1

CEE 532 Construction Project Engineering

Term Project: Ergonomics Analysis

By: Nathan Machiorlatti

4/23/2021
 2

Assignement #1
The software 3DSSPP (3-Dimensional Static Strength Prediction Program) was used to analyze forces and
moments exerted on the human body due to lifting and hold an object in place. Two scenarios were
analyzed with the software. The first scenario was to model holding a 12lb brick at chest height 30cm
from the body, and the second scenario holding the brick at 60cm . Anthrapomorphic information
modeled is for a 165lb male, 6’0” tall. Screen captures from 3DSSPP show the first scenario setup on the
left side and second scenario on the right side of Figure 1.

Figure 1: 3DSSPP analysis for holding a 12lb item 30cm from the body at chest height (Left), and 60cm from the body chest
height (Right).

3DSSPP produces results from analysis include calculating body forces and moments at various joints
and locations. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has set limits for allowable
forces and moments allowed on the human body. Of particular interest is the compression in the lower
back from the L4/L5 vertebrae in which the allowable force above which can be hazardous is 3400N, and
if exceeding 6400N the job will be hazardous to most workers.

Table 1: Force and moment result data from 3DSSPP for a 12lb load held at 30cm, and 60cm from the body.

12 Lb Load: Forces and Moments (Symmetric Body Loading)

Load At Chest 30 cm From Body Load At Chest 60 cm From Body
Body Forces Moments Forces Moments
Location Value Unit Value Unit Value Unit Value Unit % Diff.
Hand -26.7 N 0 N*m -26.7 N 0 N*m 0.0%
Wrist -31.2 N -2.1 N*m -31.2 N -2.6 N*m 23.8%
Elbow -43.9 N -9.6 N*m -43.9 N -12.2 N*m 27.1%
Shoulder -65 N -11.8 N*m -65 N -26.7 N*m 126.3%
L4/L5 (C) 630 N -15.6 N*m 1104 N -45.6 N*m 192.3%
Hip -259.4 N -10.8 N*m -257.8 N -25.9 N*m 139.8%
Knee -352.7 N -10.8 N*m -352 N -25.9 N*m 139.8%
Ankle -383.9 N -10.8 N*m -383.2 N -25.9 N*m 139.8%
Heel of Foot -278.2 N 0 N*m -222.6 N 0 N*m 0.0%
Front of Foot -116.1 N 0 N*m -171 N 0 N*m 0.0%
 3

Information presented above in Table 1 was compiled form results within 3DSSPP for load conditions
specified. Two load cases produce the same forces on the body except at the hip, knee, ankle, and foot.
Moments induced on the body change as the vertical loads move horizontally increasing or decreasing
the moment arm. As the load moves further from the body a moment arm increases in length
producing a larger moment. The two moments with the greatest percent difference are the shoulder,
and the L4/L5 vertebrae moments at 126%, and 192% respectively higher for holding a load at 60cm
versus 30cm from the body.

Results presented in the 3DSSPP are also useful for determining miscellaneous data to help better
understand the population percent capable of performing the task, compression in the L4/L5 vertebrae,
balance point and input parameters. Holding the brick 30cm or 60cm from the body at chest height has
a 99%-100% capability for the population suggesting everyone would be able to perform the task. The
graph on the right side of the figures indicates balance points. If the red dot is within the dark green
area balance is ok. Comparing the two graphs shows it is determined that the balance point shifts
forward as loads are held further form the body.

Figure 2: Left Figure of holding near the body, right far from body

Results from 3DSSPP would suggest that for best practices it would be advisable to hold loads closer to
the body versus further away from our physical center of gravity minimizing the moment arm caused by
the load. Additionally, to reduce the moment on the L4/L5 vertebrae induced when bending and picking
up an item we should bend with the knees and keep the load close to the body to help protect excess
compression at the L4/L5 vertebrae.

Assignement #2
The operation that I selected to conduct an ergonomic assessment on is a timber framing operation
conducted at the level of floor decking. Specifically, hammering in the end nail through the top plate
into a wall stud in the horizontal orientation orthogonal to the work surface. RULA biomechanical
 4

analysis was used to conduct the ergonomic assessment. Reba was conducted at multiple points in time
in the framing operation. Selected posture orientations include the hammer blow initiation and
hammer blow final location.

Figure 3: Hammer and nail framing operation on base platform used for REBA assessment.

REBA Analysis Assumptions:

1. No side bending in the neck, but slight twist.
2. Trunk side bending with slight twist.
3. Weight of hammer – 22 oz (Standard Hammer), impact load.
4. Upper arm abduction, and worker leaning.
5. Repetitive process more than 4x per minute.
Table 2: Results from the REBA assessment following guidelines for worker ergonomic assessment.

Initial Assessment - Hammer Blow Preparation

Table A Table B
Item Value Notes Item Value Notes
Neck Position 2 Side Bending Upper Arm 2 Abducted, Supported -1
Trunk Position 5 Side Bending Lower Arm 2
Legs 3 Bent Wrist 2 Bent Wrist
Table A Score 8 Table B Score 3
Force Load 1 Shock Load Coupling Score 0 Good Coupling
Total Table A 9 Table A + Force Load Total Table B 3
Table C Score 9 Activity Score 1 Final Score 10

Results from REBA as presented in Table 2 above indicate that the activity is high risk and would be best
to investigate and implement changes. Workers who perform this type of framing operation are at risk
for musculoskeletal disorders. Exposure to awkward postures, repetitive work, vibrations, and
pressures to produce work fast are common scenarios. The framing method on many job sites is typical
for the timber framing industry due to space configurations and the requirement to complete the job
fast. Safety considerations can be burdensome on workers and owners were to modify standard
business practices. However, greater issues will arise to the construction workforce if action is not taken
to mitigate ergonomic job hazards.

Investigating the timber framing operation, I have recommended that the process be completed on an
elevated platform. Working from an elevated platform will allow the worker to keep their bodies
upright and in plane. Readdressing the operation with new criteria has lowered the REBA score from a
 5

10 to a 5 as presented below in Table 3 below. At a score level of a 5 REBA still suggests further change,
however the results allow for more time to make minor changes to the ergonomic flow.

Note: Attached to the report in Appendix A, are the completed REBA analysis charts for before and after
implemented changes.

Table 3: REBA reassessment after changing the work surface to an elevated platform.

Change Recommendations Assessment - Hammer Blow Preparation

Table A Table B
Item Value Notes Item Value Notes
Neck Position 2 Side Bending Upper Arm 2 Abducted, Supported -1
Trunk Position 3 No Side Bending Lower Arm 2
Legs 1 No bending Wrist 2 Bent Wrist
Table A Score 4 Table B Score 3
Force Load 1 Shock Load Coupling Score 0 Good Coupling
Total Table A 5 Table A + Force Load Total Table B 3
Table C Score 4 Activity Score 1 Final Score 5

Assignement #3
Assignment number three is to analyze a task and determine various body stresses induced while
completing the task and provide recommendation remediation. The task that was analyzed for this
section in 3DSSPP was Task 6. Task 6 I believe is a metal framing operation that appears to be
completed on an elevated surface using a drill. During the operation, the worker appears to drill on the
upper surface with forces vertically down, and then moves to drill a lower bolt vertically up from the
underside. When the worker aligns to drill the lover bolt, they move from a vertical upright position to a
crouched, twisted position. When crouched their knees and back are bent, torso, shoulder, head are all
rotated.

Utilizing 3DSSPP I was able to view the strength percent capable chart as the task was progressing. The
computer program 3DSSPP produced results for various body parts along with strength capabilities
compared to an average population. When running the task video, at time location 13.8 seconds it was
observed body stress were at their maximum as shown in the right picture of Figure 4. Additionally,
shown in the left picture in Figure 4 is the body configuration at the time of maximum body stresses.

Figure 4: Task 6 frame used for ergonomic assessment analysis (Note: Time @ 13.8 sec)
 6

A few useful reports that 3DSSPP produces from an ergonomic assessment are the strength percent
capable, and miscellaneous information reports. Information from the reports was summarized in left
side in Table 4 below. Information presented in this table was extracted each of the reports for the
most extreme case loading case per respective body side (right or left) as presented in the right side of
Table 4. Locating the moment to a specific side was not as important as the numerical results because
due to symmetry loading case would produce similar results when the body orientation was mirrored.
Also, the information for the wrist and elbow along with shoulder might not be accurate due to
limitations in ability to manipulate the model at these locations

Table 4: 3DSSPP summary of bodily stress for strength capability (left), and 3DSSPP report (right)

Miscellaneous Summary of Results

Item Value Unit Balance
L4/L5 -Low Back 722 lb Unacceptable
Strength % Capable (Left Side)
Item Value Unit Value Unit
Wrist -34.1 in*lb 97 %
Elbow -36.4 in*lb 100 %
Shoulder 167.6 in*lb 99 %
Torso 649.3 in*lb 0 %
Hip 1392 in*lb 31 %
Knee -369.8 in*lb 95 %
Ankle -936.9 in*lb 83 %

The results for the operation produce acceptable ranges at some body locations and unacceptable in
others. The wrist, elbow, shoulder, and knee produce acceptable results with strength capability
ranging from 95% to 100% capable. When analyzing the ankle body stresses start to decrease strength
percent capable to 83%. The most severe cases percent capable reduced to zero for the torso, and 31%
for the hip. What this indicates is that zero percent of the population will be able to exert a torso joint
moment of 649.3 in-lb, and 31% are capable of a hip moment of 139.2in-lb. The body posture produces
places the worker in an awkward position and places their balance in an unacceptable region as shown
in Figure 4 above. Last of particular importance for the low back is compression at the L4/L5 vertebrae
and the task is within the acceptable range with a value of 722lbs.

Due to poor ergonomics of the task suggesting the worker will experience torso and hip problems
overtime if ergonomics are not altered I have made the following recommendations.

Recommendations:

1. Implement training on proper ergonomics and health effects.

2. Wear a back brace to limit mobility and help support the back.
3. Use a 90⁰ drill with a small mirror attachment to drill form the underside.
 7

4. Predrill holes in metal studs allowing for easier assembly.

5. Construct walls vertically with lifts to elevate the worker and work surface accommodating
ergonomics.
6. Install underside screws lying on a rollable platform so the worker does not need to bend down.

Of the recommendations listed the easiest to implement would be proper training, and utilizing a back
brace limiting mobility. Safety and health programs are paramount to construction workforce health
and is something that workers will want join allowing for continuous employment. A 90⁰ drill would also
be another easy implementation, and with predrilling fastener holes it should mitigate fastener location
problems. Redesigning the work environment from horizontal to vertical would be a major financial
hurdle and comes with additional technological problems. Last, the layout of the work environment
might lend itself to using a rollable platform similar to a auto mechanics, but would come with a safety
hazard of falling objects.
 8

Source
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTY7xSZtbok (Note: Reverence time elapsed time 7:42 –
8:15 of 19:51 for example).

Appendix A: REBA Charts