Volume 8, Issue 2 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2020)                   Iran J Ergon 2020, 8(2): 26-38 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Jannati M, Aghaei H, Askaripoor T, Khazaei M, Bayat Khalaji E, Kazemi E. Ergonomic Assessment and Design of the Tower Crane Cabin Based on Anthropometric Dimensions of Iranian Operators. Iran J Ergon. 2020; 8 (2) :26-38
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-722-en.html
1- Student Research Committee, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Health, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Research Center for Health Sciences and Technologies, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran , askaripoor@semums.ac.ir
4- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Faculty of Health, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran
Abstract:   (2057 Views)
Background and Aim: Despite the main role of cranes in advancing construction operations, however, accidents and occupational injuries resulting from their activities have become a critical issue. Recent evidence suggests that the cause of these problems may be associated with the absence of design of the interior space of the crane cabin, and the tasks of the operators, based on ergonomic principles. This study was conducted to assess the ergonomic risk of the tower crane operator’s activities and redesigning the dimensions and interior space of these cranes, based on the anthropometric dimensions of Iranian operators.
Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 30 male tower crane operators working on three major construction projects in Tehran were investigated. Initially, a multi-step approach was applied to define the problem, including: observing the working statuses, interviewing operators, Nordic Musculoskeletal Disorder Questionnaire, and rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) method. Then, using anthropometric data, the dimensions and interior space of the crane chamber were redesigned.
Results: The results of the rapid upper limb assessment method showed that the activities of tower crane operators were at high and very high-risk levels. Also, 85% and 38.5% of these people reported pain and discomfort in one of the nine areas of their body in the last 12 months and 7 days, respectively. In this study, the dimensions of the interior space of the redesigned tower crane cabin were obtained 160.8×144.1×199.7.
Conclusion: Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the current interior design of the tower crane cabin does not fulfill the needs of the operators. Hence, redesigning it appears essential to enhance human-machine compatibility, improve safety and productivity, and prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSD).
Full-Text [PDF 434 kb]   (1191 Downloads) |   |   Extended Abstract (HTML)  (385 Views)  
Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the current interior design of the tower crane cabin does not fulfill the needs of the operators. Hence, redesigning it appears essential to enhance human-machine compatibility, improve safety and productivity, and prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSD).
Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: Special
Received: 2020/05/30 | Accepted: 2020/07/17 | ePublished: 2020/07/17

References
1. Labor B. Employed Persons by Detailed Industry, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, 2012. Bureau Lab Stat. 2013a.; 2013. [Google Scholar]
2. Labor B. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2012. Bureau Lab Stat; 2013. [Google Scholar]
3. Essdai A, Spasojević Brkić VK, Golubović T, Brkić A, Popović V. Crane cabins' interior space multivariate anthropometric modeling. Work. 2018; 59(4):557-70. [DOI:10.3233/WOR-182706] [PMID]
4. Lee UK, Kang KI, Kim GH, Cho HH. Improving tower crane productivity using wireless technology. Comp‐Aid Civil Infrastruct Engin. 2006; 21(8):594-604. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2006.00459.x]
5. Raviv G, Fishbain B, Shapira A. Analyzing risk factors in crane-related near-miss and accident reports. Safety Sci. 2017; 91:192-205. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.022]
6. Neitzel RL, Seixas NS, Ren KK. A review of crane safety in the construction industry. Appl Occup Envir Hygiene. 2001; B16(12):1106-17. [DOI:10.1080/10473220127411] [PMID]
7. Spasojević Brkić VK, Veljković ZA, Golubović T, Brkić AD, Kosić Šotić I. Workspace design for crane cabins applying a combined traditional approach and the Taguchi method for design of experiments. Int J Occup Safety Erg. 2016; 22(2):228-40. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2015.1111713] [PMID]
8. Sertyesilisik B, Tunstall A, McLouglin J. An investigation of lifting operations on UK construction sites. Safety Sci. 2010; 48(1):72-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.06.001]
9. Yow P, Rooth R, Fry K. A report of the crane unit of the division of occupational safety and health. California: Division of Occupational Safety and Health California Department of Industrial Relations; 2000. [Google Scholar]
10. Swuste P. A 'normal accident' with a tower crane? An accident analysis conducted by the Dutch Safety Board. Safety Sci. 2013; 57:276-82. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.03.002]
11. Kushwaha DK, Kane PV. Ergonomic assessment and workstation design of shipping crane cabin in steel industry. Int J Ind Erg. 2016;52:29-39. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2015.08.003]
12. Fung IW, Tam VW, Sing C, Tang K, Ogunlana SO. Psychological climate in occupational safety and health: the safety awareness of construction workers in South China. Int J Cons Manag. 2016; 16(4):315-25. [DOI:10.1080/15623599.2016.1146114]
13. Beavers JE, Moore J, Rinehart R, Schriver W. Crane-related fatalities in the construction industry. J Const Eng Manag. 2006; 132(9):901-10. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:9(901)]
14. Shapira A, Elbaz A. Tower crane cycle times: case study of remote-control versus cab-control operation. J Const Eng Manag. 2014; 140(12):05014010. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000904]
15. Bovenzi M, Pinto I, Stacchini N. Low back pain in port machinery operators. J Sound Vibrat. 2002; 253(1):3-20. [DOI:10.1006/jsvi.2001.4246]
16. Kittusamy NK, Buchholz B. Whole-body vibration and postural stress among operators of construction equipment: A literature review. J Safety Res. 2004; 35(3):255-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.014] [PMID]
17. Committee H. Guidelines for using anthropometric data in product design: Human Fact Erg Soc; 2004.
18. Brkić VS, Klarin M, Brkić AD. Ergonomic design of crane cabin interior: The path to improved safety. Safety Sci. 2015; 73:43-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.010]
19. Kamalinia M, Saraji GN, Kee D, Hosseini M, Choobineh A. Postural loading assessment in assembly workers of an Iranian telecommunication manufacturing company. Int J Occup Safety Erg. 2013; 19(2):311-9. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2013.11076988] [PMID]
20. McAtamney L, Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Erg. 1993; 24(2):91-9. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-S]
21. Dockrell S, O'Grady E, Bennett K, Mullarkey C, Mc Connell R, Ruddy R, et al. An investigation of the reliability of Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) as a method of assessment of children's computing posture. Appl Erg. 2012; 43(3):632-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2011.09.009] [PMID]
22. Levanon Y, Lerman Y, Gefen A, Ratzon NZ. Validity of the modified RULA for computer workers and reliability of one observation compared to six. Ergonomics. 2014; 57(12):1856-63. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2014.952350] [PMID]
23. Ghasemkhani M, Azam K, Aten S. Evaluation of ergonomic postures of assembling unit workers by Rapid Upper Limb Assessment. Hakim Res J. 2007; 10(2):28-33. [Google Scholar]
24. Dickinson C, Campion K, Foster A, Newman S, O'rourke A, Thomas P. Questionnaire development: an examination of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Appl Erg. 1992; 23(3):197-201. [DOI:10.1016/0003-6870(92)90225-K]
25. Dawson AP, Steele EJ, Hodges PW, Stewart S. Development and test-retest reliability of an extended version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E): a screening instrument for musculoskeletal pain. J Pain. 2009; 10(5):517-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2008.11.008] [PMID]
26. De Barros E, Alexandre NMC. Cross‐cultural adaptation of the Nordic musculoskeletal questionnaire. Int Nurs Rev. 2003; 50(2):101-8. [DOI:10.1046/j.1466-7657.2003.00188.x] [PMID]
27. Dormohammadi A, Zarei E, Normohhammadi MR, Sarsangi V, Amjad SH, Asghari M. risk assessment of computer user upper musculoskeletal limb disorders in a power company by means of rula method and NMQ in 1390. J Sabzevar Uni Med Sci. 2014; 20(4):521-9. [Google Scholar]
28. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery - Human body measurements - Part 3: Anthropometric data (Standard No. EN 547-3:1996+A1:2008). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization. [Google Scholar]
29. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. HFES 300: Guidelines for Using Anthropometric Data in Product Design. California: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2004.
30. Nordin F, Olsson S. Development of driver environment in crane cabin. MA thesis. Luleå: Luleå University of Technology; 2008. [Article] [Google Scholar]
31. Zunjic A, Brkic VS, Klarin M, Brkic A, Krstic D. Anthropometric assessment of crane cabins and recommendations for design: A case study. Work. 2015; 52(1):185-94. [DOI:10.3233/WOR-152042] [PMID]
32. Actuators (Standard No. EN 894-4:2010). Brussels, Belgium: CEN; 2010.
33. International Standards Organizatio, 2017. Cranes - Cabins - Part 1-5. ISO 8566.
34. Veljković Z, Spasojević-Brkić V, Brkić A. Crane cabins' safety and ergonomics characteristics evaluation based on data collected in Sweden port. J Appl Eng Sci. 2015; 13(4):299-306. [DOI:10.5937/jaes13-9564]
35. Muthukumar K, Sankaranarayanasamy K, Ganguli A. Study on Discomfort in Mobile Crane Operation. Ace. 2017; 35:13. [Article] [Google Scholar]
36. Chandler F. Human Factors Engineering Guidelines For Overhead Cranes. 2001. Report No.: Report No. SC-YA-5436.
37. Barron PJ, Owende PM, McDonnell KP, Ward SM. A method for assessment of degradation of task visibility from operator cabins of field machines. Int J Indust Erg. 2005; 35(7):665-73. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.02.001]
38. Dondur N, Spasojević-Brkić V, Brkić A. Crane cabins with integrated visual systems for the detection and interpretation of environment-economic appraisal. J Appl Eng Sci. 2012; 10(4):191-6. [DOI:10.5937/jaes10-2516]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb | Co-Publisher: Farname Inc.