1.1 INTRODUTION

In our country generally mobile fast-food business now becomes most reliable and self-

employed business. For this business to be recognized vendor cart is a well-known mean

of transportation space directly affect the business of a person. The working area belongs

to the unorganized sector to run a business depending upon cart skill is not being

required. That’s why there is a lack of not scientific consideration and special attention is

unnecessary. A large number of youth, men and women are working in this sector for

prolonged periods with inappropriate working posture, workstation design, and furlong

working hours, task variable without consideration appropriate space for their movement.

This leads to the development of different kinds of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)

among them.

As a problem shooter ergonomics place an essential rule in order to design a

workplace in analyzing the task. The ergonomically designed workstation also gives

healthy working environment, safety, increase efficiency, and reduce work related

musculoskeletal injuries and problem such as occupational diseases, cumulative trauma,

repetitive stress injuries, and occupational overexertion syndrome which mostly affect to

arm and back.

The complete work pattern for the vendor cart consist up taking orders, making

and serving food, and collect money has to do work in static posture for long duration in

a poor workstation which promote unnecessary in a physical effort. Standing position

creates not only pressure on the spine and disc, but also knee and elbow pain. This type

of posture can increase the pressure on the muscles, ligaments and other soft tissues of

the musculoskeletal system. Hence the overall discomfort and pain in the back, neck, and

shoulder are common symptoms observed in the vendors.

Considering the above aspects it is been decided to take a step regarding the

working pattern in this socially unattended area by introducing basic aspects of

1

ergonomics which reduces work related MSDs and suggest of proper methods to work

and for workstation comfortable without any physical fatigue.

In the present study around 20 vendors from Nagpur have participated. To

evaluate the actual presence of problem, a detailed questionnaire is made by considering

the information related to MSDs problems. Working condition, compatibility, working

hours, the problem faced during working. The existing workstation and worker, poor

body postures are assessed and analyze with the help of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE

tools.

After all analysis a workstation and working method are suggested at the same

place where worker used to do the work. And to check the feasibility of working method

and workstation various value from software, body parts movements within ROM,

postures, are compared with the previous method and workstation to get the same result.

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this research work was to study existing workstation, MSD’s

problem, and psychological aspects among vendor. And remedy them with a proper

scientific study and workstation design so that vendors can do better workout any

consequences.

Following objective is chosen for achievement of AIM:-

1. To study existing workstation, working layout aspect.

2. To identify musculoskeletal risk factors and problems in this occupation.

3. To analyze body postures and workstation with ergonomic aspects.

4. To design workstation in which worker can do better work without

musculoskeletal problems.

1.3 ASSUMTION

2

1. The vendors answered the questionnaires as accurately possible as they can.

2. This study is limited for small area in NAGPUR.

3. As all of vendors working in Nagpur are male so gender factor is not considered.

4. The information regarding their work, work layout, comfort level given by them

is true and best of their experience.

1.4 SCOPE OF PROJECT

It was decided to carry out this project on the road side vendors and their carts.

The actual workstation was organized. But due to irregular fashion of keeping utensils

and containers were not in the range of vendors body parts. As a result of which vendors

offend stress the body during the work. In the traditional vendor cart workplace was not

made by considering the vendors comfort. Also after discussion it was found that many

vendors were suffering from back, shoulder and neck problems.

Here it is decided to study workstation, working postures of the vendors with help of ergonomics aspects and ERGOFELLOW software tools. And suggest a proper method and workstation design to reduce the physical problems.

LIMITATION:

As the vendors have less education, lack of knowledge about proper workstation. It was quite difficult to convince the vendor to participate in the project work. It eliminates the discussion with vendors about the problems faced by them and benefits after workstation design.

3

4

PROBLEM ON HAND

2.1 INTRODUCTION

On an average, each vendor does work for 5 to 6 hours in a day. To get the actual idea

about the workstation 20 vendors has been visited space for work over the cart were

observed by measuring the working area, position of the vendor in the working area,

position of containers over the cart, availability of the raw materials for the preparation

for food, technique adopted for serving food. Following figure shows, vendors postures

and workstation arrangement during complete business through different working spaces.

5

2.2. PROBLEM DEFINATION

The Problem is defined after a precise observation regarding workstation, vendors’

activities during a complete a business.

Following are some observation

2.2.1 Workstation observation

1. Working space is not hygienic considering vendors comfort.

2. Generally two and three containers carrying water, food storage box, stove,

serving containers, money collecting box is being observed in the workstation.

3. After serving the food generally it is being found that customers keep the serving

intense randomly on the either side of the cart.

4. There is no any proper method to keep the things in the desirable place to do work

with less effort.

5. Work is always done without considering the body fatigues, body parts range,

arrangement of workstation and comfort etc.

2.2.2 Observation done on vendors

1. Forward bending of trunk and neck is large

2. The Vendor does the work in a static position for long duration.

3. Rotation of trunk on both sides of the body is occurring may times during work.

4. Vendors do not have the knowledge about proper workstation.

5. Vendors don’t consider about the items distances from the body range.

6. Vendors do not consider the effort level, body fatigue during working.

7. Vendors are always trying to adjust with given facilities, without considering that

much.

8. No one is conscious about the work layout, conditions, and proper facilities to do

work with less effort.

6

1.3 METHODOLOGICAL STEPS

1. Review of literature.

2. Design of questionnaire.

3. Survey to identify various musculoskeletal problems of vendors.

4. Analysis of working posture with help of ergonomic software.

5. Existing design.

6. Proposed ergonomic design.

7. Design details.

1.4 CONCLUSION

As per the problem which is being found through an observation from both workstation

& vendors’ activities. We are being trying to resolve this problem through ergonomics

aspect.

2.1 Introduction:

7

The considerable amount of research had been done by the ergonomic approach to solve

the problem of discomfort in various applications in industrial or non-industrial areas by

eliminating conventional method and introduced new standard method for doing the

work.

Shovel, spade and hoe are common implements used in different types of manual

material handling (MMH) task. Sen. et. al. observed that with the new ergonomically

designed prototype both the purposes of shovel and the hoe could be attained. [1] The

new design is well accepted by the workers.

Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs) among office worker is considered

by Robertson et.al [2]. In their work the trained group mitigate the symptoms and change

behavior and enhance performance through training combined with a sit-stand work

station has implication s for preventing discomforts in office workers.

The introduction of sit–stand worktables was examined by Wilks et.al [3]. It is examining

the four company’s use of the worktables sit-stand function and influence to some

variable on this.

A distribution of manual materials handling task parameters is observed by Ciriello et.al

[4]. In their study, they determine the percentage distribution of each of the task

parameters, i.e., weight, height, distance and frequency. They had concluded that

continued effort should be extended toward redesign of MMH tasks and components of

tasks that violate good ergonomic principles.

Ferguson et.al [5] studies the musculoskeletal disorder risk associated

with current assembly processes were compared to using a cantilever chair intervention.

Spine loads and normalized shoulder muscle activity were evaluated during assembly in

eight regions of the vehicle. And it is been found that Spine loads were not significantly

different between the current and cantilever chair conditions. Thus, the effectiveness of

the cantilever chair was dependent on the region of the vehicle. Singh et.al has studies the

Musculoskeletal Disorder among Workers in small scale Forging Industry. [6]. the most

common ergonomics problems were found in industry like wrong working positions of

the workers and manual material handling. MSDs are found due to inappropriate and

8

poor working postures, lack of task variation, poor ergonomic design of work places, and

poor design of plant layout, long working hours, low salaries and awkward schedules are

all areas where relatively simple intervention can significantly reduce the rate of exposure

to MSDs.

Dul et al. studied on traditional sewing machine workstation professional operators

worked at ten different combined adjustments of table height, desk slope, and pedal

position [7] they had measured working posture and workers’ perceptions. Two

recommendations were formulated for minimizing the load on the musculoskeletal

system during operation.

David et al. reviewed the different range of methods that have been developed for the

assessment of exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. [8] .

The conclusive idea according to him shows the choice between the methods available

will depend upon the application concerned and the objectives of the study.

Mukhopadhyay et al. investigate three craft sectors in the Jaipur city of Rajasthan, India,

namely stone painting, bangle manufacturing and clay sculpture. [9] Postural analysis

techniques REBA, RULA, and OWAS indicated that the workers were subjected to

vulnerable postures that exposed them to injury and work related musculoskeletal

disorders. They had further found substantiated by high Strain Index scores of 9 and 6.8

in stone painting and clay sculpture sectors, indicating the need for immediate

ergonomics intervention.

Rajesh et.al they presented a case of ergonomic intervention in a manufacturing plant

towards reducing the physical strain for workers undertaking material handling in a work

system. [10] Digital human model in CATIA was used for biomechanical analysis and for

redesign of material handling work system where higher levels of physical exertions are

observed. The ergonomic solutions for the material handling work system are presented.

2.2 Various approaches to the product design

2.2.1 Product design

9

The term product design itself causes confusion to people in the same way the

generic term ‘design’ does. When we talk about product design, it usually has an implied

relation with ‘engineering design’ and ‘industrial design ‘According to Haik et.al.

[11]Product design means engineering design and in the other many cases, it is dealt as

the subject in industrial design [12]. In year 1995 Roozenburg et.al. had defined product

design as the process of devising and laying down the plans that are needed for the

manufacturing of a product. [13]

Thus engineering design and industrial design are viewed as the major elements

of product design that take effort in the practical design activity.

Figure 3.1- Two major parts in product design

Product engineering design deals with very wide spectrum, from small

mechanical components to large systems, called ‘technical systems.’ Pahl et.al. In the

year 1997 had classified the word product design as constitutes plants, equipment,

machine tools, large-scale assembly and components according to their complexity [14].

Based on the comparison of engineering design and industrial design regarding product

design, we can make a conclusion that engineering design plays an important role in

realizing ‘product-working functionality ‘while industrial design is responsible for

‘human-using functionality ‘of the product. In another words, engineering designers are

the people who concern internal design; actualizing functions, working out performance

10

and product architecture, and industrial designers are the people who are concerned with

external design or user facing design components, such as the user experience; aesthetics,

ergonomics and user interface. Thus, based on this review of the product types that both

disciplines cover, we argue that the products that both disciplines deal with during their

collaboration are those relevant to the study of product design.

Figure 3.2- Industrial design and Engineering design in Product design

2.2.2 Design Approach -

Design is said to be a human problem solving process. So every design process

has common elements. That is, it starts with a perception of a problem and ends with

some kind of related solution. The problem is transformed into a solution through the

design process. However depending on the discipline, the design processes used is

distinctive in specific way. One of the very simplest and general design process models is

explained in three iterative steps; ‘analysis – synthesis – evaluation’ [15].

11

Figure 3.3- Design process model by Lawson

In year 2007 Hong et. al. illustrates this design process in eight steps. They are 1.

Design initiate, 2. Design research, 3. Design analysis, 4. Design concept, 5. Design

development, 6. Design finalization, 7. Design evaluation and 8. Design communication.

[16] In the year 2008 another, industrial design process which is been proposed by Ulrich

et. Alphas six phases; 1. Investigation of customer needs, 2.Conceptualization,

3.preliminary refinement, 4. Further refinement and final concept selection, 5. Control

drawings or models, and 6. Coordination with engineering, manufacturing, and external

vendors [17].

The engineering design process generally has similarity with the industrial design

process but detailed tasks are different. In their design process model, by Pal ET. al. in

1997 describe the engineering design process with four phases shown in Fig. were the

clarification of the task, conceptual design, embodiment design and detail design.

12

Figure 3.4- Engineering design process by Phal & Beitz

Another similar engineering design process model with the Phal & Beitz’s model

in 1994 is made by Dym, 1994. He presents a design process consisting of four phases; a

task formulation phase, a functional phase, a form design phase, and forming results

(Fig.). [18]

13

Figure 3.5- Engineering design process by Dym

Most of the design processes from the engineering design discipline have a stance

that layout design is prior to form design although layout and form design are described

to be developed though an iterative and possibly reflective process.

14

2.3 Ergonomic approach to the product design:-

2.3.1 Posture Analysis:-

Body posture can be analyzed using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) method also

by REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment).RULA is a method developed for use in

ergonomics investigation of workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are

reported. RULA is a screening tool that assesses biomechanical and postural loading on

the whole body with particular attention to the neck, trunk and upper limbs. A RULA

assessment requires little time to complete and the scoring generates an action list, which

indicated the level of intervention required to reduce the risks of a broader ergonomic

study.

Drs. McAtamney and Corlett(1993) of the University of Nottingham’s Institute of

Occupational Ergonomics developed the RULA [20]. Steps for posture assessment by

RULA,

1. Observing and selecting the posture(s) to assess: - A RULA assessment

represents a moment in the work cycle and it is important to observe the pressures

being adopted whilst undertaking the tasks prior to selecting the posture (s) for

assessment. Depending upon the type of study, selection may be made of the

longest held posture or what appears to be the worst posture(s) adopted. In some

instances, for example when the work cycle is long or postures are varied it may

be more appropriate to take an assessment at regular intervals. It will be evident

that if assessments are taken at set intervals over the working period the

proportion of time spent in the various postures can be evaluated.

2. Scoring and Recording the posture: - Decide whether the left, right or both

upper arms are to be assessed. Score the posture of each body part using the

software. Review the scoring and make any adjustment if required. Select

calculation button.

15

3. Action Level: - The grand score can be compared to the Action Level list

however it must be remembered that since the human body is a complex and

adaptive system, they provide a guide for further action.

RULA sheet format given Appendix 1.

2.3.2 Indian anthropometric dimensions (for ergonomics design practice)

This is the book written by Debkumar Chakrabarti of National Institute of Design. It

gives the detailed information about the anthropometry of Indian population, their design

application, measurement of all body parts in various postures. It can be used in any

ergonomics workstation design.

2.4 Various ergonomics consideration

Study of Ergonomics

The word ERGONOMICS comes from two Greek words-

ERGO- Word

NOMOUS-Law

The names developed in 1949 by Murrell during World War II after working with a team

of physiologists, anatomist and engineers at Cambridge University. At the end of the War

Ergonomic Research Society is formed by this group, which is now the forerunner of

similar organizations in many countries today’s

Ergonomics means The Natural Laws for doing work”, also known as “Human

Engineering” implies to fit the jobs and worker together. Ergonomics is the study of

designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and its related

abilities.

16

A more detailed definition describes ergonomics as-

According to International Labor Organization (ILO) -“It is the application of human

biological sciences in conjunction with engineering sciences to the worker and his

working environment, so to obtain maximum satisfaction for the worker which at the

same time enhances productivity”.

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) -“Ergonomics (for human factors) is

the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans

and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data

and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system

performance”. [18]

According to the International Ergonomics Association there are three disciplines of

ergonomics-

Physical ergonomics: is concerned with anatomy and some of the anthropometric,

Physiological and bio mechanical characteristics as they related to physical

activity.

Cognitive ergonomics: is concerned with mental processes, such as perception,

memory, reasoning, and motor response.

Organizational ergonomics: is concerned with the optimization of social, technical

systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and processes. [15]

2.4.1. IMPORTANCES OF ERGONOMICS AT WORKPLACES

a) To make the work comfortable for the individual workers.

b) To reduce the risk factors that leads to discomfort.

c) To reduce the primary risk factors for MSD’s

d) To do work more efficiently.

e) To increase comfort of worker at workplace.

f) To get greater job satisfaction.

g) To increase productivity.

17

h) To make healthy and pain free worker

i) To reduce accidents assure safety.

j) To reduce absenteeism

2.4.2 ERGONOMICS RISK FACTORS

Ergonomic risk factors are workplace elements that are associated with discomfort, you

may experience, and if ignored, over time many contribute to wear and tear on your body.

Following table 2.1shows a risk factors and related possible solution. [20]

RISK

FACTORS

DEFINITION POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Poor work

organization

Aspects of how a job is organized.

Examples include monotonous task, machine

paced work, inadequate breaks, multiple

deadlines.

Reasonable workload, sufficient

breaks, task variety, individual

autonomy.

Continual

Repetition

Performing the same motion over and over. Redesign the task to reduce the

number of repetitions or motions;

increase recovery time, rotate to

different tasks.

Excessive

Force

Forceful body movement. Excessive physical

effort, pulling, pounding, and pushing.

Reduce the exertion needed to

accomplish the task; redesign task;

assign more staff; use mechanical

assists.

Awkward

posture

Prolonged bending, reaching, twisting,

squatting, kneeling.

Design task and equipment to keep

the body in “neutral” positions.

18

Awkward posture is the opposite of natural

position.

Neutral positions put no undue stress

on muscles, joints and nerves.

Stationary

Positions

Staying in one position too long, causing

muscles to contract and fatigue.

Design tasks to avoid stationary

position; provide opportunities to

change positions.

Excessive

Direct

Positions

Contact of the body with a hard surface or

edge, such as the corner of a table or too little

illumination

Avoid resting body on hard surfaces,

such as desks and counters. Upgrade

equipment or provide cushioning: e.g.

ergonomic pens, mats for standing.

Inadequate

lighting

Sources and levels of light that provide too

much of too little illumination.

Adjust natural and artificial lighting.

Avoid direct and indirect light that

can cause eye-strain. Use glare

screens, shades for windows.

Table 3.1 Ergonomic risk factors and related possible solution

2.4.2 MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDER (MSD’s)

Injuries and disorders of the soft tissues (muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints and

cartilage) and nervous system are called as musculoskeletal disorders. They can affect

nearly all tissues, nerves and tendons sheaths; most frequently involve the arms and back.

Occupational safety and health professionals have called these disorders as cumulative

trauma, repeated trauma, repetitive stress injuries, and occupational overexertion

syndrome.

MSD’s usually result from exposure to multiple risk factors that can cause

disorder not from a single event or trauma such as a fail, collision, or entanglement.

These painful and disabling injuries generally developed gradually over week, months,

and years. MSD’s can cause pain, numbness, tingling, staff joints, movement difficulty,

muscle loss, and sometimes paralysis. These disorder include-carpel tunnel syndrome,

tendinitis, sciatica, herniated discs, and low back pain. Parts of the Body Affected by

MSD’s are Arms, Back, Hands, Wrists, Fingers, Legs, Neck, and Shoulders.

19

When the physical capabilities of worker do not match with the physical

requirement of the job that times WMSD’s occurs.[13]

2.4.2.1 MSD RISK FACTORS

Force

Repetition

Awkward posture

Static posture

Quick motion

Compression or contact stress

Vibration

Cold temperature

2.4.2.2 MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS IN BODY PARTS:-

Following table 2.2 shows the possible cause of diseases and their symptoms to various

body parts during work. [13]

Body parts

affected

Symptoms Possible cause Disease name

Fingers Difficulty moving

finger, snapping and

jerking movements

Repetitive and

forceful manual task

without time to

recover

Trigger finger

Shoulder Pain, stiffness Working with the

hands above the

head

Rotator cuff

tendinitis

Wrist Pain, swelling Repetitive and

forceful hand and

wrist motions

Carpel tunnel

syndrome

Hand Pain, swelling Arms outstretched

sideways, forward or

Tenosynovitis

20

upward

Back Low back pain,

shooting pain or

numbness in the

upper legs

Trunk curved

forward while

standing/sitting

Back disability

Legs Feet ,leg pain,

varicose veins

Standing in one

place too long,

kneeling

continuously

Standing disability,

knee pain

Neck Neck pain Head inclined too

much forward or

backward

Cervical spondylitis

Table 3.2: Musculoskeletal disorders in body parts

2.4.3 RANGE OF MOTION

Generally Range of motion refers to the distance and direction a joint can move to

its full protection. Each specific joint has a normal range of motion that is expressed in

degrees after being measured with a Goniometer (i.e. an instrument that measures angles

from axis of the joint). It is very much useful in workstation design for a worker, assess

the worst posture which is not suitable for the work and can cause the MSD’s problem,

also useful to eliminate the muscle fatigue, joint pain during working. Study or analysis

of workstation and worker with the help of ergonomics assessment tools such as IMAGE

ANALYSIS, VIDEO ANALYSIS, RULA(Rapid upper Limb Assessment), REBA

(Rapid Entire Body Assessment), SUZZANE RODGERS, MOORE E GARG (The strain

index), and DISCOMFORT QUESTIONNAIRE is very much easy with the help of this

information. Range of motion can be divided into-[12]

a) Neutral range : The range of motion which presents minimal discomfort to the

joint and adjacent body segments.

21

b) Effort range : The range –of-motion that can be achieved with mild discomfort to

the joint and adjacent body segments.

c) Maximum range : The maximum limits of a joint’s range-of-motion

According to the above three ranges of motion, the range limits of different posture of the

trunk and upper body is shown in table and Directional signs of body segment rotation in

table, related image are shown by figure 3.6

FIGURE

NO.

POSTURE NEUTRAL

RANGE

( in degree x0)

EFFORT

RANGE

(in degree xo)

MAXIMUM

RANGE

(in degree xo)

a. Viewing

angles(vertical)

-45 to 15 -70 to 48

b. Viewing

angle(horizontal)

-15 to 15 -30 to 30

c. Neck /head vertical -45 to 45 -75 to 75

22

angle

d. Neck /head rotation

angle

-20 to 20 -45 to 45 -80 to 80

e. Neck /head lateral

angle

-20 to 20 -35 to 35

f. Trunk flexion-

extension

-30 to 30 -70 to 30

g. Trunk twist/rotation

angle

-20to 20 -42 to 42

h. Trunk lateral bending -20 to 20 -40 to 40

I. Wrist extension-

flexion

-15 to 15 -45 to 45 -85 to 85

j. Wrist deviation angle -15 to 5 -40 to 25 -45 to 40

k. Elbow included angle 70 to 135 50 to -160 35 to 180

l. Forearm rotation angle -90 to -30 -120 to 30 -180 to 90

m. Shoulder extension-

flexion

-27 to -45 -45 to 90 -61 to 188

n. Shoulder add, -

abduction

-45 to 20 -90 to 45 -134 to 48

o. Human rotation angle -20 to 45 -34 to 97

Table 3.3: The range limits of different postures of the trunk and upper body

DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OF BODY SEGMENT ROTARION

23

FIGURE

NO.

POSTURE POSITIVE SIGN(+) NEGATIVE (-)

a. Viewing angles(vertical) Upward rotation Downward rotation

b. Viewing

angle(horizontal)

Left rotation Right rotation

c. Neck /head vertical angle Extension Flexion

d. Neck /head rotation

angle

Left rotation Right rotation

e. Neck /head lateral angle Right bending Left bending

f. Trunk flexion-extension Extension Flexion

g. Trunk twist/rotation

angle

Left rotation Right rotation

h. Trunk lateral bending Right bending Left bending

I. Wrist extension-flexion Flexion Extension

j. Wrist deviation angle Radial deviation Ulnar deviation

k. Elbow included angle Always positive -

l. Forearm rotation angle Supination Pronation

m. Shoulder extension-

flexion

Flexion Extension

n. Shoulder add, -abduction Adduction Abduction

o. Human rotation angle Medial rotation Lateral rotation

Table 3.4 directional signs of body segment rotation

24

25

Figure 36. The range limits of different postures of the trunk and upper body

4. PRIMARY ERGONOMIC SURVEY

4.1. INTRODUCTION

To get the information about the existence of problems related to vendor and working area, one questionnaire is made (Hindi and English) containing the questions related to, whole information of vendors (age, weight, height, working years) MSD’s problems, working conditions, working environment, compatibility, working hours, the problem faced during working. (The Questionnaire is shown in appendix 1)

4.2. ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL DISORERS WITH QUESTIONNAIRE

A survey is done on 20 vendors by asking those questions (with the help of Hindi sheet) to them and data are analyzed.

Information of vendor is given the Table 4.1 and Results are shown graphically in fig. 4.1

Total number of vendors – 20

Age - 21 to 46 years

Working hours - 5 to 6 hours

Sl no

Name Age Weight Height Years of experience

Working hours

1 Sandip Jogdane 26 60 5.5 3 52 Netish Desai 35 65 5.7 12 63 Ekbal Khan 40 68 5.3 20 64 Samir Mujmule 28 70 5.7 4 65 Rum Wnkhade 46 68 5.6 20 5

26

6 Nilesh More 30 60 5.2 6 5 7 Imran 43 67 5.5 15 58 Amon Sakat 32 69 5.1 7 69 Sagar Jogdande 28 70 6 3 510 Pandit 26 68 5.7 2 511 Suraj Solanki 32 66 5.4 6 512 Pappu 27 63 5.6 2 513 Chotu 23 58 5.4 2 614 Anil kumar 42 69 5.7 17 515 Ashok Desai 32 61 5.5 8 516 Sumit Amle 40 70 5.1 15 517 Vikash Pande 29 60 5.3 5 518 Nikil Bisandre 30 65 5.7 8 619 Soyal Khan 32 63 5.2 520 Mridul akat 28 70 5.6 4 5Table 4.1: Information for vendors participated in the survey

Those all surveyed sheet is analyzed and it is seen that many vendors was facing the MSD’s problem in various body parts. The percentage of vendors suffering from MSD’s in different parts of the body are as back 70%, Neck 75%, Shoulder 55%, Wrist 40%, Leg 45%, Knee 50%, Arm 40%, Elbow 35%. The result is shown graphically in Figure 4.1.

Leg Knee Back Arm Shoulder Elbow Wrist Neck0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

YES(%)NO(%)

Figure 4.1.: Graph of % of vendors suffering from MSD’s problem in different body parts.

27

4.3 ANALYSIS OF WORKING POSTURE

Image analysis tool of ERGOFELLOW SOFTWARE and standard ROM (Range of Motion) (Table 2.2) containing the value of angle of different body parts movement are used to analyze posture. Photography and video are taken during working. Photo and freeze frame from video records are subjected to analyze. Posture angle is determined to help of photos. Measurement of the angle between the angle between the body parts, the length of working time for specific repetitive harmful postures and effort on the vendors is taken into account. Those angles of body parts movements are comparable with the table 2.1 and table 2.2 to get information about MSD’s problems. Following figure shows the vendor posture analysis with the help of image analysis tools by drawing the different analysis on the image during the work.

Vendor- 1 selected for analysis was Sandi Jogdan , Age-26, Weight-60 and Height-5.5 feet

Fig 4.2 a: posture during work Fig. 4.2 b: diagram with posture angle

28

Vendor – 2 selected for analysis was Pappu, Age-27, Weight-63 and Height-5.6 feet

Fig 4.3 a: posture during work Fig 4.3 b: diagram with posture angle

From above observation, it is seen that the posture is not suitable for working as the neck and trunk forward bending angle is not in a neutral angle (see table 2.2). Lower arm and upper arm too much angle to the body, also long duration static position is seen during working which is very much harmful for the body. Flexion, forward bending, in the hip-joint and back can cause lordships in the lumbar region.

29

4.4 RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) ANALYSIS:

Vendor -1

Angle DegreeNeck Angle 25o

Trunk Angle 450

Upper arm 300

Lower arm 45o

Wrist 160

Leg Balance

Lower arm- across the midline of the body, Wrist-wrist is bent away from the midline, Wrist twist- twisted away from handshake position, neck- twist, trunk-twist, leg and feet are well supported and in an evenly balanced posture

RESULT

30

From this it is seen that the score of RULA assessment is 7 i.e. high risk of MSD’s problem. Hence there is need to investigate the working posture and action must take as early as possible to avoid further discrepancies.

4.5 CONCLUTION

From the above analysis, it was confirmed that the working place is not suitable for working and vendors. Vendors are going through the MSD’s problem and there is need to study, analyze that working area, to get a proper method or technique or remedy all those problems.

31

REFERENCES

11.Haik, Y., “Engineering Design Process”, Thomson Learning Pacific Grove CA.

USA, 2003

12.Lorenz, C., “The Design Dimension”, Basil Blackwell Ltd. New York, 1986.

13.Roozenburg, N. F. M. & Eekels, J., “Product Design: Fundamentals and

Methods”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Chichester, UK, 1995.

14. Phal, G. & Beitz, W., “Engineering Design-a systematic

approach”,DongMyungSa,(translated), Seoul, 1997.

15.Lawson, B (1997) How designers think: the design process demystified (3rd edn)

Architectural Press, Oxford, Boston

16.Park, H., Son, J.-S. & Lee, K.-H., “Design evaluation of digital consumer products

using virtual reality-based functional behavior simulation”, Journal of Engineering

Design, Vol.19, No.4., 2008, pp 359-375

17.Ulrich, K. T. & Eppinger, S. D., “Product Design and Development”, McGraw-

Hill Singapore, 2008.

18.Dym CL    - 1994 Engineering design: a synthesis of views.

19.Ullman, D. G., “The Mechanical DesignProcess”, McGraw-Hill Singapore, 2004.

20. Mc Atamney, L.and Corlett, E.N. “RULA-: A survey method for investigation of

work-related upper limb disorders.” Journal of APPLIED ERGONOMICS 1993,VOL.

24, NO.2, 91-99

32

33