See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305109847

Manual Material Handling: A Classification Scheme

Article  in  Procedia Technology · July 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.114

CITATIONS READS

8 2,243

1 author:

Rajesh Raghunathan
Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Kottayam
20 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Worksystem interactions in a technology enabled class room View project

Ergonomic Human Performance Measures during manual material handling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajesh Raghunathan on 21 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575

International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering, Science and Technology (ICETEST

- 2015)

Manual material handling: A classification scheme

Rajesh R*
Associate Professor, Deptartment of Mechanical Engineering, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Kottayam, Kerala – 686501, India

Abstract

Ergonomic evaluation of Manual Material Handling (MMH) has largely been based on task analysis approach where the job are
broken down into simpler tasks and studied. But there is lack of clarity in the use of terms defining various MMH activities. The
challenge in classifying MMH arises because of the dependence of man-machine interaction on multiple worksystem
characteristics. This paper presents a classification scheme for MMH tasks. Towards making a classification scheme the work
system characteristics are examined and the important dimensions from those are identified that are able to differentiate the
nature of MMH exposure. Suitable examples for each class are presented. The methods for collecting biomechanical and
physiological responses, and nature of ergonomic analysis required are discussed. A qualitative judgment on exposure magnitude
and measurement cost is made. Finally, critical issues and scope for research is presented.

©
© 2016
2016TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICETEST – 2015.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICETEST – 2015
Keywords: Type your keywords here, separated by semicolons ;

1. Introduction

Material handling is an invariable part of any manufacturing or service operation, and there is always a
significant human input to those operations in terms of physical load. The physical load is the effect of force inputs
during material handling operations coming from the interaction with material handling equipment or the material.
Manual Material Handling (MMH) has largely been focused on single/individual task level based on a task analysis
approach where the job are broken down into simpler tasks and studied. This has been exemplified in the works of
Garg et al. (1978), Ciriello et al. (1999), Genaidy et al. (2006), Dempsey et. al. (2008), Garg et al. (2014), and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 09446073919.

E-mail address: rrajeshraghu@gmail.com

2212-0173 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICETEST – 2015
doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.114
 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575 569

Rajesh et al. (2014). There is lack of clarity in the use of terms defining various MMH activities. The challenge in
classifying MMH is that man-machine interaction is dependent on multiple dimension i.e., work station and MHE,
human, and task and environment (Rajesh et al., 2014). The objective of the paper is to present a classification
scheme for MMH tasks. A short review of status of MMH terms is highlighted in Section 2.1. The classification is
discussed in Section 3, followed by Conclusion section.

2. Method

The literature was selected from SCOPUS bibliographic database. Some of the original articles from the last ten
years were selected from reputed ergonomics journals such as Ergonomics, Applied Ergonomics, International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Human Factors, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Work, Scand J Work
Environ Health, IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors for the review. Towards making
a classification scheme the work system characteristics are examined and the important dimensions from those are
identified that are able to differentiate the nature of MMH exposure. A qualitative judgment on exposure magnitude
and measurement cost is made on a scale of 1-7.

2.1. Literature Review

Single or individual MMH task are lift, lower, push, pull, carry and hold. Any MMH operation or job is
composed of these elemental tasks. A combined MMH task is composed of a combination of tasks involving lifting,
lowering, pushing, pulling or carrying. ‘Combined MMH’ (Taboun & Dutta, 1989; Straker et. al., 1997; Li et. al.,
2009) or multiple-component MMH task is combination of MMH tasks in sequence. Based on literature a number of
different types of CMMH has been identified. Waters et. al. (2007) defined ‘Multi-task lifting’ jobs as jobs in which
there are significant differences in lifting tasks that are done concurrently, such as a palletizing job, where the
vertical height can vary from lift to lift. This definition can be extended to other basic tasks and can be termed
‘Multi-task MMH’ job where there is within task variability of critical parameters. For example carry distance may
vary when a worker moves concrete slurry on head during a roof concrete laying process over a period of 1-2 hours.
Waters et. al. (2007) termed sequential lifting jobs where workers rotate between job elements in sequence. There
are ample situations where team MMH is relevant. For example loading a log from ground to floor of truck is a team
lift task. An example of multi-person MMH task is loading of boxes into truck by 4 material handlers, two handlers
lifting from floor height to hip height into the hands of two handlers standing on truck in stooped posture, and those
two handlers then placing in appropriate location in truck. Demsey (1999) used the term ‘Multiple task MMH’ job
as job comprising of different types of MMH tasks over task duration. Mital & Ramakrishnan (1999) used ‘Complex
manual materials handling’ task to designate a combination of different types of MMH tasks where non-basic task
types like turning and sliding are also involved.
There is ample evidence from literature to point to the usage of different terms in MMH that cater to the need of
describing the situation or scenario of that manual exertion. The MMH terms are used interchangeably and with lot
of overlap. The usage of term ‘multi-task’ and ‘multiple task’ MMH creates ambiguity in their usage. Combined
MMH task describes a material handling where material is moved from origin to a prescribed destination. ‘Multiple
component MMH’ task or ‘Multiple task MMH’ equally means the same. ‘Multiple task MMH’ job considers time
aspect of exposure dimension i.e., frequency and duration. In principle ‘sequential lifting’ can be extended to mean
‘sequential carrying’ or ‘sequential pushing/pulling’ where carry distance and sequence of those can be varied. Such
interchangeable use of terms can be stream lined if a commonality of ergonomic parameters can be highlighted, and
used further for better classification.

2.2. MMH classification scheme

The nature of MMH exposure is decided by the worksystem characteristics (Rajesh et. al., 2014). The task related
exposure dimensions (i.e., intensity, frequency and duration), material related dimension (i.e., load and direction),
and worksystem related dimension (i.e., layout, material handling equipment) has been used for the proposed
570 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575

classification. The resulting man-machine interaction produces biomechanical and physiological responses. The
MMH exposure can be defined by three dimensions: amplitude, frequency and duration (Westgaard & Winkel,
1997). Clarity in classification can be obtained when it captures this man-machine interaction complexity. The
worksystem characteristics that are used for the proposed classification are ‘Material’, Workplace’, ‘Task’ and
‘Team’. Figure 1 shows the proposed MMH classification scheme. MMH task type is classified into three basic
types: unit, combined and complex; and shown along the X-axis. MMH team type is classified into three basic
types: unit, combined and variable; and shown along the Y-axis.
Team
composition

Measurement
difficulty
Variable
7 8 9
men

MMH Exposure

Combined 4 5 6

Unit 1 2 3

MMH task type

Unit Combined Complex

Fig. 1. MMH exposure and measurement difficulty with respect to the MMH classification scheme

3. Discussion

3.1. MMH classification Scheme

The MMH classification scheme is presented in Table 1. Man-machine interaction in terms of ‘motion’ and
‘force loading points’ are different amoung single men, group task and variable group task. The nature of exposure
magnitude (internal biomechanical and physiological responses) and its variation are highlighted under each class.
Based on the classification scheme MMH can be classified as given below.

x Unit-MMH task1: MMH exposure may vary over task elements or between task blocks, and it is repeated
continuously over task duration.
x Unit-Combined MMH task2: MMH exposure varies within task elements or between task blocks, and it is
repeated continuously over task duration. Fig. 2. Illustrates a unit-combined MMH task.
x Unit-Complex MMH task3: High MMH exposure variation over entire task duration.
x Group-MMH task4: The exposure may vary over task elements or between task blocks. It is repeated
continuously over task duration. An example is show in Fig. 3. MMH exposure is lower than case-1.
x Group-Combined MMH task5:. The exposure varies within task elements or between task blocks. It is repeated
continuously over task duration. MMH exposure is lower than case-2
x Group-Complex MMH task6: There is high exposure variation over entire task duration. An example is show in
Fig. 4. MMH exposure is lower than case-3.
x Variable group-MMH task7: The exposure may vary over task elements or between task blocks. It is repeated
continuously over task duration. MMH exposure is between case-1 and case-4.
x Variable group-Combined MMH task8: The exposure varies within task elements or between task blocks. It is
repeated continuously over task duration. MMH exposure is between case-2 and case-5.
 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575 571

x Variable group-Complex MMH task9: There is high MMH exposure variation over entire task duration. MMH
exposure is between case-3 and case-6.

Fig. 2. Unit-CMMH task done by a single worker involving lifting, carrying and lowering of box

Fig. 3. Group-MMH pull by 2 men from front side and push by 3 men from back

Fig. 4. Group-Complex MMH task done by 3 workers in a railway station

Figure 1 shows the schematic of the MMH classification scheme indicating how exposure magnitude and
measurement cost would vary among the different groups. For each of these classes an example is given in Table 2.
The table highlights the methods and equipments suitable for collecting the biomechanical and physiological
responses. As the MMH exposure magnitude and frequency varies across the different classes the type of ergonomic
approach and assessment used becomes relevant to quantify the physical load (Table 2). The literature source for
data collection method and ergonomic analysis include Juul-Kristensen et. al. (1997), Dempsey (1998), van der
Beek et. al. (1999), Li et. al. (1999), David (2005), Dempsey et. al. (2005), Waters et. al. (2006), Takala et. al.
(2010), Waters et. al. (2011), Kim et . al. (2012), Roman-Liu (2014), Van der Beek et. al. (2013), Vignais et. al.
(2013), Fischer & Dicherson (2014) and Garg et. al. (2014).
572 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575

Table 1. MMH classification scheme

Worksystem characteristics MMH Human Interaction
Material Workplace Task Team Class Motion Force
MMH largely within a 1 one/two hand,
workstation or across
MMH task elements are 2 force interaction
Same or similar workstations with Same task
completed individually Largely 2D largely 2D &
material predefined element type
by one or more workers uniformly
height/distance 3 distributed
movements and MHE
Moderate All the MMH task 4 one/two hand,
variation in MMH across elements is completed by force interaction
Different task 5 Both 2D
material shape, workstations with a group of workers i.e. in 2D/3D &
elements and 3D
size and specific MHE sharing of load or uniformly
interface motion 6 distributed
7 largely multiple
Significant
Team composition interaction
variation in MMH within and 8 Largely 3D
Different task changes during atleast points, force
material shape, across workstations and
elements one of the MMH task interactions in 3D
size and with variety of MHE dynamic
elements 9 & non-uniformly
interface
distributed

3.2. Implications and Suggestions

Exposure measurement and assessment is of prime importance for ergonomists. Feedbacks so obtained are
valuable for making ergonomic intervention to reduce physical load, discomfort, pain, fatigue or musculoskeletal
disorders. Table 2 shows a few examples on measurement and assessment methods and tools. The cost of
measurement and ergonomic analysis increases as the MMH complexity and variability of the team increases. This
places an important role in exposure quantification strategy required for monitoring occupational health by
Industrial engineers or Ergonomists. The choice of strategy is dependent on the accuracy of ergonomic analysis
required. Direct measurements provide more accurate results than those provided by subjective or observational
methods (Van der Beek and Frings-Dresen, 1998). As the MMH task complexity increases from class 1 to 3, it can
be seen that direct measurement strategies are feasible as against observational measurement strategy. But within a
constrained environment or in practical industrial settings undertaking direct measurements may not be feasible.
This calls for use of strategies and methods that would reduce exposure measurement and assessment time and cost.
Some of the recent literature that examines this include Mathiassen & Wahlström (2013), Rezagholi et. al. (2012),
Trask et. al. (2014), Rezagholi & Mathiassen (2010), Wells et. al. (2013), Perez Neumann (2015). Few critical
issues pertaining to exposure measurement and assessment are highlighted below.

x Tools for measurement of exposure during MMH tasks with variable team (i.e., Class 7, 8, and 9) needs to be
devised.
x Subjective methods for ergonomic assessment of complex MMH tasks (i.e., Class 3, 6 and 9) needs to be devised.
x Methods and strategies for measurement of exposure during MMH tasks with variable team (i.e., Class 7, 8, and
9) needs to be devised.
x Observational motion capture system needs to evolve for a team and variable team environment (i.e., Class 4-9).
x Observational motion capture system needs to evolve for a combined and complex MMH tasks that occurs over a
wide geographical area.
x Direct measurement equipments (both biomechanical and physiological systems) that are non-invasive and non-
obtrusive needs to be developed.
x Measurement cost model needed for making informed decision making for setting up data collection and
monitoring system.
 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575
Table 2. Data collection instruments, method and ergonomic analysis corresponding to each MMH class
Class Data collection Method Ergonomic analysis M, V, C @
Observatory tool and
Paper-pen, photo, force
checklists, Psychophysical
1 gauge, force plates, hear
tables. Eg., RULA,
rate monitor
REBA, NIOSH, QEC
Biomechanical and
Physiological analysis.
Video, force gauge, force Eg., CUBE model, 2D link
2 plate, hear rate monitor, segment model, Energy
data logger expenditure model,
Oxygen consumption
model
Video, motion sensors,
accelerometers and
Biomechanical and
goniometers, force gauge,
Physiological analysis.
force plate, hand pressure
Eg., 3D link segment
3 map system, hear rate
model, Heart rate, Oxygen
monitor, metabolic
consumption or Energy
measurement system,
expenditure rate estimates
EMG-EEG based system,
data logger
Video, accelerometers and
Observatory tool and
goniometers, force gauge,
checklists, Psychophysical
4 force plate, hand pressure
tables. Eg., RULA,
map system, hear rate
REBA, NIOSH, QEC
monitor, data logger
Biomechanical and
Video, accelerometers and
Physiological analysis.
goniometers, force gauge,
Eg., 3D link segment
5 force plate, hand pressure
model, Heart rate, Oxygen
map system, hear rate
conumption or Energy
monitor, data logger
expenditure rate estimates
Video, motion sensors, Biomechanical and
accelerometers and Physiological analysis.
goniometers, force gauge, Eg., 3D link segment
6 x V=6
force plate, hand pressure model, Heart rate or
map system, hear rate Energy expenditure rate
monitor, data logger estimates
Video, motion capture Observatory tool and
system, force gauge, force checklists, Psychophysical
7 x V=3
plate, hear rate monitor, tables. Eg., RULA,
data logger REBA, NIOSH, QEC
Biomechanical and
Video, motion capture Physiological analysis.
system, force gauge, force Eg., 3D link segment
8 x V=6
plate, hear rate monitor, model, Heart rate, or
data logger Energy expenditure rate
estimates
Biomechanical and
Video, motion capture Physiological analysis.
system, force gauge, force Eg., 3D link segment
9 x V=7
plate, hear rate monitor, model, Heart rate or
data logger Energy expenditure rate
estimates
573
MMH Example with worksystem
characteristics
x Material: 45 kg box with handle at both side;
x M=1 x Workplace: floor to waist height on rack;
x V=1 x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15 min
x C=1 duration;
x Team: 1 handler.
x Material: 45 kg box with handle at both side;
x Workplace: floor to waist height and back to floor;
x M=4
x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane followed by carry for 5 m
x V=4
and then lower in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15
x C=4
min duration;
x Team: 1 handler.
x Material: 20-50 kg irregular material;
x Workplace: floor to waist height and back to floor;
x M=5 x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane supported on upper thigh
x V=5 and waist, rotate by 60° and load onto shoulder, carry for
x C=5 5 m and lower in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15
min duration;
x Team: 1 handler.
x Material: 45 kg box with handle at both side;
x M=2 x Workplace: floor to waist height on rack;
x V=2 x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15 min
x C=2 duration;
x Team: 2 teams of 2 handlers each.
x Material: 45 kg box with handle at both side;
x Workplace: floor to waist height and back to floor;
x M=3
x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane followed by carry for 5 m
x V=5
and then lower in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15
x C=5
min duration;
x Team: 2 teams of 2 handlers each.
x Material: 50-120 kg irregular material;
x Workplace: floor to waist height and back to floor;
x M=6 x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane supported on multiple body
parts, rotate by θ° and load onto shoulder, carry for 5 m
x C=6 and lower in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15 min
duration;
x Team: 4 handlers share the load.
x Material: 45 kg box with handle at both side;
x Workplace: floor to waist height on rack;
x M=5
x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15 min
duration;
x C=3
x Team: 2 handlers works for first 5 min, 4 for next 5 min
and 3 for final 5 min
x Material: 100 kg box with handle at both side;
x Workplace: floor to waist height and back to floor;
x M=6 x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane followed by carry for 5 m
and then lower in sagittal plane at the rate of 1 per min,
this is followed by pushing for 45 m at the rate of 1
x C=6
container load per 5 min for 15 min duration;
x Team: 4 handlers for lifting and carrying, 2 for pushing
and pulling
x Material: 50-120 kg irregular material;
x Workplace: floor to waist height and back to floor;
x M=7 x Task: Lifting in sagittal plane supported on multiple body
parts, rotate by θ° and load onto shoulder, carry for 5 m
x C=7 and lower in sagittal plane, 2 boxes per min for 15 min
duration;
x Team: 4 handlers for lifting and carrying, 2 for pushing
574 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575

MMH Example with worksystem

Class Data collection Method Ergonomic analysis M, V, C @
characteristics
and pulling during first 10 min. Next 5 min the lifting and
carrying task is done by 3 handlers.

Note: @ M denotes ‘Exposure magnitude’, V denotes ‘Exposure variability’ and C denotes ‘Measurement cost’

Technological developments in motion capture systems, sensors and data loggers shall provide impetus to
exposure measurement. Some examples can be found in Bonnechere et. al. (2014), Perez et. al. (2014), Han et. al.
(2013), Cheng et. al. (2012), Coenen et. al. (2013), Trask et. al. (2015). This would make ergonomic assessment
cheaper in developing countries such as India.

4. Conclusion

The proposed classification scheme resolves some of the ambiguity in the terminology of usage of MMH tasks.
The classification scheme uses four important worksystem dimensions: material, workplace, task and team. As the
MMH complexity and variability of the team increases the MMH exposure amplitude and frequency varies. Each of
the MMH class requires different measurement methods and equipments for collecting biomechanical and
physiological responses. Further, the natures of ergonomic analysis required are different. The cost of measurement
and ergonomic analysis increases as the MMH complexity and variability of the team increases. The need to address
some of the critical issues pertaining to ergonomic exposure estimation and analysis are highlighted.

Acknowledgements

The effort put in by Prof. Reena Murali in technical editing is acknowledged. Inputs given by Professor
Dr J Maiti, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur is acknowledged. SCOPUS database was accessed from IIT
Kharagpur.

References

Bonnechere, B., Jansen, B., Salvia, P., Bouzahouene, H., Sholukha, V., Cornelis, J., Rooze, M., & Van Sint Jan, S., 2014. Determination of the
precision and accuracy of morphological measurements using the Kinect™ sensor: Comparison with standard
stereophotogrammetry. Ergonomics 57(4), 622-631.
Cheng, T., Migliaccio, G. C., Teizer, J., & Gatti, U. C., 2012. Data fusion of real-time location sensing and physiological status monitoring for
ergonomics analysis of construction workers. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 27(3), 320–335
Ciriello, V. M., & Snook, S. H., 1999. Survey of manual handling tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23(3), pp. 149-156.
Coenen, P., Kingma, I., Boot, C. R., Bongers, P. M., & van Dieën, J. H., 2013. Inter-rater reliability of a video-analysis method measuring low-
back load in a field situation. Applied ergonomics 44(5), 828-834.
David, G.C., 2005. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for workrelated musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine
55(3), 190-199.
Dempsey, G. P., 1998. A critical review of biomechanical, epidemiological, physiological and psychophysical criteria for designing manual
materials handling tasks. Ergonomics 41(1), 73-88.
Dempsey, P. G., Ciriello, V. M., Maikala, R.V., & O'Brien, N. V., 2008. Oxygen consumption prediction models for individual and combination
materials handling tasks. Ergonomics 51(11), 1776-1789.
Dempsey, P. G., McGorry, R. W., & Maynard, W. S., 2005. A survey of tools and methods used by certified professional ergonomists. Applied
Ergonomics 36(4), 489-503.
Dempsey, P., 1999. Utilizing criteria for assessing multiple-task manual materials handling jobs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
24, 405-416.
Fischer, S. L., & Dickerson, C. R., 2014. Applying psychophysics to prevent overexposure: On the relationships between acceptable manual
force, joint loading, and perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44(2), 266-274.
Garg, A., Chaffin, D. B., & Herrin, G. D., 1978. Prediction of metabolic rates for manual materials handling jobs. American Industrial Hygiene
Association Journal 39(8), 661-674.
 R. Rajesh / Procedia Technology 24 (2016) 568 – 575 575

Garg, A., Waters, T., Kapellusch, J., Karwowski, W., 2014. Psychophysical basis for maximum pushing and pulling forces: A review and
recommendations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44 (2), 281-291.
Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., Ravelo, E., Abdallah, S., Shell, R., Holley, M.B., 2006. Theoretical basis for general mixed object handling
equations based on mechanical work required. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 7(5), 469-490.
Han, S., Achar, M., Lee, S., & Peña-Mora, F., 2013. Empirical assessment of a RGB-D sensor on motion capture and action recognition for
construction worker monitoring. Visualization in Engineering 1(1), 1-13.
Juul-Kristensen, B., Fallentin, N., & Ekdahl, C., 1997. Criteria for classification of posture in repetitive work by observation methods: A
review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19(5), 397-411.
Kim, S., Nussbaum, M.A., Jia, B., 2012. The benefits of an additional worker are task dependent: Assessing low-back injury risks during
prefabricated (panelized) wall construction. Applied Ergonomics 43 (5), 843-849.
Li, G., Buckle, P., 1999. Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-
based methods. Ergonomics 42 (5), 674-695.
Li, K. W., Yu, R., Gao, Y., Maikala, R. V., & Tsai, H., 2009. Physiological and perceptual responses in male chinese workers performing
combined manual materials handling tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(2), pp. 422-427.
Mathiassen, S. E., Liv, P., & Wahlström, J., 2013. Cost-efficient measurement strategies for posture observations basedon video recordings.
Applied Ergonomics 44(4), 609-617.
Mital, A., & Ramakrishnan, A., 1999. A comparison of literature-based design recommendations and experimental capability data for a complex
manual materials handling activity. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 24, 73-80.
Perez, J., & Neumann, W. P., 2015. Ergonomists’ and engineers’ views on the utility of virtual human factors tools. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 25(3), 279-293.
Perez, J., de Looze, M. P., Bosch, T., & Neumann, W. P., 2014. Discrete event simulation as an ergonomic tool to predict workload exposures
during systems design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44(2), 298-306.
Rajesh, R., Maiti, J., Samanta, B., 2014. Application of the Cube Model for Biomechanical Exposure Assessment of Combined Manual Material
Handling Tasks in a Manufacturing Plant in India. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 2, 39-51.
Rezagholi, M., & Mathiassen, S. E. (2010). Cost-efficient design of occupational exposure assessment strategies: A Review. Annals of
occupational hygiene 54(8), 858-868.
Rezagholi, M., Mathiassen, S. E., & Liv, P., 2012. Cost efficiency comparison of four video-based techniques for assessing upper arm
postures. Ergonomics 55(3), 350-360.
Roman-Liu, D., 2014. Comparison of concepts in easy-to-use methods for MSD risk assessment. Applied Ergonomics 45 (3), 420-427.
Straker, L.M., Stevenson, M.G., Twomey, L.T., & Smith, L.M., 1997. A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual
handling tasks: 3 Biomechanical measures. Ergonomics 40(7), 708-728.
Taboun, S., Dutta, S., 1989. Energy cost models for combined lifting and carrying tasks. International Journal ofIndustrial Ergonomics, 4, 1-17.
Takala, E., Pehkonen, I., Forsman, M., Hansson, G., Mathiassen, S. E., Neumann, W. P., Sjogaard, G., Veiersted, K.B., Westgaard, R.H.
&Winkel, J., 2010. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment and Health 36(1), 3-24.
Trask, C., Mathiassen, S. E., & Rostami, M., 2015. Partly visible periods in posture observation from video: Prevalence and effect on summary
estimates of postures in the job. Applied ergonomics 49, 63-69.
Trask, C., Mathiassen, S. E., Wahlstrom, J., & Forsman, M., 2014. Cost-efficient assessment of biomechanical exposure in occupational groups,
exemplified by posture observation and inclinometry. Scand J Work Environ Health 40(3), 252-265.
van der Beek, A.J., and Frings-Dresen, M.H.W., 1998. Assessment of mechanical exposure in ergonomic Epidemiology. Occup Environ Med 55,
291–299.
van der Beek, A.J., Hoozemans, M.J.M., Frings-Dresen, M.H.W., and Burdorf, A., 1999. Assessment of exposure to pushing and pulling in
epidemiological field studies: an overview of methods, exposure measures, and measurement strategies. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 24, 417-429.
Van der Beek, A.J., Mathiassen, S.E., Burdorf, A., 2013. Efficient assessment of exposure to manual lifting using company data. Applied
Ergonomics 44 (3), 360-365.
Vignais, N., Miezal, M., Bleser, G., Mura, K., Gorecky, D., Marin, F., 2013. Innovative system for real-time ergonomic feedback in industrial
manufacturing. Applied Ergonomics 44 (4), 566-574.
Waters, T. R., Lu, M., Werren, D., & Piacitelli,L., 2011. Human posture simulation to assess cumulative spinal load due to manual lifting. part I:
Methods. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 12(2), 176-188.
Waters, T., Yeung, S., Genaidy, A., Callaghan, J., Barriera-Viruet, H., & Abdallah, S., 2006. Cumulative spinal loading exposure methods for
manual material handling tasks. Part 2: methodological issues and applicability for use in epidemiological studies. Theoretical Issues in
Ergonomics Science 7(2), 131–148.
Waters, T.R., Lu, M.L., & Occhipinti, E., 2007. New procedure for assessing sequential manual lifting jobs using the revised NIOSH lifting
equation. Ergonomics 50(11), 1761-1770.
Wells, R. P., Neumann, W. P., Nagdee, T., & Theberge, N., 2013. Solution building versus problem convincing: Ergonomists report on
conducting workplace assessments. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors 1(1), 50-65.
Westgaard, R. H., & Winkel, J., 1997. Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 20(6), 463-500.

View publication stats