Group - 11 - AN ERGONOMIC EVOLUTION OF MAINTENANCE WORKSTATION

PUNYASHLOK AHILYADEVI HOLKAR
UNIVERSITY, SOLAPUR
A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“AN ERGONOMIC EVOLUTION OF MAINTENANCE
WORKSTATION”
Submitted
By
1) Mr.Koli Sushant Rajendra
2) Mr.Kadam Sagar Balasaheb
3) Mr.Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj
4) Mr.Jadhav Sahashikant Tukaram

Under the guidance of
(Prof. A. P. Gaikwad)
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SINHGAD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KORTI,
PANDHARPUR
2019-20
SINHGAD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KORTI,
PANDHARPUR
Certificate
This is to certify that the Project entitled
“AN ERGONOMIC EVOLUTION OF MAINTENANCE
WORKSTATION”
Submitted by the following group of students
1) Mr.Koli Sushant Rajendra
2) Mr.Kadam Sagar Balasaheb
3) Mr.Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj
4) Mr.Jadhav Sahashikant Tukaram
for the partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering represents their

original work which was carried out by them in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering Sinhgad College Of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur, Academic year
2019-20.
(Prof. A.P.Gaikwad ) (Prof. Dr. B. S. Gandhare) (Prof. Dr. S. S. Kulkarni)

Guide Sub-Guide Head of Dept.
(Prof. Dr. K. J. Karande)

Principal External Examiner
Date: - / /2020
Place: Korti, Pandharpur.
Acknowledgement
It is my pleasure to get this opportunity to thank my beloved and respected

Guide Prof. A. P. Gaikwad who imparted valuable knowledge to complete this
project work.
We express our deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. S. S. Kulkarni Head of
Mechanical Department and all staff member who lend us their valuable support and
co-operation to enable to us to complete our task. We would also like to thank our BE
Project Coordinator Prof. A. S. Aradhye.
I am grateful to Principal, Dr. K. J. Karande sir for his encouragement and
guidance throughout the course.
I express my sincere thanks to all the staff, faculties and colleagues of
Mechanical Engineering Department of SKN SINHGAD COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, who have helped me directly or indirectly in completing this final
year project report.
I also like to grateful my parents for wishes and moral support during the
preparation and all concerned for helping and encouraging me. I am grateful for the
many useful comments and suggestions provided by reviewers, which have resulted
significant improvements in the project work.
1) Mr.Koli Sushant Rajendra (PRN No. 2017032500252321)
2) Mr.Kadam Sagar Balasaheb (PRN No. 2016032500220763)
3) Mr.Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj (PRN No. 2017032500250384)
4) Mr.Jadhav Sahashikant Tukaram (PRN No. 2016032500220821)
(Students of B.E Mechanical)

DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the work embodied in this report entitled “An
Ergonomic Evolution of Maintenance Workstation” is carried out by us in partial fulfillment
of the Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering under the guidance of Prof. A. P. Gaikwad
from S.K.N. Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Pandharpur and we have not submitted the
same to any other university/institute for the award of any other degree.
Place: Korti, Pandharpur.
Date:
NAME Sign
Koli Sushant Rajendra (Roll no. 29)
Kadam Sagar Balasaheb (Roll no. 20)
Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj (Roll no. 03)
Jadhav Shashikant Tukaram (Roll no. 18)

ABSTRACT
The transportation systems contribute very vital role in growth of country, either it may
private, public or own transportation system, and to keep the automobiles or machine in good
condition without any interruption consistent corrective or preventive maintenance has to be
done, and this maintenance activities should take the least time and cost of maintenance along
with good quality, and to achieve this it is preferred to design a good maintenance workstation
with a systematic ergonomic consideration which has a great influence on time, service, comfort,
quality, productivity.
For the design of a maintenance workstation, systematic ergonomic procedures are
considered these procedures should concern for good ergonomically design of workstation. In an
actual design of workstation ergonomically approach is needed concern of the worker
anthropometric data with the various parameter of the workstation like adequate posture, work
table or chair height, position of the operating nobs and levers comfortable sufficient working
areas. This will also help to reduce MSD (Musculoskeletal disorder) and prevent injuries of
worker along with enhancing productivity
INDEX
Sr.No. Contents Page No.

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction to Ergonomics 2
1.1.1 Definitions of ergonomics 4
1.2 Literature Review 5
1.3 Research Methodology 7
1.4 Need for the study 9
1.4.1 Importance of ergonomics 9
1.4.2 Implementation of ergonomics to workplace 10
1.4.3 Ergonomic principles in workplace design 11
1.5 MSD’s (Musculoskeletal disorders) 12
1.5.1 Parts of the Body Affected by MSDs 12
1.5.2 Top Ten Occupations for MSDs 12
1.5.3 What can be done to prevent MSDs? 13
1.5.4 MSDs table 14
1.6 Methods of ergonomics study 15
1.6.1 Systems Approach to Ergonomics 17
1.6.2 Physical Measures 17
1.6.3 Analysis tools 18
2 Criteria Identification 19
2.1 RAPID UPPER LIMB ASSESSMENT (RULA) 20
2.1.1 Introduction 20
2.1.2 RULA evaluation method 20
2.1.3 The RULA Analysis dialog box appears 21
2.1.4 Basic mode 22
2.1.5 Advanced mode 23
2.2 Anthropometry 24
2.2.1 Determination of the workstation dimensions 28
2.2.2 Anthropometric Measurements 32
3 Maintenance Performance Measurement Using Regression Analysis 33

3.1 An ergonomics approach to designing a workstation: A case 34
problem
3.1.1 Modelling and Ergonomic Analysis of Existing 34
Maintenance Workstation
39
3.1.2 Modelling and Ergonomic Analysis of Modified
Maintenance Workstation
4 Proposed Work 42
5 Conclusion 44
6 Appendix 48
LIST OF TABLES
Sr.No Contents Page No.

1.1 MSD’s table 14
2.1 Anthropometric measures (in mm) for US adults 25
2.2 Anthropometric measures (in mm) for Japanese adults 26
2.3 Standing work surface height for female operators in cm 28
2.4 Anthropometric measures for females and maximum reach in cm 29
2.5 Anthropometric measurement for females for lateral clearance in cm 30
2.6 Anthropometric Data Analysis Sheet 32
3.1 RULA analysis result of posture a, b, c and d 36
LIST OF FIGURE

1.1 Flow Chart of Research Methodology 8
LIST OF IMAGES

2.1 RULA assessment worksheet 21
2.2 Score meaning with colour 22
2.3 Basic score mode 23
2.4 Advanced score mode 23
3.1 Picture of postures A,B,C & D while maintenance process in going 35
on
3.2 Mainkin modeling with job for posture a, b, c and d 36
3.3 RULA analysis result of Posture (d) for static loading 37
3.4 RULA analysis result of Posture (d) for Intermittent loading 37
3.5 RULA analysis result of Posture (d) for Repeated loading 38
3.6 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture 39
3.7 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture for static loading 40
3.8 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture for Intermitted loading 40
3.9 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture for repeated loading 41
“An Ergonomic Evolution of Maintenance Workstation”
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
BE (MECHANICAL) 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO ERGONOMICS:-
Ergonomics is designing a job to fit the worker, not worker fit for a given job
so that the work is safer as well as more efficient. A systematic ergonomic approach
can make employees more comfortable along with increased productivity. Ergonomics
is vital because when you‟re doing a work and your body is stressed by a clumsy
posture, repeated movements; your musculoskeletal is affected. Your body may begin
to possess symptoms like fatigue, discomfort, and pain, which might be the primary
signs of a musculoskeletal disorder. Worker productivity enhancement is the main aim
of every industry, especially with repetitive industrial tasks. These tasks are considered
boring, monotonous, fatiguing and de-motivating (Shikdar, 2011). This, in turn, results
in reduced worker productivity, poor work quality, and high absenteeism and causes
harmful effects on a worker's physical and mental well-being. Improving worker
productivity in such tasks, therefore, it is challenge for the commercial managers.
In industrially developing countries (IDCs), the majority of the population is
engaged in farming activities, some in small-scale enterprises and relatively few in
factory or industrial work. Most of these industrial works will cause fatigue and work-
related illnesses, which in turn reduce productive capacity. The multi-disciplinary
nature of ergonomics can play a unique role in the protection of people's health and in
the prevention of work-related health hazards. Ergonomics can do this by integrating
concepts from the social sciences with technological advances to enhance productive
Capacity and improve people's health. This paper illustrates the importance of
ergonomics to rural development and demonstrates how appropriate attention to
ergonomics has brought, and can still bring, benefits.
In modern manufacturing industries, minimization of both product
development cycle times and costs, are strategic objectives (Chryssolouris, 2005). In
designing process workstations, such as assembly ones, several physical prototypes and
rampups need to be built for the verification of human related factors. In complex
manual tasks, the human involvement is very critical as it influences the feasibility, the
cycle time, the working comfort and the safety of an operation. In manufacturing, in
assembly and in related work, where human operators are involved, the flexibility that a
human brings with it provides difficulties in modelling their behavior. In this case, the
interaction between humans and the products in all phases of the product life cycle,
BE (MECHANICAL) 2
such as design, production, operation and maintenance, must be studied. The easiness
of assembling a product has to be taken into account at the early stages of the design,
where no physical models of the final product are available. Moreover, ergonomic
problems demand empirical data on human capabilities and have to be examined at the
early design stages (Chryssolouris et al., 2003; Chryssolouris et al., 2000).
The present work is a study of a crown pin workstation which comes under
MSRTC Bus Depo Solapur. In this context we will apply the design for maximums and
minimums based on percentiles, according to what corresponds, and in this way
observe the ergonomic differences between the percentiles economically used for the
design of extremes: percentile 5 and 95. The first step has been the analysis of the
current situation, for the purpose of which a survey was done of the crown pin
workstation. In order to discover the ergonomic problems which appear due to design.
Thus, with the aim of modeling the crown pin workstation through a design aided
system, measures, photographs and videos were taken about the tasks done by the
MSRTC Bus Depo Solapur. With these facts it was possible to model a workstation
with CATIA system, which has an ergonomic analysis module for the intended
objectives. Likewise, through the RULA method, about postural analysis, which is
integrated within CATIA, it is possible to value the different positions adopted by the
Workshop, in order to know those which may cause discomforts or lesions and avoid
them by means of proposing the new design of the systems that provoke them. Next,
having carried out the analysis, we looked for a viable solution that solved the points at
issue shown by the RULA analysis and the observation practiced. This implied a
completely new distribution of the workstation. A system has been designed for the
assembly or disassembly purpose. Which solves the problems of reaching caused by the
height excess or for being too low. The labourer legs location zone has also received a
special treatment since it is a zone that had reaching problems where, through a series
of raising and retractile platforms, the space available has been optimized, distributing
it between the storage of goods and the space necessary for placing the legs. Finally, we
prepared a new ergonomic study applied to the solution proposed, leaving the
conflictive points within acceptable margins according to the stated by RULA analysis.
The importance of ergonomics issues in rural development is highlighted in
this paper. Some examples are given of the contribution that ergonomics has already
made to industrially developing countries, cases which are mainly concentrated in the
BE (MECHANICAL) 3
industrial sector. Key areas for future ergonomics research are identified, focusing on
the needs of communities living and working in the agricultural sector where most of
the population in the industrially developing world is located.
All manual assembly workstations should be designed with taking in account
the worker who will work there. Take no notice of the human and his demands can lead
to less productivity and quality as well as to the health problems. This is the reason why
is necessary to apply ergonomic demands to manual workstation design. In nowadays
when usually CAD systems are used to design whole production system is possible use
them to design and optimize manual workstation also from ergonomics aspects.
Producers of CAD systems integrate to theirs systems modules for ergonomics analysis
e.g. PTC – in Pro/Engineer, Siemens – in NX (Jack and Jill), Dassault systems –
CATIA. Except above mentioned producers exists others, which produce specialized
ergonomics software only and some these software is possible to integrate to some
existing CAD systems, but some works as a standalone software products. In practice
are usually used different CAD systems so it is very suitable to have possibility to
interchange CAD models and data among them to import all models to one
environment where is possible to realize ergonomics analysis.
1.1.1 Definitions of ergonomics:

Ergonomics is designing a job to fit the worker so the work is safer and more efficient.
Implementing ergonomic solutions can make employees more comfortable and
increase productivity.
There are many definitions of ergonomics:
 The study of the laws of work.
 Fitting the task to the worker rather than forcing him/her to adapt to the working
environment.
 Designing the workplace to prevent occupational injury and illness.
 The process of identifying and preventing work related musculoskeletal disorders.
 Working definition:
The process of balancing job demands worker capabilities.
BE (MECHANICAL) 4
1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

No research works has been done in the field of crown wheel & pinion work
station for human ergonomics evaluation factors perspective.
Following is the literature review of some papers giving more information
about their contribution in ergonomics field and crown wheel and pinion work station
for human ergonomics evaluation factors perspective.
Štefan VÁCLAV, Katarína SENDERSKÁ, Albert MAREŠ (2008) [5] has

proposed his work on describes procedure for design manual assembly workstation in
CAD environment to achieve such design of workstation, which will create good
conditions for productivity and high quality of human work. This is reason why is
necessary to take in account ergonomics aspects of workspace. In described procedure
are used CATIA ergonomics modules for analysis of designed solutions and optimize
layout of manual workstations.
Peter Vinka, Ernst A.P. Koningsveldb, Johan F. Molenbroeka (2006) [9]

has proposed his work on Ergonomics sometimes has a negative connotation, as it is
seen to be connected to illness or guidelines that limit innovations. This paper is
focused on the positive aspects of ergonomics in improvement of the working
environment. It consists of a part that studies the literature on success factors in the
process towards higher productivity and greater comfort, the formulation of a model
and a hypothesis, which is illustrated by four cases. The model distinguishes the
success factors in „goal‟, „involvement‟ and „process‟. Goals: evidence is found in the
literature that a positive approach has benefits in terms of shareholder value and
productivity, and for comfort.
Ashraf A. Shikdar He found main objective of this research was to conduct
assessment of ergonomic related problems in oilrigs a desert environment. Physical
audit and medical recorded were is investigation. Some major ergonomics issues
identified were hard physical work, back pain, discomfort, hot environment, long shift,
and diverse schedule.
Wanave, et al. (2013) covered the evaluation of the workstation to improve
the productivity by reducing the back pain, shoulder injury, fatigue, etc.
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) continue to be a tremendous burden on industry
BE (MECHANICAL) 5
with back injury and shoulder disorders being among the most common and costly
disorders because of not having a proper workstation. In industrialized countries, upper
limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders (UL-WMSDs) are the most common form
of occupational diseases.
Rahman (2014) Covered research work in a leading ceramic industry of
Bangladesh in order to study and assess the work postures of workers working in the
production section through RULA. The objective of the research work was to analyze
the various work postures of the workers of the selected ceramic industry. To analyze
the work postures of workers, rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) technique has been
used.
Shikdar, et al. had shown that A fully adjustable, ergonomically designed
assembly workstation was developed with special features such as a motorized table
with upward, downward and angular movements, ergonomic chair with adjustable seat
pan, arm and back supports, and a mechanism for bins and tool adjustments. The
workstation could be used as sit, stand or sit-stand workstation. An experiment was
conducted using college students who worked on both existing and the smart assembly
workstations. The objective of this eliminates anthropometric and ergonomic problems
of fixed workstation and thus boost operators' performance and reduce occupational
health and safety problems.
Mahatme, et al. (2014) provided detailed ergonomic analysis and workstation

design for sheet- metal disc, teeth cutting operation on a power press. Presently the
operation under consideration is manual. The worker manually picks the disc from the
input behind places it onto a press bed for teeth cutting and after completion, removes
the disc and places it into an output pin. For studying the ergonomic conditions of the
worker, a detailed RULA and REBA analysis of the work is carried out. A conceptual
CAD model is developed for this purpose. The simulation of the CAD model is done,
which verifies its workability. The design of the CAD model is done. The software
used for RULA analysis and CAD model development and simulation is CATIA
V5R19. For REBA analysis REBA assessment worksheet is used.
BE (MECHANICAL) 6
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The aim of this job is to propose a procedure that helps ergonomists and
engineers to develop task analysis and evaluations in workstations. In the ergonomics
field, task analysis is a method to describe and analyze the task performance when users
interact with complex systems, this is the first step to do an ergonomic evaluation. Most
of the areas in ergonomics require task analysis, literature contains clear descriptions
for task analysis for cognitive tasks, and nevertheless there is a lack of information for
biomechanics and design evaluations. In here, a procedure is proposed in order to offer
tools to correctly conduct ergonomic assessments that help ergonomists to develop
these evaluations and indicate the risk level of certain workstation. This research
contains a proposed procedure for task analysis and two case studies applying this
procedure. The proposed procedure consists in seven phases: taking photo, selecting
anthropometric parameter, actual measurement of worker, analysis of collected
entrepreneur data, modeling of workstation in catia, analysis of workstation.
The proposed procedure is applied in two case studies. The first case study is
in a workstation of an automobile parts industry. The second case study is in a shoe
manufacturing workstation. Subtasks are identified and classified with frequencies in
both jobs, indicating what subtasks are more repetitive, and thus need to be assessed.
This work provides a procedure that allows to standardize the process of task analysis
in biomechanics and design evaluations, this procedure allows to obtain the frequency
of the subtasks that are part of the assessed workstation, and thus it is easier to identify
which one of these need to be evaluated with ergonomic methods.
BE (MECHANICAL) 7
• Problem Statement
1
• Literature Survey
2
• Research Methodology
3
• Criteria Identification
4
• Data Collection
5
• Data Analysis
6
• Results & Conclusion

7
Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Research Methodology
BE (MECHANICAL) 8
1.4 NEED FOR THE STUDY

1.4.1 Importance of ergonomics:
Ergonomics is important because when you‟re doing a job and your body is stressed by
an awkward posture, extreme temperature, or repeated movement your musculoskeletal
system is affected. Your body may begin to have symptoms such as fatigue, discomfort,
and pain, which can be the first signs of a musculoskeletal disorder.
Industries increasingly require higher production rates and advances in technology to
remain competitive and stay in business. As a result, jobs today can involve:
 Frequent lifting, carrying, and pushing or pulling loads without help from other
workers or devices;
 Increasing specialization that requires the worker to perform only one function or
movement for a long period of time or day after day;
 Working more than 8 hours a day;
 Working at a quicker pace of work, such as faster assembly line speeds; and
 Having tighter grips when using tools.
Ergonomics must be part of a comprehensive MSD prevention process. Ergonomics is
part of your company‟s commitment to providing a safe place of work for your people.
It shows you care, and reduces ergonomic risk factors that contribute to MSDs. There
are other benefits as well, such as increased productivity, product quality and employee
engagement.
BE (MECHANICAL) 9
1.4.2 Implementation of ergonomics to workplace:

Providing a workplace free of ergonomic hazards can do the following:
 Lower injury rates as MSD incidences go down;
 Increase productivity by making jobs easier and more comfortable for workers;
 Improve product quality because fewer errors will be made when using
automated
Processes that demand less physical effort;
 Reduce absences because workers will be less likely to take time off to recover
from muscle soreness, fatigue, and MSD-related problems;
 Reduce turnover as new hires are more likely to find an ergonomically designed
job within their physical capacity;
 Lower costs as workers‟ compensation and other payments for illness and
replacement workers go down;
 Improve worker safety;
 Increase worker comfort;
 Reduce worker fatigue; and
 Improve worker morale.
BE (MECHANICAL) 10
1.4.3 Ergonomic principles in workplace design
Some ergonomics principles that should be applied to the workplace, whether it be an

industrial or an office environment, include the following:
 Aim at dynamic work, avoid static work (work where there is no movement).
Static work or static loading of the muscles is inefficient and accelerates fatigue.
Static work can occur when the workplace is too high or too low, when holding a
weight in one‟s arms for an extended period, or constant bending of the back to
perform some task.
 Work surface heights should depend on the size(anthropometry) of the worker
and the type of task performed (precision, light assembly, or heavy manual).
 In general, work within 30 per cent of one‟s maximum voluntary contraction
(strength). Avoid overloading of the muscular system.
 Primary controls, devices, and work pieces should be placed within the normal
working area. Secondary controls should be placed within the maximum working
area so as to reduce extended reaches and fatigue.
 Strive for best mechanical advantage of the skeletal system. • Work with both
hands. Do not use one hand (non-preferred hand) as a biological holding device.
 Hands should move in symmetrical and opposite directions.
 Use the feet as well as the hands.
 Design knowing the capacity of the fingers. Do not overload the fingers.
 Use gravity, do not oppose it to dispose of unbreakable products.
 Avoid unnatural posture. Bend the handle of the tool not the wrist.
 Permit change of posture.
 Maintain a proper sitting posture.
 Counter-balance tools when possible to reduce the weight and forces.
 Accommodate the large individual and give him or her sufficient room.
 Use bins with lips for storage and manual retrieval of small parts instead of
boxes. Incline containers so as to reduce awkward postures of the body.
 Train the individual to use the workplace facility and equipment properly.
BE (MECHANICAL) 11
1.5 MSD’s (Musculoskeletal disorders):-
MSD‟s or musculoskeletal disorders are injuries and disorders of the soft

tissues (muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints and cartilage) and nervous system. They can
affect nearly all tissues, including the nerves and tendon sheaths, and most frequently
involve the arms and back. Occupational safety and health professionals have called
these disorders a variety of names, including cumulative trauma disorders, repeated
trauma, repetitive stress injuries, and occupational overexertion syndrome.
The painful and often disabling injuries generally develop gradually over
weeks, months and years. MSD‟s usually result from exposure
To multiple risk factors that can cause or exacerbate that disorders, not from
single event or trauma such as fall, collision, or entanglement. A can cause a number of
conditions, including pain, numbness, tingling, stiff joints, difficulty moving, muscle
loss, and sometime paralysis. Frequently, workers must lose time work to recover;
some never regain full health. These disorders include carpal tunnel syndrome,
tendinitis, sciatica, herniated discs, and low back pain. MSDs do not include injuries
resulting from slips, trips, falls, or similar accidents.
1.5.1 Parts of the Body Affected by MSDs :-

Arms, Hands, Fingers, Back, Wrists, Shoulders, Neck & Legs
1.5.2 Top Ten Occupations for MSDs :-

1. Nurse‟s aides ,orderlies and attendants
2. Truck drivers
3. Laborers not involve in construction work
4. Assemblers
5. Cleaners
6. Students in colleges and schools
7. Stock handlers and baggers
8. Construction laborers
9. Cashiers
10. Carpenters
BE (MECHANICAL) 12
1.5.3 What can be done to prevent MSDs?

Whether it is to sit upright, lift properly, or take appropriate breaks, everyone can do
something to prevent MSDs. Considering the following concepts will supplement the
efforts to improve work place design and practice. These are common ergonomic
principles and can be easily adapted to all organizations, schools and colleges also:-
1. Maintain a neutral posture :-
The neutral posture represents the natural stance the body wants to take. Work surfaces
should be about waist level to prevent reaching, while keeping the elbows bent at about
90-degree angle. While seated, keep the back straight and the knees bent at about a 90-
degree angle and feet flat on the floor. Design work station and offices with this is
mind: “the closer the body is kept too neutral, the better.”
2. Prevent excessive repetition :-
One of the major causes of MSDs, Such as carpal tunnel and tendonitis, is excessive
repetition. There are several ways to prevent excessive repetition while working. If
possible, try not to perform the same task all day. Work on some files, then go and file
them in the cabinet after 20 or 30 minutes instead of waiting until the end of the day to
file them all at once. Try varying your routine. If you always perform the same task
every day, try completing them in a different sequence.
3. Adjust work surfaces :-
Adjustable work surfaces are the best option if possible. This allows many different
people to work at the same work station (i.e., warehouses, assembly lines).
4. Control environmental factors :-
Extremes in temperature, hot or cold, put a stress on the body. Employees working in
these environments should be given the proper personal protective equipment and
trained on its usage.
5. Take time to recover :-
Recovery is an important part of preventing MSDs. One way to give the body some
recovery time is to take break while working.
6. Understand the risk factors :-
The last but important step finding problems before they become issues. Some of the
known risk factors, as discussed earlier, are excessive vibration, a repetitive motion,
awkward postures, extreme temperature, heavy lifting, and over exertion of force.
Once you understand what the risk factors are, it will be easier to spot them.
BE (MECHANICAL) 13
1.5.4 MSDs table:-
Body Parts Symptoms Possible Occupants Disease Name

Affected Causes Affected
Thumbs pain at the base of twisting and butchers, De

thumbs gripping housekeepers, Quervain‟s
Packers, Disease
seamstresses,
Cutters.
Fingers difficulty moving repeatedly using meatpackers, trigger finger
finger; the index Poultry workers,
snapping and fingers carpenters,
jerking movements electronic
assemblers
Hands, Pain, swelling repetitive or core making, Tenosynovitis

wrists forceful hand poultry processing,
and wrist meat packing
motions
Fingers, hand numbness, exposure to chain saw, Reynaud‟s
tingling; ashen vibration pneumatic syndrome
skin; loss of hammers, and (white finger)
feeling and control gasoline powered
tool operators
Shoulders Pain, stiffness working with power press rotator cuff
the hands above operators, Welders, tendinitis
the heads and painters & students
put hands on
table for long
time
Fingers, wrist tingling, repetitive and Meat and poultry Carpal tunnel
numbness, severe forceful manual and garment syndrome
pain; loss of task without workers,
strength, sensation time to recover upholsterers,
in the thumbs, assemblers, VDT
index, operators, cashiers
or
middle or half of
the ring fingers
Back low back pain, whole body Truck and bus back disability
shooting pain vibration drivers, tractor and
subway operator
Table:-1.1 MSD’s
BE (MECHANICAL) 14
1.6 METHODS OF ERGONOMICS STUDY

These are a representative spread of methods that are currently being used to
evaluate human–machine performance and that they were appropriate for the analysis
of devices. Methods selected for analysis with a brief explanation of each were as
follows :
 Heuristics
 Checklists
 Observation
 Interviews
 Questionnaires
 Link analysis
 Layout analysis
Heuristics: Heuristics require the analyst to use their judgments, intuition and experience
to guide them on product evaluation. This method is wholly subjective and the output is
likely to be extremely variable. In favour of the heuristic approach is the ease and speed
with which it may be applied. Several techniques incorporate the heuristic approach
(e.g., checklists, guidelines, SHERPA) but serve to structure heuristic judgments.
Checklists: Checklists and guidelines are a useful aide memoire, to make sure that the full
range of ergonomics issues has been considered. However, the approach may suffer
from a problem of situational sensitivity, i.e., the discrimination of an appropriate item
from a no appropriate item largely depends upon the expertise of the analyst.
Nevertheless, checklists offer a quick and relatively easy method for device evaluation.
Observation: Observation is perhaps the most obvious way of collecting information
about a person‟s interaction with a device; watching and recording the interaction will
undoubtedly inform the analyst of what occurred on the occasion observed.
Observation is also a deceptively simple method, one simply watches, participates in, or
records the interaction. However, the quality of the observation will largely depend
upon the method of recording and analyzing the data. There are concerns about the
intrusiveness of observation, the amount of effort required in analyzing the data and the
comprehensiveness of the observational method.
BE (MECHANICAL) 15
Interviews:
Like observation, the interview has a high degree of ecological validity
associated with it: if you want to find out what a person thinks of a device, you simply
ask them. Interviewing has many forms, ranging from highly unstructured (free-form
discussion) through focused (a situational interview), to highly structured (an oral
questionnaire). For the purposes of device evaluation, a focused approach would seem
most appropriate. The interview is good at addressing issues beyond direct interaction
with devices, such as the adequacy of manuals and other forms of support. The
strengths of the interview are the flexibility and thoroughness it offers.
Questionnaires:
There are few examples of standardized questionnaires appropriate for the
evaluation of consumer products. However, the software usability scale (SUS) may,
with some minor adaptation, be appropriate. SUS comprises 10 items which relate to
the usability of the device. Originally conceived as a measure of software usability, it
has some evidence of proven success. The distinct advantage of this approach is the
ease with which the measure may be applied. It takes less than a minute to complete the
questionnaire and no training is required.
Link analysis:
Link analysis represents the sequence in which device elements are used in a
given task or scenario. The sequence provides the links between elements of the device
interface. This may be used to determine if the current relationship between device
elements is optimal in terms of the task sequence. Time data recorded on duration of
intentional gaze may also be recorded in order to determine if display elements are laid
out in the most efficient manner. The link data may be used to evaluate a range of
alternatives before the most appropriate arrangement is accepted.
Layout analysis:
Layout analyst is builds on link analysis to consider functional groupings of
device elements. Within functional groupings, elements are sorted according to the
optimum trade-off of three criteria: frequency of use, sequence of use and importance
of element. Both techniques (link and layout analysis) lead to suggested improvements
for interface
Layout.
BE (MECHANICAL) 16
1.6.1 Systems Approach to Ergonomics

Industrial Accident Prevention Association (IAPA) uses a systematic process of
problem solving that defines problems and opportunities in a systems context. Data is
collected using various measuring tools and devices describing the problem and
solutions are identified and evaluated. This approach allows IAPA to consider all
elements of a system, resulting in the best solution being selected and implemented, and
its success evaluated. The advantage of a systematic analysis is that it looks beyond
workstation components and considers all aspects of the environment including job
characteristics, organizational context, technology, and psychosocial variables.
Integration of the entire work environment can promote a safer and more efficient
workplace.
The following data collection methods were used:
 Informal interviews
 Physical measurements
 Direct observation
Off-site, the data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively, using guidelines and
methods such as:
 Anthropometrics Tables (measurement of the population)
1.6.2 Physical Measures
Physical measurements including heights, distances, dimensions, weights,
forces, duration, and repetition were taken during this analysis. Measurement
equipment included:
 Standard tape measure (heights, dimensions, distances)
 Force gauge dynamometer (weights and forces)
 Wristwatch (duration)
All measurements were recorded and reported as listed below:
 Distance, height and dimensions recorded in centimeters (cm)
 Force and weight recorded in kilograms (kg)
 Times recorded in seconds (sec), minutes (min), and hours (hr.)
BE (MECHANICAL) 17
1.6.3 Analysis tools

Recommended ergonomic assessment tools:
The Ergonomic Tools toolbar includes following analysis:
 CATIA
 ANSYS
 RULA analysis
 MAGNITUDE (Human performance & analysis)
 JACK (Human modeling & simulation)
 SAFEWORK (Virtual human modeling)
 PEOPLE SIZE (Anthropometry software)
 Lift/Lower analysis
 Push/Pull analysis
 Carry analysis
 Biomechanics Single Action Analysis
 Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA)
 Snook Tables
 Hand-Arm Vibration (HAV) Exposure Assessment
BE (MECHANICAL) 18
CHAPTER 2
CRITERIA IDENTIFICATION
BE (MECHANICAL) 19
2.1 RAPID UPPER LIMB ASSESSMENT (RULA)

2.1.1 Introduction:
In this chapter we will see the RULA evaluation method studied from
literature.
RULA method was developed at the University of Nottingham in 1993
(Institute for Occupational Ergonomics) in order to evaluate workers exposition to risk
factors which may cause disorders in the body parts subjected to tension.
Rapid Upper Limb Assessment is a survey method developed for use in
ergonomic investigations of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are
reported. RULA is a screening tool that assesses biomechanical and postural loading on
the whole body with particular attention to the neck, trunk and upper limbs. A RULA
assessment scoring generates an action list which indicated the level of intervention
required to reduce the risks of injury due to physical loading on the operator.
There are tables for the manual application of the RULA method, but in this
case we will do it through the CATIA program in its ergonomic analysis module, which
will provide us with the results of the studied positions with the modelled figures with
the proposed percentiles, and all this around the stall modelled with the data obtained
from reality.
2.1.2 RULA evaluation method:
RULA evaluates concrete positions; those implying a greater postural weight
must be evaluated. The method application begins with the observation of the worker‟s
activity for several working cycles. From this observation we must select the most
significant tasks and positions, either for its length, or for presenting beforehand a
greater postural weight. These will be the positions evaluated.
RULA divides the body into two groups:
Group A, including upper limbs (arms, forearms and wrists).
Group B, covering the legs, the trunk and the neck.
BE (MECHANICAL) 20
Image 2.1 RULA assessment worksheet

2.1.3 The RULA Analysis dialog box appears
- Side, Parameters, Score
Side-
In all cases the person must be studied from both sides of the body, that is, from the left
and from the right.
Parameters-
Posture
Three types of postures are predetermined:
Static, Intermittent, Repeated
Select the one that best describes the worker's situation.
BE (MECHANICAL) 21
Repeat Frequency-
This parameter is used to determine the task frequency. Two choices are available:
Fewer than 4 times per minute.
More than 4 times per minute.
Arm supported/Person Leaning
Arms are working across midline
Check balance
Select one or more of these options to provide additional information that may affect
the output of the RULA analysis.
Load-
Use this field to specify the weight of the manipulated object. Click the arrows to
increase or decrease the weight or use the keyboard to directly type a value into this
field.
Score-
Image 2.2 Score meaning with color

2.1.4 Basic mode
The data displayed in this mode is the final score accompanied by a colored zone. The
color of this zone changes from green to red according to the final score.
The RULA analysis examines the following risk factors: number of movements, static
muscle work, force, working posture, and time worked without a break. All these
factors combine to provide a final score that ranges from 1 to 7.
1 and 2: (Green) Indicates that the posture is acceptable if it is not maintained or
repeated for long periods of time.
3 and 4: (Yellow) Indicates that further investigation is needed and changes may be
BE (MECHANICAL) 22
required.
5 and 6: (Orange) Indicates that investigation and changes are required soon.
7: (Red) Indicates that investigation and changes are required immediately.
Use the More button to switch from the basic mode to the advanced mode.
Image 2.3 Basic score mode

2.1.5 Advanced mode
The data displayed in the basic mode is also displayed in the advanced mode. The
advanced mode, in addition, also displays the intermediate scores. Some of these scores
are obtained by subjective values. In the basic mode, these values are automatically set
to default; in the advanced mode you can change these values. The score will then be
modified to reflect these new values.
Image 2.4 Advanced score mode
BE (MECHANICAL) 23
2.2 Anthropometry:-
Anthropometry may be defined as the measurement of human beings. Factors
which affect anthropometric measurements include gender differences, ethnic
differences, growth and development, secular trend, ageing, social class and
occupation, and clothing and personal equipment. Anthropometric surveys have been
conducted and published on various populations. These days the most referred source
book is an international text for the International Labour Office by Jurgens et al.[1] in
1990.
This text has compiled a comprehensive anthropometric database. In different
parts of the world the workforce is different and diversified; therefore, it is important to
design the workplace based on the anthropometry of the users. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are
anthropometric measures adapted from Pheasant[2] of US and Japanese adults. The 5th
percentile male is known as the small male, the 50th percentile male is known as the
average male, and the 95th percentile male is known as the large male. Similarly, the
5th percentile female is known as the small female, the 50th percentile female is known
as the average female, and the 95th percentile female is known as the large female. The
smallest value of a measurement is usually associated with the 5th percentile female,
and the largest value of a measurement is usually associated with the 95th percentile
male.
As an example, the anthropometric measures of two populations are presented
to show the differences in some anthropometric measurements. The designer needs to
know the worker population and then use the appropriate anthropometric table in the
design process. If the workers were from both the US and Japanese populations then it
would be appropriate to use both these Tables in the proper ergonomic design of the
workplace instead of using just one Table. In ergonomic design, one can use
anthropometric data in three different ways. The first is designing for a range
(designing for the smallest to the largest, usually from the 5th percentile to the 95th
percentile), an example being the design of adjustable height chairs based on popliteal
height. The second is designing for the extremes (designing for the smallest or the
largest, usually for the 5th percentile or the 95th percentile), an example being the
design of the doorpost height for the largest person‟s stature (plus ample clearance) and
designing a shelf for the smallest person‟s functional reach. The third and last method is
designing for an average. This method is only acceptable when one is using the
BE (MECHANICAL) 24
workplace for a very short duration. This method is usually avoided by an ergonomist
as it does not accommodate a large segment of the user population. An example is
designing worksurface heights in a bank for customers‟ elbow height.
Male Female
Percentile Percentile
Dimension 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th
Stature 1640 1755 1870 1520 1625 1730
Eye height 1595 1710 1825 1420 1528 1630
Shoulder height 1330 1440 1550 1225 1325 1425
Elbow height 1020 1105 1190 945 1020 1095
Hip height 835 915 995 760 835 910
Sitting height 855 915 975 800 860 920
Sitting eye height 740 800 860 690 750 810
Sitting elbow height 195 245 295 185 235 285
Thigh thickness 135 160 185 125 155 185
Buttock-knee length 550 600 650 525 575 625
Buttock-popliteal 445 500 555 440 490 540
Knee height 495 550 605 460 505 550
Popliteal height 395 445 495 360 405 450
Shoulder breadth 425 470 515 360 400 440
Hip breadth 310 360 410 310 375 440
Elbow span 875 955 1035 790 860 930
Vertical reach (stand) 1950 2080 2210 1805 1925 2045
Vertical reach (sit) 1155 1255 1355 1070 1160 1250
Table 2.1 Anthropometric measures (in mm) for US adults
BE (MECHANICAL) 25
Male Female
Percentile Percentile
Dimension 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th
Stature 1560 1655 1750 1450 1530 1610
Eye height 1445 1540 1635 1350 1425 1500
Shoulder height 1250 1340 1430 1075 1145 1215
Elbow height 965 1035 1105 895 955 1015
Hip height 765 830 895 700 755 810
Sitting height 850 900 950 800 845 890
Sitting eye height 735 785 835 690 735 780
Sitting elbow height 220 260 300 215 250 285
Thigh thickness 110 135 160 105 130 155
Buttock-knee length 500 550 600 485 530 575
Buttock-popliteal 410 470 510 405 450 495
Knee height 450 490 530 420 450 480
Popliteal height 360 400 440 325 360 395
Shoulder breadth 405 440 475 365 395 425
Hip breadth 280 305 330 270 305 340
Elbow span 790 870 950 715 780 845
Vertical reach (stand) 1805 1940 2075 1680 1795 1910
Vertical reach (sit) 1105 1185 1265 1030 1095 1160
Table 2.2 Anthropometric measures (in mm) for Japanese adults
Seating
The main two objectives of ergonomic seating in the workplace are:
1) increase individual efficiency and reduce fatigue;
2) Facilitate proper posture.
BE (MECHANICAL) 26
The advantages of sitting over standing include the following:

 Sitting requires less muscular activity, delaying fatigue. An individual can sit
for approximately one hour but stand for approximately only half an hour before
fatigue sets in.
 Sitting has more stability, which is needed for precision or fine tasks.
 A worker can operate a foot control more easily while maintaining a good
posture.
The factors most often emphasized when purchasing or selecting chairs are cost and
appearance. The factors that should be considered in the design and selection of chairs
include:
1. Ergonomic factors:
 anthropometry of the users;
 comfort of the users (not the buyer).
2. Adjustability factors:
 range of adjustability of the user;
 ease of adjustability (e.g. labelled, colour-coded controls).
3. Economic factors:
 initial cost of the chair;
 maintenance of the chair;
 life of the chair.
4. Safety factors:
 tipping;
 gliding;
 other.
5. Other factors:
 swivel mechanism to reduce/eliminate awkward postures of the body;
 armrest (adjustable height and width);
 castors;
 weight.
BE (MECHANICAL) 27
2.2.1 Determination of the workstation dimensions

An industrial workstation design objective is to ensure that the majority of the
population of the intended user group can be accommodated comfortably, without any
harmful posture. For the physical design of industrial workstations, the four essential
design dimensions are:
1) work height,
2) normal and maximum reaches,
3) lateral clearance and
4) angle of vision and eye height.
An engineering/structural anthropometry approach is used in determining the
workstation dimensions. The relevant ergonomic principles and the determination of
the above dimensions are discussed in the following sections.
Work height User compatability can be improved by incorporating provision

of adjustment in seat or work table or bench height in the workstation design. Height of
the working surface should maintain a definite relationship with the operator‟s elbow
height, depending upon the type of work. The standing work heights for the 5th, 50th
and 95th percentile female operators for performing different types of work for US
population are presented in Table 2.3. The table provides guidelines especially for the
design of delicate, manual and forceful work. Similar data for males can be obtained
from Ayoub (1973) and Das and Grady (1983a).
Type of work Population percentile

5th 50th 95th
Delicate work with close visual requirement 99-104 110-115 116-121
Manual work 84-89 90-95 96-101
Forceful work aided by upper body weight 59-84 65-90 71-96
Table 2.3 Standing work surface height for female operators in cm
BE (MECHANICAL) 28
Population Arm length Shoulder Elbow height Maximum

percentile (K) height (E) (L) reach (R)
5th 60 128 99 53
50th 66 138 105 58
95th 72 147 111 63
Table 2.4 Anthropometric measures for females and maximum reach in cm
Normal and maximum reaches The normal reach is defined by the tip of the
thumb while the forearm moves in a circular motion on the table surface. During this
motion, the upper arm is kept in a relaxed downward position. The „maximum‟ reach
can be considered as the boundary on the work surface in front of an operator to which
he/she can reach without flexing his/her torso. Note this is not the true maximum, as in
practice, the back can be flexed, especially during standing work. For performing
repetitive tasks, the hand movement should preferably be confined within the normal
working area. The controls and items of occasional use may be placed beyond the
normal working area. Nevertheless, they should be placed within the maximum
working area. From a biomechanical viewpoint, an unsupported, stretched out hand will
induce greater muscle activity at the shoulder and also cause additional stress in the
lumbar disc. Reaching beyond the maximum working area will cause the torso to be
flexed. A repetition of such posture may lead eventually to lower back pain. The
concept of normal and maximum working areas (Das and Grady, 1983b; Das and
Behara, 1995) describes the working area in front of the worker in a horizontal plane at
the elbow level; the areas are expressed in the form of mathematical models. The most
frequently used area of the workstation preferably should be within the normal reach of
the operator. The reach requirements should not exceed the maximum reach limit, to
avoid leaning forward and bad posture. The maximum working area at the elbow level
is determined from the data provided in Table 2.4. R is the radius formed by the
extended hand, while moving over the working surface centered at the shoulder joint.
The radius R can be determined by using the formula:
R=√
BE (MECHANICAL) 29
where:
R= extended arm radius, cm
K = arm length, cm
E = shoulder height cm, and
L = elbow height, cm.
Table 2.4 shows the adjusted anthropometric measurements for the arm length
(K), shoulder height (E), elbow height (L) which are used to calculate arm radii (R) for
the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles for females.
Lateral clearance
The range of height adjustment, thigh clearance between the seat and the
bottom of the working surface, and the foot rest height for a seated operator can be
calculated from the anthropometric dimensions of seated elbow height, seat height and
thigh thickness. A common approach is to design the reach requirements of the
workstation corresponding to the measurements of the 5th percentile of the
representative group and the clearance corresponding to the 95th percentile
measurements, in order to make the workstation compatible for both small and large
persons. The minimum lateral clearances at waist level are determined by adding 5 cm
on both sides or 10 cm to hip breadth (standing). For determining the clearance at
elbow level, Squires (1956) concept of the normal horizontal working area is used. The
concept postulates that in describing the area, the elbow moves out away (half of body
depth) from the body, in a circular path, as the forearm sweeps. Considering the elbow
to elbow distance and the sweep of both the elbows within the normal horizontal
working area and adding 5 cm on both sides, minimum lateral clearance at elbow level
is determined. The values for lateral clearances are shown in Table 2.5.
Population Hip breadth Elbow to elbow Body Depth Clearance at Clearance at

percentile (W) (H) (G) waist level elbow level
C1 = W+10 C2 = H+G+10
5th 40 36 22 50 68
50th 45 38 25 55 73
95th 52 44 28 62 81
Table 2.5 Anthropometric measurement for females for lateral clearance in cm
BE (MECHANICAL) 30
Angle of vision and eye height

Kroemer and Hill (1986) found, for seated operators with head and trunk
upright, the preferred line of sight is 29” below the horizontal plane or eye level, with a
standard deviation of 12”. The results suggest that operators prefer a downward gaze
for viewing displays. Das and Grady (1983a; 1983b) have provided the eye height for
the standing female operators: 143.6 cm for 5th percentile, 153.5 cm for 50th percentile
and 163.4 cm for 95th percentile. In determining the dimensions, the necessary
corrections are made for the normal slump working posture and shoes. For males,
similar eye height data can be obtained from the source stated above. Using
trigonometry, the angle of sight can be calculated from the horizontal distance of the
display from the operator‟s eye position. These parameters form the basis of ensuring
human- machine fit of a workstation design for the users. The actual process of laying
out the various components of the workstation and accommodating them within the
available space also depends on the ingenuity or skill of the designer. Nevertheless, the
above factors direct the designers‟ attention towards the ergonomic requirements in
workstation design, and form the basis of compromise in the layout design. The posture
of the operators is determined largely by the geometric relationship between the length
of the appropriate body segments, body position and the layout of the various controls
and displays in the workstation. Other than the segment lengths of the human body, the
interference of the workstation elements with the body segments, and the visual
requirements of the hand precision task also dictate the posture. The operator may be
required to adopt a specific viewing direction to avoid a reflecting glare from a monitor.
In precision work, such as in data entry, the requirement of visual acuity and precision
also imposes constrained posture (Hunting et al, 1980). For applications where the
operator has to assume a posture other than sitting in a horizontal seat or standing, use
of stick figure models with variable stature is a convenient alternative to analyze the
layout of the machine components. Wisener and Rebiffe (1963) have described in detail
how such stick figure models can be utilized to represent 5th and 95th percentile
operators geometrically. Presently, several computer aided design (CAD) packages
with human modeling capability are available to visually develop a three dimensional
model of the workstation and the users (Das and Sengupta, 1995).
BE (MECHANICAL) 31
2.2.2 Anthropometric Measurements

The following table provides the anthropometric measurements of different
parameters with accuracy 98% relating to five workers of Maharashtra, (MSRTC,
Solapur) Indian mean that are to be used in creating the manikin using CATIA V5R19
software.
Sr. Parameters Subject No.
No.
(in cm except weight & year) W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 Mean
1 Weight (Kg) 64 52 65 70 60 62.2

2 Stature 165 163 168 165 153 162.8
3 Eye Height 153 154 157 154 143 152.2
4 Acrominal Height 139 140 142 141 135 139.4
5 Axilla Height 122 121 125 120 128 123.2
6 Chest Height 119 118 120 115 124 119.2
7 Tenth Rib Height 108 107 110 102 110 107.4
8 Iliocristale Height 98 97 101 99 99 98.8
9 Waist Height 101 102 105 104 97 101.8
10 Olecranon Height 103 105 107 108 98 104.2
11 Elbow height 105 107 108 110 102 106.4
12 Crotch Height 77 72 78 80 75 76.4
13 Knee Height 47 45 50 46 47 47
14 Chest Breadth 25.8 24.6 25.7 27.8 26.3 26.04
15 Hip Breadth 28.5 27.8 28.2 27.9 26.2 27.72
16 Hand Length 17.5 18.4 19.2 20.3 19.5 18.98
17 Palm Length 10.4 10.8 10.2 11.2 10.3 10.58
Hand Breadth
18 7.5 8.2 7.4 7.6 8.2 7.78
(At Metacarpal-III)
19 Grip Diameter(Inside) 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.2 4.3
20 Grip Diameter (Outside) 5.9 5.6 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.4
21 Foot Length 23.5 22.4 22.2 24.2 23.3 23.12

22 Foot Breadth 9.2 9.4 9.2 9.5 8.9 9.24
23 Age (years) 33 37 23 31 27 30.2
Table 2.6 Anthropometric Data Analysis Sheet
BE (MECHANICAL) 32
CHAPTER 3
MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT BY USING
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
BE (MECHANICAL) 33
3.1 An ergonomics approach to designing a workstation: A case problem
3.1.1 Modelling and Ergonomic Analysis of Existing Maintenance Workstation

Results of RULA analysis are obtained using CATIA V5R19 software. From
the video or photographs of maintenance workstation, posture is designed using the
ergonomics module in CATIA V5R19 software. RULA analysis of work-related
disorders in MSRTC, Solapur workshop using Digital Human Modelling (DHM) in
CATIA V5R19 software is performed.
This study was conducted at MSRTC, Solapur workshop Solapur District. The
chosen workstation for the present study is from the maintenance department. A simple
subjective rating form was given to the subject to evaluate the postural discomfort
experienced. Also, the subject was asked to conduct his working cycle as usual and the
process was recorded through a video recorder. Several postures of the worker from the
working cycle are chosen and replicated into a manikin in the CATIA V5R19 software.
Later, the RULA analysis was performed on the manikin with exact replication to
assess the subject‟s posture level of discomfort (Mali, 2015). The maintenance process
involving some of the complicated postures of the worker was identified and designed
using CATIA V5R19 software for ergonomic analysis. The manikin was created using
the anthropometric measurements that have been taken.
To select a critical posture among the activities carried out in the process of
maintenance, RULA analysis has been carried out for the four posture as shown in
figure 1. The results are presented in table 3, which tells us that the posture (d) is
critical posture among the other posture as the score of posture is 7. (Note: score is less
posture is ergonomically good, score is more posture is ergonomically not good).
BE (MECHANICAL) 34
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
Image 3. 1 picutre of postures A,B,C & D while maintenance process in going on.
(a) (b)
BE (MECHANICAL) 35
(c) (d)
Image 3.2 Mainkin modeling with job for posture a, b, c and d.
RULA analysis Score

Type of Loadings
Posture Static Intermitted Repeated
Left Left Right Left
Right hand Right hand
hand hand hand hand
a 7 6 6 5 7 6
b 7 7 7 6 7 7
c 7 7 7 6 7 7
d 7 7 7 7 7 7
Table 3.1. RULA analysis result of posture a, b, c and d.
BE (MECHANICAL) 36
Image 3.3. RULA analysis result of Posture (d) for static loading.
Image 3.3 Shows static loading of both hand of manikin and corresponding
posture score 7 and colour is red. This means posture should Investigation and changes
are needed immediately. The stressful parts are Trunk, neck and leg.
Image 3.4 RULA analysis result of Posture (d) for Intermittent loading.
Image 3.4 Shows Intermittent loading of both hands of manikin and

corresponding posture score 7 and colour is red. This means posture should
Investigation and changes are needed immediately. The stressful parts are Trunk, neck,
and leg.
BE (MECHANICAL) 37
Image 3. 5 RULA analysis result of Posture (d) for Repeated loading.

Image 3.5 Shows Repeated loading of both hands of manikin and
corresponding posture score 7 and color is red. This means posture should Investigation
and changes are needed immediately. The stressful parts are Trunk, neck and leg.
From above RULA analysis for different condition gives the Average score of
existing workstation as a 7 which means Further investigation is required and changes
may also be required. As there is no proper maintenance workstation is available for the
maintenance person, so it is advised that maintenance person should have a
maintenance workstation designed with the consideration of agronomical principals, so
we tried to the same and presented in this study as follows.
BE (MECHANICAL) 38
3.1.2 Modelling and Ergonomic Analysis of Modified Maintenance Workstation

A number of references in order to ensure workers comfort & safety are
possible. Repetitive work can affect the workers‟ health even though the load is small.
The workstation renovation also can ensure a good and comfortable working
environment by modifying a systematic ergonomically designed maintenance
workstation. It is recommended that modifying as shown in Image 3.6 can be used to
make workers postures safe. This construction of platform allows the worker to do the
work with minimum expenditure of energy. The excessive stress on neck, trunk,
forearm, leg etc. is reduced considerably which allow efficient working of worker for
large duration. Further health hazards of workers can be avoided. This will
automatically increase the productivity, and reduce MSD and prevent injuries of worker
along with enhancing productivity.
Image 3.6 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture.
BE (MECHANICAL) 39
Image 3.7 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture for static loading.
Image 3.7 Shows Static loading on Both hands of manikin and corresponding
posture score 3 and colour is Yellow. Further investigation is required and changes may
also be required. The Trunk, neck and leg parts are in Yellow colour it menaces stresses
are optimum.
Image 3.8 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture for Intermitted loading.
Image 3.8 Shows Intermitted loading on Both hands of manikin and

corresponding posture score 3 and colour is Yellow. Further investigation is required
and changes may also be required. The Trunk, neck and leg parts are in Yellow colour
it manes stresses are optimum
BE (MECHANICAL) 40
Image 3.9 RULA analysis result of Modified Posture for repeated loading.
Image 3.9 Shows repeated loading on both hands of manikin and

corresponding posture score 3.66 and colour is Yellow. Further investigation is required
and changes may also be required.
According to RULA analysis the percentage score reduction comparing existing

workstation with redesigned workstation is given below.
BE (MECHANICAL) 41
CHAPTER 4
PROPOSED WORK
BE (MECHANICAL) 42
PROPOSED WORK :-
 From above literature review I found that there are many discomfort positions occurs
at the time of working on crown wheel & pinion workstation.
 There for there is a vast scope for analysis of crown wheel & pinion workstation for
human comfort.
 For this purpose I am going to design crown wheel & pinion workstation in CATIA
software.
 First study will be done on different operating positions of worker.
 By studying above parameters we can analyze the comfortable position required for
effective work.
 For above analysis we will use RULA tool which will give the comfort position
result.
BE (MECHANICAL) 43
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
BE (MECHANICAL) 44
CONCLUSION:-
The main objective of this research work was to identify the virtuous and depraved
work postures of the worker working in a selected MSRTC, Solapur as well as to
analyse the status of selected work postures in RULA analysis grand score. The
following conclusions were drawn from study.
 Performance of worker at workstation for finishing task has a significant effect on

productivity. Hence, a systematic ergonomically modified workstation plays an
important role in any maintenance workstation.
 The RULA analysis for existing maintenance workstation shows the overall score
7, hence their Investigation and changes are needed immediately.
 The RULA analysis for redesigned workstation shows the overall Avg. score 3.66
i.e. near about 47.628 % of reduction in RULA score was observed as compared
to existing workstation.
 Modified workstation reveals more comfort than existing workstation. This

increases efficiency of worker along with productivity.
 Thus the ergonomics study is very important to enhance the performance, reduce
MSD as well as potential accidents and health problems.
 Based on the analysis that has been done, it can be concluded that it is possible to
increases comfort, efficiency of workers and productivity of maintenance industry
with the use of a systematic ergonomically designed workstation.
BE (MECHANICAL) 45
REFERENCES
[1] Štefan VÁCLAV, Katarína SENDERSKÁ, Albert MAREŠ “design of manual
assembly worstations in catia” 2008.
[2] Peter Vinka, Ernst A.P. Koningsveld, Johan F. Molenbroeka “Positive outcomes of
participatory ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity” Applied
Ergonomics 37 (2006) 537–546.
[3] Jean-Claude Sagot, Valerie Gouin, Samuel Gomes, “Ergonomics in product design :
safety factor”, safety science 41 (2003) 137-154.
[4] N. Jaffar, A. H. Abdul-Tharim, I. F. Mohd-Kamar, N. S. Lop “A Literature Review of
Ergonomics Risk Factors in Construction Industry”, Procedia Engineering 20 (2011) 89 – 97.
[5] McAtamney, L. and Corlett, E.N. “Rula – a survey method for the investigation work
related upper limb disorders” Applied Ergonomics 1993, 24(2), 91-99.
[6] John R. Wilson” Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice” Applied
Ergonomics 31 (2000) 557}567.
[7] Chong Chen, Ying Liu, Xianfang Sun, Carla Di Cairano-Gilfedder, Scott Titmus
“Automobile Maintenance Prediction Using Deep Learning with GIS Data”
[8] G. C. David “Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related
musculoskeletal disorders” Occupational Medicine 2005;55:190–199
[9] Jeffrey E. Fernandez “Ergonomics in the workplace”
[10] M Kolich & SM Taboun “Ergonomics modelling and evaluation of automobile seat
comfort” (2004)
[11] Biman Das’ and Arijit K. Sengupta “Industrial workstation design: A systematic
ergonomics approach” Applied Er,gonomics Vol 27, No. 3. PP. 157-163. IY96
[12] R. Arun Prakash, B.S.Arun, Nithin Narayanan, V.Yeshwanth “Design of workplace

for the assembly of monoblock pump” eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
[13] K. Sengupta, B. Das, (1997), Human: An Autocad based three dimensional

anthropometric human model for workstation design, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 19, pp. 345-352.
BE (MECHANICAL) 46
[14] Shikdar, O. I. Garbie, M. R. Khan Khadem, (2011), Development of a Smart

Workstation for an Assembly Task, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur.
[15] Hu, B., Ma, L., Zhang, W., Salvendy, G., Chablat, D., & Bennis, F, “Predicting real
world ergonomic measurements by simulation in a virtual environment. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics”, vol.41, pp. 64–71, 2011.
[16] De Magistris, G., Micaelli, A., Evrard, P., Andriot, C., Savin, J., Gaudez, C., &
Marsot, J, “Dynamic control of DHM for ergonomic assessments”, International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, vol.43, pp.170–180, 2013
[17] M Aptel,., Aublet-Cuvelier, Cnockaert, J.C., “Workrelated musculoskeletal disorders

of the upper limb”, Joint Bone Spine, vol.69, pp.546-555, 2002.
[18] L. Punnett, Wegman, D.H., “Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the

epidemiologic evidence and the debate”, J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. Vol.14, pp. 13-23, 2004.
[19] R. T. Vyavahare and S. P. Kallurkar, “Ergonomic Evaluation of Maize Sheller cum

Dehusker”, International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, vol.5, pp.1881-
1886, 2015.
[20] S. C. Mali and R. T. Vyavahare, “An Ergonomic Evaluation of an Industrial

Workstation: A Review”, International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology,
vol.5, pp. 1820-1826, 2015.
BE (MECHANICAL) 47
CHAPTER NO 6
APPENDIX
BE (MECHANICAL) 48
6.1 Anthropometric Data Collection Sheet for 5 workers
Worker 1
BE (MECHANICAL) 49
Worker 2
BE (MECHANICAL) 50
Worker 3
BE (MECHANICAL) 51
Worker 4
BE (MECHANICAL) 52
Worker 5
BE (MECHANICAL) 53
6.2 Photos for Taking the Anthropometric Measurement of worker
Image 1
Image 2
BE (MECHANICAL) 54
Photos for Taking the Anthropometric Measurement of worker
Image 3 Image 4
BE (MECHANICAL) 55
6.3 Group Photo

For visit the S.T Workshop, Solapur
BE (MECHANICAL) 56

Group - 11 - AN ERGONOMIC EVOLUTION OF MAINTENANCE WORKSTATION

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group - 11 - AN ERGONOMIC EVOLUTION OF MAINTENANCE WORKSTATION

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PUNYASHLOK AHILYADEVI HOLKAR

1) Mr.Koli Sushant Rajendra

2) Mr.Kadam Sagar Balasaheb

3) Mr.Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj

4) Mr.Jadhav Sahashikant Tukaram

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

2) Mr.Kadam Sagar Balasaheb

3) Mr.Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj

4) Mr.Jadhav Sahashikant Tukaram

for the partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering represents their

(Prof. A.P.Gaikwad ) (Prof. Dr. B. S. Gandhare) (Prof. Dr. S. S. Kulkarni)

(Prof. Dr. K. J. Karande)

It is my pleasure to get this opportunity to thank my beloved and respected

1) Mr.Koli Sushant Rajendra (PRN No. 2017032500252321)

2) Mr.Kadam Sagar Balasaheb (PRN No. 2016032500220763)

3) Mr.Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj (PRN No. 2017032500250384)

4) Mr.Jadhav Sahashikant Tukaram (PRN No. 2016032500220821)

(Students of B.E Mechanical)

Place: Korti, Pandharpur.

Koli Sushant Rajendra (Roll no. 29)

Kadam Sagar Balasaheb (Roll no. 20)

Babalad Bhimashankar Basawaraj (Roll no. 03)

Jadhav Shashikant Tukaram (Roll no. 18)

Sr.No. Contents Page No.

2.2.2 Anthropometric Measurements 32

3 Maintenance Performance Measurement Using Regression Analysis 33

Sr.No Contents Page No.

Sr.No Contents Page No.

Sr.No Contents Page No.

1.1 INTRODUCTION TO ERGONOMICS:-

1.1.1 Definitions of ergonomics:

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Štefan VÁCLAV, Katarína SENDERSKÁ, Albert MAREŠ (2008) [5] has

Peter Vinka, Ernst A.P. Koningsveldb, Johan F. Molenbroeka (2006) [9]

Mahatme, et al. (2014) provided detailed ergonomic analysis and workstation

1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

• Results & Conclusion

Figure 1.1: Flow chart of Research Methodology

1.4 NEED FOR THE STUDY

1.4.2 Implementation of ergonomics to workplace:

1.4.3 Ergonomic principles in workplace design

Some ergonomics principles that should be applied to the workplace, whether it be an

1.5 MSD’s (Musculoskeletal disorders):-

MSD‟s or musculoskeletal disorders are injuries and disorders of the soft

1.5.1 Parts of the Body Affected by MSDs :-

1.5.2 Top Ten Occupations for MSDs :-

1.5.3 What can be done to prevent MSDs?

1.5.4 MSDs table:-

Body Parts Symptoms Possible Occupants Disease Name

Thumbs pain at the base of twisting and butchers, De

Hands, Pain, swelling repetitive or core making, Tenosynovitis

1.6 METHODS OF ERGONOMICS STUDY

1.6.1 Systems Approach to Ergonomics

1.6.3 Analysis tools

2.1 RAPID UPPER LIMB ASSESSMENT (RULA)

Image 2.1 RULA assessment worksheet

Image 2.2 Score meaning with color

Image 2.3 Basic score mode

Image 2.4 Advanced score mode

Table 2.1 Anthropometric measures (in mm) for US adults

Table 2.2 Anthropometric measures (in mm) for Japanese adults

The advantages of sitting over standing include the following:

2.2.1 Determination of the workstation dimensions