Validation of the Lifting Fatigue Failure Tool (LiFFT)

  • Sean Gallagher
  • Richard F. Sesek
  • Mark C. SchallJr.
  • Rong Huangfu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)


Manual material handling is common in industry and has demonstrated a strong association with the development of low back disorders (LBDs). Several risk assessment tools exist in the literature to assess acceptable lifting limits, and/or the development of improved design of manual lifting tasks. However, recent evidence has strongly suggested that LBDs (and other MSDs) may the result of a process of mechanical fatigue failure. Prior tools have not used fatigue failure methods to assess risk, which may be beneficial is these disorders are indeed the result of such a process. The purpose of this paper is to describe a new risk assessment tool for manual lifting (LiFFT) and to provide validation of this tool using two existing epidemiological databases. Results demonstrate that the LiFFT cumulative damage measure is significantly associated with low back outcomes in both epidemiological studies.


Low back disorders Risk assessment Fatigue failure Epidemiology 


  1. 1.
    Balagué F, Mannion AF, Pellisé F, Cedraschi C (2012) Non-specific low back pain. Lancet 379:482–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calvo-Muñoz I, Gómez-Conesa A, Sánchez-Meca J (2013) Prevalence of low back pain in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. BMC Pediatr 13:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, Woolf A, Vos T, Buchbinder R (2012) A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 64:2028–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81:646–656Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher S, Schall MC Jr (2016) Musculoskeletal disorders as a fatigue failure process: evidence, implications and research needs. Ergonomics 60:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinckmann P, Biggemann M, Hilweg D (1988) Fatigue fracture of human lumbar vertebrae. Clin Biomech 3:S1–S23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallagher S, Marras WS, Litsky AS, Burr D, Landoll J, Matkovic V (2007) A comparison of fatigue failure responses of old versus middle-aged lumbar motion segments in simulated flexed lifting. Spine 32:1832–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jager M, Luttmann A (1991) Compressive strength of lumbar spine elements related to age, gender, and other influencing factors. Electromyographical Kinesiol 291–294Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, Rajulu SL, Allread WG, Fathallah FA, Ferguson SA (1993) The role of dynamic three-dimensional trunk motion in occupationally-related low back disorders: the effects of workplace factors, trunk position, and trunk motion characteristics on risk of injury. Spine 18:617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zurada J, Karwowski W, Marras WS (1997) A neural network-based system for classification of industrial jobs with respect to risk of low back disorders due to workplace design. Appl Ergon 28:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sesek RF (1999) Evaluation and refinement of ergonomic survey tools to evaluate worker risk of cumulative trauma disorders (Dissertation)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean Gallagher
    • 1
  • Richard F. Sesek
    • 1
  • Mark C. SchallJr.
    • 1
  • Rong Huangfu
    • 1
  1. 1.Auburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations