CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background study

Ergonomics applies information about human behavior, abilities and limitations and other characteristics to the design of tools, machines, tasks, jobs and environments for productive, safe, comfortable and effective human use (McCormick and Saunders 1993). In order to improve the standard of the workspace and to enhance the workers productivity, the science of ergonomics concerns with the degrees of workspace design.

From previous study, the researchers have identified s lot of types of ergonomic factors such as awkward postures, forceful exertion, localized contract stress, restless and repetitive motions in the working environment, especially in manufacturing based company.

Studies in the car assembly industry found the ergonomics issues caused poor workmanship that lead to poor product quality (Eklund (1995, 1999). While Lim and Hoffmann (1997) conducted an experiment on hacksaw assembly and found that improved layout of the workplace improved productivity of the workers through more economical use of hand movement.

It is crystal-clear proved that ergonomic interventions by alteration in the arrangement or equipment of the workplace exercise, rest break and training able to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms in the workplace. A study conducted in office work (Mehrparvar A.H, 2014) found a beneficial short-term effect for both ergonomic modifications and stretching work-place exercises on reducing musculoskeletal pain in office workers.

1.2 Problem Statement

The careful thought about ergonomics to put into practice in can generally be regarded as a means to maintain companys workforce and its competitiveness. This is particularly true in automotive manufacturer, where the workers in the shop floor have to fulfill physical and strenuous task. The stress load, if sustained over time and depending on the individual resources, can produce adverse effects, such as health and safety problems and lack of performance.

The problem here is, even though the importance of ergonomics seems evident, the implementation status can be described as rather poor in many companies. So, it is important to implement the ergonomic interventions in the work place and at the same time to identify the effectiveness of the interventions towards the works safety and health.

1.3 Objectives

The objective of this study is to identify ergonomic risk factors and to implement ergonomics interventions in order to improve human performance in an automotive factory.

1.4 Scope of Research

For this study, the scholar already chosen to embark on ergonomics studies in real life factory environments in Malaysia, which is an automotive parts factory, Autokeen Sdn. Bhd. This factory is a private limited company specializing in metal parts manufacturing and assembly specifically for the automotive industry, among a host of other products and services offered. The research study was focused on the whole department in the company plant.

The research had undergone numbers of processes to obtain the result related to this topic. There are four methods that had been applied in completing this study which are Subjective Assessment, Direct Observation, Retrieved of Archival Record, and Intervention Study. For Subjective Assessment, the questionnaire was prepared to obtain overview feedbacks from the respondent.

1.5 Significance of ResearchThis research will give the information about the risk factors of ergonomics and the effect of them towards human body. From the obtained result, the company can come up with better methods or tools in order to ensure the workers health and safety.

Besides, the workers performance will improve; hence, it will increase the productivity of the company. Last but not least, the findings of this research also can be used for the further related research.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Basics of ergonomicsThe transition from classical job shop production to mass production in large-scale manufacturing systems, which took place in the course of the industrial revolution, lead to an emphasis on aspects such as standardization, productivity, and efficiency in operations. As major consequences of the continued division of labor and the aim of rising productivity was the maximization of workforce utilization as the predominant management goal without considering possible consequences for the employees (Murell, 1967).

The increased complexity of machines and growing demand for higher operation speeds in the course of World War II lead to the first specific scientific investigations on performance limits and physical capacity of humans, and therewith to the emergence of ergonomics as a scientific discipline. The term ergonomics is composed of the Greek words. ergon (work) and nomos (rule, law) (Murrell, 1971). Today, the scientific disciplines of ergonomics can be divided in three major areas: physical, cognitive, and organizational ergonomics. Physical ergonomics deals with anatomic, anthropometric, and physiologic aspects of job design (Karwowski and Rodrick, 2001). Cognitive ergonomics examines mental processes such as information processing, apperception, reaction and coordination (Vicente, 1999). In organizational ergonomics, also known as macro-ergonomics, the emphasis is put on structures, methods and processes of socio-technical systems (Karwowski, 2005).

2.2 Occupational injuries and illness in the industry.According to Shameem et al. (2001), industrial workers in Malaysia experienced little work freedom and relaxation and significant overtime work. They did not complain strongly about poor work conditions, such as background stressors i.e., noise, heat stress due to poor air conditioning, limited working space and poor vision due to low lighting levels. Most of these workers were poorly educated and were ignorant of the various work environmental standards. These workers had the idea that work conditions were what they had to adapt to. In fact, in the 1980s, most multinational companies in Malaysia had put ergonomics as low priority, as application of the knowledge of ergonomics was perceived as a costly and burdensome expenditure (Yeow and Sen, 2002) rather than a rewarding investment. This was also due to the abundance of replaceable cheap labour and low government regulation of labour health and safety issues.

Figure 2.1: Occupational Accidents by Sector until June 2014According to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), Malaysia report on Occupational Accidents by Sector until June 2014, the highest accidents were reported by the manufacturing sector with 964 cases, 24 cases were reported in death category, 74 cases in Permanent Disability category and 866 cases in Non- Permanent Disability (NPD) category. Agriculture, Forestry, Logging and Fishing with 224 cases was the second highest. However, the highest accident for death category was reported by construction sector, with 35 cases while manufacturing lead in Non- Permanent Disability (NPD) category.For the Occupational Accidents by State until June 2014, Perak led with 255 occupational accidents, 238 cases in Non- Permanent Disability (NPD) category, 8 cases in death category and 9 cases in Permanent Disability category. Negeri Sembilan recorded as the second highest state that reported the occupational accidents with 197 cases followed by Pulau Pinang with 190 cases.

Figure 2.2: Occupational Accidents by State until June 2014

2.3 Ergonomics risk factorsStress-related organizational aspects such as time pressure, work times and shift changes or the necessity to highly concentrate for long periods of time might have negative impact on an employees performance and therefore critical issues in terms of cognitive ergonomics. Moreover, surrounding conditions such as noise, temperature, contact with chemicals, or vibration emitting noise tasks could hamper employees conducting their job and might have a negative influence on workers health in the long run.Common risk factors that can be seen at the workplace are overexertion force, awkward posture, repetition task, environment and vibration.

2.3.1 ForceThere are three types of force, the static force required to lift and hold a load, the kinetic force required to move an object (push or pull) and grip force. Force is the exertion on internalized bodily tissues, including vertebral disc compression from lifting a heavy box, or tension within a muscles during a pinch grip. Forceful muscular exertions place high loads on the muscles, tendons, joints, and discs, and are therefore associated with most musculoskeletal disorders. Muscles fatigue with increased muscular exertion, and the time needed to recover increases. If recovery time is limited, soft tissue injury is more likely to occur. Where other risk factors are present, especially frequent repetitions of exertions, awkward postures or static postures, they add to the force required to accomplish the exertion. Generally the larger the force the higher the injury risk, so it is always beneficial to reduce the weight of the object to be handled.

2.3.2 PosturePosture is the position the body is in while completing the movement. Muscles and tendons are strongest in neutral positions, so any deviation reduces stability and strength. With prolonged awkward postures, muscles can be strained and tendons and nerves stretched or pinched. Tasks that involve long reaches require considerably more force to accomplish than tasks that can be performed closer to the body.Common injuries involving repetitive awkward postures include carpal tunnel syndrome in the wrist and impingement syndrome in the shoulder. To avoid injuries caused by awkward postures, avoid lifting objects from overhead, use an ergonomic computer mouse and avoid far reaches with the upper body. Table below shows postures that accompany higher injury risks.

Table 2.3.2.1: Postures that accompany higher injury risksBody PartsPostures

Wrist: flexion and extension (bending up and down) ulnar/radial deviation (side bending)

Shoulder: abduction/flexion (upper arm out to the side or above shoulder level) hands at or above shoulder height

Neck: flexion/extension (bending neck backwards and forwards) side bending

Low Back: bending at the waist twisting bending while twisting

2.3.3 RepetitionRepetition is described as the number of times the same movement/task is completed within a given time. Highly repetitive tasks are of concern because they work the same muscles, tendons, and ligaments repeatedly, rarely allowing for adequate recovery. With time, the effort to maintain the repetitive movements continually increases. When the work activity is continued, in spite of the developing fatigue, injuries occur.2.3.4 EnvironmentWhen the environment is too cold, blood flow is diverted from the extremities, to the core to maintain body temperature. Decreased blood flow results in lower muscle power and early onset of fatigue, as well as reduced sensation in extremities. Consequently, when the work area is too hot, blood flow increases to the skin to dissipate the heat, again reducing blood flow to skeletal muscle. Decreases in strength and early onset of fatigue as well as increased need for recovery time are all consequences of hot work environments.2.3.5 VibrationVibration causes reduced blood flow to the fingers and hands, resulting in localized numbness. Prolonged and repeated exposure to vibration can permanently damage blood vessels leading to White finger syndrome or even Reynauds Disease. Hand Arm Vibration also interferes with sensory receptor feedback, leading to tighter gripping of hand tools.All of the above mentioned the risk factors (out of the categories task, organizational aspects, and surrounding conditions) have in common that they hamper workers to unfold their full potential and that they contribute to harmful manufacturing environments (Xiao et al. 2004).Today, production systems, especially in the automotive industries are oftentimes characterized by a large number of various processes in highly automated environments (Ohno, 2005). This has severe consequences for the number and nature of tasks performed by shop floor employees. Harmful in this context are simple, monotonous, and highly repetitive tasks (Kume and Sato, 1999; Xiao et al. 2004). These lead to one-sided strains and can therefore be identified as the main reason for diseases of the muscular-skeleton system such as Repetitive Strain Injuries or Cumulative Trauma Disorders (Fathallah et al. 1998)2.4 Musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs)

An MSI, defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, is an injury or disorder of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints, nerves, blood vessels or related soft tissue including a sprain, strain and inflammation, that may be caused or aggravated by work.

Figure 2.3: MSD in the upper extremities of body.

The risk factors for MSI are related to the physical demands of a task and include force, repetition, work posture, working heights, and local contact stress. The most common type of MSI is back strain, followed by other strains and tendinitis. MSIs are most commonly reported among workers in the retail industry, with 3,352 claims submitted between 2005 and 2009.

2.5 Laboratory Workbenches

Figure 2.4: Workbench DesignWhen used inappropriately, laboratory workbenches can expose researchers to a variety of hazardous conditions or ergonomic risk factors depending on the laboratory procedure being used. Most workbenches at the University are of fixed heights and cannot be modified (raised or lowered). In general they are the same height and were designed for light to slightly heavy work. Using a laboratory workbench as a computer workstation is an example of inappropriate use, since it forces the worker to assume a variety of awkward postures and may increase the likelihood of acquiring MSD.

If workbench height is above elbow height, between 37and 43 inches, use for precision work. If workbench height is just below elbow height, between 34 and 37 inches, use for light work. If workbench height is below elbow, between 28 and 35 inches, use for heavy work.

2.6 Rapid Entire Body Assessment worksheet (REBA)

The basic idea of REBA is: positions of individual body segments will be observed and the more there is deviation from the neutral posture the higher will the score of each body part be. Group A includes trunk and neck, and legs and group B upper arms, lower arms, and wrists. These groups are combined and the 144 posture combinations are transformed to a general postural score ("'grand score"). Additional items observed and scored are the load handled, coupling with the load handled, and physical activity. The scores are summed up to have one score for each observation. These scores are compared to tables stating risk on five levels and actions needed.

Figure 2.6.1: REBA worksheet

The static captured pictures of the workers working posture will be selected and then by using the REBA worksheet, a score will assigned for each of the body regions.

Figure 2.6.2: REBA worksheet Score

After the data for each region is collected and scored, tables on the form are then used to compile the risk factor variables, after the final score is generate, that score represents the level of MSD risk.

Figure 2.6.3: Proper lifting techniques

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Methods and TechniquesThe methodologies used in this project have been categorized into 3 groups.I. The general methods used were: Direct observations in the field consisting of human recording such as scored assessments (REBA) and walkthroughs Indirect observations in the field via questionnaires and subjective ratings Standards and recommendations that were enforced via the intervention

II. To collect information about the workers the following methods were used: Physical measurements such as how individuals performed body movements Subjective assessment via questionnaires.

III. For the analysis and design the following methods were used: Expert analysis often involving, walkthroughs and scored assessments Intervention studies4. To evaluate human performance the following methods were used: Physical assessment by using Rapid Entire Body Assessment worksheet (REBA) Subjective assessment by means of questionnaires and ratings5. To evaluate the demands on the workers the following methods were used: Job and work attitudes measurements of by means of rating scales in questionnaires.

3.2 Research FlowchartStart

Scope of ProjectProblem StatementLiterature Review

Research and Development

Intervention StudiesDirect Observation

Subjective Assessment

Ergonomic Interventions

Retrieved of Archival RecordSubjective Assessment

Data Collection

Report Writing

End

Figure 3.2.1: Research flowchart3.3 Research Stages and its details3.3.1 Research and DevelopmentIn this phase, the problem statement and the objective of the study were narrowed down in order to focus more on the purpose of the research. As for the literature review, the sources of all the information and data mostly based on journals, come from article and few from books.

3.3.2 Ergonomic InterventionsDuring this phase, the data collection was gathered from quantitative and qualitative analysis. A few methods have been done in this phase such as;3.3.2.1 Subjective Assessment The subjective assessment is a set of questionnaire that consisted of several sections such as demographics and relevant questions due to the issue regarding to ergonomic study. Thirty sets of questionnaires were distributed to the respondent in the working plant. The respondents were the operators from several departments in the Autokeen which are Production, Machining and Finishing. The data gained from the subjective Assessment was analyzed and interpreted into the table and graph.3.3.2.2 Direct ObservationPictures and video were taken during this stage to confirming the finding of Subjective Assessment and the pictures and videos taken were used for Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) scores.

3.3.3 Ergonomic InterventionsBased on the data from Subjective Assessment and REBA Scores, Some interventions such as packing blocks, modified adjustable table and rubber mat are introduced as the interventions to improve human work performance. All of the interventions were implemented one at a time. Packing block was implemented in CNC machine, rubber mat was placed on floor in the production line and the adjustable table was not in a fixed workstation since the table was attached to the pallet jack.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

The data was collected from all the methods that were explained in the chapter 3 (Methodology). All the data collected was gaining from all of the methods that were explained in the Methodology Chapter. All the data and results are was analyzed and interpreted in the following sub topics.

4.1 QuestionnairesThirty sets of questionnaires were distributed to the respondent in the automotive power plant. Mostly the operators are come from Bangladesh, a few from Pakistan and only one Malay respondent. All of them are the operators from several departments in the Autokeen which are Production, Machining and Finishing.

The demographic details such as age, height, weight, working experience, working days per week, working hours per day and working hours per day spent standing (Section A and B) were tabulated in Table 4.1.Table 4.1: Demographic Details.Categorical variables (N=30)Categorical VariablesCategoryn (%)

Age (Years)21-3031-40

17 (57)13 (43)

Body SizeSMLXL

2(7)10(33)11(37)7(23)

Department

ProductionMachining Finishing

18(60)1(3)11(37)

Work experience (months)1-56-1011-15

20(67)10(33)0

Working hours per day (hour/day)81012

8(27)12(40)10(33)

Maximum standing hours per day0-23-45-67-8

4(13)8(27)12(40)6(20)

Figure 4.1: Percentage of respondent opinion about occupational safety and health problemsFrom the figure 4.1 above, 60% which is 18 respondents from 30 number of respondent that facing with safety and health problems due to work are from production department. While the other 35% (11 respondents) and 5% (1 respondent) from Finishing and Machining department. Most of them also agreed the accidents occurred due to less safety procedure took place during the machining operation. The worst case had been reported during scholar internship was one of the machining operators lost his thumb because hes ignoring the safety procedure when handling the lathe machine.

Figure 4.2: One of safety label in the working plantWork ActivitiesStrenousMonotonousFatigueBoring

No of respondents12292311

Table 4.2: Respondent's opinion about their working condition

Figure 4.3: The graph of respondent's opinion about their working conditionFrom figure 4.3 above, almost all of the respondents agreed their work is monotonous which is repeated. 29 from 30 respondents said that they keep working on same thing every day, for 8-10 hours in standing work position which 77% of the respondent agreed the conditions lead to fatigue. Because of the repetitiveness, 11 respondents found their work is boring.

Figure 4.4: Respondent opinion about their work station condition

Based on the data that had been interpreted into the Figure 4.4 above, about 70% (21) respondents agreed they had enough working space and dont have any problem working in it. However, only 27% respondent answered they were comfortable with their conveyer height. Most of the respondents complaining about their conveyor height are too low, especially theres a few of the operators in Finishing Department, which they dont have fixed workstations.

Figure 4.5: A picture of a few workers from finishing departmentFigure above shows the operators improper work station which makes them feel discomfort when working. The working table was not provided, and the chair that they are using to sit also is not properly design which is the custom made chair made from scrap. Because of the uncomfortable work station, they complained having a back ache after working hours.

Figure 4.6: Respondents comfortability in their working environment

Due to the company-based nature in producing stamping products, noisy working environment was the most selected as their main disturbance during working time. From the Figure 4.6 above, 23 from 30 respondents agreed the noise from stamping operation give them discomfort as the sound produced from the stamping machine was too loud. Even they wear the ears protection; they still can hear the sound clearly. However, 100% respondent admits they are satisfied with the lighting in their working environment since the working plant had proper illumination. Theres less complains about dirty environment because the company applied 5S. The operators doing cleaning task 15 minutes before they start working and 15 minutes before they finish their working hour.

Figure 4.7: Body diagram with labels

In one of the questionnaire question, the respondents were ask to scale to which their body region that they feel discomfort during their job by referring to the figure 4.7 above. The scale of the levels of discomfort was divided with five categorical which are non-discomfort, discomfort, mild discomfort, moderate discomfort and severe discomfort. The Non- Discomfort category is means for none body region that having pain or injury that influenced by their daily work routine. As for the Discomfort category, it is means that the respondent feels that their specific body region is bit disturbed their movement for doing their job. Mild Discomfort category is represented for uneasy feeling that probably makes the respondent out of their focus while working. For Moderate Discomfort category, it is means that the pain or injury in their specific body region makes them feel uneasy and to reduce the sickness they have to consume a medicine. Meanwhile Severe Discomfort category is represent for the uneasiness of the specific body region is the main reason for the respondent medical leave or being hospitalized.From the data that had been obtained, the result was interpreted into the table and figure below.Table 4.3: Percentage of level discomfort of specific body regionBody RegionsNon-Discomfortn(%)Discomfortn(%)Mild Discomfortn(%)Moderate Discomfortn(%)Severe Discomfortn(%)

Waist15(50)12(40)2(7)1(3)1(3)

Neck13(43)13(43)4(13)

Right Shoulder15(50)8(27)7(23)

Left Shoulder20(67)6(20)4(13)

Right Upper Arm10(33)12(40)5(17)3(10)

Left Upper Arm16(53)10(33)3(10)1(3)

Right Forearm16(53)11(37)1(3)2(7)

Left Forearm19(63)8(27)2(7)1(3)

Right Hand9(30)3(10)15(50)3(10)

Left Hand12(40)14(47)3(10)1(3)

Right Wrist21(70)3(10)6(20)

Left Wrist23(77)4(13)2(7)1(3)

Right Thigh23(77)6(20)1(3)

Left Thigh25(83)3(10)1(3)1(3)

Right Knee21(70)5(17)2(7)2(7)

Left Knee23(77)4(13)2(7)1(3)

Right Calf22(73)6(20)1(3)1(3)

Left Calf24(80)6(20)1(3)1(3)

Right Ankle15(50)10(33)3(10)2(7)

Left Ankle15(50)12(40)2(7)1(3)

Right Foot20(67)5(17)2(7)3(10)

Left Foot20(67)5(17)2(7)3(10)

Referring to the Table 4.3, the highest percentage of level discomfort of specific body region is at hand with 70%. Discomfort recorded with 10% only while highest is mild discomfort with 50%. The rest 10% was complained as moderate discomfort. There were also reported that they feel severe discomfort on some parts that are on their waist, and left thigh. However the percentage is too low with 3%. From the table 4.3 it can be observe most of them that report having pain symptoms in previous question were saying that the pain level is at mild discomfort.

Figure 4.8: Discomfort of the specific body region of respondent

From the overall result, it shows that upper extremities of body region specifically from shoulder to hand were the most discomfort part of body region that the respondent chose. There is also a complains about the discomfort at the respondent lower extremities of body region, which at their ankle and foot mostly because of their long standing working posture. The highest body part was recorded as discomfort is hand and the lowest part is thigh.

Figure 4.9: Problem encounters during works

Based on the data that had been collected from question 23, question 24, question 25, and question 26, the results was compiled and interpreted into the Figure 4.9 above. From the analyzed data, 30 out of 30 respondents faced the same problem during their works activities. Which is means that 100% of the respondents experienced turning waist while working. The respondents admit by turning their waist during working, they can minimize their movement but they did not realize how it can bring the negative impact to their body.Out of 30 respondents, 90% agreed they experienced long-term standing working posture. This is due to their work nature that forced them to work by standing. Meanwhile 83% respondents experienced bend down during works. This situation was unavoidable since their part or material box are placed on floor. So, they have to bend down to reach it with no compromise

Figure 5.0: Respondent response over training before conduct the machine

The percentage result from the question 28 of the questionnaire was significantly led to the negative answer. About 83% respondents admit that they didnt have sufficient training before conducting the machine. This is because most of the operators in the plant are from an agency, so the agency just put them randomly into the company without giving them the training before work. Only a few of the respondents have sufficient training to conduct the machine b due to their previous work experience. The result was supported with the company record of high value of defect products per day. 4.2 Direct Observation and REBA EvaluationFrom the walk through observation, workings operator body postures were observed and captured. Ten pictures were selected, and the results of the posture evaluation were tabulated on the table below. In the case of the operation of finishing line, which is drilling (situation 1-3), the risk of exposure to MSD's was high (AC 4) which requires investigation and implement changes. For other activities in operation line (Situation 4-10), the average risk of MSD's is classified as high too, which is AC 4. The high level was due to the need to maintain a stable upright posture while working, tilt the body, especially for the collection of the part from the box, and a high involvement of the upper limbs in the performance of the task.The most vulnerable segments of the body to injuries arising were the thorax, which was usually tilted heavily forward, or twisted to the side. The other segment is legs; this is due to the standing nature of the work. Last but not least is the arms, which is most were at a greater distance from the axis of the body, elevated at the shoulder joint, and frequently bent and twisted wrists.Only four working positions were rated as medium, which are position 3, position 4, position 6 and position 8 (AC 3) that need further investigation and changes soon.Table5.1: REBA Scores based on 10 selected working posturesSituationsScoresFinal REBA scores

Table AForce/LoadTable BCouplingTable CActivity

170619110

25061819

34031415

42041617

55053819

65031516

75052819

81051617

960629110

1050819110

Table 5.2: REBA scores with description of working posturesBil

Static pictures with REBA scoreDescription of Working Posture

1.REBA SCORE: 10The trunk position is deviated about 45o to 90ofrom the neutral posture. Wrist is bent from midline within 0o to 15o, while neck in extension. The position is maintained for longer than 1 minute and repeated. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day.

2.REBA SCORE: 9Neck and trunk are flexed about 20o from neutral posture. Upper arm is abducted about 45o to 90o, lower arm raised about 0o to 60o, wrist are bent within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 5Neck and trunk are flexed about 20o from neutral posture. Upper arm is abducted about 20o to 45o, lower arm lowered about 0o to 10o. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 7Upper arm is abducted about 45o to 90o, lower arm raised about 0o to 60o, and shoulder is raised. Wrist is bent within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation. Twisting at the waist. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 9The trunk position is deviated about 45o to 90ofrom the neutral posture. Upper arm is abducted about 20o to 45o, lower arm raised about 0o to 10o, and shoulder is raised while neck in extension. The position is maintained for longer than 1 minute and repeated.

REBA SCORE: 6Neck and trunk are flexed about 20o from neutral posture. Lower arm is abducted about 60o to 100o, wrist are bent within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation, and twisted. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 9Neck and trunk are in extension about 20o from neutral posture. The waist is bending. Upper arm is abducted about 90o or above, lower arm raised about 60o to 100o, wrist are bent and twisted within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 7Neck and trunk are flexed about 0o to 20o from neutral posture. Upper arm is abducted about 90o while lower arm is abducted about 60o to 100o, wrist are bent within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation, and twisted. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 10Neck and trunk in extension about 20o from neutral posture. Upper arm is abducted within 45o to 90o and lower arm is abducted about 60o to 100o. Wrist are bent and twisted within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation. Waist is bending and twisted. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and small range action repeated more than 4 times per minute.

REBA SCORE: 10Upper arm is abducted about 90o and above, while lower arm abducted about 90o to 100o, and shoulder is raised. Wrist is bent within 0o to 15o in radial and ulnar deviation and twisted. Twisting at the waist. The operator work in standing position about 8-10 hours per day and the body posture are held for longer than 1 minute.

CHAPTER 5

ERGONOMIC INTERVENTION

The interventions have been implemented after 2 months from the process of the data collected and analyzed. For this study, the scholar implemented three ergonomic interventions in the plant one at a time. This is to make sure that each of the intervention really did some changes or improvements. Besides, one at a time implementation provides the easier way for data collection process. Based on the results, the scholar implemented three ergonomic interventions in the plant which included packing blocks, modified adjustable table and rubber mat. These interventions were implemented in different workstations. Packing block was implemented in the CNC machine, while rubber mat was placed on floor in the production line. And lastly, the adjustable table was not in a fixed workstation since the table was attached to the pallet jack.5.1 Adjustable TableSince the operators at the working floor had same difficulties with their work bench, the scholar decide to design a new working table which its height can be adjusted and can be easily moved. With the help of the technician in the working floor, a custom made table had been made by using the ready material in the company. The table then was attached to the pallet jack as shown in the Figure 5.1.1 below.

Figure 5.1.1: Final product of Modified adjustable tableBecause of the table will be attached to the pallet jack, the dimension of the table must be accurate so that there is no problem occurred during the attachment of the table and the pallet jack. So, the process of measuring the pallet jacks dimension was took place before designing the drawing. The design drawing was created by using AutoCAD software in the company with the help of the designer in the design house. The flow of the process of this intervention had been simplified into the Figure 5.2 below.

Figure 5.1.2: Process flow of the intervention

Figure 5.1.3: Spraying process of the table.

Figure 5.1.4: The height of the table that can be adjusted.

5.2 Packing BlocksThe second intervention is focusing on the operation in the Machining Department which is mainly at the CNC machine. A questionnaire was distributed to the CNC operator and the data had been analyzed. To add some details, the Retrieved of Archival Record method was used. From the data obtained, the operator spend about one month, 29-31 days to finish their given task. Since there is no changes can be made related to the CNC machining process and timing, then the only thing that we can modified is the activities that doesnt related with the CNC machine. So, removal of rust on the dies activities (finishing process) is selected. In order to reduce the overall production time, the scholar altogether with the supervisor discussed and come up with the idea of using the packing blocks in the CNC machine.

Figure 5.2.1: The packing blocks that are designed in different sizes

As we can see from Figure 5.2.1 above, the packing blocks are designed in different sizes due to the shape and the design of the dies are varies. The packing blocks are functioning as the divider between the dies and the CNC machine so that there is no direct attachment between those two.

Figure 5.2.2: The usage of the packing blocks in the CNC Machine

Figure 5.2.2 above shows how the packing blocks are used in the CNC machine. Because the company is practically use coolant that mix up with the water, these combination of both fluid expose the surface of the die to the development of corrosion. From previous record, process of rust removal from the surface of the dies somehow took 2 days from the overall production time since the operator doing it manually.The intervention was implemented a week after the first intervention. For this intervention, it took longer times due to the production process for these packing blocks were made in different company. To withstand the weight of the dies and to avoid the corrosion happen to the packing blocks, a lot of thought was put into the selection of the material. After doing some research, material SKD 11 (alloy tool steel) has been selected. SKD11 is a High-Carbon High-Chromium alloy steel with high hardness (appropriate toughness) and tempering hardening effect.

Figure 5.2.3: Drawing and 3D model sample of the packing blocks

There are four design of the packing blocks were created. One of the design is the one that shown in the Figure 5.2.3 above. All the drawings were sent to the other company that able to make the custom made products. The cost was fully sponsored by the Autokeen Sdn Bhd.

5.3 Rubber MatsBased on the Direct Observation and Subjective Assessment data gain, the biggest issues is about the respondent long-term standing. From previous research, the effects of long-term standing on hard surfaces are not comfortable due leg muscles become static and continuously flexed to ensure the body in an upright position.

Figure 5.3.1: Standing for long periods reduces the natural flow of oxygen and blood back to the heart, which can cause fatigue and blood pooling in lower extremities

As for the solution, the scholar came up with an idea to propose the intervention of rubber mat in the production line. Based on the environment of the department, the vibration that caused by the stamping machine can be one of the ergonomic risk factors. Prolonged and repeated exposure of human body to vibration caused reduced blood flow and lead to permanent blood vessels damage.This intervention mat is a Neoprene rubber- based material. Neoprene is a synthetic rubber produced by polymerization of chloroprene and used in weather-resistant products, adhesives, shoe soles, sportswear, paints, and rocket fuels. Neoprene polychloroprene was originally used as an oil-resistant replacement for natural rubber.

Boots insole rubberNeoprene rubber

Figure 5.3.2: Custom made rubber mat that had been implement

The Figure 5.3.2 above shows the picture of the rubber mat. There are two different materials for this mat which are Neoprene and the rubber for shoes insole. Both of the materials are used to isolate noise and high frequency vibration generated by mechanical equipment. The idea to make this mat was based on the Kinetics Model RD Neoprene Isolation technology.This 6cm mat is made up from two layer of Neoprene rubber on the side, and the insole rubber was placed at the middle of the mat. These rubbers were attached together by using the special glue for the rubber material. It took a week before the glue completely dried up. And the intervention was placed at the production line, which is at the stamping machine.

Figure 5.3.3: The operator standing on the rubber mat during stamping operation

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

6.1 DiscussionAfter three months of the implementation, Subjective Assessment, Direct Observation and Retrieved of Archival Record method had been carried out in order to determine the effectiveness of each of the interventions. The same questionnaire was distributed to the same person who is being the subjects of the interventions.

Table 6.1.1: Percentage of level discomfort of specific body region before the interventionBody RegionsNon-Discomfortn(%)Discomfortn(%)Mild Discomfortn(%)Moderate Discomfortn(%)Severe Discomfortn(%)

Waist15(50)12(40)2(7)1(3)1(3)

Neck13(43)13(43)4(13)

Right Shoulder15(50)8(27)7(23)

Left Shoulder20(67)6(20)4(13)

Right Upper Arm10(33)12(40)5(17)3(10)

Left Upper Arm16(53)10(33)3(10)1(3)

Right Forearm16(53)11(37)1(3)2(7)

Left Forearm19(63)8(27)2(7)1(3)

Right Hand9(30)3(10)15(50)3(10)

Left Hand12(40)14(47)3(10)1(3)

Right Wrist21(70)3(10)6(20)

Left Wrist23(77)4(13)2(7)1(3)

Right Thigh23(77)6(20)1(3)

Left Thigh25(83)3(10)1(3)1(3)

Right Knee21(70)5(17)2(7)2(7)

Left Knee23(77)4(13)2(7)1(3)

Right Calf22(73)6(20)1(3)1(3)

Left Calf24(80)6(20)1(3)1(3)

Right Ankle15(50)10(33)3(10)2(7)

Left Ankle15(50)12(40)2(7)1(3)

Right Foot20(67)5(17)2(7)3(10)

Left Foot20(67)5(17)2(7)3(10)

In the Table 6.1.1 above, it shows that upper extremities of body region specifically from shoulder to hand were the most discomfort part of body region that the respondent chose. There is also a complains about the discomfort at the respondent lower extremities of body region, which at their ankle and foot mostly because of their long standing working posture. The same set of questionnaire was distributed to the same person who is being the subjects of the interventions. There was a slightly reduction in musculoskeletal complaints after the interventions. Figures 6.1.1 below show the changes in the frequency of musculoskeletal complaints in different parts of the body. Figure 6.1.1: The comparison graph of discomfort in specific body region of the respondent before and after the intervention

The highest reduction complains recorded is 2 which at the waist, calf, shoulder, thigh and knee body region. There is not much improvement since the interventions did not focus on person by person. But, one reduction of foot and one reduction of calf complains in discomfort of specific body region was come from the subject of rubber mat intervention. Additionally, the respondent in Machining Department, which is where packing blocks are implemented, also report that there is less pain in his thigh and waist body region since he dont have to spend a lot of time sitting and bending to clean the die.

Besides, the operators in the production department gave a positive feedback regarding the intervention of adjustable table. The respondents agreed about the usage if adjustable table improve their work performance. Since the table is movable and its height is adjustable, the operator use less working energy and they dont have to bend down to reach their product. Figure below shows the operator using the table to place his part. However, he did not lift up the table to the maximum height so that the height is more ergonomic to him.

Figure 6.1.2: The intervention usage in the production line

While for the second intervention, which are packing blocks, there are some improvements in the machining department. A production time for the latest TATA project from Miyazu was recorded faster than previous production overall time. The operator saved 2 days for rust removing activities since there is less corrosion development on the surface of the dies. This study had some limitations. Regarding ergonomic modifications, the scholar could change the arrangement of workstation and some non-ergonomic equipment but the production activities in the plant cant be stop. The strongest improvements can be done, but some of these modifications are costly. At first, the scholar decided to implement anti-vibration in the work plant, but the idea need to be cancelled since the cost for the mat is out of budget.

5.2 RecommendationsIn order to reduce working injury and to preserve workers health and safety, corrective actions should be carried out soon. Ergonomic intervention should be related to reorganization of workstations, and redesign of working methods.

Figure 5.2.1: The Basics of Neutral Working Postures

By referring to the basic of neutral working postures above, the ergonomic interventions at the work station can be done by:

Figure 5.2.2: Designing the job to allow the worker to keep the arms low and the elbows close to the body.

Figure 5.2.3: A chair, footrest, a mat to stand on, and an adjustable work surface are essential components for a standing workstation

5.3 Conclusion For the conclusion, based on the evaluations of this study, the workers in the unorganized and manufacturing sectors are compelled to maximum amount of work but minimum amount of safety. As the result, the operators had to perform strenuous manual tasks for prolonged period and suffer from injury and pain afflicting different body parts. The best way to prevent Work related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMDs), is to implement ergonomic intervention. In this study the scholar found a beneficial short-term effect for the ergonomic interventions.

REFERENCES

[1]Jorn-Henrik Thun and DanielHoenig, 2011. An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in the German automotive industry, Int. J. Production Economics 131, 242249 [2]Joshua Schmidt, 2011. An Ergonomic Investigation of the Case-Packing line at Company XYZ. The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout May, 2011[3]Andrzej M. Lasota, 2014. A Reba-Based Analysis of Packers Workload: A Case Study. Scientific Journal of Logistics 2014, 10 (1), 87-95[4]Somnath Gangopadhyay* and Samrat Dev, 2014. Design and Evaluation of Ergonomic Interventions for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders in India. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2014, 26:18[5]Amir Houshang Mehrparvar, Mohammad Heydari, Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi, Mehrdad Mostaghaci, Mohammad Hossein Davari, Mahmoud Taheri, 2013. Ergonomic intervention, workplace exercises and musculoskeletal complaints: a comparative study. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI) Iran University of Medical Sciences. 16 July 2014.[6]Mohzani Mokhtar, Sahrul Kamaruddin, Zahid A. Khan & Zulquernain Mallick, 2007. A Study on The Effects Of Noise On Industrial Workers In Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 46(A) Jun 2007: 1730 [7]Wong Saw Bin, Stanley Richardson, Paul H.P. Yeow, 2010. An Ergonomics Study of a Semiconductor Factory in an IDC for Improvement in Occupational Health and Safety. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 2010, Vol. 16, No. 3, 345356[8]Loo, H.S. and Stanley Richardson, 2012. Ergonomics Issues in Malaysia. Journal of Social Sciences 8 (1): 61-65, 2012[9]Mohd Nasrull Abdol Rahman, Mat Rebi Abdul Rani and Jafri Mohd Rahani, 2010. Investigation of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in wall plastering jobs within the construction industry. Work 43 (2012) 507-514[10]Dongmug Kang,Young-Ki Kim, Eun-A Kim, Dae Hwan Kim, Inah Kim, Hyoung-Ryoul Kim, Kyoung-Bok Min, Kyunghee Jung-Choi, Sung-Soo Oh and Sang-Baek Koh,2014. Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. Kang et al. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2014, 26:14.[11]Associated Risk Factor, 2010. Retrieved on 14th June 2014 from http://www.dehs.umn.edu/ergo_lab_Stressors.html[12]Musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs), 2011. Retrieved on 14th June 2014 from http://www2.worksafebc.com/Topics/YoungWorker/Resources-FocusReport2011.asp?reportID=36318[13]Ergonomic Risk Factors, 2013. Retrieved on 14th June 2014 from http://www.uwo.ca/hr/safety/ergo_rehab/manual/risk_factors.html

53 | Page