International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Ergonomic assessment and workstation design of shipping crane

cabin in steel industry
Deepak Kumar Kushwaha*, Prasad V. Kane
Department of Mechanical Engineering, VNIT, Nagpur, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ergonomics plays vital role to improve health and productivity at workplace and in last two decades it
Received 6 September 2014 find importance to redesign workplace. All Indian industries had taken initiative to redesign their
Received in revised form workplace to overcome various musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and work related injuries. In this
22 July 2015
context, the project has been carried out in an integrated steel plant located in central India where most
Accepted 6 August 2015
of the crane operator was continuously suffering from muscular pain in different body parts. Risk of MSD
Available online 20 August 2015
was identified by detailed questionnaire from 27 crane operator. It was revealed that almost all crane
operators were continuously suffering from some kind of MSD. Based on the anthropometric data of 50
Keywords:
Ergonomics
percentile Indian male, ergonomic assessment, redesign and evaluation of crane cabin was carried out in
Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) CATIA-V5 software. To check the compatibility of the design, rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) for
Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) both existing as well as modified crane cabin was performed. This study shows that intervention of
Anthropometry ergonomics in workplace reduces the mismatch between man and machine and makes workplace
comfortable for work.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ergonomics is the scientific study of manemachine interaction
at workplace. The basic objective of ergonomics is to fit man and
machine together to improve the worker's performance, reduce
stresses and fatigue at work. Application of ergonomics is very
significant in area where manual activities directly affect physical
and mental health of the employee (Parkes et al., 2005). Handling of
shipping cranes is one such activity in which physical and mental
health plays a very vital role. A crane operator has to perform
various activities, such as continuous monitoring of shipping
operation i.e. loading and unloading of heavy steel billets & plates,
adjustment of end effector by using specific control levers
embedded in a closed cabin. The task of crane operator is highly
repetitive. This paper presents case study that deals with ergo-
nomic analysis and redesign of crane setup which belongs to 1960s.
Fig. 1 shows the view of crane cabin & it is observed that the main
controllers are not designed with ergonomic principles and they
are placed on either side of the table such that it is not possible to
handle levers within the vertical section in sagittal plane passing
through shoulder joint (Violante et al., 2000; Chaffin and Anderson,
1999). Position of controls is such that it is not possible for a crane
operator to use levers at one position. In seated position, operator
was unable to move both arms freely. As controllers are placed on
either side of the table, it is not feasible to provide the chair with
arm rest. However a wooden stool has been provided in cabin,
which was inaccessible for most of the time. This stool has too
much sitting height (0.92 m) so that sitting at such a height without
any back support is unsafe & uncomfortable. Movement of the
Crane generates vibrations, which makes the stool positioning
unstable. Apart from operational difficulties, long term exposure to
vibration causes lower back pain and sciatic problem (Zhang et al.,
1991; Zander et al., 2004). This design does not fulfills operator's
biological needs, as determined by the ergonomics guidelines and
physical requirements of the equipment.
1.1. Assumption
Following assumptions were made for ergonomic analysis and
redesigning of the crane cabin setup

1. The workers answered the questionnaire as accurately as

* Corresponding author. possible.
E-mail address: deepak78888@gmail.com (D.K. Kushwaha). 2. This study is limited by its small sample size.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.08.003
0169-8141/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
30 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39

Fig. 1. Shipping crane cabin.

Table 1
Sample properties.
(neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists/hands, upper back, lower back,
Mean Standard deviation Max Min. hips/thighs, knees, and ankles/feet) over the past weeks and over
Age (year) 41.48 7.86 54 28 the past year (Dickinson et al., 1992). Anthropometric measure-
Weight (kg) 64.18 8.1 76 52 ments of crane operators were carried according to the guidelines
Experience (year) 10.44 5.52 23 2 of Anil and Shrawan (1998). Referring to Table 1, it shows anthro-
Stature (cm) 162.3 4.8 167.3 157.5
pometric dimensions of sample (27 crane operator). A modified
Standing average eye level (cm) 151.4 6.45 157.8 144.9
Forward arm reach (cm) 81.3 4.3 85.6 77
Borg scale (David, 2005) of range 1e10 was used to rate the exertion
Normal sitting height (cm) 78.4 5.2 83.6 73.2 and pain experienced by crane operator. Over both the time frames,
Sitting average eye level (cm) 72.5 2.3 74.8 70.2 neck pain, upper back pain, lower back, thigh/hip and knee pain
were most frequently reported (Table 2). MSD analysis of crane
operator clearly indicates (Fig. 2) that 100% of crane operators
continuously suffer from some kind of MSD. This study clearly
1.2. Objective demonstrates that the existing crane cabin design does not provide
any comfort, convenience of use or safety from high risks of MSD.
The present study had the following objectives.

1. To investigate the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorder of 3. Posture analysis

crane operators.
2. Analysis body posture & workstation with ergonomics aspects.
3. To improve the working condition by suggesting new
workstation.
4. To verify effectiveness of the modification by RULA test.
2. Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) analysis
Musculoskeletal Questionnaire has been used to assess the na-
ture and severity of musculoskeletal symptoms. A multiple choice-
type questionnaire was constructed on similar lines of earlier
researcher (Martin et al., 2005; Wilder et al., 1994; McAtamney and
Corlett, 1993; Kuorinka et al., 1987) for identifying and elaborating
the problems faced by 27 crane operators in maneuvering the
controls during work. The questionnaire inquire about the history
of experience of musculoskeletal problems in nine body positions
The real-time observation of the crane operator postures was
carried out to identify the most repetitive working postures
(Luttmann et al., 2000). Durations of the postures were recorded
and workerest cycles of the operators were analyzed. It was
observed that forward bending looking down posture (Fig. 3a)
takes 58% of the total time, bending right and looking down-right
posture takes 11% of the total time, bending left and looking
down-left posture (Fig. 3b) takes 11% of the total time, looking up
posture takes 9% of the total time, stretching out for the Walky-
Talky/Mouse takes 1% of the total time, and reclining on the stool
without back support takes 10% of the total time.
In order to identify severity of posture, postural analysis was
carried out by RULA. RULA examines the risk factors and all risk
factors are combined to give a total score that ranges from 1 to 7
(Gnanavel and Soundararajan, 2008). The data displayed is com-
bined with a color indicator zone. The color of this zone changes

Table 2
Observed prevalence rates for MSD.

Area of body affected Occurrence in last 12 months (% of sample) Occurrence in last week (% of sample)

Neck (NEC) 62.9 74.0

Shoulders (SHO) 44.4 51.8
Elbows (ELB) 33.3 25.9
Wrists/hands (WRI) 29.6 22.2
Upper back (UPB) 66.6 85.18
Lower back (LOWB) 51.8 77.7
Hip/Thigh (HIP) 66.6 81.48
Knee (KNE) 59.25 70.37
Ankle/feet (ANK) 22.2 48.14
 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39 31

Fig. 2. MSD risk vs number of operator.

Fig. 3. (a) Forward bending looking down posture, (b) Bending right and looking down-right posture.

from green to red according to the total score. The score report
consists of basic mode and advanced mode. In the basic mode, the
scores 1 and 2 (Green color) indicates that the posture is acceptable
if it is not maintained or repeated for long periods of time. The
scores 3 and 4 (Yellow color) indicates that further investigation is
needed and changes may be required. The scores 5 and 6 (Orange
color) indicates that investigation and changes are required soon.
The score 7 (Red color) indicates that investigation and changes are
required immediately. The score indication of advanced mode for
different body parts is indicated in Fig. 4.
Postural analysis was accomplished via following steps.
3.1. Existing workplace model

According to workplace dimension existing crane cabin model

was developed in CATIA-V5 software. Fig. 5 shows the existing

Fig. 4. RULA score and color code in CATIA-V5. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) Fig. 5. Existing crane cabin.
32 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39

Table 3 workstation built in CATIA-V5.

Anthropometric data of 50 percentile Indian manikin.

Description Value (cm)

3.2. Human body modeling
Stature 164.8
Elbow height 103.9 Anthropometric database is the foundation for human body
Acromion radiale length 31.2
Axilla height 115.9
modeling. The data for stature and position during sitting was
Chest breath 29.8 collected in this study shows that:
Crotch height, standing 76.5
Hip breath, standing 33.1 1. The stature lies in between 157.5 and 167.3 cm with an average
Radiale-stylion length 24.3
of 162.3 cm and standard deviation is 4.8 cm.
Waist breath 25.9
Waist height 97.0 2. The sitting eye height lies in between 70.2 and 74.8 cm with
Forward arm reach 84.9 average of 72.5 cm and standard deviation is 2.3 cm.
Normal sitting height 81.9
elbow to elbow breath 50.5 Based on these observations, stature and sitting eye height ob-
Seating eye height 73.8
tained from this study were compared with Indian anthropometric
data compiled and developed by Chakrabarti, 1997. It was found
that the values for the worker's stature and average eye level during
sitting posture lies within acceptable range which is suitable for 50
percentile Indian manikin. Table 3 provides the anthropometric
Table 4 measurements relating to workers of Indian origin that are used in
Input data for RULA. creating the manikin.
Body part Upper arm Lower arm Wrist Neck Legs

Value 29
< q < 38
20
<q < 38
15
þ 10
þ Even & balanced 3.3. RULA

Table 4 shows the collected input data for RULA analysis. This
data was used in modeling the manikin posture in Catia-V5. Figs. 6

Fig. 6. (a) RULA for forward bending looking down posture-left side, (b) RULA for forward bending looking down posture-right side.
 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39 33

Fig. 7. (a) RULA for bending right and looking down-left side, (b) RULA for bending right and looking down-right side.

and 7, shows the RULA of crane operator while working on existing 3.4. Result of RULA
workplace having cross traveling controller of hook by right hand
and boom controller by left hand at same time while monitoring The result of the RULA is summarized in Table 5 which recom-
ground level operation. mends the investigation and changes are required immediately.
Additional input for RULA test (Input Based on Direct
Observation)
4. Proposed solutions

1. Lower arm: e working across the midline of the body or out of

Normal reach zone of 50% Indian manikin was prepared (Fig. 8)
the side.
as per guidelines of Dr. Maiti et al. (2013), Holley and Sweeney
2. Wrist: e wrist is bent away from the midline.
(1998). When this reaching zone of 50 percentile Indian manikin
3. Wrist twist: e twisted away from handshake position.
imposed on the actual workstation, it was found that normal reach
4. Neck: e twist and side bend.
zone (shown by hatching in Fig. 9) was unutilized in existing crane
5. Trunk: e side bends.
cabin. In proposed crane cabin, the concept of normal reach zone
6. Legs: e legs and feet are not evenly balanced and supported.
was utilized and the controllers were placed within the normal
7. Muscles use: e posture is repeated (>4 times/min)
reach zone. It is recommended that the work table height need to
follow the worker's mean elbow height with ±10 cm, according to
the type of jobs done on the work table (Whistance et al., 1995).
Table 5
Final RULA Score. Principally, the task performed by operator in this case study can
be categorized as medium class work. Thus recommended height
of work table is between 0.939 m and 1.139 m for 50 percentile
manikin. The proposed plan indicates that the operator would grab
the control lever at 1.06 m (0.76 m table height þ 0.30 m control
panel height) from floor. The actual work table height and rec-
ommended work table height both are same (Fig. 10). Therefore
the height of work table remains same for redesigning of
workplace.
34 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39

Fig. 8. Normal reach zone for 50% Indian manikin.

Fig. 9. Unutilized normal reaching zones in existing crane cabin.

In Fig. 8, shoulder joints are located at S1 and S2. The elbows are
located at E1 and E2, at the table's edge, at distance 0.11 m in front
of the shoulders such that, both hands commence at H1, the loca-
tion of which is from E1.
Operator can occupy sitting & standing posture as per work
demand & hence both the postures are considered for study. If
there is need to observe some operations from a standing position,
the driver has the advantage of being able to choose the working
posture which suits him. He can also assume a particularly relaxed
posture during sitting posture. According to Stevenson et al. (1958),
in fixing the posture the following factors were maintained
constant.
elbow and shoulder joints must remain constant.
The driver's height was taken as 1.65 m. Based on this anthro-
pometric data of 50% Indian manikin the diagram of joint positions
in the seated posture was prepared (Fig. 10). Fig. 11, shows that the
eye level of a 1.65 m tall man is 1.54 m in standing posture. To
obtain the same eye height in the seated positions, a seat with a
height of 0.83 m is recommended. This measurement was consid-
ered too high for comfortable position and was reduced to 0.60 m
with a consequent drop in the eye level to 0.23 m Fig. 12 shows
corresponding sitting plan in proposed crane cabin.
5. Effectiveness of the modification

a) Optimal perception of the visual inputs.
b) Layout of the Controls.
To ensure that these factors are maintained to acceptable level,
the driver's line of sight (eye level) had to be at the same height in
the seated or standing position; consequently the position of the
5.1. Posture analysis in proposed crane cabin
According to the plan of the proposed crane cabin and new
positions of control levers, a model was prepared in CATIA-V5
(Fig. 13). Postural analysis for both standing and sitting working
postures were performed in modified crane cabin workstation.
 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39 35

Fig. 12. Sitting plan in proposed workstation.

which is shown in Fig. 15.

The modified workstation allows the crane operator to slide the
chair according to their choice. The clearance between the work
bench and knee is enough to eliminate restriction to vertical knee
space. One footrest was proposed to allow shorter crane operator to
utilize the seat adjustability and get closer to the controllers.
Fig. 10. Plan for standing position for 50% manikin in workstation.

5.2. Result of postural analysis

Fig. 14 shows posture analysis by RULA when crane operator handle
the cross traveling controller by right hand and boom controller The modified layout is also modeled and tested for the RULA
by left hand. RULA score for this posture was found “3”. In score, results of which are shown in Table 6 which shows remark-
same working situation RULA score for standing position was “4” able improvement in it.

Fig. 11. Anthropometric analysis of standing and seating posture.

36 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39
Fig. 13. Proposed crane cabin with sliding chair.
6. Operator's visibility analysis
To ensure the implementation of the safe work system, overall
monitoring of the shipping operation is very important. The
working posture of crane operator should allow unrestricted view
at the ground level. Visibility analysis in existing crane cabin shows
that for 7.9
of flexion of head, visibility was restricted by steel
enclosure. Fig. 16 shows the visibility circle of crane operator in
Fig. 14. (a) RULA test for sitting posture in proposed crane cabin-right side, (b) RULA test for sitting posture in proposed crane cabin-left side.
existing workstation for 7.9
flexion of head. In existing crane cabin
the distance between steel enclosure and operator was 50 cm. In
order to get unrestricted view, operator must be nearer to steel
enclosure. In proposed design, distance between steel enclosures
and operator was reduced to 46 cm, so that crane operator gets
4 cm closer to the steel enclosure and monitors the complete
operation without any restriction. Fig. 17a shows visibility analysis
of manikin in proposed crane cabin for same degree of flexion. It
was found that visibility were unrestricted and better in proposed
workstation. Visibility analysis (Fig. 17b) shows that in sitting
posture crane operator is almost 68 cm far from steel enclosure and
Visibility circle is unrestricted up to 3
flexion of head.
7. Results and discussions
Ergonomic assessment of existing shipping crane cabin has
revealed the root causes of MSD & based on the information
reveled, the existing cabin design is modified with ergonomic
analysis & consequences of its modification are predicted with
RULA analysis.
Existing working environment forces the crane operator to work
in un-ergonomic posture for 8 h a day without appropriate rest
postures. Working in these postures from year's together lead to
musculoskeletal disorders. New cabin design & ergonomic work
posture are proposed by considering the anthropometry of 50
 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39 37

Fig. 15. RULA test for standing posture in proposed crane cabin.

Table 6 (c) Visibility analysis with new ergonomic posture have

RULA score after modification in workstation. revealed satisfactory result for both standing and sitting
position (Table 7).

The details of ergonomic analysis using RULA has been reported

in Table 8. Which clearly indicates that the proposed design would
be a proactive step to improve quality of life and reduce work
related MSD.

8. Conclusion

Indian industries are in proactive mode to improve productivity

using different industrial engineering tools. Ergonomic analysis of
existing workstation & modifying them with different consider-
ation like anthropometry, reach envelop analysis, price of modifi-
percentile Indian population & work reach envelop analysis. Pro-
cation and technical constrains would give some pragmatic
posed ergonomic posture involved
solution. In this study, new layout is suggested to reduce MSD and
this reduction can be confirmed by RULA test for the modified
(a) Relocation of control levers i.e. at the front side to avoid side
layout. The modifications of layout are within the technological
bending, twisting of arms and wrist.
constraints and it can implemented in a pragmatic way. Other
(b) Ergonomically designed sliding chair with the height of
improvement like replacing steel enclosure by glass windows to
0.6 m which allow crane operator to perform job in sitting
improve visibility & adjustable chair with advanced controller
posture.
positioned in arm rest would demand high investment and

Fig. 16. Visibility analysis in existing cabin (standing posture).

38 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39

Fig. 17. (a) Visibility analysis in proposed cabin (standing posture), (b) Visibility analysis in proposed cabin (sitting posture).

Table 7
Visibility comparison for existing and proposed workstation.

S.No Position Before Modification After Modification

Flexion angle (degree) Visibility Flexion angle (degree) Visibility

1 Standing 7.9 Restricted 7.9 Unrestricted

2 Sitting e e 3 Unrestricted up to 3

Table 8
Effectiveness of modification.
 D.K. Kushwaha, P.V. Kane / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 52 (2016) 29e39
technological changes in overall system. Hence it is concluded that
the proposed modification with the ergonomic analysis would be
feasible solution in existing situation and would address the MSD
due to existing workstation.
References
Anil, Mittal, Shrawan, Kumar, 1998. Human muscle strength definition, measure-
ment and usage. Part-I guidelines for the practioners. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 22,
101e121.
Chaffin, D.B., Anderson, G.B.J., 1999. Occupational Biomechanics, third ed., vol. 34.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 355e392.
Chakrabarti, Debkumar, 1997. Indian Anthropometry Dimension for Ergonomic
Design & Practice. NID, Ahmedabad, India.
David, G.C., 2005. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for
work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup. Med. 55, 190e199.
Dickinson, C.E., Campion, K., Foster, A.F., Nweman, S.J., Thomas, P.G., 1992. Ques-
tionnaire development: an examination of Nordic musculoskeletal question-
naire. Appl. Ergon. 13, 197e207.
Gnanavel1, S.S., Soundararajan, R., 2008. A review on work posture analysis of
human using CATIA ergonomics tool. Appl. Ergon. 57, 247e269. India.
Holley, A., Sweeney, M.A., 1998. Applying Ergonomics Principle in the Workplace:
How the Alexander Technique Can Help.
Kuorinka, I., Jonsson, B., Kilbom, A., Vinterberg, H., Biering Sorenson, F.,
Anderson, G., Jorgensen, K., 1987. Standard Narodicquestionnaires for the
analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl. Ergon. 18 (3), 233e237.
39
Luttmann, Jager, M., Laurig, W., 2000. Electromyo-graphical indication of muscular
fatigue in occupational field studies. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 645e660.
Maiti Dr, J., Azeez, Sameer A., Krishna, O.B., Ray, P.K., 2013. Anthropometric analysis
of crane operators in Indian steel industry. Ind. Eng. J. 27, 201e213. India.
Martin, F., Siegfried, F., Peter, B., 2005. Vibration induced low back disorders-
comparison of the vibration evaluation according to ISO 2631 with a force-
related evaluation. Appl. Ergon. 36, 481e488.
McAtamney, L., Corlett, E.N., 1993. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of
work-related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon. 24, 91e99.
Parkes, Katharine R., Carnell, Susan, Farmer, Elly, 2005. Research Report on
Musculoskeletal Disorder, Mental Health and Work Environment. Health and
safety executive. University of oxford.
Stevenson, M.G., Coleman, N., Long, A.F., Williamson, A.M., Sell, R.G., 1958. Assess-
ment, re-design and evaluation of changes to the driver's cab in a suburban
electric train. Appl. Ergon. 37 (4), 76e84.
Violante Francesco, Armstrong Thomas, Kilborn Asa, 2000. Taylor and Francis.
second ed.
Whistance, R.S., Adams, L.P., Van, G.B.A., Bridger, R.S., 1995. Postural adaptations to
workbench modifications in standing workers. Ergonomics 38 (8), 2485e2503.
Wilder, D., Magnusson, M.L., Fenwick, J., Pope, M., 1994. The effect of posture and
seat suspension design on discomfort and back muscle fatigue during simulated
truck driving. Appl. Ergon. 25, 66e67.
Zander, E., King, P.M., Ezenwa, B.N., 2004. Influence of flooring conditions on lower
leg volume following prolonged standing. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 34, 279e288.
Zhang, L., Drury, C.G., Wolley, S.M., 1991. Constrained standing. Evaluating the foot/
floor interface. Appl. Ergon. 34, 175e192.