International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Postural analysis of building construction workers

using ergonomics

Vikram S. Kulkarni & R. V. Devalkar

To cite this article: Vikram S. Kulkarni & R. V. Devalkar (2018): Postural analysis of building
construction workers using ergonomics, International Journal of Construction Management, DOI:
10.1080/15623599.2018.1452096

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452096

View supplementary material

Published online: 26 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452096

Postural analysis of building construction workers using ergonomics

Vikram S. Kulkarnia and R. V. Devalkarb
a
PMC, Nashik, India; bCivil Department, NDMVPS’s KBTCOE, Nashik, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Ergonomics deals with the study of internal and external stresses acting on the human body. Use of Construction workers;
ergonomic principles reduces fatigue experienced by the human body in various tasks. This study is ergonomic analysis; REBA;
related to various tasks on building construction. Most of the injuries, stresses and strains occur due RULA
to over-exertion and repetitive work actions. The aim of this study is to assess and understand the
level of ergonomics in various tasks in the construction industry. Another aim of the study is to find
the level of musculoskeletal disorders and suggest corrective measures for every task having high
risk factor. The study is conducted by using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment and Rapid Entire
Body Assessment techniques to assess the posture of the workers in various construction tasks.

Introduction along with lower body and trunk. Numbers are used to
represent postures and their extent. There is no need of
Different construction tasks lead to ergonomic risk and
any special equipment as the assessment is based on stan-
serious injures such as strains, sprains and work-related
dard charts and diagrams of body postures. The methods
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) that are caused by
include direct observation or assessment through video
carrying heavy loads, repetitive movement, awkward
recordings which can be done in confined workspaces
postures and contact stress vibration (Kulkarni and
without disrupting work. This paper reports fatigue analy-
Devalkar 2017). Hence, it is necessary to achieve safety
sis using REBA and RULA method.
of the construction workers during work at different
conditions on construction sites. Most of the time, the
workers are compelled to perform the same activities Materials and methods
repetitively; due to this, workers may experience fatigue,
Literature review
Cumulative Trauma Disorders (CTDs) or repetitive
strain injuries. To reduce the fatigue experienced by the The authors describe the analytical tool for entire body
workers and to reduce their unnecessary efforts, ergo- assessment in this paper. In this paper, REBA has been
nomics comes into the picture. The Rapid Entire Body developed to fill a perceived need for a practitioner’s
Assessment (REBA) and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment field tool, specifically designed to be sensitive to the type
(RULA) methods help as a tool to assess and quantify of unpredictable working postures found in health-care
the fatigue involved in existing work methods which and other service industries (Hignett and McAtamney
otherwise (fatigue) is a subjective variable, described in 2000).
McAtamney and Corlett (1993) and Hignett and McA- According to the authors, RULA is a survey method
tamney (2000). RULA investigates the exposure of indi- developed for use in ergonomics investigations of work-
vidual worker to risk factors associated with work places where work-related upper-limb disorders are
related to upper-limb disorders. RULA was developed reported. This tool requires no special equipment in pro-
through the evaluation of postures adopted and muscle viding a quick assessment of the postures of the neck,
actions of operators whose repetitive tasks are associated trunk and upper-limbs along with muscle function and
with upper-limb disorders. On the same lines, REBA was the external loads experienced by the body, described in
developed through the evaluation of postures adopted and McAtamney and Corlett (1993).
muscle actions of operators whose repetitive tasks are REBA and RULA are techniques to quantize the
associated with the entire body disorders, the only differ- fatigue experienced by the worker while manually lifting
ence being that REBA includes the assessment of legs loads. These assessments were carried out by a

CONTACT Vikram S. Kulkarni [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452096
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 V. S. KULKARNI AND R. V. DEVALKAR

procedural analysis of body postures involved. The education, written programme) significant ergonomics
fatigue involved in a particular operation was quantified risk controls. Better communication and management
and accordingly changes in the work method for system control will enhance ergonomics implementation in the
improvement were suggested. These techniques helped workplace. It is followed by appropriate ergonomics
in process refinement by identifying actions causing design, organization training and education (Abdul-
high fatigue, described in Bhandare et al. (2013). Tharim et al. 2011).
This study used Ovako Work Posture Analysing Sys- The posture codes in Posture, Activity, Tools and Han-
tem (OWAS) to analyse the working postures of con- dling (PATH) method are based on OWAS, with other
struction workers in building the foundations of a log codes included for describing worker activity, tool use,
cabin. There were three objectives for this study: first, to loads handled and grasp-type. This study shows that a
provide an overview of postural distribution of construc- pilot study of six workers on four different road construc-
tion workers in building the foundations of a log cabin; tion operations suggests that labourers spend large pro-
second, to identify the most problematic working pos- portions of their time in non-neutral trunk postures and
tures and jobs of construction workers in building the approximately 20% of their time performing manual
foundations of a log cabin; third, to propose recommen- material-handling tasks (Buchholz et al. 1996).
dations for work improvements for construction work-
ers in building the foundations of a log cabin (Lee and
Work details
Han 2013).
A comprehensive framework is proposed for the bio- Work was carried out at a medium-scale construction firm
mechanical evaluation of a number of Manual Material in western India. For postural analysis, skilled workers
Handling (MMH) tasks or jobs under diverse work envi- with highest experience were chosen (six subjects per activ-
ronments that are found to be of considerable risk. The ity) with the consultation of safety officer and site engineer.
basic objective of the study is to carry out a biomechani- This sampling technique helped to study all other workers’
cal evaluation of certain occupationally risky MMH tasks completing their respective tasks. The experience level
with respect to a typical construction work system in of the workers is described in Annexure 2. The analysis
India. Such an evaluation would help in redesigning con- was carried out on granite cutting, brickwork, shuttering,
struction jobs with improved ergonomic performance of material transportation and plastering activities.
the workers and reduced occurrence of occupational risks
like MSDs, fatigue, work stress, etc. (Ray et al. 2015). Granite cutting
The study will highlight five (communication, ergo- The granite cutting work was carried out by nine work-
nomic design, safety management, training and ers on floor, out of which six skilled workers with highest

Figure 1. Worker cutting granite in awkward body posture (Subject 1).

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3

experience (9–30 years) were chosen for the postural Shuttering

analysis. In this activity, the granite-cutting tool having Shuttering of slabs was carried out by seven workers, out
rotary blades and a small pipe supplying water as a cool- of which six skilled workers with highest experience (3–
ant were handled by the workers. There was only one 19 years) were chosen for the postural analysis. In this
helper each for the completion of the work. The job was activity, hammer, nails, wooden planks, props, binding
to cut the given amount of granite throughout the day. wire, etc. were handled by the workers. Only one helper
The task was to cut the given granite sheets into a size of each was there to complete the given job. The job was to
4’ £ 9’6” within 8 working hours. There was only one complete the shuttering work of beams B17, B18 and
helper to complete the job. The workers were supposed B19. The sizes were: B17 (3.53 m £ 0.23 m £ 0.45 m),
to complete granite cutting of 135 m2, but completed B18 (3.64 m £ 0.23 m £ 0.45 m) and B19 (4.17 m £
only 53 m2. Hence, the productivity was only (53/135) £ 0.23 m £ 0.45 m). The sequence for completion of job
100 = 39.26% (Figure 1). was: measurement–cutting wooden planks–applying
grease to wooden planks–fixing the bottom and props–
fixing one side with rough levelling–fixing another side–
Brickwork
making the beam ready to cast (Figure 3).
Brickwork was carried out by 12 workers on the same
site but at different places. To study all of them, six
skilled workers with highest experience (11–28 years) Plastering
were chosen. In this activity, trowel, bricks and a bucket Plastering of building was done by 11 workers, out of
full of cement mortar were handled by the workers. which 6 skilled workers with highest experience (6–26
There were two helpers each for the completion of the years) were chosen for the postural analysis. In this
work. The job was to construct a wall using clay bricks activity, trowel, a bucket full of cement sand plaster, tube
along with horizontal and vertical levelling. The brick- level, plumb bob, levelling plank, etc. were handled by
work was observed layer by layer till the completion of the workers. To complete the given job, only two helpers
the wall. The total work completed in 8 working hours each were there. The job was to complete the plastering
was 0.621 m3 and the work requirement was for 1.4 m3 of terrace-level plastering work of around 20 m2 within
in a whole day. Hence, the productivity was only (0.621/ 8 working hours. The productivity was observed as:
1.4) £ 100 = 44.36% (Figure 2). (13.58/20) £ 100 = 67.9% only (Figure 4).

Figure 2. Worker doing brickwork in awkward body posture (Subject 1).

4 V. S. KULKARNI AND R. V. DEVALKAR

Figure 3. Worker doing shuttering work in awkward body posture (Subject 1).

Figure 4. Worker doing plastering work in awkward body posture (Subject 1).

Material transportation years) were selected. In this activity, spade and pati were
For material transportation work, there were 15 workers, handled by the workers. The job was to transport the
out of which 6 workers having highest experience (2–6 excavated material (hard murum) to the required place.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

Figure 5. Worker transporting excavated murum in awkward body posture (Subject 1).

The task was to transport excavated murum of approx. Data analysis

quantity of 4.64 m3. Out of that, only 3.03 m3 were
RULA
transported, hence the productivity was (3.03/4.64) £
100 = 65.31% only (Figure 5).
Table 1. RULA scoring (Annexure 1).
Subject no. UA LA WR WR-T SCR-A FL FSCR
GC 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 6
Data collection 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 6
3 2 2 3 1 3 3 6
Based on the above activities, analysis was carried out 4 1 1 3 1 3 2 5
5 2 1 2 1 2 3 5
step by step: 6 2 2 3 1 3 3 6
BR 1 4 2 3 2 5 2 7
2 3 2 2 2 4 2 6
 Experienced workers were selected randomly. 3 4 3 2 2 5 2 7
 Equipments required like video recorder, etc. for 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 7
5 3 3 2 1 4 2 6
performing the operations were gathered. 6 4 3 2 1 5 2 7
 The domain experts were consulted and the process SH 1 4 3 3 2 5 2 7
2 4 3 2 1 5 2 7
was carried out under their supervision. 3 4 3 3 2 5 2 7
 The postural analysis tools RULA and REBA 4 3 2 3 2 4 2 6
(McAtamney and Corlett 1993; Hignett and McA- 5 4 3 2 2 5 2 7
6 3 3 3 1 4 2 6
tamney 2000) were selected to quantify the fatigue PL 1 5 3 2 2 7 2 7
of the worker. 2 4 2 2 1 6 2 7
3 4 2 2 2 6 2 7
 For analysis, the minimum value (+1) was assigned 4 5 3 2 2 7 2 7
to the working posture for which risks are minimal, 5 5 3 2 2 7 2 7
6 5 3 2 1 7 2 7
while higher numbers were allocated to extreme MT 1 4 3 4 2 6 3 7
postures indicating risk factors. The procedure fol- 2 4 2 3 2 5 2 7
3 4 2 3 2 5 2 7
lowed was the same as the standard procedure of 4 4 3 3 1 6 3 7
RULA and REBA (McAtamney and Corlett 1993; 5 4 3 3 2 6 2 7
Hignett and McAtamney 2000). 6 4 3 3 2 6 2 7
6 V. S. KULKARNI AND R. V. DEVALKAR

REBA

Table 2. REBA scoring (Annexure 1).

Subject no. NCK TRK LEG SCR-A FL SCR (A + FL) UA LA WR SCR-B FL SCR(B + FL) SCR AS FSCR
GC 1 3 4 3 8 0 8 3 2 3 5 0 5 10 1 11
2 3 4 3 8 0 8 3 2 3 5 0 5 10 1 11
3 3 4 3 7 0 7 3 2 3 5 0 5 10 1 11
4 3 3 3 8 0 8 3 2 3 5 0 5 10 1 11
5 3 3 3 8 0 8 3 2 2 4 0 4 10 1 11
6 3 3 3 8 0 8 2 2 2 4 0 4 10 1 11
BR 1 2 5 4 9 0 9 3 2 3 5 1 6 10 1 11
2 2 5 4 9 0 9 3 2 3 5 1 6 10 1 11
3 2 4 4 8 0 8 3 2 3 4 1 5 10 1 11
4 3 5 4 9 0 9 5 2 3 8 1 9 12 1 13
5 3 5 4 8 0 8 3 2 3 4 1 5 10 1 11
6 3 4 4 8 0 8 3 2 3 5 1 6 11 1 12
SH 1 3 5 4 9 1 10 5 2 2 8 1 9 12 1 13
2 2 3 4 9 1 10 5 2 2 8 1 9 12 1 13
3 2 5 4 8 1 9 5 2 2 8 1 9 12 1 13
4 3 5 4 9 1 10 4 2 2 8 1 9 12 1 13
5 3 5 4 8 1 9 5 2 2 4 1 5 10 1 11
6 3 4 3 9 1 10 3 2 2 5 1 6 11 1 12
PL 1 3 5 3 9 1 10 5 2 3 8 1 9 11 1 12
2 2 4 3 9 1 10 5 2 3 6 1 7 11 1 12
3 3 3 4 9 1 10 4 2 3 6 1 7 11 1 12
4 3 5 3 9 1 10 4 2 3 6 1 7 11 1 12
5 2 4 4 9 1 10 4 2 3 8 1 9 12 1 13
6 3 5 4 9 1 10 5 2 3 8 1 9 12 1 13
MT 1 3 4 4 9 0 9 4 2 3 7 2 9 12 1 13
2 3 4 3 8 0 8 4 2 3 7 2 9 12 1 13
3 2 4 3 9 0 9 4 2 3 7 2 9 12 1 13
4 3 4 4 8 0 8 4 2 3 7 2 9 12 1 13
5 3 4 3 8 0 8 4 2 3 7 2 9 12 1 13
6 3 4 3 9 0 9 4 2 3 7 2 9 12 1 13

Final scores Results

Table 3. Majority final scores (Annexure 1). The results of the methodology used in this study indicate
Activities RULA REBA that there were a variety of risks involved in each task,
GC 6 11 which were analysed above when the workers performed
BR 7 11 the task. Although the construction site had administrative
SH 7 13
PL 7 12 controls and some engineering controls in place, the work-
MT 7 13 ers were still feeling distress in their upper extremities. It
was observed that different workers adopted different
body postures in which they felt comfortable to complete
the same work. Hence, there are differences in the RULA
RULA permissible limits
and REBA scores of different workers working on the
same activity.
Table 4. RULA permissible limits (Hedge 2001a).
1 or 2 Acceptable postures.
3 or 4 Further investigate, change may be needed.
5 or 6 Further investigate, change soon. Discussions
7 Investigate and implement change.
The RULA and REBA (Tables 1 and 2) both identi-
fied that the shoulders, knees, legs and back were at
a high risk for developing CTDs due to the abducted
REBA permissible limits lower-body postures, the repeated actions and the
flexion and extension of the wrists involved when the
Table 5. REBA permissible limits (Hedge 2001b). workers perform the task. The outcomes of both the
1 Negligible risk. RULA and REBA assessments (Table 3) indicate that
2 or 3 Low risk, change may be needed.
4–7 Medium risk, further investigate, change soon. there was a high risk of developing CTDs and MSDs.
8–10 High risk, investigate and implement change. The process needs to be investigated further, and
11+ Very high risk, implement change.
changes must be implemented to protect the workers
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7

and improve the productivity. REBA assessments ergonomics in large-scale constructions, skilled workers
show that each method identified awkward postures with highest experience should be chosen. Ergonomic anal-
and high repetitions in the arm, wrist and elbow ysis should be done for the working posture of the same
locations which contributed to the reported injuries. worker and the recommendations or work design for the
same activity can be conveyed to all the remaining workers
with the help of safety training camps, live demonstrations
Conclusion and recommendations
of work design, etc. This will help to reduce the fatigue
The above results were compared with the permissible experienced by the workers which will create a safe and
limits (Tables 4 and 5) for each activity and it is found healthy work environment and ultimately reduce the over-
that all the selected activities were at high risk and fur- all cost and time of the project.
ther investigation and changes are needed. By applying
the RULA and REBA assessment and consultation with Acknowledgment
domain experts, the suggestions given were:
The authors share a note of deep gratitude to the people who
provided valuable guidance and permission to conduct this
 Activity redesigning is required. study on site.
 Elevated platforms should be provided to reduce
unnecessary trunk movements in granite-cutting work. Disclosure statement
 For brickwork, an elevated platform should be cre-
All authors declare to have no financial or personal relation-
ated for storage (temporary storage) of materials
ships that could inappropriately influence the research
like mortar, bricks, etc. Also, mortar-laying tools or described.
machines can be used to reduce movements of the
upper-body and trunk. References
 Use of ladder can be done in activities like shutter-
ing/formwork to avoid poor ergonomic postures. Abdul-Tharim AH, Jaffar N, Lop NS, Mohd-Kamar IF. 2011.
The use of ladder may help the worker to work at Ergonomic risk controls in construction industry – a litera-
ture review. Proc 2nd Int Build Control Conf. 20:80–88.
eye-level and reduce repetitive bending action. Bhandare A, Bahirat P, Nagarkar V, Bewoor A. 2013. Postural
 For plastering activity, the use of plastering tools/ analysis and quantification of fatigue by using RULA &
equipment like guniting can be made to reduce REBA techniques. IJMPE. 1:46–50.
human efforts. If that is not possible, the worker Buchholz B, Paquet V, Punnett L, Lee D, Moir S. 1996. PATH:
may adopt the same conventional technique but a work sampling based approach to ergonomic job analysis
for construction and other non repetitive work. Appl Ergo.
he/she needs to use a chair or chair-like structure
27:177–187.
to sit on so that he/she can work at lower levels too. Hedge A. 2001a. RULA: Employee Assessment Worksheet.
 For activities like transportation of materials, [accessed 2017 April 22]. http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/
trolleys or conveyor belts should be used to Pub/AHquest/RULAworksheet.pdf
reduce the lifting action and to reduce external Hedge A. 2001b. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA).
loads on the workers’ body. Also, in the consid- [accessed 2017 April 22]. http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/
Pub/AHquest/Cornell_REBA.pdf
ered case, the worker may be provided with a Hignett S, McAtamney L. 2000. Rapid entire body assessment
platform to keep his bucket on so that he can (REBA). Appl Ergo. 31:201–205.
load the excavated material in it and without Kulkarni VS, Devalkar RV. 2017. Ergonomic analysis of build-
much bending, he can easily lift it. ing construction workers using RULA & REBA techniques.
 Work should be done at proper heights to reduce NICMAR – J Const Manag. 32:09–15.
Lee TH, Han CH. 2013. Analysis of working postures at a con-
unnecessary upper-limb movements.
struction site using the OWAS method. IJOSE. 19:245–250.
 All materials should be kept in reach. McAtamney L, Corlett EN. 1993. RULA: a survey method for
the investigation of world-related upper limb disorders.
Appl Ergo. 24:91–99.
Implications to the construction industry Ray PK, Parida R, Sarkar S. 2015. Ergonomic analysis of con-
Each and every task of construction activity can be ana- struction jobs in India: a biomechanical modeling
approach. Proc Man. 3:4606–4612.
lysed using ergonomic analysis. For the implementation of
8 V. S. KULKARNI AND R. V. DEVALKAR

Annexure 1 Annexure 2

Table A1. Abbreviations used in RULA and REBA and its Table A2. Experience of workers.
meaning. Activity Subject Experience of subject
Abbreviation Meaning number (years)
RULA Rapid upper limb assessment Granite-cutting work 1 30
REBA Rapid entire body assessment 2 22
MSD Musculoskeletal disorder 3 16
CTD Cumulative trauma disorder 4 9
NCK Neck 5 12
TRK Trunk 6 15
LEG Legs Brickwork 1 28
SCR-A Score A 2 18
FL Force load 3 11
SCR(A + FL) Score (A + force load) 4 25
UA Upper arm 5 26
LA Lower arm 6 13
WR Wrist Shuttering work 1 19
WR-T Wrist twist 2 16
SCR-B Score B 3 16
SCR(B + FL) Score (B + force load) 4 12
SCR Score 5 9
AS Activity score 6 3
FSCR Final score Plastering work 1 26
GC Granite cutting 2 8
BR Brickwork 3 6
SH Shuttering 4 13
PL Plastering 5 22
MT Material transportation 6 21
Material transportation work 1 6
2 5
3 5
4 3
5 5
6 2