Keywords

1 Introduction

The productivity of workers, their delivery time, and the quality of their work are all important factors for the success of an organization. Traditional manufacturing concepts hold the view that at the core of the production system, more focus is placed on improving the productivity of manufacturing organizations regardless of the work posture conditions of the workers [1]. Productivity improvement cannot be achieved in a welding organization without resolution of workers awkward postures during welding operations. For overall growth and sustainability of products in the existing economy, many manufacturing businesses rely heavily on human work activities/factors. As a result, humans will undoubtedly continue to be an important and crucial element of manufacturing for a long time. Henceforth, people require more comfortable and safe working environments [2]. According to [3], it is possible to design safe, effective, and productive work systems by assessing people’s strengths and limitations, their occupations, equipment, and working environment, and the interactions between these variables [4]. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are common among employees who perform manual handling (MH) activities, particularly in difficult industries like structural steel welding [5]. Back discomfort and joint injuries are prevalent WMSDs that are linked to muscular tension from MH tasks. Fatigue experienced by workers are as a result of job repetitions, and uncomfortable postural conditions [6, 7] further reiterates that sprains and strains of joints/abdominal muscles account for 43% of manual handling injuries in the workplace, whereas muscular tension accounts for 33% of injuries. According to [8] legislation requires companies to measure ergonomic risks on a regular basis and document actions taken to mitigate them. [9] stated that improving workplace ergonomics, on the other hand, frequently translates into increased economic and social performance indicators for the company. Many studies have frequently used observational methods [10] such as Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA), Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS), Job Strain Index (JSI), Ergonomic Workplace Analysis (EWA), [11,12,13] for assessing MSD-related risk factors; but the studies often do not consider the self-reports MSDs assessments that are subjectively reported by workers via questionnaires.

2 Methods and Materials

Twenty-seven (27) welding workers in Company XYZ within 5th, 50th and 95th percentile (See Fig. 1) of the South African population completed a questionnaire. Workers with background diseases or accidents affecting musculoskeletal system were excluded from the study. Because every participant was asked the same questions, it is a quick and easy technique to collect responses from a large group of people before conducting quantitative analysis. Refer to Fig. 1, which shows the postural configuration of the welders with body physique dimensions within the 5th, 50th and 95th percentile.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Postural configuration of the welders with body physique dimensions within the 5th, 50th and 95th percentile

Full size image

A questionnaire focused on probing the status of the body postures of the welding workers and the effect of those postures was considered in this study from company XYZ. The questionnaire consists of four sections; gender, age, years of job experience, height, and weight were among the biographical details given in section A. The information in segment A was gathered in order to determine the welding workers’ social demographics. Section B includes questions that analysed the conduciveness of the work environment in order to determine how respondents felt about their work environment. Section C of the questionnaire-included questions aimed at determining how welding workers perceive their work activity constraints that contribute to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Section D consists of questions aimed at determining the health state of welders while performing welding operations. The questionnaire was constructed in the context of this research project to include a combination of classification questions, allowing the welding workers’ responses to be classified and patterns established for further analysis.

3 Results and Interpretation

Age of Welding Workers Respondents in a Rail Component Manufacturing Environment.

The age distribution of the welding workers that responded to the questionnaire is depicted from Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Age distribution of the welding workers in the rail component manufacturing environment

Full size image

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the 20 to 29 year-old age group (41%) and the 30 to 39 year-old age group (37%) represented the majority of the welding workers that responded to the questionnaire. Eighteen percent (18%) of welding workers were between the ages of 40 and 49, and four percent (4%) were older than 50. Age is a function of ergonomic risk in the sense that age is the most significant factor that influences the productivity rate and the operation efficiency as indicated from the study of [14, 15]. When working on repetitive jobs for extended periods, older welding workers are more (prone) to musculoskeletal pain as opposed to the younger welding workers [16].

Responses to Questions on Health Status Prior and During Employment.

The effect of ergonomics on welding workers is visible in terms of their health status outcomes from prior to their employment to their current employment in the welding sector. Figure 3 illustrates the health status of the respondents prior to working in the welding environment.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Health status prior to working in the welding environment

Full size image

Prior to working in the railcar industry, 44% of welding workers reported no signs of any health problems related to their work. Sixty-six percent (66%) of welding workers reported having health issues.

Responses to Questions on Physical and Mental Tiredness of the Welding Workers

In order to further, probe the response the welding workers, the respondents were asked questions about how tired they are physically and mentally during welding operation. Figure 4 presents the physical and mental tiredness of the welding workers, which indicates that 48% of welding workers were often physically tired and 3% were seldom physically tired. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of welding workers were occasionally mentally tired, and 8% were always mentally tired. The age of the welders may play a role in their health status. As stipulated in the study by [17,18,19] age is a factor in the relation to physical and mental health among employees.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Physical and mental tiredness of the welding workers

Full size image

RESPondent’s Response Regarding Work Activity Constraints that Contribute to MSD.

Figure 5 presents the work activity constraints that have been indicated by the respondents to be the most likely causes of MSDs during welding operations.

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Welding work body activity constraints that contribute to MSD

Full size image

As shown from Fig. 5, 41% of welding workers have a neutral feeling about using their arms with great force. Sixty-six percent (66%) of welding workers strongly agree that they use a vibrating tool while welding. Eight percent (8%) strongly disagree that they carry heavy objects, four percent strongly disagree that they push or pull heavy objects, and 30% of welders agreed that they bend and twist their wrists for extended periods. While 37% of welding workers disagreed that, they bend and twist at the same time, 52% strongly agreed that they twist their body. Four percent (4%) of welding workers disagree that they squat or kneel for extended periods while performing welding operations, while 63% agree that they perform repetitive tasks. Forty-one percent (41%) agreed to working in the same positions for long periods; whereas 48% agreed to working in uncomfortable postures, and 56% strongly disagreed to sitting for long periods. Finally, 44% of welding workers strongly agreed that they must stand for long periods while performing their welding tasks. In light of this, it could be inferred that the majority of the respondents are not working in a neutral posture, which contradicts ergonomic guidelines for working posture.

Respondent’s Response to Occurrence or Non-occurrence of Discomfort During and After Welding Operations.

In response to the question about the occurrence or non-occurrence of discomfort during welding operations. It was revealed in Fig. 6 that 33% of these participants stated that their welding tasks do not cause them chronic discomfort. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of welding workers reported chronic discomfort during welding operations, which was a concerning finding.

Fig. 6.
figure 6

Welding workers response to discomfort during and after work

Full size image

The welding workers that responded to experience chronic health discomfort problems indicated that the areas of their body which experienced this discomfort included: the neck, right shoulder, left shoulder, upper back, lower back, right elbow, left elbow, right wrist, left wrist, fingers, right hip, left hip, right knee, left, knee, right ankle and on the left ankle. Therefore, as stipulated in a study by [20] measures such as workstation adjustment reduce awkward postures and allow employees to work in more neutral positions, the use of different tools or rotational clamps need to be implemented in a rail-component manufacturing environment to alleviate chronic discomfort, which is prevalent among the majority of welding workers in this environment.

Respondent’s Response Regarding the Areas of Their Body Pain Are Felt During and After Welding Operations

Figure 7 depicted the various types of the body pains where respondents indicated the experience pain during and after welding operations.

Fig. 7.
figure 7

Welding workers response from which pain occurs

Full size image

As depicted in Fig. 7, 78% of welding workers reported neck discomfort as a result of tilting their neck posture for a longer period of time during welding operations. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the welders reported that they experienced right shoulder discomfort. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of welding workers who participated in the study reported that they experienced left shoulder discomfort while welding. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the welding workers reported discomfort in their upper backs. The forward bending of the body trunk may cause upper back pain [21]. Thirty-three percent (33%) of welding workers reported lower back discomfort from welding activities. During welding operations, none of the welding workers in the sample reported discomfort in their right or left elbows. Welding workers may experience wrist pain as a result of working with the wrist bent from the midline. During the welding operations, 44% of the sampled participants complained of discomfort on their right wrist. Thirty-three percent (33%) of welding workers reported discomfort on their left wrist. Nineteen percent (19%) of welders reported discomfort in their fingers. All the sampled welding workers indicated that they do not experience right hip pain discomfort during welding operations. According to the data presented above, 37% of welding worker participants reported discomfort on their left hip. Welding activities performed below the knee level, which implies that the work is done while the body is bent, this has a significant impact on the torso and, in particular, the legs. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of the workers reported right knee discomfort. Twenty-six percent (26%) of welders confirm experiencing left knee discomfort during welding operations. All of the sampled welding workers stated that they do not experience right ankle discomfort during welding operations. Eight percent (8%) of the welding participants polled reported left ankle discomfort. The variation in ergonomic postural behaviour experienced by the sampled welding workers is due to variations in the welding workers’ anthropometric characteristics, resilience, and adaptability rate to the welding operating conditions of a rail component manufacturing environment.

4 Conclusion

The results of the study advocate for the immediate implementation of ergonomics interventions at the rail component manufacturing organization, with proper worker knowledge and intentional awareness of common postural change. It is recommended that ergonomics laws be implemented and monitored in order to reduce morbidity due to musculoskeletal disorders. Further to this, it was observed by the authors that there is a need for improvement and redesign of welding workstation that will conducively accommodate the various body sizes and shapes. Poorly designed workstation environments indicate physical accommodation problems resulting in health effects of the welding workers, productivity losses and mediocre quality of work. Ergonomically fit and adjustable workstations, that ensure workers to adjust their workstations according to their comfort and posture to relieve physical stress are more advantageous and could be used posture to relieve physical stress, improve posture, and performance. As future work, this study must be replicated in rail component manufacturing organizations in other provinces across South Africa. The selection of the participants should be premised on anatomical justification and geometric representation of the participants.