Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prediction of Peak Back Compressive Forces as a Function of Lifting Speed and Compressive Forces at Lift Origin and Destination - A Pilot Study

  • Greenland, Kasey O. (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah) ;
  • Merryweather, Andrew S. (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah) ;
  • Bloswick, Donald S. (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah)
  • Received : 2011.02.28
  • Accepted : 2011.06.08
  • Published : 2011.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the feasibility of predicting static and dynamic peak back-compressive forces based on (1) static back compressive force values at the lift origin and destination and (2) lifting speed. Methods: Ten male subjects performed symmetric mid-sagittal floor-to-shoulder, floor-to-waist, and waist-to-shoulder lifts at three different speeds (slow, medium, and fast), and with two different loads (light and heavy). Two-dimensional kinematics and kinetics were captured. Linear regression analyses were used to develop prediction equations, the amount of predictability, and significance for static and dynamic peak back-compressive forces based on a static origin and destination average (SODA) backcompressive force. Results: Static and dynamic peak back-compressive forces were highly predicted by the SODA, with R2 values ranging from 0.830 to 0.947. Slopes were significantly different between slow and fast lifting speeds (p < 0.05) for the dynamic peak prediction equations. The slope of the regression line for static prediction was significantly greater than one with a significant positive intercept value. Conclusion: SODA under-predict both static and dynamic peak back-compressive force values. Peak values are highly predictable and could be readily determined using back-compressive force assessments at the origin and destination of a lifting task. This could be valuable for enhancing job design and analysis in the workplace and for large-scale studies where a full analysis of each lifting task is not feasible.

Keywords

References

  1. Gagnon D, Gagnon M. The influence of dynamic factors on triaxial net muscular moments at the L5/S1 joint during asymmetrical lifting and lowering. J Biomech 1992;25:891-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(92)90229-T
  2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Work Practices guide for manual lifting. In: DHHS N, ed.: Washington, DC: US Government Printin Office; 1981.
  3. Bernard B. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors. Cincinnati (OH): National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1997.
  4. Dysart MJ, Woldstad JC. Posture prediction for static sagittalplane lifting. J Biomech 1996;29:1393-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(96)00028-0
  5. Waters TR, Baron SL, Kemmlert K. Accuracy of measurements for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Appl Ergon 1998;29:433-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00015-5
  6. Burdorf A, van der Beek A. Accuracy of measurements for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Applied Ergonomics 29(6) 433-438. Appl Ergon 1999;30:369-71.
  7. Rudy TE, Boston JR, Lieber SJ, Kubinski JA, Stacey BR. Body motion during repetitive isodynamic lifting: a comparative study of normal subjects and low-back pain patients. Pain 2003;105:319-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00247-1
  8. Menzer HM, Reiser RF 2nd. Dynamic versus static analyses of lifting a box from the floor. Biomed Sci Instrum 2005;41:305-10.
  9. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics 1993;36:749-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139308967940
  10. Gagnon M, Smyth G. Biomechanical exploration on dynamic modes of lifting. Ergonomics 1992;35:329-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967817
  11. Aghazadeh F, Ayoub MM. A comparison of dynamic- and static-strength models for prediction of lifting capacity. Ergonomics 1985;28:1409-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138508963267
  12. Mirka GA, Marras WS. Lumbar motion response to a constant load velocity lift. Hum Factors 1990;32:493-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089003200410
  13. Dempster WT. Space requirements of the seated operator. WADC Technical Report 55159. Dayton (OH): Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; 1955. p. 55-159.
  14. Merryweather AS, Loertscher MC, Bloswick DS. A revised back compressive force estimation model for ergonomic evaluation of lifting tasks. Work 2009;34:263-72.
  15. Nemeth G, Ohlsen H. 3D-location of the L5-S1 fulcrum in relation to the hip. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:604-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198906000-00011
  16. Merryweather AS, Bloswick DS, Sesek RF. A calculation of dynamic back compressive force: a pilot study of identify load displacement velocity constants. J SH&E Res 2008;5:1-15.
  17. Jorgensen MJ, Marras WS, Gupta P, Waters TR. Effect of torso flexion on the lumbar torso extensor muscle sagittal plane moment arms. Spine J 2003;3:363-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(03)00140-2
  18. Kaufman KR, Hughes C, Morrey BF, Morrey M, An KN. Gait characteristics of patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Biomech 2001;34:907-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00036-7
  19. Mundermann A, Dyrby CO, Andriacchi TP. Secondary gait changes in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: increased load at the ankle, knee, and hip during walking. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:2835-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21262
  20. Hurwitz DE, Sumner DR, Andriacchi TP, Sugar DA. Dynamic knee loads during gait predict proximal tibial bone distribution. J Biomech 1998;31:423-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(98)00028-1