This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]

On: 22 January 2015, At: 15:12

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

A procedure for designing/evaluating manual materials

handling tasks
a b
BERNARD C. JIANG & ANIL MITAL
a
Industrial Engineering Department , Auburn University , 207 Dunstan Hall, Auburn,
Alabama, 36849-3501, U.S.A.
b
Ergonomics Research Laboratory, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati, Ohio, 45221-0072,
U.S.A.
Published online: 03 May 2007.

To cite this article: BERNARD C. JIANG & ANIL MITAL (1986) A procedure for designing/evaluating manual materials handling
tasks, International Journal of Production Research, 24:4, 913-925, DOI: 10.1080/00207548608919776

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207548608919776

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 A procedure for designinglevaluating
manual materials handling tasks

B E R S A R D C. JIAh'Gt and ANIL MITAL:

A large percentage of back injuries experienced by industrial workers is the result

of performing manual materials handling tasks (MMH). Therefore, manual
materials handling jobs should be designed to eliminate, or to minimize, worker
risk. Based on the information available in the literature, a set of MMH capacity
models has been developed to accommodate: (1) various types of tasks, such as
lifting, lowering, carrying, pushing, and pulling, and (2) important hlMH task
parameters, such as frequency of handling, heightldistance of handling, box sizes,
and presencelabsence of handles. The models can also be adjusted for work (shift)
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

duration. body twist, and different population percentiles. Following the

development of these models, a comprehensive job design/redesign procedure was
developed. A 'risk potential' index was also constructed to evaluate the
acceptance/rejection of each task element. The procedure is demonstrated with
the help of two examples.

Introduction
T h a t manual materials handling (MMH) tasks are t h e primary source of all
musculoskeletal injuries in industry is generally accepted (NIOSH 1981). Lahey
(1984) reported Canadian statistics showing that, following t h e common cold, back
pain is t h e second leading cause of absenteeism in in dust^. I n t h e United States,
400 000 workers suffer disabling back injuriesevery year (Accident Facts 1978),with
the resulting direct cost t o industry estimated to be $20 billion annually. In addition,
t h e suffering of t h e injured and their families extends beyond t h e level of financial
compensation.
Researchers have suggested certain methods to reduce t h e stress and/or risk of
musculoskeletal injuries in performing MMH jobs ( N O S H 1981, Ayoub 1982,
Ayoub el al. 1984, Mital 1983 a , 1981. Jiang and Smith 1985). Some principles of t h e
preliminary investigation of an MMH job t h a t these authors addressed included
eliminating the need for heavy h1MH jobs, minimizing stressful body movements,
and reducing t h e demands for MMH jobs. If an M M H job is still unavoidable, then
the job designers a r e responsible for ensuring t h a t a worker is capable of performing
t h e job.
There a r e basically four approaches used to research MMH problems (NIOSH
1981): physiological. biomechanical, psychophysical and epidemiological. The
physiological approach involves the measurements of an individual's metabolic or
cardiovascular responses (Asfour 1980); t h e biomechanical approach which applies
mechanics and biophysics t o analyse the stress on the musculoskeletal system

Revision received September 1985.

t IndustrialEngineering Department, Auburn University, 207 Dunstan Hall, Auburn,
Alabama 36849-3501, U.S.A.
fErgondmics Research Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
Ohio 452214072, U.S.A.
 (C'hafh PI nl. 1077):thc psychophysical apl~roac.hrrlics upon a suI~jectivccstimatrto
examitw t Iw relationship between sensation and their physical stimuli (Snook 1978.
Ayoub el 01. 1978); the epidemiological approach concerns the identification of thr
incidence. distribution and potential controls for illness and injuries in a population
(I3uckle 1083).
Ayoub el al. (1978) and Snook (1978) utilized a psychophysical approach to
determine the maximum acceptable weight of M.MH activities for industrial workers.
Snook presented the results in table format according to gender ofoperator, material
handling range, box width, distance of handling a1;d population percentile. Ayoub et
al. developed models to predict an industrial worker's lifting capacity based on the
range of lift. workers' muscle strengths, and their anthropometric parameters.
Asfour (1980) employed both physiological and psychophysical approaches to
develop models for predicting oxygen consumption and maximum acceptable
weight of lift by several task variables. Asfour had subjects twist in the sagittal plane
whilst lifting. and from his data it can be computed that an angle of twist whilst
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

lifting reduces the lifting capacity by 5%. Garg and Saxena (1980) studied the effect
of handles (presence or absence) and container type (mailbag or a box) on maximum
acceptable weight of lift. They reported that there was an average decrement of 7.2%
due to lack of handles. Jlital and Asfour (1983)presented aset ofgraphs, based on the
previously mentioned research, to represent 5% and 95% population percentile
capacity on lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling, and the adjustment factors for
distanre of handling and box size.
The.present research contains the development of mathematical models based on
the previously mentioned research results and provides a comprehensive procedure
for designing and/or evaluating an MMH job. The analysis was conducted with an
elemental approach (Jlital 1983 a, 1984).The resulting 'risk potential'. calculated as
the ratio of the required work-rate to the predicted work-rate. indicates when to
accept or reject a job and also provides information about the stress level associated
with it. Although each task element is analysed individually, job designers could
identify the stressfulness of task elements by 'risk potential' values so that the job
redesipn van he awomplished from the most critic.xl task rlrmrnt.

Objective
The objective of this work was to revise the procedure (JIital 1983a) to
accomnlodate various population percentiles and t o use newer data arailable on the
effects of work duration (Mitall983 b). In theearlier procedure, Mital(1983a) had to
make an assumption about the effects of work duration. With the newer information
and added versatility. this procedure should lead to safer and more efficient JlJIH
jolp 111,~ign.

Data
The data used in the development of MMH capacities were generated and
reported by the following authors: Ayoub el al. (1978). Snook (1978). JIital (I983 b).
Asfour (1980), JIital and Asfour (1983). and Garg and Saxena (1979. 1980). Data
collection was based on four different approaches currently being used in the
literature: physiological, biomechanical, psychophysical and epidemiological. The
significant task parameters such as frequency of handling, vertical range of handling.
and bos sizes were considered in these data bases. Free-style handling rather than a
restricted posture, was used by all the researchers cited.
 Assumptions
This following assumptions were made t o achieve the objective of this study.
(1) A worker is assumed to work under normal workday conditions (maximum
of 1.7 hours). Regular hreak periods were assigned a s follows (Jlital 1083 b):
10 min after 2 hour, 30 min a f t e r 4 hours (lunch), 10 min after 6 hours, 10 min
after 8 hours, and 30min after 10 hours (supper). Allowances are also
permissible for drinking water or going t o the restroom.
(2) The JIJIH capacities of individuals or the population are normally dis-
tributed (Snook 1978. Ayouh el a!. 1978).

Model development
The models in Table 2 were developed from the graphs presented by Jlital and
Asfour (1983) on maximum acceptable weight of handling, and from the d a t a
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

~wcscntrdby Snook (1978) and Ayoub et al. (1978). T h e least-squares regression

trchnique was used to formulate t h e models (H2=061-094). An exponential
function was found more appropriate t o describe the d a t a than a linear or other
polynomial function. The capacities calculated fro111 Table 2 are considered to be a
worker's 100% capacity under the task conditions specified in the Table. A linear
(straight-line) relationship was found from the available d a t a bases for the
ndjustments for box size and vertical distance of lifting/lowering. The coefficients of
percentage adjustment are in Tables 3 and 4. An esponential function was found to
tit best the adjustments for carrying o r pushing distance, and for pulling height. The
resulting models are in Table 5 (HZ=080-0.92).

Activity Input variables Units

For all Sen (S) Nale: Female

activities Ron length (L) Centirnctres
Frequency (F) So. of handlingslrnin
Body twist (BT) 1. if RT exists
0. if no UT
Handles (HAS) 1, if handles present
0,if no handles
lifting Height level (H) Floor to knuckle= 1 (LFK)
Knuckle to shouldrr = "LKS)
Shoulder to reach = 3 (I.SR)
Vertical distance ( V ) Centin~etres
I.o\r.rrinp Height level (HL) Knuckle to floor= I (I.OWKF)
Shoulder to knuckle = 2 (LOiVSK)
Reach to shoulder=3 (LOWRS)
Vertical distance (VL) C!entirnetres
Carrying Horizontal distance (HC) Jletres
Frequency (FC) So. t~I'carrivs:~iiin
Pushing Frequency (FP) So. of pusheslmin
Horizontal distance (HI') Metres
Pulling Frequency (FP) KO. of pullslrnin
Vertical height (VH) Metres
Tnhk I . Tnput variahlrs and their units
 Ar1ivit.y Sex Capacity t Conditions

LFK !dale 27.94 exp ( -0.052) (F) BOX = 48 cm

Female .6 exp ( -0.040)
19 (F) BOX =49cm
LKS Male 2751 exp ( -0.043) (F) BOX = 40 cm
Female 1436exp (-0.027) (F) BOX = 49 cm
LSR Male 22.1 i exp ( -0.047) (F) BOX = 49 cm
Female 13.06exp (-0.02) (F) BOX=49cm
LOWKF Male 32.42 exp ( -0.060) (F) BOX =49 cm
Female 19.64exp (-0.054) (F) BOX =49cm
LO\VS# Male nr25exp (-0.027) (F) BOX = 49 cm
Female 14.71exp(-0.005) (F) BOX=49cm
LOKRS Male 20.28exp ( -0.039) (F) BOX = 49 cm
Female 13.05exp (-0.014) (F) BOX = 49 cm
Carry Male 39.86 exp ( -0.056) (F) HC=2m
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

Female W86exp (-0.036) (F) HC=2m

Push Male 29.32 exp (-0.055) (F) HP=?l m
Female 21.08exp (-0.067) (F) HP=2.1 m
Pull Male 28.65 exp ( -0.056) (F) \'H=0.6m
Female 21,19exp(-0.032) (F) VH=O.6m

t F=Frequency of handling (KO.of tiandlings/min) for push/pull: 0.1 $ F $ 10 for males.

0.1 S F 6 5 for females; for lift/lower: 1SF$ 12; for carry: 0.1 $F$ 10.
Table 2. Acceptable capacity models and designated conditions for 50th percentile
population.

. .
25-51 cm 51-i6cm

Male Female Male Female

LFK +0.38 +0.74 f0.14 0

LKS +a73 +0.88 -049 -0.30
LS R +0.58 +0.72 - 0.34 - 0.33
LOWKF +0.65 + 0.53 -0.08 -0.19
CO\VSK +0.75 +0.75 -028 -0.34
1,OWRS +0.67 + 0.74 -0.29 -0.39
-

t 25 cm $Vertical distance $76 cm.

T I 3. Vrrtirnl distnntr ncljurtmrnt for liftingand Ir~u.rri~~pn<.tivitirs
(9:,11faclj11rtr1irnt).t

3-9 cm 49-76 cm

Male Female Male Female

LFK + 0.70 0.0 1 -0.58 - 0.7 l

LKS +0.58 +0.54 -0.01 -001
LSR + 0.22 + 0.60 -0.02 -0.01
LOWKF +0.79 +0.93 -0.52 -0.52
LOWSK + 0.60 +0.41 -0.01 -0.01
LOWRS +a53 +0.44 -0.01 -0.01

t 36 cm $box size $ 76 cm.

Table 4. Box size adjustment for lifting and lowering activities (% of adjustment).?
 Activity Sex I'ercentaget

Cnrry Male 1W27exp (-0.018) (D)

Female 99.70exp (-0.012) (1))
Push Male 88.66exp(-0.011) (D)
Female 90.91 exp(-0.010) (D)
I'u l l Jlale 131.49exp(-0,004) (VH)
Female (same as male)

t n Handling distance in m: VH.Vertical height in cm for carry: 2 m 4 D < 8.5 m; for push:
2.1 rndDG60m: for pull: 60crnQVHGI50cm.
Tahk 5. Distanre adjustment for Tarry. punh. and pull activities (percentage)
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

The percentage adjustment was selected instead of t h e absolute amount because

of the independence of the adjustment sequence. T h a t is, the adjustment of one
factor (e.g., box size) will not affect the result of adjusting other factors. However,
the adjustment for population percentile should take place after all t h e other
adjustments are completed.
A normal distribution was assumed for final adjustment for different population
percentiles. I t is found t h a t the standard deviation decreases when the frequency of
handling increases. T h e standard deviation models a r e presented in Table 6. Use
both standard deviation and Z-score (Table 7) t o adjust t h e capacity for different
population percentiles.
I n summary, the JIJIH capacity model can be expressed as follows:
f (Frequency) (Adjustment for handling distancelheight)
CAP = x
(Table 2) (Table 3 or 5)
(Adjustment for box size)
X
(Tahle 4)
+ (Z-Score)
(Tahle 7)
X
(Standard deviation)
(Table 6)

Female

LFK 3 , 4 8 4 12F
LKS 252407F
LSR 1.58-0.02F
LOWKF 322408F
LOWSK 3.12
LOWRS 1.88
Carry 4.00404 F
Push 663484F
Pull 572406F

t F =frequency of handling (No. of handlingslmin).

Table 6. Standard deviation models for MMH capacity (kg).
 Table i . Z-Score for various population percentages.

-
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

-.
The urocedure for iob desienlredesien
T h e job designlredesign procedure discussed here uses d a t a bases adhering t o the
~ ~ r i n c i pthat
l e human operators should perform a job within safe limits. If the results
of the job analysis show t h a t the level of stress is unacceptable, a job must be
redesigned t o eliminate injury risks t o workers. The elemental approach was utilized
in t h e job designlredesign procedure (JIital 1083a, 1984). The input variables and
their units are in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the proposed procedure.
A step-hy-step procedure for job designlredesign is as follows:
Step 1 Break the job into elemental activities o f lifting, lowering. carrying,
pushing, and pulling.
Step 2 For each activity, first determine the acceptable capacity and then the
acceptable work rate (kg mlmin) t h a t can be accommodated by a
selected population percentile for an eight-hour workday.
Stv11 " ( a ) Determine the arceptal~lecapacity according t o the handling fre-
quency as in Table 2. (This is a workcr's 100% capacity untlrr the task
conditivns specified in Table 2:)
Step 2 (1)Adjust the capacity determined in step 2 ( a ) for the differences
between the r&es of a job's task variables and the respective task
conditions shown in Table 2. The ve'rtical distance adjustment factors
and the bos size adjustment factors are in Tables 3 and 4. respectively.
If a hody twist occurs during handling. reduce the acceptable capacity
by 5% (Asfour 1980, Ayoub el al. 1985). If a container has no handles.
reduce the acceptable capacity by 7.2% (Gargand Sasena 1080: ,\you11
el al. 1985). Use factors in Table 5 for distance adjustment for pushing.
pulling o r carrying.
Step 2 ( c ) Adjust the acceptable capacity for the population percentile. (If the
procedure is used to evaluate a n existing job, then skip this step.
otherwise. use the population percentile determined by the manage-
ment). S~antiarddeviations are in Table 6; 2-scores of reprrsrnLaLirr
percentiles are in Table 7.
Step 2 ( d ) Determine the acceptable work-rate (kgmlmin) based on the ac-
ceptable weightlforce determined in step 2 ( c ) .
Step 3 Modify the work-rate determined in step 2 for the actual work
duration using the following equations (Nital 1983 b).
 Step I
0 START

Step 2 . 2 0

Step 2 b

or E v a l u a t e on e x l s l l n
- A

lob (81
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

Step 2 c

Step 3

Adjust f o r work duratlan A

Step 4 work-rots

Step 5

Step 6 Rsdsslqn NO Accept

the Job the job

F i g ~ ~ Ir. r Flow diagram for JINH joh rl~si~n/wtlrsign

For male workers:

percent of work-rate= 101.42-34DR
For female workers:
percent of work-rate= 10081 - 1.91DR
where DR=actual work duration in hours (0.12<DR612). If the
procedure is used to design a job for a certain population percefitile,
then stop. Otherwise, continue.
Step 4 Calculate the actual work-rate for each element activity (if the
proredureis used for praluating an existing job).
 S t r l ~5 ('alculate the 'Risk Potential' (If) fur e:rc.h elwncmt a s follows:
required work-rat(! (demand, step 4 valuc!)
, R= predicted work-rate (capacity, step 3 value)
Stc.11 6 Evaluate the Risk Potential for each element.
If R > 1 for a n y element, then redesign the task and go back t o step
4.
If RG 1 for all elements, then the job is acceptable.
As an example of using this procedure, suppose you want to determine the
capacity of lift given the following: sex, female; activit.y, lifting; range of lift, knuckle
t o shoulder (LKS); frequency, six liftslmin; vertical distance, 35cm;'box size,
5 5 8 8 c m ; population percentile, 75%; work duration, 3 hours. Computation of the
capacity would proceed as follows:
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

L K S = 14.36exp (-0027) (6) (Table 2)

x [1+ 088(51-35)/300] (Table 3)
x [ I -0.01 (558849)/100] (Table 4)
- 0.6745(2.52 -0 0 7 x 6 ) (Table 6, 7)
= 12.505 kg.

Then calculate the work-rate as:

12.505 x 0 3 5 x 6 = 2 6 2 6 1 kg mlmin
Finally, adjust the capacity for the actual work duration as:
26.261 (10081 - 1.94 x 3)/lOO= 26%5 kg mlmin. (Stcp 3 value)
Suppose the box weight is 10 kg, then:
Actual work-rate= 10 x 0.35 x 6 = 2 1 kg mlmin. (Step 4 value)
R=21/2+945=08. . .

L'.ro111ple 1
A major producer of athletic goods, received unwashed, knitted material t h a t
must be dyed and processed, then folded into bundles by a machine, called a
calender. These bundles are about 3 8 1 cm wide and weigh about 20.45 kg. A worker
removes each bundle from the calender which is 135cm from the floor t o a table
63;icm high and ties it. The worker then carries the bundle 6.1 m (at his knuckle
height of 78.9cm) t o a scale, weighs it, then tags the bundle with a computer-
generated card. S e s t , this bundle is loaded on a buggy for temporary storage (2.6 m
away from the scale), from whence i t is trucked t o another plant. for sewing. T h e
worker is on the job 7.5 hours each day. The plant processes 470 bundles for each
calender per day (1.014 bundles/min). T h e workplace layout (see Fig. 2) causes a
body twist t o occur in each element of the job. T h e plant manager wishes this job
designed to accommodate 75% of the male population.
Table 8 lists the input to the model structure, acceptable work-rates for the task
duration, and actual work-rates for all elements. T o determine t h e duration of each
element, the time required for each element for each cycle was multiplied by t h e
 Figure 2. Schematic layout: Example 1
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

-
Acceptable Acceptable Actual
weightlforce work-rate work-rate Risk
Element Input datat (kg) (kg mlmin) (kg mlmin) potential

Lower a HL=3
bundle from VL=715 13.16 941 1527 1.62
ralender to RT= 1
tnble DR =98.47 min
Tie the DR =87.3 min
bundle
Lift. the H= 1
bundle V = I54cm 2j.31 1.06 3.20 081
I3T= l
I)R = 27.51 min
Carry the HC=Gl m
bundle to BT= 1 21.6 128.15 13023 1.0"
scale DR = 145.75 min
Carry the HC=?6m
bundle to BT= I 23.54 61.51 55.5 1 090
buggy DR = 9 0 W min
tCommon variables for all elements: sex, male; bundle weight. 2045 kg; bundle width. 95.1em;
handling frequency. I.OW bundles/min; designed population percentile. 75%; no handles.
Table 8. .Job analysis for Examplt. 1 .

number of bundles (470)produced each day. This work duration is used t o adjust the
acceptable work-rate in Table 8.
The analysis in Table 8 indicates t h a t the lowering element is far above the
acceptable limit. Either the two operators should lower bundles from t h e calender or
the table height should be raised. The first carry element was also above the
acceptable limit. Tn the redesign. the scale tahle was moved closer to the calender.
 E.c~nt,tplr2
A n ~ a l worker
r ~~nlo:ttls
I~osvtlproclurts (12.5 kg c.nc.11)from ;I convc-yor (157.' wn
from the floor) and sli~cksthen^ on a pallet. K w h hos is 1:?.i5cm (front.al)x 3X.I cm
(sagittkil) x 305cnr (wrticnl).The worker lifts a hos from t h e ronreyor and carriesit
(at his kniwklr height of 78.73c.m) approxin~;rtrly2.14 m t o a pallet for stacking.
Thirty-sis hoses (four layers. nine per layer) are stacked per pallet. T h e worker
o l ~ r n t e i..i
s hours every tlay and handles 2500 boxes c w : h tlay (5.56 honeslmin). The
managw plans t o redesign the jot) t o accommodate 90% of the male population.
T h r joh was brokw~into six rlcnwnts. Figure 3 sl~cnvsthe \vorkpl;ice layout for
this esaml~le.The inl)~ttdata, acceptal)le work-rates for the time duration. avtui~l
work-rates. nntl risk potential are given in Table 9.
The analysis in Tttble 9 shows t h a t all elements are above the acceptable limit.
T h e whole job must he redesigned. Recommendations were to: ( I ) have two
operators working on the job. (2) reduce bos weight. (3) reduce conveyor speed. and
(1)bring a stronger operator for the job.
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

Discussion
The pror~osedJINH job design/redesign procedure has the following ad\-antapes:
( 1 ) it accommodates various JlNH activities, i.e., lifting. lowering, carrying.
pushing. and pulling: (2) it can be used t o design!redesign a n NNH job for any
~ ~ o p u l a t i opercentile
n o r can he used t o evaluate a n existing joh: (3) it is easy to
computerize and use because of its simple format and its step-by-step procedure: and
(4)the value of risk potential indicates not only the acceptance of an element
activity. but also the stressfulness of t h a t element. The R value prorides valuable
infornintion to job designers for eliminating overly stressed elements as well a s for
maximizing productivity.
('autinnsshoultl he taken in the appliratio~lof the prnl)osetl proredure. First. the
t ; ~ s k(,o~ulitiims11011hl11c- withi11 ttw K I I I ~ Vof t l l v ( h t 11asi.s
~ used in this study. i t . ,

3 boxes
desp
30.5cm

45.72cm

4
I I I I I i I

I I
2.14m

Fieurn 3. Srhwnatic layout: Exarnplr 2.

 Acreptahlc Acce11t;rblt. Actual
wt/fmcr work-rate work-rate Risk
j3rn1ent Input dirtat (kg) (kg m/min) (kg mjmin) potential

Lift hos V = 305

from H=l 15.93 2628 3083 1.17
conveyor BT= I
D R = 73.28 min
Carry box HC=2.l4m
to pallet BT=I 12.53 138.47 21631 1.56
DR = 150.74 min
First layer VL = 63.6
lower HL= I 13.93 4840 (ir.19 1.33
DR = 53.05
Second layer VL = 33
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

lower HL= I 16.83 30.70 3336 1.09

DR=3532 min
Third layer vL=&j
lower HL=2 165.5 3.19 3.54 1.1 1
DR =4:940 min
Fourth lager v=p7
lift HL=2 IS31 2641 "i.29 1.03
DR=O-ILl min .
t Common variables for all elements: box weight. 18.18 kg: handling frequency. 5.56 bosrs/n~in:box
size. 38.1 cm: no handles; percentage of population. 90.
Tal~le9. .lob analysis for Example 2.

frecluency of handling (1-12 handlingslmin for lifting and lowering, 0.1-10 hand-
linpsln~infor pushing/pulling for males and for carrying. 0.1-5 handlingslmin for
pushing/plling for females). distance of carrying (2.1-85 m). distance of pusllitig
(2.1-Wm). vertical distance of lifting or lowering (2>i(icm). box size in sagittal
plane (36-iG cm) and work duration (0.42--1 hours). Pulling distance should be less
t h a n 2.1 m (Snook 10i8).T h e vertical height of push/pull force application should be
between 0% and 1 5 m . Second, t h e proposed job design procedure is one of the
availal)lc methods t o craluate the stress t h a t may occur in an 3 N H job. Other
effective methods (Ayoul) 1082) such a s pre-employment screening, effective
tool/\vorkplace design. and routine X-ray examination should also be considered to
reducejprevent the risk involved in a n 1IMH job.
Even though t h e proposed procedure has overcome several limitations of the
earlier one (Ilital 1083 a ) , a few shortcomings still exist. For instance, t h e model does
not include low-frequency 113IH tasks (0-1 handlinglmin) due to the lack of reliable
d a t a . In addition, d a t a pertaining t o physiological and biomechanical responses are
needed to provide further information about the job. Inclusion of these two factors in
the present job design procedure would yield a more useful method for JIAIH job
design/redesign. Furthermore, workers' complaints are not necessarily of the lower
back (e.g., overhead pushing/pulling manual work may injure a worker's shoulder
rather than hislher back). Research is needed in this area t o expand t h e application
of this job designlevaluation procedure
 L'n grnnd pourcwltage des maus de doa dont souffre la main tl'orurre
industrirllr p w i r n t de I'a~:vomplissement d e tichrs de manutention de
mat6riaus (T.\I.\I). EII vonsique~~ce, l e t~r a r a u r de manutention de mat6riaux a
la main tlevraient Stre conGus de sorte a eliminer. ou minimiser, Ies riuques
ausquelu sont esposta les ourriers. Un ensemble de moddrsde capacith de TJIJI a
6t6 etabli sur la base d'informations disponibles dans des articles d6jh publibs; ils
tirnnent comptede: (i) divers types de tlches. telles quesoulever. abaisser. porter,
pouvser ou tirer: et (ii) parametres importants des tlches TNJl. tels que la'
fkquence de cette manutention, la hauteurjdistance d e la manutention. la taille
des cartons et la presencelabsence d e poignees. Les modtiles peurent aussi Btre
a j u s t b pour la durPrdu travail (nornbred'heures). la torsion du corpset tliff6rents
pourcentages d e population. A la suite du d&\doppenientde ces mod&les. une
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

procGdure d&taill& de conceptionjreconception du travail a &ti.ddveloppt5e. Un

index 'risque potentiel' a 6te construit pour Cvaluer I'acceptationjrejet de chaque
Glement d'unr tiche. La procedure est illustkepar tlrus esemples.

Ein groller Prozentsatz der Rucken\.erletzungen unter Fabrikarbeitern sind

auf Arbeitrn zuruckzufuhren, die eine manuelle JIaterial-handhabung (1IJIH)
erfordern. Deshalb nollten diese Arbeiten so ausgelegt \reden. dall das Risiko fur
den Arbeiter ausgeschaltet odrr auf ein Minimum reduziert wird. Auf Grundlage
tler in der Literatur verfugbaren Informationen sind eine Reihe von Jl>IH-
Kapazitiitsmodelle entwickelt worden, die folgende Punkte berucksichtigen: (i)
r e ~ c h i e d e n eArten von Arbeiten, wie z.B. Anheben, -4bsenken. Tragen. Schieben
und Zirhrn. und (ii) wichtigr Parameter fur .\IXIH-Arbeiten. \vie 2.13. Hiiufigkeit,
HiihejEntfernung der Handhnbunp. Kistengr8lle und das Vorhandenwin oder
Fehlen \-on Griffen. Die Nodelle kiinnen ebenfalls auf Arbeits-(Srhicht-)dauer.
Verdrehung des Kiirpers und verschiedene Bevolkerungspen.entile ausgelegt
verden. \\'eiterhin wurde eine umfassendes Verfahren zum Planen/Seuplanen
ron Arheiten ent\vickelt. Ein 'Risikopotential' index wurde zusammrngestellt.
urn zu beurteilen. inwiefern jeder Teil einer A r b i t akzeptabel ist oder nicht. Das
Verfahren wird an Hand zweier Beispiele erlautert.

References
Accidott Facts. 1959-1981 Editions. Sational Safety Council. Chicago. Illinois.
ASFOUR.S. S., 1980. Knergy cost prediction models for manual liliing and lowering tasks.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas Tech University. Lubbock. Texas. 1980.
Avocn. .\I. A., 1982. Control of manual lifting hazards: IT. J o b redesign. Jorrr~urlo j
Orr~rptiotrnl.llediritw. 24, 66R.
..\vor'n. .\I. .\I.,J%RTIIEA. S . J., I)EIVANAY.WAN, S.. ASFOI:~,S.S..UAKKES. U . .\I.. I,II.ES. I)..
.\IITAI..A.. atid S I I E R I FXI..
. 1978, Detarmiwtion and morlsling of lifting capacity, final
report. HE\\: ( N O S H ) Grant KO. 5-RlJI-OH-ol)545-02.
AYOUB.>I. M., SEWS,J. L., and JIAKG,B. C.. 1984, d nrini-guide jor nurnunl materials
handling L a s h , presented a t International Conference on Occupational Ergonomics.
Toronto, Canada.
Auocs. JI. M..SELAN.J. L., and JIANG. B. C., 1985. Design for health and safety: manual
materials handling. prepared for HandbwkojHuman FactorsjErgonon~ics(John Wiley).
BUCKLE, P.. W., 1983, Epidemiology, ergonomics and low back pain, Proceedings of the
Ergonomics Society's Conference I-983, edited by Karenna Coombes (Taylor B Francis
Ltd). pp. 89-94.
CHAFFIN.D. B., HERRI'. G. D., KEYSERLING. W. M., and GARG,A.. 1977, A method for
evaluating the biomechanical stresses resulting from manual materials handling jobs,
American lntra,g/riol Hygiene Association J u u n n l . 38, 662.
 (;AR(J.;\..~~~SAXE I:..S I979.
A . I.:&ctsofliftingfrec~uenry;~ndtechniqucon physical fatigue
with special rrfere~~l.e to psychophysical methodology and metabolic rate, American
Induslrial Hygiene .4usocialion Journal. 40, 894.
GARC.A,. and SAXENA. L:.. 1980, Container characteristies and maximum weight of lift,
Huntan Faclors, 22, 187.
.II.AXI:.1%.('.. nnll S N I T I I.J.. 1... 1!M. The comparison of strrssfulness of manual n~;~ti.rials
hi~ndlingwtivitivs. I n T r r ~ din. ~Eryonomics/Humon /.'uelors, Vol. 11. Edited by R. E.
E l ~ r r t sand C. G . Elwrts (Elsovier Science Publishers). 11. 577.
LAHEY,J. W.,1981. Bearing down on musculoskeletal disorders. Salional Safely Mews,
March, p. 37.
JIITAL.A., 1983a. Generalized model structure for evaluating/designing manual material
handling jobs. Inlernalional Journal of Production Research, 20. 401.
YITAL.A,. 1983b. The psychophysical approach in manual lifting-a verification study,
1l11nran Faclors. 25. 185.
JII.~AI..A.. 1981. .A11 rlrlnmtal approach to manual materials handling job drsign. In
I'ruceeditrgs ojlhr 19W lnlernulionul L'onjerence on Orcupalional Ergonomics. Edited by
I). A. Attwood and (Y. JIr(:ann. Toronto, Canada. p. 5-46,
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 15:12 22 January 2015

MITAL.A.. and ASFOCR,S. S.. 1983. Material handling capacity of workers. .Valerial Flow, 1,
89.
XATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCCPATIOSAL SAFETYASD HEALTH. 1981. Work Practice Guide for
Manual Lifting.
SNOOK. S. H.. 1978. The design of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics. 21, 963.