Contents

CHAPTER 1:............................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................1
1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVE...................................................................2
1.2 ASSUMPTION............................................................................3
1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT...................................................................3
1.4 LIMITATION...............................................................................4
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT...................................................4

CHAPTER 2:............................................................................ 6
PROBLEM ON HAND.................................................................6
2.1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................6
2.2. PROBLEM DEFINATION...............................................................7
2.2.1 WORKSTATION OBSERVATION........................................................................7
2.2.2 OBSERVATION HAS DONE ON VENDORS.........................................................7

2.3 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................8
2.4 STEPS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOAL...............................10
2.5 CONCLUSION..........................................................................10

CHAPTER 3:.......................................................................... 11
LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................11
3.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................11
3.2 VARIOUS APPROACHES TO THE PRODUCT DESIGN..........................12
3.2.1 PRODUCT DESIGN.......................................................................................12
2.2.2 DESIGN APPROACH.....................................................................................14

3.3 ERGONOMIC APPROACH TO PRODUCT DESIGN..............................15

3.4. VARIUOS ERGONOMICS CONSIDERATION......................................17
3.4.1 POSTURE ANALYSIS....................................................................................17
3.4.3 IMPORTANCES OF ERGONOMICS AT WORKPLACES.....................................18
3.4.4. ERGONOMICS RISK FACTORS.....................................................................19
3.4.5. MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER (MSDs).....................................................21

3.4.5. RANGE OF MOTION................................................................23

CHAPTER 4:.......................................................................... 29
PRIMARY ERGONOMIC SURVEY.................................................29
4.1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................29
4.2 OBSERVTION METHOD..............................................................29
4.3. ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE USED.................................................29
4.3.1 IMAGE ANALYSIS.........................................................................................30
4.3.2 VIDEO ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 31

4.4.

DESIGN OF QUESTIONNARE....................................................31

4.5. ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISORERS WITH QUESTIONNAIRE........31

4.5.

ANALYSIS OF WORKING POSTURE............................................33

4.6.

RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) ANALYSIS:.........................36

4.6.1.
4.6.2.

RULA TEST OF VENDOR -1.....................................................................36

RLA TEST OF VENDOR -2......................................................................37

4.7.

OVEARALL SURVAY RESULT....................................................38

4.8.

CONCLUSION.......................................................................39

CHAPTER 5: ERGONOMICS DESIGN OF VENDOR CART...................40

5.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................40
5.2 BASIC REQUIREMENT OF VENDOR CART.......................................41
5.3.1 EXISTING WORKPLACE................................................................................41
5.3.2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING VENDOR CART..........................................42
5.3.3. IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT (BASE ON
SHORTCOMING)................................................................................................... 44

5.4. PROPOSED ERGONOMIC DESIGN................................................44

5.4.1 IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (FRS):.............................................44
5.4.2 IDENTIFYING THE DESIGN PARAMETERS (DPS)............................................46
5.4.3 LINKING OF FRS AND DPS:...........................................................................48

. 5.4.4 ERGONOMIC CONSIDERATION.................................................49

5.4.5. DESIGN DETAILS:........................................................................................53

5.5 CONCLUSION:.........................................................................59

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE.............................61

6.1 CONCLUSION..........................................................................61
6.2 FUTURE SCOPE:......................................................................62

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

In our country generally mobile fast-food business now becomes more

reliable and self-employed business. For this business to be recognized vendor
cart is a well-known mean of transportation space directly affect the business of a
person. The working area belongs to the unorganized sector to run a business
depending upon cart skill is not being required. Thats why there is a lack of not
scientific consideration and special attention is unnecessary. A large number of
youth, men and women are working in this sector for prolonged periods with
inappropriate working posture, workstation design, and furlong working hours,
task variable without consideration appropriate space for their movement. This
leads to the development of different kinds of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
among them.
As a problem shooter ergonomics place an essential rule in order to
design a workplace in analysing the task. The ergonomically designed
workstation also gives healthy working environment, safety, increase efficiency,
and reduce work related musculoskeletal injuries and problem such as
occupational diseases, cumulative trauma, repetitive stress injuries, and
occupational overexertion syndrome which mostly affect to arm and back.
The complete work pattern for the vendor cart consist up taking orders,
making and serving food, and collect money has to do work in static posture for
long duration in a poor workstation which promote unnecessary in a physical
effort. Standing

position creates not only pressure on the spine and disc, but

also knee and elbow pain. This type of posture can increase the pressure on the
muscles, ligaments and other soft tissues of the musculoskeletal system. Hence
the overall discomfort and pain in the back, neck, and shoulder are common
symptoms observed in the vendors.

Considering the above aspects it is been decided to take a step regarding

the working pattern in this socially unattended area by introducing basic aspects
of ergonomics which reduces work related MSDs and suggest of proper methods
to work and for workstation comfortable without any physical fatigue.
In the present study around 20 vendors from Nagpur have participated. To
evaluate the actual presence of problem, a detailed questionnaire is made by
considering the information related to MSDs problems. Working condition,
compatibility, working hours, the problem faced during working. The existing
workstation and worker, poor body postures are assessed and analysed with the
help of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE tools.
After all analysis a workstation and working method are suggested at the
same place where worker used to do the work. And to check the feasibility of
working method and workstation various value from software, body parts
movements within ROM, postures, are compared with the previous method and
workstation to get the same result.

1.1 AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this research work was to study existing
workstation, MSDs problem, and psychological aspects among vendor. And
remedy them with a proper scientific study and workstation design so that
vendors can do better workout any consequences.
Following objective is chosen for the achievement of AIM:1.
2.
3.
4.

To study existing workstation, working layout aspect.

To identify musculoskeletal risk factors and problems in this occupation.
To analyse body postures and workstation with ergonomic aspects.
To design workstation in which worker can do better work without
musculoskeletal problems.

1.2 ASSUMPTION
1. The vendors answered the questionnaires as accurately possible as they
can.
2. This study is limited to a small area in NAGPUR.
3. As all of vendors working in Nagpur are male so gender factor is not
considered.
4. The information regarding their work, work layout, comfort level given by
them is true and best of their experience.

1.3 SCOPE OF PROJECT

It was decided to carry out this project on the road side vendors and their
carts. The actual workstation was organized. But due to irregular fashion of
keeping utensils and containers were not in the range of vendors body parts. As
a result of which vendors offend stress the body during the work. In the traditional
vendor cart workplace was not made by considering the vendors comfort. Also,
after discussion, it was found that many vendors were suffering from back,
shoulder and neck problems.
Here it is decided to study workstation, working postures of the vendors to
help of ergonomics aspects and ERGOFELLOW software tools. And suggest a
proper method and workstation design to reduce the physical problems.

1.4 LIMITATION
As the vendors have less education, lack of knowledge about proper
workstation. It was quite difficult to convince the vendor to participate in the
project work. It eliminates the discussion with vendors about the problems faced
by them and benefits after workstation design.
3

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

CHAPTER 2
This chapter describes The Problem is defined after a precise observation
regarding workstation, vendors activities during a complete a business.
Workstation observation, Observation has done on vendors.
The various methods used for workstation analysis
Description of steps and their analysis of project work
CHAPTER 3
This chapter describes the literature reviewed contained the following points
which are very useful for the successes of the project.
Ergonomics intervention for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in the

workplace.
Evaluation methods and suggestion for a good workstation design.
Questionnaire development to access the actual problem.
Ergonomic its importance and risk factors at work place.
Musculoskeletal disorder, its risk factors and various disorders in body

parts.
Range of motion and the range limits of different posture of trunk and
upper body with directional sign of body segment rotation.
CHAPTER 4
This chapter describes the primary ergonomic surveyed the following points
which are useful for the project.
Description of steps and their analysis of project work.
Design of questionnaire, its analysis with survey result, job description and
task analysis with the help of observation method and Ergo-fellow
software tools.
4

 Overall result of ergonomic analysis in base on primary survey.

CHAPTER 5
This chapter discusses

Basic requirement of the vendor cart

Critical analysis of existing VENDOR CART
Identifying the opportunity for improvement (base on shortcoming)
Identifying the functional requirements (FRs)
Identifying the design parameters (DPs) and linking of FRs with DPs
Ergonomics consideration and design details.

CHAPTER 6
This chapter deals with Conclusion and future scope of the project.

CHAPTER 2: PROBLEM ON HAND

2.1 INTRODUCTION
On an average, each vendor does work for 5 to 6 hours in a day. To get
the actual idea about the workstation 20 vendors has been visited space for work
over the cart were observed by measuring the working area, position of the
vendor in the working area, position of containers over the cart, availability of the
raw materials for the preparation for food,the technique adopted for serving food.
5

Following figure shows, vendors postures and workstation arrangement during

their business.

Figure 2.1:Snaps of vendors during their working hours.

2.2. PROBLEM DEFINATION

The problem is defined after a precise observation regarding workstation,
vendors activities during a complete a business. Following are some
observation-

2.2.1 WORKSTATION OBSERVATION

1. Working space is not hygienic considering vendors comfort.

2. Generally two and three containers carrying water, food storage box,
stove, serving containers, money collecting box is being observed in the
workstation.
3. After serving the food generally it is being found that customers keep the
serving intense randomly on the either side of the cart.
4. There is no any proper method to keep the things in the desirable place to
do work with less effort.
5. Work is always done without considering the body fatigues, body parts
range, arrangement of workstation and comfort etc.
2.2.2 OBSERVATION HAS DONE ON VENDORS
1. Forward bending of trunk and neck is large
2. The Vendor does the work in a static position for long duration.
3. Rotation of trunk on both sides of the body is occurring may times during
4.
5.
6.
7.

work.
Vendors do not have the knowledge about proper workstation.
Vendors dont consider about the items distances from the body range.
Vendors do not consider the effort level, body fatigue during working.
Vendors are always trying to adjust with given facilities, without

considering that much.

8. No one is conscious about the work layout, conditions, and proper
facilities to do work with less effort.

2.3 METHODOLOGY
The goal of the project was to find out the major WMSDs such as back,
shoulder, wrist, neck pain the vendor carts are responsible for above the problem
and risk factors. The anthropometries parameter of the human dimension is
responsible for WMSDs problem. The dimension of the vendor cart should be
proper design.
In doing so the steps we have followed are shown in the flow chart below:

Figure 2.2- METHODOLOGY: PHASE 1

Figure 2.3- Methodology: phase 2 and 3

2.4 STEPS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOAL

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Review of literature.
Design of questionnaire.
Survey to identify various musculoskeletal problems of vendors.
Analysis of working posture with help of ergonomic software.
Existing design.
Proposed ergonomic design.
Design details.

2.5 CONCLUSION
As per the problem which is being found through an observation from both
workstation & vendors activities. We are trying to resolve these problems
through ergonomics aspect.

CHAPTER 3:LITERATURE REVIEW

10

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Study of Ergonomics
The word ERGONOMICS comes from two Greek wordsERGO- Word
NOMOUS-Law
The names developed in 1949 by Murrell during World War II after working with a
team of physiologists, anatomists and engineers at Cambridge University. At the
end of the War Ergonomic Research Society is formed by this group, which is
now the forerunner of similar organizations in many countries todays
Ergonomics means The Natural Laws for doing work, also known as Human
Engineering implies to fit the jobs and worker together. Ergonomics is the study
of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and
its related abilities.
A more detailed definition describes ergonomics asAccording to International Labour Organization (ILO) -It is the application of
human biological sciences in conjunction with engineering sciences to the worker
and his working environment, so to obtain maximum satisfaction for the worker
which at the same time enhances productivity.
The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) -Ergonomics

(for human

factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of

interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession
that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize
human well-being and overall system performance. [1]
According to the International Ergonomics Association there are three disciplines
of ergonomics11

Physical ergonomics: is concerned with anatomy and some of the

anthropometric, Physiological and bio mechanical characteristics as they

related to physical activity.

Cognitive ergonomics: is concerned with mental processes, such as

perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response.

Organizational ergonomics: is concerned with the optimization of social,
technical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and
processes.

3.2 VARIOUS APPROACHES TO THE PRODUCT DESIGN

3.2.1 PRODUCT DESIGN

The term product design itself causes confusion to people in the same
way the generic term design does. When we talk about product design, it usually
has an implied relation with engineering design and industrial design According
to Haik et.al. [2]Product design means engineering design and in the other many
cases, it is dealt as the subject in industrial design [3]. In year 1995 Roozenburg
et.al. had defined product design as the process of devising and laying down the
plans that are needed for the manufacturing of a product.[4]
Thus engineering design and industrial design are viewed as the major
elements of product design that take effort in the practical design activity.

12

Figure 3.1- Two major parts in product design

Product engineering design deals with very wide spectrum, from small
mechanical components to large systems, called technical systems. Pahl et.al.
in the year 1997 had classified the word product design as constitutes plants,
equipment, machine tools, large-scale assembly and components according to
their complexity [5]. Based on the comparison of engineering design and
industrial design regarding product design, we can make a conclusion that
engineering design plays an important role in realizing product-working
functionality while industrial design is responsible for human-using functionality
of the product. In another words, engineering designers are the people who
concern internal design; actualizing functions, working out performance and
product architecture, and industrial designers are the people who are concerned
with external design or user facing design components, such as the user
experience; aesthetics, ergonomics and user interface. Thus, based on this
review of the product types that both disciplines cover, we argue that the
13

products that both disciplines deal with during their collaboration are those
relevant to the study of product design.

Figure 3.2- Industrial design and Engineering design in Product design

2.2.2 DESIGN APPROACH

Design is said to be a human problem solving process. So every design

process has common elements. That is, it starts with a perception of a problem
and ends with some kind of related solution. The problem is transformed into a
solution through the design process. However depending on the discipline, the
design processes used is distinctive in specific way. One of the very simplest and
general design process models is explained in three iterative steps; analysis
synthesis evaluation [6].

14

Figure 3.3- Design process model by Lawson

In year 2007 Hong et. al. illustrates this design process in eight steps.
They are 1. design initiate, 2. design research, 3. design analysis, 4. design
concept, 5. design development, 6. design finalization, 7. design evaluation and
8. design communication.[7] In the year 2008 another, industrial design process
which is been proposed by Ulrich et. al.has six phases; 1. investigation of
customer needs, 2.Conceptualization, 3.preliminary refinement, 4. further
refinement and final concept selection, 5. control drawings or models, and 6.
coordination with engineering, manufacturing, and external vendors [8].

3.3 ERGONOMIC APPROACH TO PRODUCT DESIGN

Chou & Haiao (2005) have used two-dimensional anthropometric
data for developing an electric scooter in Taiwan. The developed electric
scooter resulted in a significant improvement in its appearance and
ergonomic performance. The hierarchical estimation method was applied
to 60 anthropometric

variables

by

using

the

1988

US

Army

anthropometric survey data and used to design an occupant package layout

in a passenger car (You & Ryu 2005).In 2006 Sebo et.al. have collected
anthropometric data that were performed by 12 primary care physicians on 24
adult volunteers in Geneva, Switzerland and that was published in 2008. [9]

15

For ergonomic product design with better safety, comfort and health
consideration three dimensional anthropometry is very important as it
gather rich information. Chang et.al. (2007) have used three-dimensional
anthropometric measurements that offer much more surface information
than traditional dimension measurement and proposed methods for low cost
portable hand-hell laser scanner along with a piece of glass used as a
hand support to reduce scanning shadow areas.[10]
Engineering design is a strong determinant of workplace ergonomics. A
survey among engineers in 20 Danish enterprises indicated that engineers
are not aware that they influence the work environment of other people
(Broberg 2007). Ergonomics had a low rating among engineers, perhaps
because neither management nor safety organizations expressed any
expectations in that area. The study further indicated that the effects of
ergonomics training in engineering schools were very limited. [11]
The anthropometric measurement can be used as a basis for the design
of workstations and personal protective equipments that can make work
environments safer and more users friendly. Currently, there is increasing
demand for this kind of information among those who develop measures to
prevent occupational injuries and increase the level of satisfaction.
Anthropometric

measurements

among

1805

Filipino

workers

in

31

manufacturing industries showed data for standing, sitting, hand and foot
dimensions, breadth and circumference of various body part and grip
strength

that

was

the

first

ever

comprehensive

anthropometric

measurement of Filipino manufacturing workers in the country which is seen

as a significant contribution to the Filipino labor force who are increasingly
employed by both domestic and foreign multinationals and was published in
2007 (Pardo -Lu 2007). This study helps Filipino working population for the
economic design of workstations, personal protective equipments, tools,

16

furniture and interface systems that aid in providing a safer, effective, more
productive and user friendly workplace. [12]
Das, Shikdar & Winters (2007) demonstrated the beneficial effect of a
combined work design and ergonomics approach, especially for the
redesign of a workstation for a repetitive drill press operation that
increase both the production output and operator sat is faction. The result
showed significant improvement in production quantity (22%) and quality
(50%) output as a consequence of applying work design and ergonomics
principles. [13]
Laios & Giannatsis (2010) have employed virtual modeling technique
and

the

method

of principle

component

analysis

for

ergonomic

evaluation and redesign of children bicycles based on anthropometric

data. In Greece the redesigned bicycles are now in full Production and
distribution is underway in many commercial outlets as proper fitting
increases cycling performance, efficiency, and comfort and injury prevention.
[14]

3.4. VARIUOS ERGONOMICS CONSIDERATION

3.4.1 POSTURE ANALYSIS

Body posture can be analysed using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment
(RULA) method also by REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment).RULA is a
method developed for use in ergonomics investigation of workplaces where work
related upper limb disorders are reported. RULA is a screening tool that
assesses biomechanical and postural loading on the whole body with particular
attention to the neck, trunk and upper limbs. A RULA assessment requires little

17

time to complete and the scoring generates an action list, which indicated the
level of intervention required to reduce the risks of a broader ergonomic study.
Drs. McAtamney and Corlett(1993) of the University of Nottinghams Institute
of Occupational Ergonomics developed the RULA [15]. Steps for posture
assessment by RULA,
1. Observing and selecting the posture(s) to assess: - A RULA
assessment represents a moment in the work cycle and it is important to
observe the pressures being adopted whilst undertaking the tasks prior to
selecting the posture (s) for assessment. Depending upon the type of
study, selection may be

made of the longest held posture or what

appears to be the worst posture(s) adopted. In some instances, for

example when the work cycle is long or postures are varied it may be
more appropriate to take an assessment at regular intervals. It will be
evident that if assessments are taken at set intervals over the working
period the proportion of time spent in the various postures can be
evaluated.
2. Scoring and Recording the posture: - Decide whether the left, right or
both upper arms are to be assessed. Score the posture of each body part
using the software. Review the scoring and make any adjustment if
required. Select calculation button.
3. Action Level: - The grand score can be compared to the Action Level list
however it must be remembered that since the human body is a complex
and adaptive system, they provide a guide for further action.
RULA sheet format given Appendix 1.
3.4.2. INDIAN ANTHROPOMETRIC DIMENSIONS (FOR ERGONOMICS
DESIGN PRACTICE)
This is the book written by Debkumar Chakrabarti of National Institute of
Design. It gives the detailed information about the anthropometry of Indian

18

population, their design application, measurement of all body parts in various

postures. It can be used in any ergonomic workstation design. [16]
3.4.3 IMPORTANCES OF ERGONOMICS AT WORKPLACES

To make the work comfortable for the individual workers.

To reduce the risk factors that leads to discomfort.
To reduce the primary risk factors for MSDs
To do work more efficiently.
To increase comfort of worker at workplace.
To get greater job satisfaction.
To increase productivity.
To make healthy and pain free worker
To reduce accidents assure safety.
To reduce absenteeism

3.4.4. ERGONOMICS RISK FACTORS

Ergonomic risk factors are workplace elements that are associated with
discomfort you may experience, and if ignored, over time many contribute to
wear and tear on your body. Following table 2.1shows a risk factors and related
possible solution. [17]
RISK

DEFINITION

POSSIBLE

FACTORS
Poor work organization

SOLUTIONS
Aspects

of

how

organized.

job

is Reasonable
workload, sufficient

Examples include monotonous breaks, task variety,

task,

machine

inadequate
Continual Repetition

paced

breaks,

work, individual
multiple autonomy

deadlines
Performing the same motion Redesign the task
over and over
19

to

reduce

the

number

of

repetitions

or

motions;

increase

recovery

time,

rotate to different
Excessive Force

Forceful
Excessive

body

tasks.
movement. Reduce

physical

the

effort, exertion needed to

pulling, pounding, and pushing

accomplish

the

task; redesign task;

assign more staff;
use
Awkward posture

Prolonge

mechanical

assists.
dbending,reaching, Design task

and

twisting, squatting, kneeling.

equipment to keep

Awkward posture is the opposite

the

of natural position.

neutral positions.

body

Neutral

in

positions

put no undue stress

on muscles, joints
Stationary Positions

and nerves.
Staying in one position too long, Design
task
causing muscles to contract and avoid
fatigue.

stationary

position;

provide

opportunities
Excessive
Positions

to

to

change positions.
Direct Contact of the body with a hard Avoid resting body
surface or edge, such as the on hard surfaces,
corner of a table or too little such as desks and
illumination

counters. Upgrade
equipment

20

or

provide cushioning:

Inadequate lighting

e.g.

ergonomic

pens,

mats

for

standing.
Sources and levels of light that Adjust natural and
provide too much of too little artificial
illumination.

Avoid

lighting.
direct

and

light

that

indirect
can
strain.

cause

eye-

Use

glare

screens, shades for

windows.
Table 3.1 Ergonomic risk factors and related possible solution

3.4.5. MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER (MSDs)

Injuries and disorders of the soft tissues (muscles, tendons, ligaments,
joints and cartilage) and nervous system are called as musculoskeletal disorders.
They can affect nearly all tissues, nerves and tendons sheaths; most frequently
involve the arms and back. Occupational safety and health professionals have
called these disorders as cumulative trauma, repeated trauma, repetitive stress
injuries, and occupational overexertion syndrome.
MSDs usually result from exposure to multiple risk factors that can cause
disorder not from a single event or trauma such as a fail, collision, or
entanglement. These painful and disabling injuries generally developed gradually
over week, months, and years. MSDs can cause pain, numbness, tingling, staff
joints, movement difficulty, muscle loss, and sometimes paralysis. These disorder
include-carpel tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, sciatica, herniated discs, and low back
pain. Parts of the Body Affected by MSDs are Arms, Back, Hands, Wrists,
Fingers, Legs, Neck, and Shoulders.
21

When the physical capabilities of worker do not match with the physical
requirement of the job that times WMSDs occurs. [18]
3.4.4.1. MSD RISK FACTORS

Force
Repetition
Awkward postures
Static postures
Quick motions
Compression or contact stress
Vibration
Cold temperatures

3.4.4.2. MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS IN BODY PARTS

Following table 2.2 shows the possible cause of diseases and their symptoms to
various body parts during work.

Body parts

Symptoms

Possible cause

Disease name

affected
Fingers

Difficulty

moving Repetitive

and Trigger finger

finger, snapping and forceful manual task

jerking movements

without

time

to

recover
Shoulder

Pain, stiffness

Working
hands

with
above

the Rotator

cuff

the tendinitis

head
Wrist

Pain, swelling

Repetitive
forceful

and Carpel
hand

wrist motions

22

and syndrome

tunnel

Hand

Pain, swelling

Arms

outstretched Tenosynovitis

sideways, forward or
upward
Back

Low

back

shooting
numbness
Legs

pain, Trunk curved forward Back disability

pain
in

or while standing/sitting
the

upper legs
Feet,leg,pain,

Standing

varicose veins

place

in
too

one Standing disability,

long, knee pain

kneeling continuously
Neck

Neck pain

Head

inclined

much

forward

too Cervical
or spondylitis

backward
Table 3.2: Musculoskeletal disorders in body parts

3.4.5. RANGE OF MOTION

Generally Range of motion refers to the distance and direction a joint can
move to its full protection. Each specific joint has a normal range of motion that is
expressed in degrees after being measured with a Goniometer (i.e., an
instrument that measures angles from axis of the joint). It is very much useful in
workstation design for a worker, assess the worst posture which is not suitable
for the work and can cause the MSDs problem, also useful to eliminate the
muscle fatigue, joint pain during working. Study or analysis of workstation and
worker with the help of ergonomics assessment tools such as IMAGE ANALYSIS,
VIDEO ANALYSIS, RULA (Rapid upper Limb Assessment), REBA (Rapid Entire
Body Assessment), SUZZANE RODGERS, MOORE E GARG (The strain index),

23

and DISCOMFORT QUESTIONNAIRE is very much easy with the help of this
information. Range of motion can be divided into-[19]
a) Neutral range: The range of motion which presents minimal discomfort to
the joint and adjacent body segments.
b) Effort range: The range of-motion that can be achieved with mild
discomfort to the joint and adjacent body segments.
c) Maximum range: The maximum limits of a joints range-of-motion
According to the above three ranges of motion, the range limits of different
posture of the trunk and upper body is shown in table and Directional signs of
body segment rotation in table, related image are shown by figure 3.6

24

FIG.

POSTURE

NO.

NEUTRAL

EFFORT

MAXIMUM

RANGE

RANGE

RANGE

( in degree x0)

(in

(in degree xo)

degree xo)
a.

Viewing

-45 to 15

-70 to 48

b.

angles(vertical)
Viewing

-15 to 15

-30 to 30
-75 to 75

angle(horizontal)
c.

Neck /head vertical

-45 to 45

d.

angle
Neck /head rotation

-20 to 20

e.

angle
Neck /head lateral

-20 to 20

-35 to 35

f.

angle
Trunk flexion-

-30 to 30

-70 to 30

g.

extension
Trunk twist/rotation

-20to 20

-42 to 42

-40 to 40

-45 to 45

-80 to 80

angle
h.

Trunk lateral

-20 to 20

I.

bending
Wrist extension-

-15 to 15

-45 to 45

-85 to 85

j.

flexion
Wrist deviation

-15 to 5

-40 to 25

-45 to 40

k.

angle
Elbow included

70 to 135

50 to -160

35 to 180

l.

angle
Forearm rotation

-90 to -30

-120 to 30

-180 to 90

m.

angle
Shoulder

-27 to -45

-45 to 90

-61 to 188

n.

extension- flexion
Shoulder add,

-45 to 20

-90 to 45

-134 to 48

o.

-abduction
Human rotation

-20 to 45

-34 to 97

angle
25

Table 3.3: The range limits of different postures of the trunk and upper
body

DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OF BODY SEGMENT ROTATION

FIGURE

POSTURE

POSITIVE SIGN(+)

NEGATIVE (-)

Viewing angles(vertical)

Upward rotation

Downward

NO.
a.
b.

Viewing angle(horizontal)

Left rotation

rotation
Right rotation

c.

Neck /head vertical angle

Extension

Flexion

d.

Neck /head rotation angle

Left rotation

Right rotation

e.

Neck /head lateral angle

Right bending

Left bending

f.

Trunk flexion-extension

Extension

Flexion

g.

Trunk twist/rotation angle

Left rotation

Right rotation

h.

Trunk lateral bending

Right bending

Left bending

I.

Wrist extension-flexion

Flexion

Extension

j.

Wrist deviation angle

Radial deviation

Ulnar deviation

26

k.

Elbow included angle

Always positive

l.

Forearm rotation angle

Supination

Pronation

m.

Shoulder extension- flexion

Flexion

Extension

n.

Shoulder add, -abduction

Adduction

Abduction

o.

Human rotation angle

Medial rotation

Lateral rotation

Table 3.4 directional signs of body segment rotation

27

Figure 3.1. The range limits of different postures of the trunk and up

CHAPTER 4:
PRIMARY ERGONOMIC SURVEY

4.1. INTRODUCTION

In this research various ergonomics methods and techniques have been

used and applied to obtain information related to musculoskeletal disorder and
risk factors. Ergonomics evaluation is done by observational methods with the
help of some tools of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE such as Image analysis,
Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Survey is done by making the
questionnaire

related

to

work,

working

condition

and

work-related

musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) to get about actual problem existence.

4.2 OBSERVTION METHOD

This method needs to observe the procedure of the work by vendor and
the positions of their ody posture during performing their job. The observation
28

method has two way is through by video analysis or image capture. By this
method, the position of body posture like awkward or normal position can be
defined and also can find out the angles of each position of everybody member.
These data will analysis by a tool assessment such as RULA (Rapid Upper Limb
Assessment)

4.3. ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE USED

The software was developed by FBF SISTEMAS in 2009 and it is very useful
for ergonomists and for all professionals in the area of occupational safety and
health. The software ERGOFELLOW has 17 ergonomic tools to evaluate and
improve workplace conditions, in order to reduce occupational risk and increase
productivity.[20]
1. NIOSH (Revised Lifting Equation)
2. OWAS (Ovaco Working Posture Analysing System)
3. RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment)
4. REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment)
5. SUZZANE RODGERS
6. MOORE E GARG (The Strain Index)
7. DISCOMFORT QUESTIONNAIRE
8. QEC (Quick Exposure Check)
9. LEHMANN
10. IMAGE ANALYSIS
11. VIDEO ANALYSIS
12. ANTHROPOMETRY
13. CALCULATION OF FORCE
14. PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)
15. HEAT STRESS
16. NOISE EXPOSURE (OSHA)
17. TYPING EVALUATION
From those tools only three tools have been used, i.e. IMAGE ANALYSIS, VIDEO
ANALYSIS, RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment).
4.3.1 IMAGE ANALYSIS

29

Image analysis is very important in the Ergonomics, mainly for evaluation of

position and determination of points and angles. In this software, user can open
an image, move it with the scrollbars, apply polar and linear grids, and calculate
angles.

4.3.2 VIDEO ANALYSIS

Video analysis is very important in the Ergonomics, mainly to evaluate posture,
time in each posture, time of the work cycle, and improvement in the task act. In
this software, user can load a video, play it in three different speeds, increase
zooms, regulate the sound and pause at any point during the execution

4.4. DESIGN OF QUESTIONNARE

`To get the information about the existence of problems related to vendor and
working area, one questionnaire is made (Hindi and English) containing the
questions related to, whole information of vendors (age, weight, height, working
years) MSDs problems, working conditions, working environment, compatibility,
working hours, the problem faced during working. (The Questionnaire is shown in
appendix 1)

4.5.

ANALYSIS

OF

OCCUPATIONAL

DISORERS

WITH

QUESTIONNAIRE
A survey is done on 20 vendors by asking those questions (with the help
of Hindi sheet) to them and data are analysed.
Information of vendor is given the Table 4.1 and Results are shown graphically in
fig. 4.1

30

Total number of vendors 20

Age

- 21 to 46 years

Working hours

Sl

Name

- 5 to 6 hours

Age

Weight

Height

no

Years

of Working

experience hours

Sandip Jogdane

26

60

5.5

Netish Desai

35

65

5.7

12

Ekbal Khan

40

68

5.3

20

Samir Mujmule

28

70

5.7

Rum Wnkhade

46

68

5.6

20

Nilesh More

30

60

5.2

Imran

43

67

5.5

15

Amon Sakat

32

69

5.1

Sagar Jogdande

28

70

10

Pandit

26

68

5.7

11

Suraj Solanki

32

66

5.4

12

Pappu

27

63

5.6

13

Chotu

23

58

5.4

14

Anil kumar

42

69

5.7

17

15

Ashok Desai

32

61

5.5

16

Sumit Amle

40

70

5.1

15

17

Vikash Pande

29

60

5.3

18

Nikil Bisandre

30

65

5.7

19

Soyal Khan

32

63

5.2

20

Mridul akat

28

70

5.6

5
4

Table 4.1: Information for vendors participated in the survey

31

Those all surveyed sheet is analyzed and it is seen that many vendors
was facing the MSDs problem in various body parts. The percentage of vendors
suffering from MSDs in different parts of the body are as back 70%, Neck 75%,
Shoulder 55%, Wrist 40%, Leg 45%, Knee 50%, Arm 40%, Elbow 35%. The
result is shown graphically in Figure 4.1.
80
70
60
50
YES(%)

40

NO(%)
30
20
10
0
Leg

Knee

Back

Arm

Shoulder Elbow

Wrist

Neck

Figure 4.1.: Graph of % of vendors suffering from MSDs problem in

different body parts.

4.5.

ANALYSIS OF WORKING POSTURE

32

Image analysis tool of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE and standard ROM

(Range of Motion) (Table 2.2) containing the value of angle of different body parts
movement are used to analyse posture. Photography and video are taken during
working. Photo and freeze frame from video records are subjected to analyses.
Posture angle is determined to help of photos. Measurement of the angle
between the angle between the body parts, the length of working time for specific
repetitive harmful postures and effort on the vendors is taken into account. Those
angles of body parts movements are comparable with the table 2.1 and table 2.2
to get information about MSDs problems. Following figure shows the vendor
posture analysis with the help of image analysis tools by drawing the different
analysis on the image during the work.

Vendor- 1 selected for analysis was Sandi Jogdan , Age-26, Weight-60 and
Height-5.5 feet

33

Figure 4.2 diagram posture angle during working vendor-1

Vendor 2 selected for analysis was Pappu, Age-27, Weight-63 and Height-5.6
feet
34

Fig 4.3 diagram posture angle during working vendor-2

From above observation, it is seen that the posture is not suitable for
working as the neck and trunk forward bending angle is not in a neutral angle
35

(see table 2.2). Lower arm and upper arm too much angle to the body, also long
duration static position is seen during working which is very much harmful for the
body. Flexion, forward bending, in the hip-joint and back can cause lordships in
the lumbar region.

4.6.

RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) ANALYSIS:

4.6.1. RULA TEST OF VENDOR -1

Angle
Neck Angle

Degree
25o

Trunk Angle

450

Upper arm

300

Lower arm

45o

Wrist

160

Leg

Balance

Lower arm- across the midline of the body, Wrist-wrist is bent away from the
midline, Wrist twist- twisted away from handshake position, neck- twist, trunktwist, leg and feet are well supported and in an evenly balanced posture

36

RESULT

Fig 4.4 RULA result sheet for vendor 1

From this it is seen that the score of RULA assessment is 7 i.e. high risk of
MSDs problem. Hence there is need to investigate the working posture and
action must take as early as possible to avoid further discrepancies.

4.6.2. RLA TEST OF VENDOR -2

Angle
Neck Angle
Trunk Angle
Upper arm

Degree
20
5
30
37

Lower arm
45
Wrist
15
Leg
Balance
Lower Arm- across outside of the body, Wrist twist- twisted away from handshake
position, Neck- twist, Leg and Feet are well supported and in an evenly balanced
posture.
RESULT

Figure 4.5 RULA result sheet for vendor 2

From this it is seen that the score of RULA assessment is 5 i.e. high risk of
MSDs problem. Hence there is need to investigate the working posture and
changes are required soon.

38

4.7. OVEARALL SURVAY RESULT

ACTIVITY
TOOL
Vendor made RULA

SCORE
7&5

RISK LEVEL
High

ACTION
Investigation &

and served food

changes

at ground level in

required

standing position

immediately
WMSDs

Shoulder, neck,

High

Change

Elbow, back,

working

Leg,

posture

4.8. CONCLUSION

From the above analysis, it was confirmed that the working place is not
suitable for working and vendors. Vendors are going through the MSDs problem
and there is need to study, analysis that working area, to get a proper method or
technique or remedy all those problems.

39

CHAPTER 5: ERGONOMICS DESIGN OF VENDOR CART

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Workplace to be functional, both the user of the space and work to be
performed must be considered. Workplace arrangement should consider worker
comfort, physical constraints and performance requirement. Some considerations
regarding worker are as What the workers need to see?
The amount of communication with owner
Equipment and material that the worker must be able to work with and
reach
Body clearance that is needed by the worker
It is important to consider both physiological and psychological elements in
the design of the workplace. Space should be designed so that proper posture
can be maintained, body weight can be properly distributed, cardiovascular
action is properly maintained, and the possibility of fatigue is minimized.
A worker should receive psychological motivation from the workplace.to
facilities this, the workplace needs to be attractive, convenient, organized, safe
and simple.
Arm reach and hand motion are important considerations in the workplace
design. There are two types of arms reach; normal work area and maximum
reach area. Normal area is the position of a workplace that can be reached by
hand without moving the arm from the side of the body. Maximum reach area is
the position of a workplace that can be reached by stretching the arms to full
length without disturbing the body. Ideally a worker should able a perform work
40

at a station without moving beyond the normal work area or occasionally

maximum reach area [21]

5.2 BASIC REQUIREMENT OF VENDOR CART

The vendor cart is generally a compact mobile cart fully self-contained and
design to serve of limited menu. Typically in vendors cart stove is being used for
making and reheating the fast food. Most of the carts which is being surveyed
use an LPG cylinder to heat the food, containers over the cart, availability the raw
material for the preparation of the food, money collection box. Colorful canopy is
installed in protective the food preparation area from contamination, provide
some shad and advertised cart location.
Cart is generally built from materials that resist corrosion and are easy to
clean. This generally means that they are made up of plastic, wood or fiberglass.
The food preparation body of the cart is offending mounted on a chassis that can
be easily towed, to a vendor location by hand.
Sl. No
1.
2.
3
4
5

Basic things
Flat table
Canopy
Storage box
Containers
Stove

5.3. EXISTING DESIGN

5.3.1 EXISTING WORKPLACE
The work place for all the vendors is depends upon the area or the
periphery over their own cart it has been found that the in most of the case
vendors keep their water in the container for cleaning of the utensils out of the
cart, just nearby their comfortable working zone of their cart.
41

5.3.2 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EXISTING VENDOR CART

The critical analysis is being done by surveying about 20 vendors, which is
being displayed in the Following figure 5.1 and 5.2.

Fig. No.5.1: existing cart layout made by Catia v5 software

42

Fig 5.3: Dimension of existing cart

Complete analysis has been summarized in the following table:Sl. No
DESIGN PARAMETERS
1.
Cart height
2.
Working table to canopy height
3
Working table height
4.
Working table length
5.
Working table width
6.
Working table thickness
7.
Food storage box length
8.
Food storage box width
9
Food storage box height
10.
Big container diameter
11.
Big container height
Table 5.1 : Design parameters of existing cart

DIMENSION(MM)
2128
1368
760
1500
1000
50
1300
450
450
200
280

5.3.3. IDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT (BASE ON

SHORTCOMING)
1. Often its been seen in practice that utensils have been kept in an irregular
fashion.
2. Unhygienic / unscientific to work throughout the cart periphery.
43

3. There is a possibility of any sought of accident regarding fire where since

the cart which where been surveyed were made up of wood.
4. As a comfortable standing and sitting posture the table height creates a
problem.
5. Basically vendors cart are mobile carts, thus to the movement of cart
become problematic because of the height of the storage box.
6. Due to the height of shelves it is inconvenient to see through the glass.

5.4. PROPOSED ERGONOMIC DESIGN

5.4.1 IDENTIFY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (FRS):

Identify Functional requirements (FRs) are a minimum set of independent
requirements that completely characterizes the functional needs of the product
(or software, organizations, systems, etc.) in the functional domain. By definition,
each FRs is independent of every other FR at the time the FRs are established.
In the design process of any device of meaningful complexity, there will be a
hierarchical ordering to the functional requirements (FRs). Figure 5.2 displays the
functional hierarchy for a mobile fast food cart. The most general functional
description appears at the top of the hierarchy and is labeled mobile fast food At
the next lower level in the hierarchy; the functions are broken up into four
separate functions

44

45

Figure 5.4 Hierarchical displays of functional requirements for a Mobile Fast food
car

46

5.4.2 IDENTIFYING THE DESIGN PARAMETERS (DPS)

Design Parameters (DPs)Variables that describe the design in the physical
solution space. DPs are the physical characteristics of a particular design that
has been specified through the design process.

Figure 5.5 Hierarchical display of design parameters for a Vendor cart

47

5.4.3 LINKING OF FRS AND DPS:

Figure 5.6 Link between FRs and DP

48

. 5.4.4 ERGONOMIC CONSIDERATION

Nowadays the Indian market follows standards are basically referred from
American or European ergonomics standards. It becomes a quiet, serious
concern when we talk about working efficiency, personal health over the usage
cycle. Erroneously designed systems persuade improper postures leads to
operational uneasiness. Designing of systems without considering

body

dimensional requirements for envisioning users causes operational uneasiness,

musculoskeletal and sometimes physiological disorders.
For getting the , anthropometric data, the researchers revised themselves
amongst various populations in different countries and are used as ready
references by designers. Specialists suggest that anthropometric data to be used
for specific groups should be based on same population groups. [9]. In our day to
day life the global products today are designed for global audience, which offers
very less flexibility, customization to users across. There are a lot of examples
where its been found that a bulk of furniture in Indian market fails to address the
issue of designs confining to Indian anthropometric data. It is because of
absence of indigenous design development in furniture and above them to stay in
the competition, manufacturers often copy existing furniture designs and fold
them in

the local market. Furniture designing which were deprived of

consideration for the proper body dimensional requirement of intended users do

not serve purpose and have less acceptance value. Along with this Indian
behavior also differs from western behavior. Designing of products should be
based on factors like users age, sex and postural considerations.
Table underneath shows key ergonomic parameters for 50 percentile of Indian
dimension used in deciding critical dimensions of design a prototype.

49

5.4.4.1 ERGONOMICS MEASUREMENT TABLE 1

Table 5.2 Ergonomics Reference Table 1 source: Chakrabarti, D.,1997:

Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergonomic design Practice, NID,
Ahmedabad, India
50

5.4.4.2 ERGONOMICS MEASUREMENT TABLE 2

Table: 5.3 Ergonomics Reference Table 2 source: Chakrabarti, D.,1997:

Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergonomic design Practice, NID,
Ahmedabad, India

51

5.4.4.3.

ERGONOMICS MEASUREMENT TABLE 3

Table 5.4 Ergonomics Reference Table 2 source: Chakrabarti, D.,1997:

Indian Anthropometric Dimensions for Ergonomic design Practice, NID,
Ahmedabad, India
52

5.4.5. DESIGN DETAILS:

Materials used in cart furniture include wood, plywood, chipboard, plastic,
mild steel or stainless steel. Exposed wood surfaces are varnished or laminated
with plastic. Shelves are of wood or plastic coated chipboard; metal shelves are
best for pans and pots. Special equipments like universal cutting board, pull out
drawers, pull out towel rails, hinged compartments etc. save time and effort.
Plates washers to be fitted on the left side of sink.

POSITION
NUMBER
1
Storage box
2
Stove
3
Drinking water
4
Cutting food table
5,6,7
Big & small container
8
Shelve box
9
Money box
table 5.5 position of using parameters
SL

DESIGN

DIMENSION

NO

PARAMETERS

(mm)

FIGURE

53

H
D
1. Working

table

height(H)

2. Working

779

table

length(L)

3. Working
width(D)

1658

table
1004

54

4. Storage

box

height ( h)
5. Storage
length(l)
6. Storage

box
1500
box

width(d)

500

7.

Shelve height(h) 1749

8. Shelve
box
depth(w)

300

Canopy height

1869

9.

55

5.4.6. FINAL PROTOTYPE OF A NEW MOBILE VENDOR CART

5.5 CONCLUSION:

Using anthropometry data, the work reach envelope analysis is carried out
to relocate various elements of work station.Ergo fellow and CATIA-V5 software
the existing situation is modelled to identify the need of redesigning of a cart.
It may be suggested from the present study that the design criteria should be
selected based on the anthropometric dimensions of Indian. There are chances
of mismatch between the Indian dimensions and available vendor carts. The ill
56

and improper design of carts may create many problems for the vendors
such as fatigue, muscular stress, and discomfort/pain in different body parts.
Based on the relevant dimensions, the anthropometric data of Indian in
table-5.2,5.3, and 5.4

were

compared

with

the dimensions

of

different

models of Carts in table-.5.6. The analysis shows that most of the models
of carts used which were designed without considering the anthropometry of
users dont match with the user population and were not compatible with the
majority of the user population and causes a feeling of discomfort which
may result in lack of concentration and future MSDs .
A design with combined appropriate values from the table 5.6 can give a better
design model which can reduce the problems and improve the efficiency.While
making vendor cart the anthropometric dimension of the user population should
be used.

The cart

should be designed to suit the majority of the user

population,therefore it should be concentrated 50th percentile male which covers

the majority of the user population. Even though it is difficult to design for all the
users, but a product that matches the majority of the user population can be
designed

and the

problems solved up

to a considerable extent.The

anthropometric measurements from the present study may be helpful in

designing the vendor cart used in the business purpose for vendors.

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

6.1 CONCLUSION:
This thesis attempts to identify key user needs in Indian vendor cart. This
population segment is uneducated. Hence forth concepts are proposed and a
physical prototype is proposed that meets user requirements. The thesis takes a
57

bold step ahead in adding an interactive element to concepts which might

become a standard in the future. The contributions of this dissertation are stated
as under
1. This thesis gives out a step by step approach which should be carried
out in developing vendor cart starting from need identification to
physical product development and beyond. We hopes that the process
followed could be useful to unorganized or small scale industries in
gaining competency.
2. This thesis also documents relevant anthropometric data, important
guidelines necessary for planning any vendor cart. Reference to this
thesis work would acts as a quick guide to Indian vendors in creating
efficient carts.
3. various surveys are done with the help of questionnaires made and the
root cause of the problem in operating vendor cart is determined.
4. By using observation method and ERGOFELLOW software tools worst
posture of vendors are found out and remedy action are suggested.

6.2 FUTURE SCOPE:

1. To the best of our knowledge, a concept like this for mobile vendor cart
does not exist at present in the market.
2. Future refinement of the idea on these lines and development could create
an indigenous product of high value.
3. This thesis is only a small step towards future development of an efficient
smart vendor carts.
4. There is scope of work over how physical embodiment of existing
technology in communication, information display etc. takes place into the
vendor carts furniture in future.

58

REFERENCES
1. Gavriel Salvendry {2000}. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics
7th Ed, John Wiley & Sony , Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey
2. Haik, Y., Engineering Design Process, Thomson Learning Pacific Grove CA.
USA, 2003
3. Lorenz, C., The Design Dimension, Basil Blackwell Ltd. New York, 1986.
4. Roozenburg, N. F. M. & Eekels, J., Product Design: Fundamentals and
Methods, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Chichester, UK, 1995.
5. Phal,G.&Beitz,W.,EngineeringDesign-a
(translated),Seoul, 1997.

59

systematicapproach,DongMyungSa,

6. Lawson, B (1997) How designers think: the design process demystified (3rd edn)
Architectural Press, Oxford, Boston
7. Park, H., Son, J.-S. & Lee, K.-H., Design evaluation of digital consumer
products using virtual reality-based functional behaviour simulation, Journal of
Engineering Design, Vol.19,No.4.,2008, pp 359-375
8. Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D., Product Design and Development, McGrawHill Singapore, 2008
9. Chou, j & Haiao, S 2005, An anthropometric measurement for
developing

an

electric scooter, International Journal of Industrial

Ergonomics, vol. 35, pp. 1047-1063

10. Chang, C, Li, Z, Cai, X & Dempsey P 2007, Error control and
calibration in three-dimensional anthropometric measurement of the hand
by laser scanning with glass support, Measurement, vol. 40, pp. 21-27
11. Broberg, O 2007, Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical
evidence and implications for the ergonomists, Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 353-366.
12. Pardo-Lu 2007, Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing
workers, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 37, pp. 497503.
13. Das, B, Shikdar AA & Winters T 2007, Workstation redesign for a
repetitive

drill

ergonomics

press operation:
approach,

combined

Human Factors

work

design

and

and Ergonomics in

Manufacturing, vol.17, no. 4, pp. 395-410.

14. Laios, L & Giannatsis, J 2010, Ergonomic evaluation and redesign of
children bicycles based on anthropometric data, Applied Ergonomics, vol.
41, pp. 428-435.
15. Mc Atamney, L.and Corlett, and E.N. RULA-: A survey method for
investigation of

work related upper limb disorders. Journal of APPLIED

ERGONOMICS 1993,VOL.24,NO.2, 91-99

16. Debkumar Chakrabarti (1997). Indian anthropometric dimensions.
National Institute of Design.
17. Scott Openshaw et.al (2006), Ergonomics and Design- A Reference
Guide Allsteel
60

18. OSHA ACADAMY GUIDE 3125(2000),Ergonomics: The Study of Work,

U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
19. Hongwei Hsiao and W. Monroe Keyserling ( 1991) , Evaluating
posture

behavior

during

seated

tasks, International

Journal

of

Industrial Ergonomics, 8, 313- 334

20. ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE by FBF SISTIMAS in 2009 Available onhttp://www.fbfsistemas.com/ergonomics.html
21. Cherie Berry (2009). A Guide to Ergonomics, N. C. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Program
22.

61