels, J.W.J.van der Gulden, T.F.Senden, J.J.Kolk & R.A.Binkhorst. 1998. The effects ofan ergonomic-educational course: Postural load, perceived physical exertion, and

biomechanical errors in nursing. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 71: 336-342

[13]

J.Hoy, N.mubarak, S.Nelson, M.Sweets de Landas, M.Magnusson, O.Okunribido, & M.Pope.2005. Whole body vibration and posture as risk factors for low back pain among forklift truck

drives. Journal of Sound and Vibration 284: 933-946

[14] J.N.Saraji, M.A.hassanzadeh, M.Pourmahabadian & S.J.Shahtaheri. 2004. Evaluation ofMusculoskeletal Disorders Risk Factors among the Crew of the Iranian Ports and ShippingOrganications Vessels. Acta Medica Iranica, 42(5): 350-354

[15] Jan Dul & Bernard Weerdmeester. 2001. Ergonomics For Beginners: A quick reference guide.London: Taylor & Francis. Pg 1-110.

[16] Javier Santos, Jose M.Sarriegi, Nicolas Serrano & Jose M.Torres. 2007. Using ergonomicsoftware in non-repetitive manufacturing processes: A case study. International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics 37: 267-275

8/3/2019 ejsr_30_2_05

12/12


[17] Javier Santos, Jose M.Sarriegi, Nicolas Serrano & Jose M.Torres. 2007. Using ergonomicsoftware in non-repetitive manufacturing processes: A case study. International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics 37: 267-275

[18] Jiu-Chiaun Chen, Jack T.Denneriein, Tung-Sheng Chen, Yawen Cheng, Wushou P.Chang,louise m.Ryan & David C.Christiani. 2004. Knee Pain and Driving Duration: A SecondaryAnalysis of the Taxi Drivers health Study. American Journal of Public Health, Vol94, No.4:

575-580[19] Joachim Vedder. 1998. Identifying postural hazards with a video-based occurrence sampling

method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 22: 373-380

[20] Karl H.E.Kroemer, Henrike B.Kroemer & Katrin E.Kroemer-Elbert. 2000. Ergonomics: Howto Design For Ease and Efficiency. London: Prentice Hall. Page 51-79

[21] M.M.Zafir & M.H.Fazilah. 2006. Stress di Tempat Kerja dan Kesannya Terhadap Keselamatandan Kesihatan Pekerja. Malaysia Journal Of Community Health, Vol.12: 37-44

[22] M.Massaccesi, A.Pagnotta, A.Soccetti, m.Masali, C.Masiero & F.Greco. 2003. nvestigation ofwork-related disorders in truck drivers using RULA method. Applied Ergonomics 34: 303-307

[23] Malaysian Trase Union Congress. 2000. Osh Profile.http://www.mtuc.org.my/mtuc/osh_pro.htm#man [9 August 2007]

[24] Markku Mattila, Waldemar Karwowski & Mika Vilkki. 1993. Analysis of working postures inhammering tasks on building construction sites using the computerized OWAS method.

Applied Ergonomic, 24(6): 405-412

[25] Mohammad Pourmahabadian & kamal Azam. 2006. Evaluation of Risk Factors Associatedwith Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders of Upper Limbs Extremity among Press

Workers. Pak J med Sci. Vol. 22 No. 4: 379-384[26] Orawan, Hiroichi, Nobuyuki, Seyed Mohamad, ikuharu & Kazuhisa. 1998. The Standardised

Nordic Questionnaire Applied to Workers Exposed to Hand-Arm Vibration. Journal of

Occupational Health,40:318-222[27] Oregon OSHA. 2007. Introduction to Ergonomics

Http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/osha/pdf/workshops/201w.pdf. [22 Julai 2007]

[28] P.Kivi & M.Mattila. 1991. Analysis and improvement of work postures in the buildingindustry: application of the computerized OWAS method. Applied Ergonomics, 22.1: 43-48

[29] S.Pinzke, L.Kopp. 2001. Marker-less systems for tracking working postures: results from twpexperiments. Applied Ergonomics 32:461-471

[30] Scott Schneider. 2000. An Ergonomic Approach to Analyzing Workplace Accidents. AppliedOccupational and Environment Hygiene, Volume 15(7): 529-534

[31] Sue Hignett. 1996. Postural analysis of nursing work. Applied Ergonomic Vol27. No.3, pp 171-176

[32] T.Engstrom & P.Medbo. 1997. Data collection and analysis of manual work using video recordingand personal computer techniques. International journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19: 291-298

[33] Tampere University of Technogy, Occupational Safety Engineering. 1996. WinOWAS usersmanual. http://turva1.me.tut.fi/owas/ [22 July 2007]

[34] Tarcisio Abreu Saurin & Lia Buarque de Macedo Guimaraes. 2006. Ergonomic assessment ofsuspended scaffolds. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36: 229-237

[35] Tokeer hussain. 2004. Musculoskeletal sysmptoms among truck assembly workers.Occupational Medicine,54: 506-512

[36] Troy Jones, Megan Strickfaden, Sharawan Kumar. 2005. Physical demands analysis ofoccupational tasks in neighnorhood pubs. Applied Ergonomic. 36:535-545

[37] Waldemar Karwowski and Wiliam S.Marras. 2003. Occupational Ergonomic Principles ofWork Design. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Pg 25-1 26-12.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	abhishek-puri
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

ejsr_30_2_05

Documents