Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 1 Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 1 Ergo Project Overview Section

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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



Phase I, Design Effort



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



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



Sources of Workplace Ergonomic Risks

•Repetitive Exertions

•Postural Stressors

•Contact Stressors

•Static Exertions

•Forceful Exertions

Independently

or

In Combination

Force – Frequency – Posture - Duration



Resulting Musculoskeletal Problems

•Muscle Pain

•Tendon Injuries

•Blood Circulation Disorders

•Nerve Damage



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:



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



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)



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



Field Testing



Field Testing



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.



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.



Questions . . .

Documents

Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 1 Jeffrey Chung (x5818) 1 Ergo Project Overview Section