Complete Report - Copy - Copy (2)

Contents

CHAPTER 1:..............................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1

1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVE................................................................................................2

1.2 ASSUMPTION.............................................................................................................3

1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT................................................................................................3

1.4 LIMITATION.................................................................................................................4

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT..........................................................................4

CHAPTER 2:..............................................................................................................6

PROBLEM ON HAND...............................................................................................6

2.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................6

2.2. PROBLEM DEFINATION..........................................................................................72.2.1 WORKSTATION OBSERVATION..........................................................................................72.2.2 OBSERVATION HAS DONE ON VENDORS.......................................................................7

2.3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................8

2.4 STEPS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOAL..............................................10

2.5 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................10

CHAPTER 3:............................................................................................................11

LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................11

3.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................11

3.2 VARIOUS APPROACHES TO THE PRODUCT DESIGN......................................123.2.1 PRODUCT DESIGN...............................................................................................................122.2.2 DESIGN APPROACH............................................................................................................14

3.3 ERGONOMIC APPROACH TO PRODUCT DESIGN............................................15

3.4. VARIUOS ERGONOMICS CONSIDERATION.......................................................173.4.1 POSTURE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................173.4.3 IMPORTANCES OF ERGONOMICS AT WORKPLACES...............................................183.4.4. ERGONOMICS RISK FACTORS........................................................................................193.4.5. MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER (MSD’s)....................................................................21

1

3.4.5. RANGE OF MOTION............................................................................................23

CHAPTER 4:............................................................................................................29

PRIMARY ERGONOMIC SURVEY........................................................................29

4.1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................29

4.2 OBSERVTION METHOD..........................................................................................29

4.3. ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE USED.......................................................................294.3.1 IMAGE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................304.3.2 VIDEO ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................31

4.4. DESIGN OF QUESTIONNARE............................................................................31

4.5. ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISORERS WITH QUESTIONNAIRE............31

4.5. ANALYSIS OF WORKING POSTURE...............................................................33

4.6. RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) ANALYSIS:.....................................364.6.1. RULA TEST OF VENDOR -1.......................................................................................364.6.2. RLA TEST OF VENDOR -2.........................................................................................37

4.7. OVEARALL SURVAY RESULT..........................................................................38

4.8. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 5: ERGONOMICS DESIGN OF VENDOR CART..............................40

5.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................40

5.2 BASIC REQUIREMENT OF VENDOR CART.........................................................415.3.1 EXISTING WORKPLACE......................................................................................................415.3.2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING VENDOR CART.....................................................425.3.3. IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT (BASE ON SHORTCOMING).............................................................................................................................44

5.4. PROPOSED ERGONOMIC DESIGN......................................................................445.4.1 IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (FRS):.........................................................445.4.2 IDENTIFYING THE DESIGN PARAMETERS (DPS).........................................................465.4.3 LINKING OF FRS AND DPS:................................................................................................48

. 5.4.4 ERGONOMIC CONSIDERATION.......................................................................495.4.5. DESIGN DETAILS:................................................................................................................53

5.5 CONCLUSION:..........................................................................................................59

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE...........................................61

6.1 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................61

6.2 FUTURE SCOPE:......................................................................................................62

2

3

4

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

In our country generally mobile fast-food business now becomes more

reliable and self-employed business. For this business to be recognized vendor

cart is a well-known mean of transportation space directly affect the business of a

person. The working area belongs to the unorganized sector to run a business

depending upon cart skill is not being required. That’s why there is a lack of not

scientific consideration and special attention is unnecessary. A large number of

youth, men and women are working in this sector for prolonged periods with

inappropriate working posture, workstation design, and furlong working hours,

task variable without consideration appropriate space for their movement. This

leads to the development of different kinds of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)

among them.

As a problem shooter ergonomics place an essential rule in order to

design a workplace in analysing the task. The ergonomically designed

workstation also gives healthy working environment, safety, increase efficiency,

and reduce work related musculoskeletal injuries and problem such as

occupational diseases, cumulative trauma, repetitive stress injuries, and

occupational overexertion syndrome which mostly affect to arm and back.

The complete work pattern for the vendor cart consist up taking orders,

making and serving food, and collect money has to do work in static posture for

long duration in a poor workstation which promote unnecessary in a physical

effort. Standing position creates not only pressure on the spine and disc, but

also knee and elbow pain. This type of posture can increase the pressure on the

muscles, ligaments and other soft tissues of the musculoskeletal system. Hence

the overall discomfort and pain in the back, neck, and shoulder are common

symptoms observed in the vendors.

1

Considering the above aspects it is been decided to take a step regarding

the working pattern in this socially unattended area by introducing basic aspects

of ergonomics which reduces work related MSDs and suggest of proper methods

to work and for workstation comfortable without any physical fatigue.

In the present study around 20 vendors from Nagpur have participated. To

evaluate the actual presence of problem, a detailed questionnaire is made by

considering the information related to MSDs problems. Working condition,

compatibility, working hours, the problem faced during working. The existing

workstation and worker, poor body postures are assessed and analysed with the

help of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE tools.

After all analysis a workstation and working method are suggested at the

same place where worker used to do the work. And to check the feasibility of

working method and workstation various value from software, body parts

movements within ROM, postures, are compared with the previous method and

workstation to get the same result.

1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this research work was to study existing

workstation, MSD’s problem, and psychological aspects among vendor. And

remedy them with a proper scientific study and workstation design so that

vendors can do better workout any consequences.

Following objective is chosen for the achievement of AIM:-

1. To study existing workstation, working layout aspect.

2. To identify musculoskeletal risk factors and problems in this occupation.

3. To analyse body postures and workstation with ergonomic aspects.

4. To design workstation in which worker can do better work without

musculoskeletal problems.

2

1.2 ASSUMPTION

1. The vendors answered the questionnaires as accurately possible as they

can.

2. This study is limited to a small area in NAGPUR.

3. As all of vendors working in Nagpur are male so gender factor is not

considered.

4. The information regarding their work, work layout, comfort level given by

them is true and best of their experience.

1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT

It was decided to carry out this project on the road side vendors and their

carts. The actual workstation was organized. But due to irregular fashion of

keeping utensils and containers were not in the range of vendors body parts. As

a result of which vendors offend stress the body during the work. In the traditional

vendor cart workplace was not made by considering the vendors comfort. Also,

after discussion, it was found that many vendors were suffering from back,

shoulder and neck problems.

Here it is decided to study workstation, working postures of the vendors to

help of ergonomics aspects and ERGOFELLOW software tools. And suggest a

proper method and workstation design to reduce the physical problems.

1.4 LIMITATION

As the vendors have less education, lack of knowledge about proper

workstation. It was quite difficult to convince the vendor to participate in the

project work. It eliminates the discussion with vendors about the problems faced

by them and benefits after workstation design.

3

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

CHAPTER 2

This chapter describes The Problem is defined after a precise observation

regarding workstation, vendors’ activities during a complete a business.

Workstation observation, Observation has done on vendors.

The various methods used for workstation analysis

Description of steps and their analysis of project work

CHAPTER 3

This chapter describes the literature reviewed contained the following points

which are very useful for the successes of the project.

Ergonomics intervention for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in the

workplace.

Evaluation methods and suggestion for a good workstation design.

Questionnaire development to access the actual problem.

Ergonomic its importance and risk factors at work place.

Musculoskeletal disorder, its risk factors and various disorders in body

parts.

Range of motion and the range limits of different posture of trunk and

upper body with directional sign of body segment rotation.

CHAPTER 4

This chapter describes the primary ergonomic surveyed the following points

which are useful for the project.

Description of steps and their analysis of project work.

4

Design of questionnaire, its analysis with survey result, job description and

task analysis with the help of observation method and Ergo-fellow

software tools.

Overall result of ergonomic analysis in base on primary survey.

CHAPTER 5

This chapter discusses-

Basic requirement of the vendor cart

Critical analysis of existing VENDOR CART

Identifying the opportunity for improvement (base on shortcoming)

Identifying the functional requirements (FRs)

Identifying the design parameters (DPs) and linking of FRs with DPs

Ergonomics consideration and design details.

CHAPTER 6

This chapter deals with-

Conclusion and future scope of the project.

5

CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM ON HAND

2.1 INTRODUCTION

On an average, each vendor does work for 5 to 6 hours in a day. To get

the actual idea about the workstation 20 vendors has been visited space for work

over the cart were observed by measuring the working area, position of the

vendor in the working area, position of containers over the cart, availability of the

raw materials for the preparation for food,the technique adopted for serving food.

Following figure shows, vendors postures and workstation arrangement during

their business.

Figure 2.1:Snaps of vendors during their working hours.

6

2.2. PROBLEM DEFINATION

The problem is defined after a precise observation regarding workstation,

vendors’ activities during a complete a business. Following are some

observation-

2.2.1 WORKSTATION OBSERVATION

1. Working space is not hygienic considering vendors comfort.

2. Generally two and three containers carrying water, food storage box,

stove, serving containers, money collecting box is being observed in the

workstation.

3. After serving the food generally it is being found that customers keep the

serving intense randomly on the either side of the cart.

4. There is no any proper method to keep the things in the desirable place to

do work with less effort.

5. Work is always done without considering the body fatigues, body parts

range, arrangement of workstation and comfort etc.

2.2.2 OBSERVATION HAS DONE ON VENDORS

1. Forward bending of trunk and neck is large

2. The Vendor does the work in a static position for long duration.

3. Rotation of trunk on both sides of the body is occurring may times during

work.

4. Vendors do not have the knowledge about proper workstation.

5. Vendors don’t consider about the items distances from the body range.

6. Vendors do not consider the effort level, body fatigue during working.

7. Vendors are always trying to adjust with given facilities, without

considering that much.

8. No one is conscious about the work layout, conditions, and proper

facilities to do work with less effort.

7

2.3 METHODOLOGY

The goal of the project was to find out the major WMSDs such as back,

shoulder, wrist, neck pain the vendor carts are responsible for above the problem

and risk factors. The anthropometries parameter of the human dimension is

responsible for WMSDs problem. The dimension of the vendor cart should be

proper design.

In doing so the steps we have followed are shown in the flow chart below:

Figure 2.2- METHODOLOGY: PHASE 1

8

Figure 2.3- Methodology: phase 2 and 3

9

2.4 STEPS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOAL

1. Review of literature.

2. Design of questionnaire.

3. Survey to identify various musculoskeletal problems of vendors.

4. Analysis of working posture with help of ergonomic software.

5. Existing design.

6. Proposed ergonomic design.

7. Design details.

2.5 CONCLUSION

As per the problem which is being found through an observation from both

workstation & vendors’ activities. We are trying to resolve these problems

through ergonomics aspect.

10

CHAPTER 3:LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Study of Ergonomics

The word ERGONOMICS comes from two Greek words-

ERGO- Word

NOMOUS-Law

The names developed in 1949 by Murrell during World War II after working with a

team of physiologists, anatomists and engineers at Cambridge University. At the

end of the War Ergonomic Research Society is formed by this group, which is

now the forerunner of similar organizations in many countries today’s

Ergonomics means The Natural Laws for doing work”, also known as “Human

Engineering” implies to fit the jobs and worker together. Ergonomics is the study

of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and

its related abilities.

A more detailed definition describes ergonomics as-

According to International Labour Organization (ILO) -“It is the application of

human biological sciences in conjunction with engineering sciences to the worker

and his working environment, so to obtain maximum satisfaction for the worker

which at the same time enhances productivity”.

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) -“Ergonomics (for human

factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of

interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession

11

that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize

human well-being and overall system performance”. [1]

According to the International Ergonomics Association there are three disciplines

of ergonomics-

Physical ergonomics: is concerned with anatomy and some of the

anthropometric, Physiological and bio mechanical characteristics as they

related to physical activity.

Cognitive ergonomics: is concerned with mental processes, such as

perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response.

Organizational ergonomics: is concerned with the optimization of social,

technical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and

processes.

3.2 VARIOUS APPROACHES TO THE PRODUCT DESIGN

3.2.1 PRODUCT DESIGN

The term product design itself causes confusion to people in the same

way the generic term ‘design’ does. When we talk about product design, it

usually has an implied relation with ‘engineering design’ and ‘industrial design

‘According to Haik et.al. [2]Product design means engineering design and in the

other many cases, it is dealt as the subject in industrial design [3]. In year 1995

Roozenburg et.al. had defined product design as the process of devising and

laying down the plans that are needed for the manufacturing of a product.[4]

Thus engineering design and industrial design are viewed as the major

elements of product design that take effort in the practical design activity.

12

Figure 3.1- Two major parts in product design

Product engineering design deals with very wide spectrum, from small

mechanical components to large systems, called ‘technical systems.’ Pahl et.al.

in the year 1997 had classified the word product design as constitutes plants,

equipment, machine tools, large-scale assembly and components according to

their complexity [5]. Based on the comparison of engineering design and

industrial design regarding product design, we can make a conclusion that

engineering design plays an important role in realizing ‘product-working

functionality ‘while industrial design is responsible for ‘human-using functionality

‘of the product. In another words, engineering designers are the people who

concern internal design; actualizing functions, working out performance and

product architecture, and industrial designers are the people who are concerned

with external design or user facing design components, such as the user

experience; aesthetics, ergonomics and user interface. Thus, based on this

review of the product types that both disciplines cover, we argue that the

products that both disciplines deal with during their collaboration are those

relevant to the study of product design.

13

Figure 3.2- Industrial design and Engineering design in Product design

2.2.2 DESIGN APPROACH

Design is said to be a human problem solving process. So every design

process has common elements. That is, it starts with a perception of a problem

and ends with some kind of related solution. The problem is transformed into a

solution through the design process. However depending on the discipline, the

design processes used is distinctive in specific way. One of the very simplest and

general design process models is explained in three iterative steps; ‘analysis –

synthesis – evaluation’ [6].

Figure 3.3- Design process model by Lawson

14

In year 2007 Hong et. al. illustrates this design process in eight steps.

They are 1. design initiate, 2. design research, 3. design analysis, 4. design

concept, 5. design development, 6. design finalization, 7. design evaluation and

8. design communication.[7] In the year 2008 another, industrial design process

which is been proposed by Ulrich et. al.has six phases; 1. investigation of

customer needs, 2.Conceptualization, 3.preliminary refinement, 4. further

refinement and final concept selection, 5. control drawings or models, and 6.

coordination with engineering, manufacturing, and external vendors [8].

3.3 ERGONOMIC APPROACH TO PRODUCT DESIGN

Chou & Haiao (2005) have used two-dimensional anthropometric

data for developing an electric scooter in Taiwan. The developed

electric scooter resulted in a significant improvement in its appearance

and ergonomic performance. The hierarchical estimation method was

applied to 60 anthropometric variables by using the 1988 US Army

anthropometric survey data and used to design an occupant package layout

in a passenger car (You & Ryu 2005).In 2006 Sebo et.al. have collected

anthropometric data that were performed by 12 primary care physicians on 24

adult volunteers in Geneva, Switzerland and that was published in 2008. [9]

For ergonomic product design with better safety, comfort and health

consideration three dimensional anthropometry is very important as it

gather rich information. Chang et.al. (2007) have used three-dimensional

anthropometric measurements that offer much more surface information

than traditional dimension measurement and proposed methods for low cost

portable hand-hell laser scanner along with a piece of glass used as a

hand support to reduce scanning shadow areas.[10]

15

Engineering design is a strong determinant of workplace ergonomics. A

survey among engineers in 20 Danish enterprises indicated that engineers

are not aware that they influence the work environment of other people

(Broberg 2007). Ergonomics had a low rating among engineers, perhaps

because neither management nor safety organizations expressed any

expectations in that area. The study further indicated that the effects of

ergonomics training in engineering schools were very limited. [11]

The anthropometric measurement can be used as a basis for the design

of workstations and personal protective equipment’s that can make work

environments safer and more users friendly. Currently, there is increasing

demand for this kind of information among those who develop measures to

prevent occupational injuries and increase the level of satisfaction.

Anthropometric measurements among 1805 Filipino workers in 31

manufacturing industries showed data for standing, sitting, hand and foot

dimensions, breadth and circumference of various body part and grip

strength that was the first ever comprehensive anthropometric

measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers in the country which is seen

as a significant contribution to the Filipino labor force who are increasingly

employed by both domestic and foreign multinationals and was published in

2007 (Pardo -Lu 2007). This study helps Filipino working population for the

economic design of workstations, personal protective equipments, tools,

furniture and interface systems that aid in providing a safer, effective, more

productive and user friendly workplace. [12]

Das, Shikdar & Winters (2007) demonstrated the beneficial effect of a

combined work design and ergonomics approach, especially for the

redesign of a workstation for a repetitive drill press operation that

increase both the production output and operator sat is faction. The result

showed significant improvement in production quantity (22%) and quality

16

(50%) output as a consequence of applying work design and ergonomics

principles. [13]

Laios & Giannatsis (2010) have employed virtual modeling technique

and the method of principle component analysis for ergonomic

evaluation and redesign of children bicycles based on anthropometric

data. In Greece the redesigned bicycles are now in full Production and

distribution is underway in many commercial outlets as proper fitting

increases cycling performance, efficiency, and comfort and injury prevention.

[14]

3.4. VARIUOS ERGONOMICS CONSIDERATION

3.4.1 POSTURE ANALYSIS

Body posture can be analysed using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment

(RULA) method also by REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment).RULA is a

method developed for use in ergonomics investigation of workplaces where work

related upper limb disorders are reported. RULA is a screening tool that

assesses biomechanical and postural loading on the whole body with particular

attention to the neck, trunk and upper limbs. A RULA assessment requires little

time to complete and the scoring generates an action list, which indicated the

level of intervention required to reduce the risks of a broader ergonomic study.

Drs. McAtamney and Corlett(1993) of the University of Nottingham’s Institute

of Occupational Ergonomics developed the RULA [15]. Steps for posture

assessment by RULA,

1. Observing and selecting the posture(s) to assess: - A RULA

assessment represents a moment in the work cycle and it is important to

17

observe the pressures being adopted whilst undertaking the tasks prior to

selecting the posture (s) for assessment. Depending upon the type of

study, selection may be made of the longest held posture or what

appears to be the worst posture(s) adopted. In some instances, for

example when the work cycle is long or postures are varied it may be

more appropriate to take an assessment at regular intervals. It will be

evident that if assessments are taken at set intervals over the working

period the proportion of time spent in the various postures can be

evaluated.

2. Scoring and Recording the posture: - Decide whether the left, right or

both upper arms are to be assessed. Score the posture of each body part

using the software. Review the scoring and make any adjustment if

required. Select calculation button.

3. Action Level: - The grand score can be compared to the Action Level list

however it must be remembered that since the human body is a complex

and adaptive system, they provide a guide for further action.

RULA sheet format given Appendix 1.

3.4.2. INDIAN ANTHROPOMETRIC DIMENSIONS (FOR ERGONOMICS

DESIGN PRACTICE)

This is the book written by Debkumar Chakrabarti of National Institute of

Design. It gives the detailed information about the anthropometry of Indian

population, their design application, measurement of all body parts in various

postures. It can be used in any ergonomic workstation design. [16]

3.4.3 IMPORTANCES OF ERGONOMICS AT WORKPLACES

To make the work comfortable for the individual workers.

To reduce the risk factors that leads to discomfort.

To reduce the primary risk factors for MSD’s

18

To do work more efficiently.

To increase comfort of worker at workplace.

To get greater job satisfaction.

To increase productivity.

To make healthy and pain free worker

To reduce accidents assure safety.

To reduce absenteeism

3.4.4. ERGONOMICS RISK FACTORS

Ergonomic risk factors are workplace elements that are associated with

discomfort you may experience, and if ignored, over time many contribute to

wear and tear on your body. Following table 2.1shows a risk factors and related

possible solution. [17]

RISK

FACTORS

DEFINITION POSSIBLE

SOLUTIONS

Poor work organization Aspects of how a job is

organized.

Examples include monotonous

task, machine paced work,

inadequate breaks, multiple

deadlines

Reasonable

workload, sufficient

breaks, task

variety, individual

autonomy

Continual Repetition Performing the same motion

over and over

Redesign the task

to reduce the

number of

repetitions or

motions; increase

recovery time,

19

rotate to different

tasks.

Excessive Force Forceful body movement.

Excessive physical effort,

pulling, pounding, and pushing

Reduce the

exertion needed to

accomplish the

task; redesign task;

assign more staff;

use mechanical

assists.

Awkward posture Prolonge dbending,reaching,

twisting, squatting, kneeling.

Awkward posture is the opposite

of natural position.

Design task and

equipment to keep

the body in

“neutral” positions.

Neutral positions

put no undue stress

on muscles, joints

and nerves.

Stationary Positions Staying in one position too long,

causing muscles to contract and

fatigue.

Design task to

avoid stationary

position; provide

opportunities to

change positions.

Excessive Direct

Positions

Contact of the body with a hard

surface or edge, such as the

corner of a table or too little

illumination

Avoid resting body

on hard surfaces,

such as desks and

counters. Upgrade

equipment or

provide cushioning:

e.g. ergonomic

pens, mats for

20

standing.

Inadequate lighting Sources and levels of light that

provide too much of too little

illumination.

Adjust natural and

artificial lighting.

Avoid direct and

indirect light that

can cause eye-

strain. Use glare

screens, shades for

windows.

Table 3.1 Ergonomic risk factors and related possible solution

3.4.5. MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER (MSD’s)

Injuries and disorders of the soft tissues (muscles, tendons, ligaments,

joints and cartilage) and nervous system are called as musculoskeletal disorders.

They can affect nearly all tissues, nerves and tendons sheaths; most frequently

involve the arms and back. Occupational safety and health professionals have

called these disorders as cumulative trauma, repeated trauma, repetitive stress

injuries, and occupational overexertion syndrome.

MSD’s usually result from exposure to multiple risk factors that can cause

disorder not from a single event or trauma such as a fail, collision, or

entanglement. These painful and disabling injuries generally developed gradually

over week, months, and years. MSD’s can cause pain, numbness, tingling, staff

joints, movement difficulty, muscle loss, and sometimes paralysis. These

disorder include-carpel tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, sciatica, herniated discs, and

low back pain. Parts of the Body Affected by MSD’s are Arms, Back, Hands,

Wrists, Fingers, Legs, Neck, and Shoulders.

When the physical capabilities of worker do not match with the physical

requirement of the job that times WMSD’s occurs. [18]

21

3.4.4.1. MSD RISK FACTORS

Force

Repetition

Awkward postures

Static postures

Quick motions

Compression or contact stress

Vibration

Cold temperatures

3.4.4.2. MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS IN BODY PARTS

Following table 2.2 shows the possible cause of diseases and their symptoms to

various body parts during work.

Body parts

affected

Symptoms Possible cause Disease name

Fingers Difficulty moving

finger, snapping and

jerking movements

Repetitive and

forceful manual task

without time to

recover

Trigger finger

Shoulder Pain, stiffness Working with the

hands above the

head

Rotator cuff

tendinitis

Wrist Pain, swelling Repetitive and

forceful hand and

wrist motions

Carpel tunnel

syndrome

22

Hand Pain, swelling Arms outstretched

sideways, forward or

upward

Tenosynovitis

Back Low back pain,

shooting pain or

numbness in the

upper legs

Trunk curved forward

while standing/sitting

Back disability

Legs Feet,leg,pain,

varicose veins

Standing in one

place too long,

kneeling continuously

Standing disability,

knee pain

Neck Neck pain Head inclined too

much forward or

backward

Cervical

spondylitis

Table 3.2: Musculoskeletal disorders in body parts

3.4.5. RANGE OF MOTION

Generally Range of motion refers to the distance and direction a joint can

move to its full protection. Each specific joint has a normal range of motion that is

expressed in degrees after being measured with a Goniometer (i.e., an

instrument that measures angles from axis of the joint). It is very much useful in

workstation design for a worker, assess the worst posture which is not suitable

for the work and can cause the MSD’s problem, also useful to eliminate the

muscle fatigue, joint pain during working. Study or analysis of workstation and

worker with the help of ergonomics assessment tools such as IMAGE

ANALYSIS, VIDEO ANALYSIS, RULA (Rapid upper Limb Assessment), REBA

(Rapid Entire Body Assessment), SUZZANE RODGERS, MOORE E GARG (The

23

strain index), and DISCOMFORT QUESTIONNAIRE is very much easy with the

help of this information. Range of motion can be divided into-[19]

a) Neutral range : The range of motion which presents minimal discomfort to

the joint and adjacent body segments.

b) Effort range : The range –of-motion that can be achieved with mild

discomfort to the joint and adjacent body segments.

c) Maximum range : The maximum limits of a joint’s range-of-motion

According to the above three ranges of motion, the range limits of different

posture of the trunk and upper body is shown in table and Directional signs of

body segment rotation in table, related image are shown by figure 3.6

24

25

FIG.

NO.

POSTURE NEUTRAL

RANGE

( in degree x0)

EFFORT

RANGE

(in

degree xo)

MAXIMUM

RANGE

(in degree xo)

a. Viewing

angles(vertical)

-45 to 15 -70 to 48

b. Viewing

angle(horizontal)

-15 to 15 -30 to 30

c. Neck /head vertical

angle

-45 to 45 -75 to 75

d. Neck /head rotation

angle

-20 to 20 -45 to 45 -80 to 80

e. Neck /head lateral

angle

-20 to 20 -35 to 35

f. Trunk flexion-

extension

-30 to 30 -70 to 30

g. Trunk twist/rotation

angle

-20to 20 -42 to 42

h. Trunk lateral

bending

-20 to 20 -40 to 40

I. Wrist extension-

flexion

-15 to 15 -45 to 45 -85 to 85

j. Wrist deviation

angle

-15 to 5 -40 to 25 -45 to 40

k. Elbow included

angle

70 to 135 50 to -160 35 to 180

l. Forearm rotation

angle

-90 to -30 -120 to 30 -180 to 90

m. Shoulder

extension- flexion

-27 to -45 -45 to 90 -61 to 188

n. Shoulder add, -

abduction

-45 to 20 -90 to 45 -134 to 48

o. Human rotation

angle

-20 to 45 -34 to 97

Table 3.3: The range limits of different postures of the trunk and upper

body

DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OF BODY SEGMENT ROTATION

FIGURE

NO.

POSTURE POSITIVE SIGN(+) NEGATIVE (-)

a. Viewing angles(vertical) Upward rotation Downward

rotation

b. Viewing angle(horizontal) Left rotation Right rotation

c. Neck /head vertical angle Extension Flexion

d. Neck /head rotation angle Left rotation Right rotation

e. Neck /head lateral angle Right bending Left bending

f. Trunk flexion-extension Extension Flexion

g. Trunk twist/rotation angle Left rotation Right rotation

h. Trunk lateral bending Right bending Left bending

I. Wrist extension-flexion Flexion Extension

26

j. Wrist deviation angle Radial deviation Ulnar deviation

k. Elbow included angle Always positive -

l. Forearm rotation angle Supination Pronation

m. Shoulder extension- flexion Flexion Extension

n. Shoulder add, -abduction Adduction Abduction

o. Human rotation angle Medial rotation Lateral rotation

Table 3.4 directional signs of body segment rotation

27

Figure 3.1. The range limits of different postures of the trunk and up

CHAPTER 4:

PRIMARY ERGONOMIC SURVEY

4.1. INTRODUCTION

In this research various ergonomics methods and techniques have been

used and applied to obtain information related to musculoskeletal disorder and

risk factors. Ergonomics evaluation is done by observational methods with the

help of some tools of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE such as Image analysis,

Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Survey is done by making the

questionnaire related to work, working condition and work-related

musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) to get about actual problem existence.

4.2 OBSERVTION METHOD

This method needs to observe the procedure of the work by vendor and

the positions of their ody posture during performing their job. The observation

28

method has two way is through by video analysis or image capture. By this

method, the position of body posture like awkward or normal position can be

defined and also can find out the angles of each position of everybody member.

These data will analysis by a tool assessment such as RULA (Rapid Upper Limb

Assessment)

4.3. ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE USED

The software was developed by FBF SISTEMAS in 2009 and it is very useful

for ergonomists and for all professionals in the area of occupational safety and

health. The software ERGOFELLOW has 17 ergonomic tools to evaluate and

improve workplace conditions, in order to reduce occupational risk and increase

productivity.[20]

1. NIOSH (Revised Lifting Equation)

2. OWAS (Ovaco Working Posture Analysing System)

3. RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment)

4. REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment)

5. SUZZANE RODGERS

6. MOORE E GARG (The Strain Index)

7. DISCOMFORT QUESTIONNAIRE

8. QEC (Quick Exposure Check)

9. LEHMANN

10. IMAGE ANALYSIS

11.VIDEO ANALYSIS

12.ANTHROPOMETRY

13.CALCULATION OF FORCE

14.PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)

15.HEAT STRESS

16.NOISE EXPOSURE (OSHA)

29

17.TYPING EVALUATION

From those tools only three tools have been used, i.e. IMAGE ANALYSIS,

VIDEO ANALYSIS, RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment).

4.3.1 IMAGE ANALYSIS

Image analysis is very important in the Ergonomics, mainly for evaluation of

position and determination of points and angles. In this software, user can open

an image, move it with the scrollbars, apply polar and linear grids, and calculate

angles.

4.3.2 VIDEO ANALYSIS

Video analysis is very important in the Ergonomics, mainly to evaluate posture,

time in each posture, time of the work cycle, and improvement in the task act. In

this software, user can load a video, play it in three different speeds, increase

zooms, regulate the sound and pause at any point during the execution

4.4. DESIGN OF QUESTIONNARE

`To get the information about the existence of problems related to vendor and

working area, one questionnaire is made (Hindi and English) containing the

questions related to, whole information of vendors (age, weight, height, working

years) MSD’s problems, working conditions, working environment, compatibility,

working hours, the problem faced during working. (The Questionnaire is shown in

appendix 1)

30

4.5. ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISORERS WITH

QUESTIONNAIRE

A survey is done on 20 vendors by asking those questions (with the help

of Hindi sheet) to them and data are analysed.

Information of vendor is given the Table 4.1 and Results are shown graphically in

fig. 4.1

Total number of vendors – 20

Age - 21 to 46 years

Working hours - 5 to 6 hours

Sl

no

Name Age Weight Height Years of

experience

Working

hours

1 Sandip Jogdane 26 60 5.5 3 5

2 Netish Desai 35 65 5.7 12 6

3 Ekbal Khan 40 68 5.3 20 6

4 Samir Mujmule 28 70 5.7 4 6

5 Rum Wnkhade 46 68 5.6 20 5

6 Nilesh More 30 60 5.2 6 5

7 Imran 43 67 5.5 15 5

8 Amon Sakat 32 69 5.1 7 6

9 Sagar Jogdande 28 70 6 3 5

10 Pandit 26 68 5.7 2 5

11 Suraj Solanki 32 66 5.4 6 5

12 Pappu 27 63 5.6 2 5

13 Chotu 23 58 5.4 2 6

31

14 Anil kumar 42 69 5.7 17 5

15 Ashok Desai 32 61 5.5 8 5

16 Sumit Amle 40 70 5.1 15 5

17 Vikash Pande 29 60 5.3 5 5

18 Nikil Bisandre 30 65 5.7 8 6

19 Soyal Khan 32 63 5.2 5

20 Mridul akat 28 70 5.6 4 5

Table 4.1: Information for vendors participated in the survey

Those all surveyed sheet is analyzed and it is seen that many vendors

was facing the MSD’s problem in various body parts. The percentage of vendors

suffering from MSD’s in different parts of the body are as back 70%, Neck 75%,

Shoulder 55%, Wrist 40%, Leg 45%, Knee 50%, Arm 40%, Elbow 35%. The

result is shown graphically in Figure 4.1.

32

Leg Knee Back Arm Shoulder Elbow Wrist Neck0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

YES(%)NO(%)

Figure 4.1.: Graph of % of vendors suffering from MSD’s problem in

different body parts.

4.5. ANALYSIS OF WORKING POSTURE

Image analysis tool of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE and standard ROM

(Range of Motion) (Table 2.2) containing the value of angle of different body

parts movement are used to analyse posture. Photography and video are taken

during working. Photo and freeze frame from video records are subjected to

analyses. Posture angle is determined to help of photos. Measurement of the

angle between the angle between the body parts, the length of working time for

specific repetitive harmful postures and effort on the vendors is taken into

account. Those angles of body parts movements are comparable with the table

33

2.1 and table 2.2 to get information about MSD’s problems. Following figure

shows the vendor posture analysis with the help of image analysis tools by

drawing the different analysis on the image during the work.

Vendor- 1 selected for analysis was Sandi Jogdan , Age-26, Weight-60 and

Height-5.5 feet

Figure 4.2 diagram posture angle during working vendor-1

Vendor – 2 selected for analysis was Pappu, Age-27, Weight-63 and Height-5.6

feet

34

Fig 4.3 diagram posture angle during working vendor-2

From above observation, it is seen that the posture is not suitable for

working as the neck and trunk forward bending angle is not in a neutral angle

35

(see table 2.2). Lower arm and upper arm too much angle to the body, also long

duration static position is seen during working which is very much harmful for the

body. Flexion, forward bending, in the hip-joint and back can cause lordships in

the lumbar region.

4.6. RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) ANALYSIS:

4.6.1. RULA TEST OF VENDOR -1

Angle Degree

Neck Angle 25o

Trunk Angle 450

Upper arm 300

Lower arm 45o

Wrist 160

Leg Balance

Lower arm- across the midline of the body, Wrist-wrist is bent away from the

midline, Wrist twist- twisted away from handshake position, neck- twist, trunk-

twist, leg and feet are well supported and in an evenly balanced posture

36

RESULT

Fig 4.4 RULA result sheet for vendor 1

From this it is seen that the score of RULA assessment is 7 i.e. high risk of

MSD’s problem. Hence there is need to investigate the working posture and

action must take as early as possible to avoid further discrepancies.

4.6.2. RLA TEST OF VENDOR -2

Angle Degree

37

Neck Angle 20

Trunk Angle 5

Upper arm 30

Lower arm 45

Wrist 15

Leg Balance

Lower Arm- across outside of the body, Wrist twist- twisted away from

handshake position, Neck- twist, Leg and Feet are well supported and in an

evenly balanced posture.

RESULT

Figure 4.5 RULA result sheet for vendor 2

From this it is seen that the score of RULA assessment is 5 i.e. high risk of

MSD’s problem. Hence there is need to investigate the working posture and

changes are required soon.

38

4.7. OVEARALL SURVAY RESULT

ACTIVITY TOOL SCORE RISK LEVEL ACTION

Vendor made

and served food

at ground level in

standing position

RULA 7 & 5 High Investigation &

changes

required

immediately

WMSDs Shoulder, neck,

Elbow, back,

Leg,

High Change

working

posture

4.8. CONCLUSION

From the above analysis, it was confirmed that the working place is not

suitable for working and vendors. Vendors are going through the MSD’s problem

and there is need to study, analysis that working area, to get a proper method or

technique or remedy all those problems.

39

CHAPTER 5: ERGONOMICS DESIGN OF VENDOR CART

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Workplace to be functional, both the user of the space and work to be

performed must be considered. Workplace arrangement should consider worker

comfort, physical constraints and performance requirement. Some considerations

regarding worker are as-

What the workers need to see?

The amount of communication with owner

Equipment and material that the worker must be able to work with and

reach

Body clearance that is needed by the worker

It is important to consider both physiological and psychological elements in

the design of the workplace. Space should be designed so that proper posture

can be maintained, body weight can be properly distributed, cardiovascular

action is properly maintained, and the possibility of fatigue is minimized.

A worker should receive psychological motivation from the workplace.to

facilities this, the workplace needs to be attractive, convenient, organized, safe

and simple.

Arm reach and hand motion are important considerations in the workplace

design. There are two types of arm’s reach; normal work area and maximum

reach area. Normal area is the position of a workplace that can be reached by

hand without moving the arm from the side of the body. Maximum reach area is

40

the position of a workplace that can be reached by stretching the arms to full

length without disturbing the body. Ideally a worker should able a perform work

at a station without moving beyond the normal work area or occasionally

maximum reach area [21]

5.2 BASIC REQUIREMENT OF VENDOR CART

The vendor cart is generally a compact mobile cart fully self-contained and

design to serve of limited menu. Typically in vendors cart stove is being used for

making and reheating the fast food. Most of the carts which is being surveyed

use an LPG cylinder to heat the food, containers over the cart, availability the raw

material for the preparation of the food, money collection box. Colorful canopy is

installed in protective the food preparation area from contamination, provide

some shad and advertised cart location.

Cart is generally built from materials that resist corrosion and are easy to

clean. This generally means that they are made up of plastic, wood or fiberglass.

The food preparation body of the cart is offending mounted on a chassis that can

be easily towed, to a vendor location by hand.

Sl. No Basic things

1. Flat table

2. Canopy

3 Storage box

4 Containers

5 Stove

5.3. EXISTING DESIGN

5.3.1 EXISTING WORKPLACE

41

The work place for all the vendors is depends upon the area or the

periphery over their own cart it has been found that the in most of the case

vendors keep their water in the container for cleaning of the utensils out of the

cart, just nearby their comfortable working zone of their cart.

5.3.2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING VENDOR CART

The critical analysis is being done by surveying about 20 vendors, which is

being displayed in the Following figure 5.1 and 5.2.

Fig. No.5.1: existing cart layout made by Catia v5 software

42

Fig 5.3: Dimension of existing cart

Complete analysis has been summarized in the following table:-

Sl. No DESIGN PARAMETERS DIMENSION(MM)

1. Cart height 2128

2. Working table to canopy

height

1368

3 Working table height 760

4. Working table length 1500

5. Working table width 1000

6. Working table thickness 50

7. Food storage box length 1300

8. Food storage box width 450

9 Food storage box height 450

10. Big container diameter 200

11. Big container height 280

Table 5.1 : Design parameters of existing cart

43

5.3.3. IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT (BASE ON

SHORTCOMING)

1. Often it’s been seen in practice that utensils have been kept in an irregular

fashion.

2. Unhygienic / unscientific to work throughout the cart periphery.

3. There is a possibility of any sought of accident regarding fire where since

the cart which where been surveyed were made up of wood.

4. As a comfortable standing and sitting posture the table height creates a

problem.

5. Basically vendor’s cart are mobile carts, thus to the movement of cart

become problematic because of the height of the storage box.

6. Due to the height of shelves it is inconvenient to see through the glass.

5.4. PROPOSED ERGONOMIC DESIGN

5.4.1 IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (FRS):

Identify Functional requirements (FRs) are a minimum set of independent

requirements that completely characterizes the functional needs of the product

(or software, organizations, systems, etc.) in the functional domain. By definition,

each FRs is independent of every other FR at the time the FRs are established.

In the design process of any device of meaningful complexity, there will be a

hierarchical ordering to the functional requirements (FRs). Figure 5.2 displays the

functional hierarchy for a mobile fast food cart. The most general functional

44

description appears at the top of the hierarchy and is labeled “mobile fast food”

At the next lower level in the hierarchy; the functions are broken up into four

separate functions

45

Figure 5.4 Hierarchical displays of functional requirements for a Mobile Fast food

car

46

5.4.2 IDENTIFYING THE DESIGN PARAMETERS (DPS)

Design Parameters (DPs)—Variables that describe the design in the physical

solution space. DPs are the physical characteristics of a particular design that

has been specified through the design process.

Figure 5.5 Hierarchical display of design parameters for a Vendor cart

47

5.4.3 LINKING OF FRS AND DPS:

Figure 5.6 Link between FRs and DP

48

. 5.4.4 ERGONOMIC CONSIDERATION

Nowadays the Indian market follows standards are basically referred from

American or European ergonomics standards. It becomes a quiet, serious

concern when we talk about working efficiency, personal health over the usage

cycle. Erroneously designed systems persuade improper postures leads to

operational uneasiness. Designing of systems without considering body

dimensional requirements for envisioning users causes operational uneasiness,

musculoskeletal and sometimes physiological disorders.

For getting the , anthropometric data, the researchers revised themselves

amongst various populations in different countries and are used as ready

references by designers. Specialists suggest that anthropometric data to be used

for specific groups should be based on same population groups. [9]. In our day to

day life the global products today are designed for global audience, which offers

very less flexibility, customization to users across. There are a lot of examples

where it’s been found that a bulk of furniture in Indian market fails to address the

issue of designs confining to Indian anthropometric data. It is because of

absence of indigenous design development in furniture and above them to stay in

the competition, manufacturers often copy existing furniture designs and fold

them in the local market. Furniture designing which were deprived of

consideration for the proper body dimensional requirement of intended users do

not serve purpose and have less acceptance value. Along with this Indian

behavior also differs from western behavior. Designing of products should be

based on factors like user’s age, sex and postural considerations.

Table underneath shows key ergonomic parameters for 50 percentile of Indian

dimension used in deciding critical dimensions of design a prototype.

49

5.4.4.1 ERGONOMICS MEASUREMENT TABLE 1

Table 5.2 – Ergonomics Reference Table 1 source:  Chakrabarti, D.,1997:

Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergonomic design Practice, NID,

Ahmedabad, India

50

5.4.4.2 ERGONOMICS MEASUREMENT TABLE 2

Table: 5.3 – Ergonomics Reference Table 2 source:  Chakrabarti, D.,1997:

Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergonomic design Practice, NID,

Ahmedabad, India

51

5.4.4.3. ERGONOMICS MEASUREMENT TABLE 3

Table 5.4 – Ergonomics Reference Table 2 source:  Chakrabarti, D.,1997:

Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergonomic design Practice, NID,

Ahmedabad, India

52

5.4.5. DESIGN DETAILS:

Materials used in cart furniture include wood, plywood, chipboard, plastic,

mild steel or stainless steel. Exposed wood surfaces are varnished or laminated

with plastic. Shelves are of wood or plastic coated chipboard; metal shelves are

best for pans and pots. Special equipment’s like universal cutting board, pull out

drawers, pull out towel rails, hinged compartments etc. save time and effort.

Plates washers to be fitted on the left side of sink.

NUMBER POSITION

1 Storage box

2 Stove

3 Drinking water

4 Cutting food table

5,6,7 Big & small container

8 Shelve box

9 Money box

table 5.5 position of using parameters

53

9

54

SL

NO

.

DESIGN

PARAMETERSDIMENSION

(mm)

FIGURE

1.

Working table

height(H) 779

L

H

D

2.

Working table

length(L) 1658

3.

Working table

width(D) 1004

4.

Storage box

height ( h)

h l

d

Storage box

length(l)

5.4.6. FINAL PROTOTYPE OF A NEW MOBILE VENDOR CART

5.5 CONCLUSION:

Using anthropometry data, the work reach envelope analysis is carried out

to relocate various elements of work station.Ergo fellow and CATIA-V5 software

the existing situation is modelled to identify the need of redesigning of a cart.

It may be suggested from the present study that the design criteria should be

selected based on the anthropometric dimensions of Indian. There are chances

of mismatch between the Indian dimensions and available vendor carts. The ill

55

and improper design of carts may create many problems for the vendors

such as fatigue, muscular stress, and discomfort/pain in different body parts.

Based on the relevant dimensions, the anthropometric data of Indian in

table-5.2,5.3, and 5.4 were compared with the dimensions of different

models of Cart’s in table-.5.6. The analysis shows that most of the models

of cart’s used which were designed without considering the anthropometry of

users don’t match with the user population and were not compatible with the

majority of the user population and causes a feeling of discomfort which

may result in lack of concentration and future MSD’s .

A design with combined appropriate values from the table 5.6 can give a better

design model which can reduce the problems and improve the efficiency.While

making vendor cart the anthropometric dimension of the user population should

be used. The cart should be designed to suit the majority of the user

population,therefore it should be concentrated 50th percentile male which covers

the majority of the user population. Even though it is difficult to design for all the

users, but a product that matches the majority of the user population can be

designed and the problems solved up to a considerable extent.The

anthropometric measurements from the present study may be helpful in

designing the vendor cart used in the business purpose for vendors.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

6.1 CONCLUSION:

This thesis attempts to identify key user needs in Indian vendor cart. This

population segment is uneducated. Hence forth concepts are proposed and a

physical prototype is proposed that meets user requirements. The thesis takes a

56

bold step ahead in adding an interactive element to concepts which might

become a standard in the future. The contributions of this dissertation are stated

as under

1. This thesis gives out a step by step approach which should be carried

out in developing vendor cart starting from need identification to

physical product development and beyond. We hopes that the process

followed could be useful to unorganized or small scale industries in

gaining competency.

2. This thesis also documents relevant anthropometric data, important

guidelines necessary for planning any vendor cart. Reference to this

thesis work would acts as a quick guide to Indian vendors in creating

efficient carts.

3. various surveys are done with the help of questionnaires made and the

root cause of the problem in operating vendor cart is determined.

4. By using observation method and ERGOFELLOW software tools worst

posture of vendors are found out and remedy action are suggested.

6.2 FUTURE SCOPE:

1. To the best of our knowledge, a concept like this for mobile vendor cart

does not exist at present in the market.

2. Future refinement of the idea on these lines and development could create

an indigenous product of high value.

3. This thesis is only a small step towards future development of an efficient

smart vendor carts.

57

4. There is scope of work over how physical embodiment of existing

technology in communication, information display etc. takes place into the

vendor carts furniture in future.

REFERENCES

1. Gavriel Salvendry {2000}. “Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics

“ 7th Ed, John Wiley & Sony , Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey

2. Haik, Y., “Engineering Design Process”, Thomson Learning Pacific Grove CA.

USA, 2003

3. Lorenz, C., “The Design Dimension”, Basil Blackwell Ltd. New York, 1986.

4. Roozenburg, N. F. M. & Eekels, J., “Product Design: Fundamentals and

Methods”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Chichester, UK, 1995.

58

5. Phal,G.&Beitz,W.,“EngineeringDesign-a systematicapproach”,DongMyungSa,

(translated),Seoul, 1997.

6. Lawson, B (1997) How designers think: the design process demystified (3rd edn)

Architectural Press, Oxford, Boston

7. Park, H., Son, J.-S. & Lee, K.-H., “Design evaluation of digital consumer

products using virtual reality-based functional behaviour simulation”, Journal of

Engineering Design, Vol.19,No.4.,2008, pp 359-375

8. Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D., “Product Design and Development”, McGraw-

Hill Singapore, 2008

9. Chou, j & Haiao, S 2005, “An anthropometric measurement for

developing an electric scooter”, International Journal of Industrial

Ergonomics, vol. 35, pp. 1047-1063

10.Chang, C, Li, Z, Cai, X & Dempsey P 2007, ‗Error control and

calibration in three-dimensional anthropometric measurement of the hand

by laser scanning with glass support‘, Measurement, vol. 40, pp. 21-27

11.Broberg, O 2007, Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical

evidence and implications for the ergonomists‘, Human Factors and

Ergonomics in Manufacturing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 353-366.

12.Pardo-Lu 2007, Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing

workers‘, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 37, pp. 497-

503.

13.Das, B, Shikdar AA & Winters T 2007, Workstation redesign for a

repetitive drill press operation: A combined work design and

ergonomics approach‘, Human Factors and Ergonomics in

Manufacturing, vol.17, no. 4, pp. 395-410.

14.Laios, L & Giannatsis, J 2010, Ergonomic evaluation and redesign of

children bicycles based on anthropometric data‘, Applied Ergonomics, vol.

41, pp. 428-435.

59

15.Mc Atamney, L.and Corlett, and E.N. “RULA-: A survey method for

investigation of work related upper limb disorders.” Journal of APPLIED

ERGONOMICS 1993,VOL.24,NO.2, 91-99

16.Debkumar Chakrabarti (1997). “Indian anthropometric dimensions”.

National Institute of Design.

17.Scott Openshaw et.al (2006), “Ergonomics and Design- A Reference

Guide” Allsteel

18.OSHA ACADAMY GUIDE 3125(2000),“Ergonomics: The Study of Work”,

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration

19.Hongwei Hsiao and W. Monroe Keyserling ( 1991) , “ Evaluating

posture behavior during seated tasks”, International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics, 8, 313- 334

20.ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE by FBF SISTIMAS in 2009 Available on-

http://www.fbfsistemas.com/ergonomics.html

21.Cherie Berry (2009). “ A Guide to Ergonomics”, N. C. Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and Health Program

22.

60