DESIGN OF WORK POSITION IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY BASED

ON RAPID ENTIRE BODY ASSESSMENT (REBA) TOOL

Siva R 1, *Rajasekaran R 2
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, Tamilnadu India 6000119.
2 *Department of Mechanical Engineering, Peri Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India, 600048.

*Corresponding author: Mobile .No:+919944364628,email id: rajihaap@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT

In the demanding global marketplace, ensuring that human comfort, form, and functions are
comprehensively addressed and suitable work environments are focused based on important aspect of
design. Human Activities are analyzed based on a best-in-class human modeling arrangement, which
for many years has accepted detailed investigation into human-centered design issues in the context of
a workplace before it physically exists. Human Activities Analysis specifically concentrates on how a
human will interact with objects in working environments, as well as the effects of the following
actions viz; lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling and carrying on task performance. In this work design
of work position of a diaphragm assembly in the machine vice is analyzed by using REBA tool.
Based on scores obtained from REBA tool the risk level and requirement of the design change of the
work environment are addressed.

Keywords: REBA, work posture, Diaphragm assembly, ergonomics, designing of objects.

1. INTODUCTION TO ERGONOMICS

Ergonomics is the application of scientific information concerning humans to the designing of

objects, systems and work environment for human use. The name ergonomics came from the Greek
word as ‘Ergon’ means ‘work’ and ‘Nomos’ means ‘Natural Law’.

1.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION

The manufacturing industries are finding difficult to reduce the work strain for the workers, in the
workplace. Some hazardous and risk jobs are being carried out in the industries and its need to be
safely carried out. Absenteeism, sick, illnesses, lack of interest, less efficiencies are some of the
symptoms they found in the workplace. To overcome this problem, industries needs to provide good
environment for working. The REBA ergonomic tool will analyze the work strain and it gives action
level for the work postures. Based on REBA action level modifying the work posture in
manufacturing industries will give better results on human comfort as well as production rate.

1.2 INTRODUCTION TO REBA

REBA is an ergonomic tool is used to give perfect solution for dynamic works and full body structure.
REBA has been developed to fill a perceived need for a practitioner's field tool, especially designed to
be sensitive to the type of unpredictable working postures found in health care and other service

1
industries. Its approach and scoring system are clearly based on RULA tool. Part body diagrams for
group A (trunk, head, legs) and group B (upper arms, lower arms, wrist) are shown in fig 1 to fig 6.
Score for work positions are described from table 1 to table 6.

Fig.1 Part body Drawings for Group A (Trunk)

Table: 1 Assigned scores for trunk movement.

Movement Score Change score

Upright 1
0°-20° flexion 2 +1 if twisted or side
fledged
20°-60° flexion 3
>60° flexion 4

Fig: 2 Part body Drawings for Group A (Head)

Table: 2 Assigned scores for head movement

Movement Score Change score

0°-20° flexion 1 +1 if twisted or
>20° flexion or in extension 2 side fledged

2
 Fig.3 Part body Drawings for Group A (Legs)

Table: 3 Assigned scores for leg position

Position Score Change score

Bilateral weight bearing, 1 +1 if knee(s)

Walking or Sitting between 30°
and 60° flexion
Unilateral weight bearing 2
+2 if knee(s) are
feather weight bearing or an >60° flexion(not
unstable posture for sitting)

Fig4. Part body Drawings for Group B (upper arms)

Table.4 Assigned scores for upper arms position.

Position Score Change score

20° extension to 20° 1 +1 if arm is:

f
>20° extension 20°-45° 2 • Abducted
45°-90° flexion 3 • Rotated
+1 if shoulder is
>90° flexion 4 raised

3
 Fig.5 Part body Drawings for Group B (lower arms)

Table.5 Assigned score for lower arms movement.

Movement score

60°-100 flexion 1

<60° flexion or >100° flexion 2

Fig.6 Part body Drawings for Group B (wrist)

Table.6 Assigned scores for wrist movements.

Movement score Change score

0°-15° flexion/extension 1 +1 if wrist is
deviated or twisted
>15° flexion/extension 2
Movement score Change score
0°-15° flexion/extension 1 +1 if wrist is
deviated or twisted
>15° flexion/extension 2

4
OBJECTIVES:

In this work the following objectives are focused.

i. To increase work rate and accuracy by integration of man and machine.
ii. A suitable environment for executing the task most effectively by adopting lean technology
consideration with ergonomic requirements.
iii. To increase the productivity by employee comfort and efficiency.
iv. To produce quality products by employee dedication work.
METHODOLOGY:

Record work posture

Angle measurement through Auto

Postural analyzing using

If REBA No Improve the work

score < 2 posture by adopting lean

tools

Yes

Accept the work posture

Check for Redesign the work

compatibility of posture according to
posture with Ergonomic
No

Yes

Accept the work posture

Fig.7 Methodology for REBA

5
ANALYSIS OF WORK POSTURE- ACTIVITY ‘DIAPHRAGM ASSEMBLY IN THE
MACHINE VICE’:

Fig.8 shows REBA being used to assess the working posture of a Diaphragm assembly in the machine
vice. Using CAD software work angles are measured for this diaphragm assembly activity, and the
score sheet (Fig.9) is developed based on REBA tool.

Fig.8 Diaphragm assembly

6
Group A Group B

3Trunk Use Use 1Upper

Table A Table B Arms

1Neck 2Lower
4 1
Arms

1+1
+ + 1Wrist
Legs
0 1

Load/Force Couplin

4 2
Score A Score B

Use
Table C

4
Score C

+1 +1
Activity Score

REBA Score

Fig.9 score sheet for Diaphragm assembly

7
 Table.7 Table for Part body Drawings for Group A

Table A
Neck
Trunk
1• 2 3
Legs 1 2• 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 6
2 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7
3• 2 4• 5 6 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8
4 3 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9
5 4 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 9

Table.8 Load/Force Table for Diaphragm assembly

0• 1 2 +1

<5 Kg 5-10 Kg >10 Kg Shock or rapid buildup of force

Table.9 Table for Part body Drawings for Group B

Table B
Lower arm
Upper arm
1 2•
Wrist 1 2 3 1• 2 3
1• 1 2 2 1• 2 3
2 1 2 3 2 3 4
3 3 4 5 4 5 5
4 4 5 5 5 6 7
5 6 7 8 7 8 8
6 7 8 8 8 9 9

8
 Table.10 Coupling Table for Diaphragm assembly

0 Good 1 Fair• 2 Poor 3 Unacceptable

Awkward, unsafe
grip, no handles
Coupling is Awkward, unsafe grip, no Awkward, unsafe grip, Awkward, unsafe grip,
unacceptable using handles Coupling is no handles Coupling is no handles Coupling is
other parts of the unacceptable using other unacceptable using other unacceptable using
body parts of the body parts of the body other parts of the body

Table.11 Group A and Group B part Drawings combined score

Table C
Score B
1 2• 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 7
2 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8
3 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8 8
4• 3 4• 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9
5 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 9
Score A

6 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10
7 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11
8 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12
10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12
11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

9
 Table.12 Activity score for Diaphragm assembly

+1 1 or more body parts are static, e.g. held for longer than 1 min

+1• Repeated small range actions, e.g. repeated more than 4 times per minute(not

including Walking)

+1• Action causes rapid large range changes in postures or an unstable base

Table.13 REBA action levels for Diaphragm assembly

Action level REBA score Risk level Action(including further assessment)

0 1 Negligible None necessary
1 2-3 low May be necessary
2• 4-7 Medium Necessary
3 8-10 High Necessary soon
4 11-15 Very high Necessary NOW

Group A diagrams:

The scores shown in Fig. 9 (Diaphragm assembly and REBA Score sheet) are obtained from the
Group A diagrams (Fig 1, 2, 3 and Table 1, 2, 3):

• Trunk is Flexed between 20-60 degree (3).

• Neck is normal (1).

• Legs are both weight bearing and Flexed between 60 degree (1+1).

The worker handling less than 5 kg equipment to tight the bolt so the LOAD/FORCE score is zero ((5
kg exerted).

Table 7 is used to find the subtotal (4) and the Table 8 LOAD/FORCE score (0) added to

get Score A (4).

Group B diagrams:

The scores shown in Fig. 9 (Diaphragm assembly and REBA

Score sheet) are obtained from the Group B diagrams (Fig 4, 5, 6 and table 4, 5, 6):

• Upper arm Flexed between 0-20 degree(1)

10
 • Lower arm is flexed greater than 60 degree (2)

• Wrist is between 0-15 degree (1)

Table 9 is used to Find the subtotal (1) and the COUPLING score (1) is added to get Score B (2) from
(Table 10).

Score C (4) is obtained from Table 11 and the ACTIVITY score (+1,+1) added as there has been a
large range change in posture as the as the worker to tight the bolt and Repeated small range actions,
e.g. repeated more than 4 times per minute(not including walking). It is shown in fig.9.

The Total REBA score is 6,this refers to a REBA action level of 2 (Table 13),indicating medium risk
for the worker that action is necessary to further assess this task with the aim of reducing the risk
level.

CONCLUSION:

Analysis of the REBA Tool over the manufacturing industries was discussed. The activity
‘Diaphragm assembly in the machine vice’ need to be redesign to reduce the risk level for the worker.
Because, the REBA action level is 2, indicating medium risk for the worker that action is necessary to
further assess this task with the aim of reducing the risk level.

REFERENCE:

[1] Sue Hignett, S., Lynn McAtamney, L., “Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)”. Applied
Ergonomics 31 (2000) 201-205.

[2] Lynn McAtamney., and Nigel, E., Corlett., “RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders”. Applied Ergonomics 1993, 24(2), 91-99.

[3] Richard Temple., and Terry Adams., “Ergonomic Analysis of a Multi-Task Industrial Lifting
Station Using the NIOSH Method”. Journal of Industrial Technology, Volume 16, Number 2 -
February 2000 to April 2000.

[4] A. Albayrak., M. A. van Veelen., J. F. Prins., C. J. Snijders., H. De Ridder., G. Kazemier., “A

newly designed ergonomic body support for surgeons”. Surg Endosc (2007) 21: 1835–1840.

[5] Gerlienke, E., Voerman Leif Sandsjo., Miriam, M., R. Vollenbroek-Hutten., Pernilla Larsman.,
Roland Kadefors ., Hermie J, Hermens., “Effects of Ambulant Myofeedback Training and
Ergonomic Counselling in Female Computer Workers with Work-Related Neck-Shoulder
Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Trial”. J Occup Rehabil (2007) 17:137–152.

11