Dutta, A; Breloff, S P; Dai, F; Sinsel, E W; Warren, C M and Wu, J Z (2020) Identifying potentially risky phases leading to knee musculoskeletal disorders during shingle installation operations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3): 04019118, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Repeated and prolonged awkward kneeling can result in musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in construction roofers. However, a task-specific risk assessment for roofers' knee injuries is still missing in the literature. This study identified a ranking-based ergonomic method for suggesting potentially risky phases that may increase knee MSD risk during shingle installation operations. On a slope-adjustable wooden platform in a laboratory setting, nine subjects performed shingle installations that included seven phases: (1) reaching for shingles, (2) placing shingles, (3) grabbing nail gun, (4) moving to first nailing position, (5) nailing shingles, (6) replacing nail gun, and (7) returning to upright position. Flexion, abduction, adduction, and internal and external knee rotations were measured to assess relative risks of these phases by ranking them with a scoring model. The ranking results revealed that the phases of placing shingles and nailing shingles lead to the most knee MSD risk exposure, and awkward flexion, abduction, and adduction involved in these phases can significantly contribute to the potential knee MSD risk measurement. By using the ranking-based method, this study suggested that certain phases of the shingle installation process may increase knee MSD risk, which is useful for developing effective interventions to reduce knee injury risk exposures from roof shingle installation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction ergonomics; construction safety; experimental study; risk assessment |
| Index terms: | exposure, roof, experiment, roofer, platform, laboratory, injury, construction safety, risk assessment, placing, slope, ergonomics |
| Subjects: | public and environmental health, occupational health and safety management, digital design, financial risk, research management, data collection methods, practitioner, environmental health, design practice, geotechnical engineering, health conditions and diseases, concrete and cementitious materials |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Design Practice, Health and Safety, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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