The Ohio State University

The Center for Occupational Health in Automotive Manufacturing uses MD Adams and LifeMOD to assess Musculoskeletal Disorder Risk as a Function of Vehicle Rotation Angle during Automotive Assembly Tasks.

Horizontal spacer

Introduction
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) continue to be a common and costly problem12 in the manufacturing sector. The auto industry is one of several industries that have high incidence of MSDs15. Effective ergonomic interventions may reduce exposure to awkward postures and other risk factors resulting in lower risk of MSDs. One potential solution for reducing awkward posture is a rotating auto-body carrier conveyer system which allows the vehicle to be rotated at a variety of angles during the assembly process (Figure 1). However, it is unknown (from a biomechanical standpoint) if or how much the rotation of the vehicle will influence exposure to MSD risk factors. Thus, the goal of the project was to quantify exposure to MSD risk factors as a function of vehicle rotation angle during assembly tasks.


Figure 1: Car body rotated on ROFA system

Methods

Study Participants
Six experienced and six inexperienced workers were recruited in the study. On average, the experienced workers had 17 years of auto assembly experience. The average(standard deviation) age of the subjects was 35.8 years (13.1 years), while height and weight of the subjects were 178.5 cm (7.1 cm) and 80.6 kg (10.2 kg) respectively. The inexperienced subjects received three training sessions on all the tasks prior to testing. The experienced subjects also had one day of training in order to familiarize them with the rotated conditions.


Figure 2: Vehicle regions tested

Independent measures
There were two independent measures, region and rotation angle. The vehicle was divided into 7 representative working regions based on vertical height and horizontal reach distance (Figure 2). The second measure was auto rotation angle and was dependent upon the region of the vehicle.

Dependent Measures
There were a multitude of dependent measures including 1) spine load (compression, lateral shear, anterior/posterior shear), 2) spine posture (sagittal, lateral and twist), 3) normalized shoulder electromyography (EMG) of the lateral and anterior deltoids, 4) shoulder posture flexion and abduction, 5) normalized neck emg superior trapezius, 6) neck posture, and 7) wrist posture.


Figure 3: Instrumented subject peforming a task with the car rotated 45°

Equipment
An automobile rotate carrier conveyor (Rosenheimer Forderanlagen ROFA)™ was used to rotate the vehicle from the standard zero or horizontal assembly-line condition to a maximum of ninety degrees. The lumbar motion monitor (LMM), a tri-axial electrogoniometer, was used to measure low back position, velocity and acceleration in all three planes of the body and has been previously validated12. A wired electromyography (EMG) system (Delsys, Boston MA) was used to measure muscle activity of the latissimus dorsi, erector spinae, rectus abdominus, external obliques, internal obliques, lateral deltoid, anterior deltoid, and superior trapezius muscle. All surface EMGs were collected on both the right and left side. The electrodes were applied using standard placement procedures14. Nine magnetic/gravitational sensors (Xsens Technologies,™ Enschede, The Netherlands) were placed on the torso, upper and lower legs, upper arm and head in order to track body posture during the experimental conditions. Finally, goniometers were used to measure elbow and wrist motion. Figures 3 and 4 show a fully instrumented subject performing the task in the engine room front bumper region at 45° and 90°, respectively.


Figure 4: Instrumented subject performing a task with the car rotated 90°

Testing
The order of the regions was completely randomized and each region had one installation task for the subjects to perform. The installation tasks were side airbag install, seat belt install, wiring harness install, wheel well liner install, fuel canister install, wiper motor install and brake-line install, for region 1-7, respectively. All tasks were actual assembly tasks simulated for the study and all subjects performed all trials. The study took place at the Center for Occupational Health in Automotive Manufacturing (COHAM), a laboratory at The Ohio State University. The installation tasks required 25-55 seconds depending on the task.


Figure 5: EMG-assisted biomechanical model

Data analysis
The raw EMG signals were processed and then imported, along with the kinematic data, into the EMG-assisted model created in the MD ADAMS software (MSC.Software) environment with the LifeMOD (LifeModeler, Inc.) biomechanical plug-in (Figure 5). While there is no practical way to directly measure spinal forces in vivo, using the ADAMS software to simulate dynamic loads on the body allows our EMG-assisted biomechanical model to estimate the spine forces resulting during the assembly tasks1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11. The model was also used to calculate shoulder, neck and wrist angles using cardan angles13. All shoulder and neck EMG data was normalized to maximum exertions for that muscle.


Figure 6: Rotation angle summary

Results
Figure 6 shows the overall MSD risk assessment from the dependent measures for each of the tasks at each of the rotation angles. Red indicates the greatest risk, yellow indicates moderate risk and green indicates the least risk.

Discussion
This study shows that our ability to rotate the car body can significantly reduce the worker’s risk exposure to several risk factors associated with MSDs. Rotating the car body significantly decreased spine load, spine posture, shoulder posture and neck posture, thus the risk to a multitude of MSDs could be reduced by rotating the car from the standard zero assembly condition.

References

  1. Davis, K. G., W. S. Marras, et al. (1999) The evaluation of spinal loads during lowering and lifting. Clin Biomech 13, 141-52.
  2. Fathallah, F.A., Marras, W.S., Parnianpour, M., Granata, K.P. (1997) A method for measuring external spinal loads during unconstrained free-dynamic lifting. J Biomech. 30, 975-978
  3. Granata, K.P., Marras, W.S. (1993). An EMG-assisted model of loads on the lumbar spine during asymmetric trunk extensions. J Biomech, 26, 1429-1438.
  4. Granata, K.P., Marras, W.S. (1995) An EMG-assisted model of trunk loading during free-dynamic lifting. J Biomech, 28, 1309-1317.
  5. Knapik, G.G., Marras, W.S. (2009). Spine loading at different lumbar levels during pushing and pulling. Ergonomics 2009 (in press).
  6. Marras WS, Fathallah F, Miller R, Davis S, Mirka G. (1992) Accuracy of a three-dimensional lumbar motion monitor for recording dynamic trunk motion characteristics. Int J Ind Ergon. 9,75-87.
  7. Marras, W. S., Granata, K. P. (1995). A biomechanical assessment and model of axial twisting in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine, 20, 1440-51.
  8. Marras, W. S., Granata, K. P. (1997). The Development Of An EMG-Assisted Model To Assess Spine Loading During Whole-Body Free-Dynamic Lifting. J Electromyograp Kinesiology, 7, 259-268.
  9. Marras, W. S., Granata, K. P. (1997). Spine loading during trunk lateral bending motions. J Biomech, 30, 697-703.
  10. Marras, W. S., Sommerich C. M. (1991). A three-dimensional motion model of loads on the lumbar spine: I. Model structure. Hum Factors, 33, 123-37.
  11. Marras, W. S., Sommerich C. M. (1991) A three-dimensional motion model of loads on the lumbar spine: II. Model validation. Hum Factors, 33, 139-49.
  12. National Research Council (2001). Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace Low Back and Upper Extremities. Washington DC: National Academy Press,.
  13. Tupling SJ, Pierrynowski MR. (1987) Use of cardan angles to locate rigid bodies in three-dimensional space. Medical and Biological Enginnering and Computing. Sept., 527-532
  14. Solderberg, G.(1992) Selected topics in surface electromyography for use in the occupational setting: expert perspectives, Cincinnati, OH, US Department of Health and Human Services.
  15. Ulin S.S. Keyserling W.M. (2004) Case studies of ergonomic interventions in automobile parts distribution operations. J. Occ Rehab, 14, 307-326.

Sue A. Ferguson, Williams S. Marras, W. Gary Allread, Gregory G. Knapik, Kimberly A. Vandlen, Riley E. Splittstoesser, and Gang Yang
The Ohio State University Biodynamics Laboratory
knapik.1@osu.edu