Advertisement

Analysis of Skeletal Muscle System Loads for the Most Optimal Positions During Lifting in Different Load Distances

  • Bieniek Andrzej
  • Szczygioł Anna
  • Michnik Robert
  • Chrzan Miłosz
  • Wodarski Piotr
  • Jurkojć Jacek
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 831)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the distance between load and the ankle joint on musculoskeletal system loading. The Any-Body software with the verified model was used for calculations of loads of muscoskeletal system during the initial phase of lifting. A total of 3,485 static musculoskeletal models in different positions were analyzed, out of which 13 with optimal lumbar spine loads were selected. Recived data from model calculation were knee joint reactions, L5S1 intervertebral disc reactions and sum of squares of muscle forces. Results confirm that the musculoskeletal system loading increase with growth of the load distance. However, it is worth to notice that optimal models basing on reactions in lumbar spine are not optimal in terms of knee joint loads and energy expenditure. In addition, there was also no change in the reactions observed in the literature for a load distance of about 0.4 m. It indicates that this change may be the result of the habits of the subjects but not the actual increase in efficiency. These study is an introduction to a broader analysis of the presented issue.

Keywords

Lifting Inverse dynamics Digital human modelling Muscle force Optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Arjmand, N., Ekrami, O., Shirazi-Adl, A., Plamondon, A., Parnianpour, M.: Relative performances of artificial neural network and regression mapping tools in evaluation of spinal loads and muscle forces during static lifting. J. Biomech. 46, 1454–1462 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arjmand, N., Gagnon, D., Plamondon, A., Shirazi-Adl, A., Larivière, C.: A comparative study of two trunk biomechanical models under symmetric and asymmetric loadings. J. Biomech. 43, 485–491 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.09.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arjmand, N., Plamondon, A., Shirazi-Adl, A., Larivière, C., Parnianpour, M.: Predictive equations to estimate spinal loads in symmetric lifting tasks. J. Biomech. 44, 84–91 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.08.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arjmand, N., Plamondon, A., Shirazi-Adl, A., Parnianpour, M., Larivière, C.: Predictive equations for lumbar spine loads in load-dependent asymmetric one- and two-handed lifting activities. Clin. Biomech. 27, 537–544 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.12.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bassani, T., Stucovitz, E., Qian, Z., Briguglio, M., Galbusera, F.: Validation of the AnyBody full body musculoskeletal model in computing lumbar spine loads at L4L5 level. J Biomech. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.04.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgess-Limerick, R., Abernethy, B.: Effect of lead distance on self-selected manual lifting technique. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 22, 367–372 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00090-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, C.C., Brown, D.R., Bloswick, D.S., Hsiang, S.M.: Biomechanical simulation of manual lifting using spacetime optimization. J. Biomech. 34, 527–532 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00222-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciriello, V.M.: The effects of box size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 32, 115–120 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00045-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciriello, V.M.: The effects of container size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for female industrial workers. Appl. Ergon. 38, 1–5 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colobert, B., Multon, F., Cretual, A., Delamarche, P.: Biomechanical simulation of human lifting. In: ESM 2003: 17th European Simulation Multiconference: Foundations for Successful Modelling and Simulation, pp. 318–322 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Dieën, J.H., Hoozemans, M.J.M., Toussaint, H.M.: Stoop or squat: a review of biomechanical studies on lifting technique. Clin. Biomech. 14, 685–696 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dreischarf, M., Rohlmann, A., Graichen, F., Bergmann, G., Schmidt, H.: In vivo loads on a vertebral body replacement during different lifting techniques. J. Biomech. 49, 890–895 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faber, G.S., Chang, C.C., Kingma, I., Dennerlein, J.T.: Estimating dynamic external hand forces during manual materials handling based on ground reaction forces and body segment accelerations. J. Biomech. 46, 2736–2740 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.07.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faber, G.S., Kingma, I., Bakker, A.J.M., van Dieën, J.H.: Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body. J. Biomech. 42, 35–41 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogleman, M., Smith, J.L.: The use of biomechanical measures in the investigation of changes in lifting strategies over extended periods. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 16, 57–71 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-8141(94)00087-JCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gagnon, D., Larivière, C., Loisel, P.: Comparative ability of EMG, optimization, and hybrid modelling approaches to predict trunk muscle forces and lumbar spine loading during dynamic sagittal plane lifting. Clin. Biomech. 16, 359–372 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(01)00016-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guzik-Kopyto, A., Michnik, R., Wodarski, P., Chuchnowska, I.: Determination of loads in the joints of the upper limb during activities of daily living. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 99–108 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39904-1_9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gzik, M., Wodarski, P., Jurkojć, J., Michnik, R., Bieniek, A.: Interactive system of enginering support of upper limb diagnosis. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp. 115–123 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hu, B., Ma, L., Zhang, W., Salvendy, G., Chablat, D., Bennis, F.: Predicting real-world ergonomic measurements by simulation in a virtual environment. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 41, 64–71 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hwang, S., Kim, Y., Kim, Y.: Lower extremity joint kinetics and lumbar curvature during squat and stoop lifting. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-10-15
  21. 21.
    Jin, S., Mirka, G.A.: The effect of a lower extremity kinematic constraint on lifting biomechanics. Appl. Ergon. 42, 867–872 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jurkojć, J., Wodarski, P., Michnik, R., Nowakowska, K.: The upper limb motion deviation index: a new comprehensive index of upper limb motion pathology. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 19, 175–185 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.5277/ABB-00698-2016-02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katsuhira, J., Matsudaira, K., Iwakiri, K., Kimura, Y., Ohashi, T., Ono, R., Sugita, S., Fukuda, K., Abe, S., Maruyama, H.: Effect of mental processing on low back load while lifting an object. Spine 38, E832–E839 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829360e5. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee, J., Nussbaum, M.A.: Experienced workers may sacrifice peak torso kinematics/kinetics for enhanced balance/stability during repetitive lifting. J. Biomech. 46, 1211–1215 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Michnik, R., Jurkojć, J., Wodarski, P., Gzik, M., Bieniek, A.: The influence of the scenery and the amplitude of visual disturbances in the virtual reality on the maintaining the balance. Arch. Budo 10, 133–140 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michnik, R., Jurkojć, J., Wodarski, P., Gzik, M., Jochymczyk-Woźniak, K., Bieniek, A.: The influence of frequency of visual disorders on stabilographic parameters. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 18, 25–33 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.5277/ABB-00201-2014-04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mohammadi, Y., Arjmand, N., Shirazi-Adl, A.: Comparison of trunk muscle forces, spinal loads and stability estimated by one stability- and three EMG-assisted optimization approaches. Med. Eng. Phys. 37, 792–800 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nowakowska, K., Gzik, M., Michnik, R., Myśliwiec, A., Jurkojć, J., Suchoń, S., Burkacki, M.: Innovations in Biomedical Engineering. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plamondon, A., Delisle, A., Bellefeuille, S., Denis, D., Gagnon, D., Larivière, C., IRSST MMH Research Group: Lifting strategies of expert and novice workers during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl. Ergon. 45, 471–481 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Plamondon, A., Larivière, C., Denis, D., St-Vincent, M., Delisle, A.: Sex differences in lifting strategies during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl. Ergon. 45, 1558–1569 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rajaee, M.A., Arjmand, N., Shirazi-Adl, A., Plamondon, A., Schmidt, H.: Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities. Appl. Ergon. 48, 22–32 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schipplein, O.D., Reinsel, T.E., Andersson, G.B., Lavender, S.A.: The influence of initial horizontal weight placement on the loads at the lumbar spine while lifting. Spine 20, 1895–1898 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199509000-00010. (Phila Pa 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Visser, S., Faber, G.S., Hoozemans, M.J.M., van der Molen, H.F., Kuijer, P.P.F.M., Frings-Dresen, M.H.W., van Dieën, J.H.: Lumbar compression forces while lifting and carrying with two and four workers. Appl. Ergon. 50, 56–61 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bieniek Andrzej
    • 1
  • Szczygioł Anna
    • 2
  • Michnik Robert
    • 1
  • Chrzan Miłosz
    • 1
  • Wodarski Piotr
    • 1
  • Jurkojć Jacek
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomechatronics, Faculty of Biomedical EngineeringSilesian University of TechnologyZabrzePoland
  2. 2.The Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education in KatowiceKatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations