Evaluation of Repetitive Lifting Tasks Performed in Brick and Concrete Block Factories in Pakistan

  • Zafar UllahEmail author
  • Shahid Maqsood
  • Rashid Nawaz
  • Imran Ahmad
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


Repetitive manual lifting and lowering tasks exposes workers to a high-risk musculoskeletal disorder. This paper aims at the assessment of postures of workers during the piling up process of a Concrete Block and Bricks (CB&B) at CB&B manufacturing factories in Pakistan and to study the effect of different risk factors such as contact force, stresses, and repetition of jobs that put muscles under redundant physical forces, which causes musculoskeletal disorders. The lifting indices (LI) of concrete blocks are 1.57 at the origin and 2.04 at the destination similarly LI for the bricks were 0.60 at the origin and 0.77 at the destination using the NOISH equation. For this purpose, the anthropometric data of 103 workers, working in 33 different factories, was collected. The postures were simulated and analyzed, using a human modelling solution HumanCAD software, with an objective to minimize the risk of work-related injuries, and stresses on the different parts of body was calculated. The results showed in current work environment, 38.83% of workers have lower back musculoskeletal disorder, followed by 31.06% with upper back, 29.12% with thorax and 24.27% with neck. Therefore, re-design the lifting methods of CB&B factories are essential in order to reduce the work-related injuries. The reports were shared with the CB&B industries.


Musculoskeletal disorders Lifting task Lower back pain Muscle stresses Digital human modelling 



The authors are grateful to all Brick and Concrete Block industries administrations and workers who participated in this study. The Author(s) also like to thank Board of Studies and Advanced Research (BOSAR), University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar for the research funding.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Jamali AA et al (2016) Assessment of Occupational Health, Safety and Environment in Brick Kiln Industries at Tando Hyder, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dussault G, Franceschini MC (2006) Not enough there, too many here: understanding geographical imbalances in the distribution of the health workforce. Hum Resources Health 4(1):12. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Russell SJ et al (2007) Comparing the results of five lifting analysis tools. Appl Ergon 38(1):91–97. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harreby M et al (1999) Risk factors for low back pain in a cohort of 1389 Danish school children: an epidemiologic study. Eur Spine J 8(6):444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engels JA et al (1996) Work related risk factors for musculoskeletal complaints in the nursing profession: results of a questionnaire survey. Occup Environ Med 53(9):636–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marras W (2000) Occupational low back disorder causation and control. Ergonomics 43(7):880–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dagli CH Artificial neural networks for intelligent manufacturingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waters TR et al (1993) Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 36(7):749–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choobineh A, Tabatabaee SH, Behzadi M (2009) Musculoskeletal problems among workers of an iranian sugar-producing factory. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 15(4):419–424. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choobineh A et al (2007) Musculoskeletal problems in Iranian hand-woven carpet industry: Guidelines for workstation design. Appl Ergon 38(5):617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keyserling WM (2000) Workplace risk factors and occupational musculoskeletal disorders, Part 2: a review of biomechanical and psychophysical research on risk factors associated with upper extremity disorders. AIHAJ-Am Ind Hyg Assoc 61(2):231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takala E-P et al (2010) Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand J Work Environ Health 3–24Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stock SR (1991) Workplace ergonomic factors and the development of musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper limbs: a meta-analysis. Am J Ind Med 19(1):87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pavlović-Veselinović S Repetition as a risk factor for the development of musculoskeletal disordersGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loisel P et al (2005) Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil 15(4):507–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dall TM et al (2013) Modeling the indirect economic implications of musculoskeletal disorders and treatment. Cost Eff Resource Alloc 11(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dul J, Neumann WP (2009) Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl Ergon 40(4):745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rost K, Smith JL, Dickinson M (2004) The effect of improving primary care depression management on employee absenteeism and productivity a randomized trial. Med Care 42(12):1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Braakman-Jansen LM et al (2011) Productivity loss due to absenteeism and presenteeism by different instruments in patients with RA and subjects without RA. Rheumatology 51(2):354–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johns G (2011) Attendance dynamics at work: the antecedents and correlates of presenteeism, absenteeism, and productivity loss. J Occup Health Psychol 16(4):483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    David G (2005) Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup Med 55(3):190–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schaub KG et al (2012) Ergonomic assessment of automotive assembly tasks with digital human modelling and the ‘ergonomics assessment worksheet’(EAWS). Int J Hum Factors Model Simul 3(3–4):398–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ding Z (2013) Manual assembly modelling and simulation for ergonomics analysis. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang SW, Wang MJJ (2007) Digital human modeling and workplace evaluation: using an automobile assembly task as an example. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 17(5):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Duffy VG (2008) Handbook of digital human modeling: research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. CRC Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chaffin DB (2008) Digital human modeling for workspace design. Rev Hum Factors Ergon 4(1):41–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Colombo G, Regazzoni D, Rizzi C (2013) Ergonomic design through virtual Humans. Comput Aided Des Appl 10(5):745–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Álvarez-Casado E et al (2016) Using ergonomic digital human modeling in evaluation of workplace design and prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders aboard small fishing vessels. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 26(4):463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lämkull D, Hanson L, Örtengren R (2009) A comparative study of digital human modelling simulation results and their outcomes in reality: a case study within manual assembly of automobiles. Int J Ind Ergon 39(2):428–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waters TR (2007) When is it safe to manually lift a patient? AJN Am J Nurs 107(8):53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chung MK, Kee D (2000) Evaluation of lifting tasks frequently performed during fire brick manufacturing processes using NIOSH lifting equations. Int J Ind Ergon 25(4):423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Waters T, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A (2003) Revised NIOSH lifting equation. Occup Ergon Eng Adm ControlsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zafar Ullah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shahid Maqsood
    • 1
  • Rashid Nawaz
    • 1
  • Imran Ahmad
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Engineering and TechnologyPeshawarPakistan
  2. 2.Hanyang University Erica CampusAnsanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations