Advertisement

Analysis of Physical Workloads and Muscular Strain in Lower Extremities During Walking “Sideways” and “Mixed” Walking in Different Directions in Simulated U-Shape in the Lab

  • Jurij Wakula
  • Stefan Bauer
  • Sören Spindler
  • Ralph Bruder
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

The muscular strain at the lower extremities was analysed in the IAD-lab using the simulated U-shape with short-cycle tasks (approx. 80 s.) with walking “sideways” and “mixed” walking (sidesteps and normal steps). Also focus was on analysis of the effects of “walking sideways counter clockwise” vs. “turn clockwise sideways” on the muscular strain in the three selected muscles in the right and the left leg. Four different scenarios were tested. The U-shape consisted of five work stations, was 2 m long and 1.4 m wide in scenarios walking with “sidesteps” (A, B) only. In scenarios with “mixed” walking the assembly U-shape was about 3,2 m long and 1.4 m wide. The EA-activities in selected three leg muscles in the left and right legs were analysed using surface EMG-method. Six test subjects, between 19 and 30 years old, without experience in assembly work took part in the study. The results complement the study Wakula et al. (2017a,b) and show that walking “sideways” counter-clockwise (CC) cause the selected right leg muscles more strain compared to the left leg muscle by some test persons. When walking clockwise (C) two muscles in the left leg were more stressed compared to the right leg muscles. Changing the direction of moving at the U-line: CC \( \to \) C \( \to \) CC \( \to \) C is positive for the muscular strains - it brings some balance of the EA values in analyzed right and left leg muscles. Walking with “mixed” (lateral and two-three normal) steps in the analyzed U-shape did not reduce muscular strains in the legs compared to walking with “sidesteps” only.

Keywords

U-shape Walking “sideways” “Mixed” walking Muscular strain 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the professional association for wood and metal (Berufsgenossenschaft Holz und Metall - BGHM) and the professional association for electrical engineering (Berufsgenossenschaft Energie Textil Elektro Medienerzeugnisse - BG ETEM) for the support of the project “U-line assembly systems”/U-shape in the context of which this study was realized.

References

  1. Lotter B, Wiendahl H-P (2006) Montage in der industriellen Produktion: Ein Handbuch für die Praxis, Auflage 2006. Ein Handbuch für Die Praxis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Günther H-O, Mattfeld DC, Suhl L (2005) Supply chain management und logistik: optimierung, simulation, decision support. Springer Science & Business Media, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AWMF online (2013) Oberflächen-Elektromyographie in der Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeits-physiologie und Arbeitswissenschaft- Arbeitsmedizinische S2 k-Leitlinie der Deutsche Gesellschaft für Arbeitsmedizin und Umweltmedizin (DGAUM) und der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft (GfA). AWMF online-Das Portal der wissenschaftlichen MedizinGoogle Scholar
  4. Wakula J, Fichtner K, Bruder R (2016) Analyse der physischen Belastungen und der muskulären Beanspruchungen an der simulierten U-Montagelinie mit unterschiedlichen Mechanisierungsgrad in der Prozesslernfabrik der TU Darmstadt. In: Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft (Hrsg.) Arbeit in komplexen Systemen. Digital, vernetzt, human?! GfA-Press, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  5. Wakula J, Müglich D, Bruder R (2017a) Walking “Normally” vs. “Sideways” in simulated, simple assembly operations: analysis of muscular strain in the legs. In: Schlick CM et al (eds) Advances in ergonomic design of systems, products and processesGoogle Scholar
  6. Wakula J, Bauer S, Spindler S, Bruder, R (2017b) Analyse von Belastungen und muskulären Beanspruchungen der unteren Extremitäten beim „seitlichen“ Gehen an einer simulierten Montagelinie mit unterschiedlichen Laufrichtungen und kurzen Taktzeiten. In: Dortmund (Hrsg.) Frühjahrs-kongress 2017, Brugg und Zürich: Soziotechnische Gestaltung des digitalen Wandels – kreativ, innovativ, sinnhaft. Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft e.VGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurij Wakula
    • 1
  • Stefan Bauer
    • 1
  • Sören Spindler
    • 1
  • Ralph Bruder
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Ergonomics and Human FactorsTechnical University DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations