jeffrey chung (x5818) 1 jeffrey chung (x5818) 1 ergo project overview section
TRANSCRIPT
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 2
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 2
Berkeley Ergonomic Arm
Filling theVacuum in
Dynamic Arm Support
(Technology Transfer
Partnership Opportunity)
TEAM: Jeffrey Chung, Michael Siminovitch, Robin Lafever, Steve Dellinges, John Bercovitz and Chris Kniel
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 3
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 3
The National Business Concern
• 43% of all disabling workplace injuries and illnesses
(nation-wide) are associated with ergonomics and at
a financial cost of $16.8 billion. [Liberty Mutual
Workplace Safety Index Report – 2002]
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) says, “one-third of OSHA lost work day
cases were result of over exertion and repetitive
motion”.
Ergonomic injuries financially cost companies
$20 billion a year.
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 4
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 4
Individual and Lab-Wide Needs ...Individual and Lab-Wide Needs ...
Vision – Reach - Body Posture
• 62% worker injury cases caused by ergonomics.
• 20% employee visits to Health Services triggered by computer use.
• 145 WComp claims are “ergo-related” costing > $2M and 13,602 days of TD/Loss Work Days.
• Property dBase tracks > 9,800 computers used by 4,000 employees.
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 5
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 5
Why Design for Dynamic Support?
• Business and Institutional Manufacturers Association
(BIFMA) addresses working postures:
“There isn’t a uniquely correct working posture that
would fit any user for an extended period of time
and/or accommodate every personal working habit”.
• There’s no one correct posture:
Body needs to move throughout the day
Non-neutral postures need to be supported to
minimize static muscle loading.
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 6
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 6
Benefits of Ergonomic Intervention
• Rising Workers Compensation costs (medical,
disability, rehabilitation and insurance premiums)
• Industrial and non-industrial (ADA) injury recovery
and accommodation assistance• Injury prevention across variety of industries
• Aiding the disabled and elderly population
ProductivityWComp CostsQuality of Work Life
Company $Bottom Line
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 7
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 7
Background - Ergo Arm Support Project
• EH&S management provided $25,000 seed money for Phase I:
Interdisciplinary Team Science (EH&S, EETD and Engineering)
Brainstormed creative concepts, developed engineering model
• Senior Lab management invests $150,000 funds to pursue Phase
II:
Engineering design and prototype development of engineering
model
Device evaluation/field testing with human subjects
“Multi-Functionality” Design Application Goal:
Dynamic musculoskeletal arm support across variety of work environments, working with or without tools.
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 8
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 8
Phase I, Design Effort
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 9
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 9
Idea Engineering Concepts
Lab set upConcept generationHardware Fab, Mod, IterateTesting and EvaluationScreen candidates
Invention Disclosure
Engineering Development
LBNL Technology Transfer
Acquire instrumentationMeasure Muscle Activity Refine Evaluation CriteriaDevelop Engineering PrototypesConduct Engineering tests
$ $
Industry Solution
Development Funding
LBL Presentation
McGrawPresentation
Seed money
$
Production Prototype Funding
$
IndustryCRADA orSBIR
Product Development
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Develop Product requirementsDesign for manufactureProduce production prototypesConduct product field testing
We are Here !
Commercialization
Project Evolution and Direction
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 11
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 11
At Risk Thresholds
Per OSHA, certain situations create MSD risks: Performing same motion pattern every few
seconds for > 2 hours continuously or 4 hours
daily.
Maintaining non-neutral (unsupported, static/fixed
or awkward posture > one (1) hour continuously
or four (4) hours daily.
Forceful hand exertions > two (2) hours daily.
Unassisted frequent or heavy lifting
Boredom and monotony
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 12
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 12
Sources of Workplace Ergonomic Risks
•Repetitive Exertions
•Postural Stressors
•Contact Stressors
•Static Exertions
•Forceful Exertions
Independently
or
In Combination
Force – Frequency – Posture - Duration
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 13
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 13
Resulting Musculoskeletal Problems
•Muscle Pain
•Tendon Injuries
•Blood Circulation Disorders
•Nerve Damage
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 14
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 14
Ergo Risks During Computer Use
• Reach (static and dynamic)
• Mobility (range of motion)
• Loads/Forces
• Vision
• Mobility (range of motion)
• Body Posture
Dynamic Support for the
“Working Envelop/Spheres”
Risk Reduction Thru:
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 15
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 15
Field Testing Experimental Protocol
• Evaluate effectiveness of engineered/functional
prototype through collection of:
Quantitative data from EMG measurements
Qualitative data from user feedback surveys
• Eleven (11) subjects participated in study:
5 females (all Caucasian)
6 males (3 Caucasian, 3 Asian)
Stature Range (60” to 74”)
Dominance (10 right hand, 1 left hand)
No current upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 16
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 16
Field Testing Experimental Protocol
• Target Muscle Groups: Forearm extensor
(left or right)
Tricep-lateral head (left or right)
Upper trapezius (left or right)
Middle trapezius (left or right)
Supraspinatus (left or right)
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 17
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 17
EMG Testing Scenarios
• Sitting without device, arms static and at neutral position (90 degrees)
• Standing without device, arms static and at neutral position (90 degrees)
• Sitting with device, arms static and at neutral position (90 degrees)
• Standing with device, arms static and at neutral position (90 degrees)
• Sitting without device, arms at 90 degree position performing sweeping motion
• Standing without device, arms at 90 degree position performing sweeping motion
• Sitting with device, arms at 90 degree position performing sweeping motion
• Standing with device, arms at 90 degree position performing sweeping motion
• Sitting without device, arms reaching forward from neutral/90 degrees position
• Standing without device, arms reaching forward from neutral/90 degrees position
• Sitting with device, arms reaching forward from neutral/90 degrees position
• Standing with device, arms reaching forward from neutral/90 degrees position
• Sitting without device, typing text with keyboard
• Standing without device, performing hand drill task
• Sitting with device, typing text with keyboard
• Standing with device, performing hand drill task
• Sitting without device, mousing movement tracking targets on the screen
• Standing without device, arms extended forward in static position
• Sitting with device, mousing movement tracking targets on the screen
• Standing with device, arms extended forward in static position
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 18
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 18
Field Testing
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 19
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 19
Field Testing
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 20
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 20
Results: 95% Confidence Benefit From Device
N = 11 Shoulder Triceps Forearm
Sitting w/ Arms @ 90 Degrees Static * *
Sitting w/ Arms Sweeping/Swinging * *
Sitting w/ Arms Reaching Forward * *
Sitting and Typing + + +
Sitting and Targeting With Mouse + * +
Standing w/ Arms @ 90 Degrees Static * *
Standing w/ Arms Sweeping/Swinging * *
Standing w/ Arms Reaching Forward * * *
Standing and Drilling *
Standing w/ Arms Extended – Static (N = 8) *
* Static muscle loading was reduced in these muscle groups.
+ Typing and mousing activity showed positive effect/benefit, but didn’t reach the 95% confidence level.
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 21
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 21
Field Testing Conclusions
• Dynamic arm support concept and engineered prototype does
significantly help reduce muscle activity “at resting levels” (MVC-
APDF 10) involved with sitting and standing activities under: Static positions/postures involving the upper arm and shoulder of the
dominant hand side.
Swinging movements involving the upper arm and shoulder of the
dominant hand side.
Reaching movements involving the upper arm and shoulder of the
dominant hand side
Drilling tasks involving the upper arm
• Mousing and typing activities also showed reduced “at resting
levels” (MVC-APDF 10), but not at the 95% confidence level
• User subjective feedback was consistently favorable in terms of
sensations of reduced shoulder effort, ease of task and forearm
comfort.
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 22
Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 22
Questions . . .