Li, X; Han, S; Gül, M; Al-Hussein, M and El-Rich, M (2018) 3D visualization-based ergonomic risk assessment and work modification framework and its validation for a lifting task. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(1): 04017093, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The construction manufacturing industry in North America has a disproportionately high number of lost-time injuries because of the high physical demand of the labor-intensive tasks it involves. It is thus essential to investigate the physical demands of body movement in the construction manufacturing workplace to proactively identify worker exposure to ergonomic risk. This paper proposes a methodology to use three-dimensional (3D) skeletal modeling to imitate human body movement in an actual construction manufacturing plant for ergonomic risk assessment of a workstation. The inputs for the creation of an accurate and reliable 3D model are also identified. Through 3D modeling, continuous human body motion data can be obtained (such as joint coordinates and joint angles) for risk assessment analysis using existing risk assessment algorithms. The presented framework enables risk evaluation by detecting awkward body postures and evaluating the handled force/load and frequency that cause ergonomic risks during manufacturing operations. The results of the analysis are expected to facilitate the development of modified work to the workstation, which will potentially reduce injuries and workers' compensation insurance costs in the long term for construction manufacturers. The proposed framework can also be expanded to evaluate workstations in the design phase without the need for physical imitation by human subjects. In this paper, the proposed 3D visualization-based ergonomic risk assessment methodology is validated through an optical marker-based motion capture experiment for a lifting task in order to prove the feasibility and reliability of the framework. It is also compared to the traditional manual observation method. Three subjects are selected to conduct the experiment and three levels of comparison are completed: joint angles comparison, risk rating comparison for body segments, and Rapid Entire Body Assessment/Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (REBA/RULA) total risk rating and risk level comparison.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ergonomics; labor and personnel issues; motion capture experiment; rapid entire body assessment; rapid upper limb assessment; risk assessment; three-dimensional visualization; validation |
| Index terms: | 3D modelling, modelling, compensation, insurance, risk assessment, design phase, marker, 3D model, 3D visualization, visualization, human subject, exposure, methodology, ergonomics, lifting, validation, manufacturing industry, experiment, manufacturer, personnel, movement, injury |
| Subjects: | financial risk, probability and distributions, professional development, management, design practice, public and environmental health, research methods, industry analysis, occupational health and safety management, research management, health conditions and diseases, health behaviours and lifestyles, dispute resolution, practitioner, data collection methods, computational design, professional practice, economic analysis, analytical methods, visualization |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here