Advertisement

Analysis and Evaluation of Physical Workload During Long-Cyclic Tasks as a Prerequisite for Ergonomic Work Design

  • Dorothee MüglichEmail author
  • Karlheinz Schaub
  • Bastian Kaiser
  • Steffen Rast
  • Lukas Bier
  • Katharina Rönick
  • Andrea Sinn-Behrendt
  • Peter Kuhlang
  • Ralph Bruder
Conference paper

Abstract

Evaluation of physical workload such as the screening tool Ergonomic Assessment Worksheet (EAWS) were developed and validated for use in industrial manufacturing with short cycles (up to 3 min). If this tool is used for work stations that have significantly longer cycles or no cycle at all, its use is limited. On the one hand, measuring the workload intensity becomes increasingly expensive. On the other hand, the workload intensity for these scenarios has to be examined as well. The following contribution presents an instance of how the EAWS can be used for long-cycle tasks on the example of a maintenance workplace at Deutsche Bahn. This work is focused on methods for adapted data collection from which indicators for possible adjustments to the evaluation procedure can be concluded.

Keywords

Physical workload Long-cyclic tasks Ergonomic Assessment Worksheet (EAWS) 

References

  1. Bokranz R, Landau K (2012) Handbook industrial engineering. Schäffer-Poeschel, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchholz B, Paquet V, Punnett L, Lee D, Moir S (1996) PATH: a work sampling-based approach to ergonomic job analysis for construction and other non-repetitive work. Appl Ergon 27(3):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EN 614-1:2006/prA1:2008. Safety of machinery – Ergonomic design principles – Part 1: Terminology and general principlesGoogle Scholar
  4. Finke K (2011) Studie zur Analyse und Bewertung von langzyklischer Montagetätigkeit. Diplomarbeit, IAD, TU DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  5. Kuhlang P, Rast S, Liebig S, Lüben A, Finsterbusch T, Mühlbradt T (2015) Methoden und Perspektiven zur ergonomischen Bewertung und Gestaltung langzyklischer Tätigkeiten in der Fahrzeuginstandhaltung. In: Biedermann H (ed) Praxiswissen Instandhaltung, Intelligente, lernorientierte Instandhaltung – Smart Maintenance. TÜV Media GmbH, Köln, pp 181–193Google Scholar
  6. Savino M, Mazza A, Battini D (2016) New easy to use postural assessment method through visual management. Int J Indus Ergon 53:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schaub K, Caragnano G, Britzke B, Bruder R (2012) The European assembly worksheet. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 14:616–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Schaub K, Landau K (2004) Ergonomie und Prävention in der betrieblichen Praxis. Angewandte Arbeitswissenschaften 180:52–70Google Scholar
  9. Schulte B (1987) Praxisorientiertes arbeitswissenschaftliches Instrumentarium zur analytischen Ermittlung von Erholungszeiten. RKW-Verlag, EschbornGoogle Scholar
  10. Wells R, Norman R, Neumann P, Andrews D, Frank J, Shannon H, Kerr M (1997) Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: common measurement metrics for exposure assessment. Ergonomic 40:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothee Müglich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karlheinz Schaub
    • 1
  • Bastian Kaiser
    • 2
  • Steffen Rast
    • 3
  • Lukas Bier
    • 1
  • Katharina Rönick
    • 1
  • Andrea Sinn-Behrendt
    • 1
  • Peter Kuhlang
    • 3
  • Ralph Bruder
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (IAD), Technische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Kaiser Production ConsultingKämpfelbachGermany
  3. 3.German MTM AssociationHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations