1 Analysis of Manual Work • Objectives – Review traditional job analysis methods – Introduce ergonomic job analysis methods for identifying potential for worker exposure to physical ergonomic stressors – Examine specialized tools for assessing risk associated with manual materials handling work • special focus on revised NIOSH Lifting Equation – Review general recommendations for manual materials handling work
24
Embed
1 Analysis of Manual Work Objectives –Review traditional job analysis methods –Introduce ergonomic job analysis methods for identifying potential for worker.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Analysis of Manual Work
• Objectives– Review traditional job analysis methods– Introduce ergonomic job analysis methods for
identifying potential for worker exposure to physical ergonomic stressors
– Examine specialized tools for assessing risk associated with manual materials handling work
• special focus on revised NIOSH Lifting Equation
– Review general recommendations for manual materials handling work
2
Describing Manual Work
• Why would methods for describing manual work be useful?
Review traditional job analysis methods
3
Job Analysis Traditional IE methods
• Tools and procedures for describing certain aspects of a job
• Taylor and the Gilbreths were pioneers• Methods:
– Descriptive methods• ex: operation process charts, flow process charts
– Predictive methods• ex: MTM, MOST - repetitive tasks
– Assessment methods• ex: work sampling, time study
Review traditional job analysis methods
4
Benefits of traditional analysis methods...
• Description of manual work
Review traditional job analysis methods
5
Ergonomic Job Analysis*
• A method for identifying and evaluating generic risk factors associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders
• Based on collection of data about a job, designed to address these questions:– 1) Does performing the job expose a worker
to any generic ergonomic risk factors?– 2) What aspects of the job cause or
contribute to worker exposure?
Ergonomic job analysis
*Keyserling et al. (1991)
6
Generic Ergonomic Risk Factors
• Characterized by excesses in Intensity, Duration, and/or Frequency:– Force exertion– Posture – Contact stress– Dynamics– Vibration– Temperature
Ergonomic job analysis
7
Aspects of a job that may result in exposure to generic
ergonomic risk factors
Ergonomic job analysis
Methods
Tasks
Work
OrganizationEnvironment
Workers
Tools and Equipment
8
Elements of Ergonomic Job Analysis
• Preparation– team– equipment
• Method– Adverse health outcomes assessment– Basic job documentation– Identification of risk factor exposures– Evaluation of risk factor exposures– Exposure control
Ergonomic job analysis
9
Method - Adverse health outcomes assessment
• Data sources:
Ergonomic job analysis
10
Method - Basic Job Documentation
• Job analysis team members and date• Uniquely identify job• Describe worker(s)• Describe work objectives• Work schedule• Production &/or work pace info• Describe job rotation• Sketch work station layout• List tools and equipment• List all handled parts and materials• Describe work methods
Ergonomic job analysis
11
Method - Identification of risk factor exposures
• Determine risk factors associated with each work element
– risk factor checklist can be useful, but familiarity with job is essential
• Determine risk factor exposure for total job
Ergonomic job analysis
>>>>>>>>> Generic risk factors <<<<<<<<
Work element Description Force Posture Contact stress……
A Thread wire through Y (based Y (pinch grip) Y (wire into fingertip)
hole in insulator on gage)
B…………..
12
Method - Evaluation of risk factor exposures
• Bases for evaluation of risk:– epidemiological data– company data– specialized tools
• injury rates for workers on jobs with LI>3 are quite high
– Biomechanics: • 3400 N of disc compression
– Physiology: • 2.2-4.7 kcal/min (task dependent)
– Psychophysics: • acceptable to 75% of females, and 99% of males.
Use of specialized tools in analysis of MMH tasks
19
Form of the NIOSH EquationRecommended weight limit (RWL) = LC * (HM * VM * DM * AM * FM * CM)
where:
LC: recommended maximum load, under optimal conditions
and, all other factors are discounts to that maximum, to account for less-than-optimal conditions
HM: accounts for horizontal distance from spine - as distance increases, RWL decreases
VM: accounts for vertical height of start or end of lift - penalized if start or end varies from 75 cm,
(about table/knuckle height)
DM: accounts for vertical travel distance of load - penalized if distance exceeds 25 cm
AM: accounts for lifting outside of the sagittal plane - penalized as move further away from sagittal
CM: accounts for hand-handle coupling - poorer coupling results in reduction of RWL
FM: accounts for rate of lifting - as rate increases, RWL decreases
Use of specialized tools in analysis of MMH tasks
20
Revised NIOSH EquationAssumptions and Limitations
• Assumptions:– smooth lifting (no acceleration)– moderate sized object– unrestricted lifting postures– two-handed, various hand-load coupling– steady lifting while standing – favorable temperature– main job is MMH, others require little energy– good traction for feet, no foot movement– same risk for lifting and lowering
• Limitations:– Individual risk is not assessed (protective at the group level)
Use of specialized tools in analysis of MMH tasks
21
Pushing and Pulling in MMH
• Dangers:– overexertion– slipping
• Important factors:– friction
• shoe/floor• wheels
– handle height– foot location
Use of specialized tools in analysis of MMH tasks
22
Asymmetric Loading in MMH
• Recommendation:– two-handed symmetric lifts
• But asymmetry is more common:– one-handed handling– twisting or lateral bending of trunk
• Problems with asymmetry:– capability decreases as:
• stability decreases• greater reliance on one muscle instead of right-left
pair
Use of specialized tools in analysis of MMH tasks
23
Additional analysis tools for more complex MMH tasks
• Shoaf et al equation - determines maximum predicted load for condition– accounts for push, pull, carry, lift– accounts for personal factors
• Michigan model - determines % capable at every joint (determines weak link)– considers individual anthropometry– accounts for various postures throughout kinematic
chain
• Lumbar Motion Monitor model - determines LBD risk associated with task– considers trunk dynamics and moment of hand load
Use of specialized tools in analysis of MMH tasks
24
MMH job design recommendations
Eliminate MMH if possible• If not possible, then implement
administrative or engineering controls– Administrative controls: