Simulation and Ergonomic Evaluation of Welders’ Standing Posture Using Jack Software
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Methods
2.1. Digital Human Body Modeling
2.2. Welding Environment Setting
- (1)
- the different percentiles of Chinese localized welder’s body size, as shown in Table 1 (the body size parameters are based on the Asian human body database in the Jack software, with reference to GB10000-88 Chinese Adult Body Size and GB/T13547-92 Workspace Human Body Size in anthropometric data), were used to create a Chinese localized welder body model;
- (2)
- the welding torch model was introduced into the working environment, as shown in Figure 1. According to the welding torch positioning technology, the program written on the Jack Script secondary development platform was used to achieve the fit of the welding torch, the palm, and the solder joint;
- (3)
- after the fit was completed, the human body control window was used to adjust the static posture of the person, including the hand, arm, shoulder posture, etc. The palm shafts of both hands add the weight and load of the welding torch to the hand of the model; and,
- (4)
- the static posture was sequence-adjusted, spliced into dynamic behavior, a welding operation animation was created for the welding process, and the animation was classified into three motion modules. Data were collected for LBA, CA, OWAS, and RULA while completing the experimental animation.
2.3. Welding Torch Weight Setting
- Lower back pressureThe lower back pressure mainly indicates the force of the L5/L4 lumbar vertebrae [15]. In this study, the lower back pressure values were collected during the execution of the three welding action modules and compared with the database of The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to determine whether each value was within the controllable range. According to the NIOSH database, a lower back disorder might occur when the lower back pressure exceeds 3400 N [16]. The higher the value, the greater the possibility and severity of lower back injury [17].
- Comfort valueComfort indicates the degree of hazard that is caused by a particular behavior and provides an optimized recommendation when the welder lifts the torch. The comfort assessment kit based on the Porter1998 database provides a corresponding human posture comfort rating. The relevant parameters of the virtual welding work were collected and converted into comfort values while using Formula (1). The best comfort value is 0, the comfort value is acceptable within 0–1, more than 1 needs to be improved, the higher the value, the lower the comfort [18].CV: converted comfort value;MD: mode value;OV: original value;HV: highest value; and,LV: lowest value.
- Ovako Working Posture Analysis systemThe Ovako Working posture Analysis system can evaluate the ease of stretching of the back, and the upper and lower limbs, and can qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the practicality of the posture and the possibility of suffering from WMSDs [19]. It is possible to identify a posture that is harmful to the worker’s body and reduce the fatigue of the worker while using this analysis [20].
2.4. Upper Limb Posture Setting
2.5. Neck Posture Setting
3. Results
3.1. Welding Torch Weight
3.1.1. Lower Back Assessment (LBA)
3.1.2. Comfort Assessment (CA)
3.1.3. Ovako Working Postures Analysis (OWAS)
3.2. Welder Upper Limb Posture
3.2.1. Welder Operating Distance
3.2.2. Welding Torch Height from the Ground
3.3. Welder Neck Posture
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- From the study of the lower back pressure, comfort value, and upper limb force, it is not recommended for welders to use a welding torch weighing more than 6 kg.
- (2)
- When considering the lower back pressure and upper limb force, for males in the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile of body size, the optimal operating distances are 321 mm, 371 mm, and 421 mm, respectively, and the optimal operating heights are 1050 mm, 1100 mm, and 1150 mm, respectively. For females in the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentile of body size, the optimal operating distances are 271 mm, 321 mm, and 371 mm, respectively, and the optimal operating heights are 1000 mm, 1050 mm, and 1100 mm, respectively.
- (3)
- The horizontal angle of rotation of the welder’s neck should not exceed 15° and the vertical angle of rotation should not exceed 8.7°.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Krüger, K.; Petermann, C.; Pilat, C.; Schubert, E.; Pons-Kühnemann, J.; Mooren, F.C. Preventive strength training improves working ergonomics during welding. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2015, 21, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aaras, A.; Westgaard, R.H.; Stranden, E. Postural angles as an indicator of postural load and muscular injury in occupational work situations. Ergonomics 1988, 31, 915–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Phajan, T.; Nilvarangkul, K.; Settheetham, D.; Laohasiriwong, W. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Sugarcane Farmers in North-Eastern Thailand. ASIA Pac. J. Public Health 2014, 26, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cho, C.-Y.; Hwang, Y.-S.; Cherng, R.-J. Musculoskeletal symptoms and associated risk factors among office workers with high workload computer use. J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2012, 35, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekpenyong, C.E.; Inyang, U.C. Associations between worker characteristics, workplace factors, and work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A cross-sectional study of male construction workers in Nigeria. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2014, 20, 447–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebbecca, L.; Feyer, A.M.; Patrick, K.; Philippa, G. A survey of forest workers in New Zealand. Do hours of work, rest, and recovery play a role in accidents and injury? J. Saf. Res. 2002, 33, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, E.; Freivalds, A.; Takeda, F.; Li, C. Ergonomic Evaluation of Current Advancements in Blueberry Harvesting. Agronomy 2018, 8, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, E.Y.L.; Chan, A.H.S. Subjective health complaints of teachers from primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. JOSE 2010, 16, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pugh, J.D.; Gelder, L.; Williams, A.M.; Twigg, D.E.; Wilkinson, A.M.; Blazevich, A.J. Validity and reliability of an online extended version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E2) to measure nurses’ fitness. J. Clin. Nurs. 2015, 24, 3550–3563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caceres, F.; Troya, E. Implementation of an ergonomics program for the welding department inside a car assembly company. Work 2012, 41, 1618–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bao, S.; Lin, J.-H. An investigation into four different sit-stand workstation use schedules. Ergon. Off. Publ. Ergon. Res. Soc. 2018, 61, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goncn, D.; Oral, A.; Ozcan, C. Analysis of working postures in the assembly process of wheel hay rake using anybody modelling system. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 2017, 32, 651–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, S.; Yang, Y.; Fan, X.; He, Q. Human factors automatic evaluation for entire maintenance processes in virtual environment. Assem. Autom. 2014, 34, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavaguchi, A.M.S.; Oliveira, M.R.; Macedo, C.G.; Souza, P.E.A.D.; Aguiar, A.F.; Dallaire, M.; Ngomo, S.; Silva, R.A.D. Impact of Lifting of Two Types of Barrels on Postural Control, Trunk Muscle Recruitment, and Kinematic Measures in Manual Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raschke, U. Lumbar Muscle Activity Prediction Under Dynamic Sagittal Plane Lifting Conditions: Physiological and Biomechanical Modeling Considerations; University of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Waters, T.R.; Vern, P.-A.; Arun, G.; Fine, L.J. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 1993, 36, 749–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jana, H.; Tomas, L.; Tomas, T.; Petr, G.; Pavel, U.; Marie, N.; Andrea, L.; Zdenka, F.; Petr, R.; Edvard, E.; et al. Evaluation of Lumbar Spine Load by Computational Method in Order to Acknowledge Low-back Disorders as Occupational Diseases. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2016, 24, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qingsong, Y.; Qianfang, L.; Qianxiang, Z.; Fang, X.; Zhongqi, L. Analysis of Lower Limb Joint Torque and Comfort in Driving Posture Based on JACK. Space Med. Med. Eng. 2016, 29, 440–445. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Gomez-Galan, M.; Gonzalez-Parra, J.M.; Perez-Alonso, J.; Golasi, I.; Callejon-Ferre, A.J. Forced Postures in Courgette Greenhouse Workers. Agronomy 2019, 9, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karhu, O.; Kansi, P.; Kuorinka, I. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. Appl. Ergon. 1977, 8, 199–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McAtamney, L.; Corlett, E.N. RULA: A survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon. 1993, 24, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio, J.; Garcia, E.; Pacheco, J. Trajectory planning and collisions detector for robotic arms. Neural Comput. Appl. 2012, 21, 2105–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, D.; Nie, H.; Chen, J.; Chen, M. Dynamic obstacle avoidance for manipulators using distance calculation and discrete detection. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2018, 49, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monk, A.; Kester, J. Welding doesn’t need to be a pain in the neck: Worker protection also delivers productivity gains. Plant Eng. 2018, 72, 21–23. [Google Scholar]
- Takahashi, H. Visual Cue in the peripheral vision field for a driving support system(Article). J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform. 2017, 21, 543–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, W.; Jiang, M.; Han, Y.; Khasawneh, M.T. Ergonomic Assessment of Patient Barrow Lifting Technique Using Digital Human Modeling. Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics, and Risk Management. Hum. Body Modeling Ergon. 2013, 8026, 20–29. [Google Scholar]
- Vieira, E.R.; Kumar, S. Occupational risks factors identified and interventions suggested by welders and computer numeric control workers to control low back disorders in two steel companies. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2007, 37, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhammad Icsal, M.A.; Sabilu, Y.; Pratiwi, A.D. Faktor yang berhubungan dengan keluhan musculoskeletal disorders (msds) pada penjahit wilayah pasar panjang kota kendari tahun 2016. J. Ilm. Mhs. Kesehat. Masy. 2016, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Hallaj, S.; Razi, S. Design and Evaluation of an Arm Support for Prevention of MSDs in Dentists. Adv. Ergon. Des. 2016, 485, 265–275. [Google Scholar]
Dimension Name | Gender | Average Value | Standard Deviation | 5th | 50th | 95th |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Height/cm | M | 168.7 | 5.6 | 159.5 | 168.7 | 177.9 |
F | 156.3 | 4.9 | 148.2 | 156.3 | 164.4 | |
Weight/kg | M | 67.3 | 8.6 | 53.1 | 67.3 | 81.5 |
F | 53.8 | 7.1 | 42.0 | 53.8 | 65.5 | |
Maximum shoulder width/cm | M | 45.4 | 3.4 | 39.7 | 45.4 | 51.0 |
F | 41.2 | 2.3 | 37.4 | 41.2 | 45.1 | |
Sitting shoulder height/cm | M | 33.4 | 1.8 | 30.5 | 33.4 | 36.3 |
F | 30.7 | 1.7 | 28.0 | 30.7 | 33.4 | |
Sitting elbow height/cm | M | 26.3 | 2.4 | 22.3 | 26.3 | 30.2 |
F | 25.4 | 2.3 | 21.6 | 25.4 | 29.2 | |
Sitting deep/cm | M | 42.4 | 2.6 | 38.2 | 42.4 | 46.6 |
F | 38.4 | 2.3 | 34.5 | 38.4 | 42.2 | |
Sitting eye height/cm | M | 78.6 | 2.9 | 73.7 | 78.6 | 83.4 |
F | 73.2 | 2.8 | 68.6 | 73.2 | 77.8 | |
Sitting knee height/cm | M | 51.6 | 2.7 | 47.2 | 51.6 | 56.0 |
F | 46.7 | 2.1 | 43.3 | 46.7 | 50.1 |
Gender | 5th | 50th | 95th |
---|---|---|---|
M | 321–610 mm | 371–660 mm | 421–710 mm |
F | 271–560 mm | 321–610 mm | 371–660 mm |
Gender | 5th | 50th | 95th |
---|---|---|---|
M | 1050–1400 mm | 1100–1450 mm | 1150–1500 mm |
F | 1000–1350 mm | 1050–1400 mm | 1100–1450 mm |
Body Parts | M5th | M50th | M95th | F5th | F50th | F95th |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper arm right flexion | 0.22 | 0.54 | 1.17 | 0.52 | 0.92 | 1.34 |
Right elbow | 0.37 | 0.48 | 1.22 | 0.21 | 0.51 | 1.52 |
Right torso and thigh | 3.14 | 3.14 | 3.46 | 3.07 | 3.24 | 3.18 |
Right knee | 2.52 | 2.51 | 2.52 | 2.23 | 2.23 | 2.23 |
Right foot, calf | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 1.33 | 1.14 | 1.08 |
Operating Distance/mm | Male RULA Score | Female RULA Score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5th | 50th | 95th | 5th | 50th | 95th | |
271.0 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
328.8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
386.6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
444.4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
502.2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
560.0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
610.0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | 4 | 4 |
660.0 | - | 4 | 4 | - | - | 4 |
710.0 | - | - | 4 | - | - | - |
Height/mm | Male RULA Score | Female RULA Score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5th | 50th | 95th | 5th | 50th | 95th | |
1000 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
1070 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
1140 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
1210 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
1280 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
1350 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
1400 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | 4 | 4 |
1450 | - | 4 | 4 | - | - | 4 |
1500 | - | - | 4 | - | - | - |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Y.; Wu, X.; Gao, J.; Chen, J.; Xv, X. Simulation and Ergonomic Evaluation of Welders’ Standing Posture Using Jack Software. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224354
Zhang Y, Wu X, Gao J, Chen J, Xv X. Simulation and Ergonomic Evaluation of Welders’ Standing Posture Using Jack Software. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(22):4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224354
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Yongbao, Xiang Wu, Jingqi Gao, Jianwu Chen, and Xun Xv. 2019. "Simulation and Ergonomic Evaluation of Welders’ Standing Posture Using Jack Software" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 22: 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224354
APA StyleZhang, Y., Wu, X., Gao, J., Chen, J., & Xv, X. (2019). Simulation and Ergonomic Evaluation of Welders’ Standing Posture Using Jack Software. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224354