Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
b. Does the activity include static and dynamic postures?
2. Sensitivity and generality
a. How detailed will the assessment be?
b. Will the same postural analysis tool be used for a range of tasks in several industrial settings?
When choosing between REBA and RULA consider the task demands and type of assessment required as
suggested in Table 42.1. RULA is generally used if the person is sitting, standing still or in an otherwise
sedentary position and mainly using the upper body and arms to work, for all other tasks REBA should
be used. In all applications of REBA and RULA, users should receive training or be confidently skilled in
the tool before using it although no previous ergonomic skills are required.
REBAwas initially designed to provide a pen-and-paper postural analysis tool that could either be used
in the field by direct observation or with still
video photographs. It has been further developed and there
are now simple computer programmes available which support the coding and analysis (Janik et al.,
2002). As a pen-and-paper tool, it was designed to have wider application than more complex postural
analysis tools (e.g., NIOSH, Waters et al., 1993) and so was developed using examples from electricity,
health care, and manufacturing industries. However, it also has more sensitivity and anatomical (body
part) detail than other postural analysis tools (e.g., OWAS, Karhu et al., 1977).
RULA was developed to provide postural analysis where work placed physical demands on the trunk,
neck, and upper limbs in particular and therefore in tasks where work-related upper limb disorders, cumu-
lative trauma disorders, and similar problems are a concern. RULA assesses the posture, force and move-
ment associated with sedentary tasks such tasks include screen based or computer tasks, manufacturing or
retail tasks where the worker is seated or standing without moving about. The main applications of RULA
are to measure the musculoskeletal risk, usually as part of a broader ergonomic investigation and then:
/
1. Compare the effects of a current and modified workstation designs
2. Evaluate outcomes such as productivity or suitability of equipment
3. Educate workers about musculoskeletal risk created by different working postures
RULA has been used extensively in studies including:
.
Manufacturing where Gutierrez (1998) evaluated assembly improvements in postures of elec-
tronics factory workers using redesigned workstations
.
Computer equipment assessments (Hedge et al., 1995)
.
Office-based tasks. Leuder (1996) modified RULA (http:
rulacite.htm)
to assess broader risks associated with office-based tasks including glare on the computer screen
(see http:
www.humanics-es.com
//
/
rula.pdf). Whilst the modified tool has not been vali-
dated, it provides useful information on workstation risks
.
Cost benefits of improving workstation design. Axelsson (1997) found a correlation between high
RULA scores and a higher proportion of products that were discarded as defective at that worksta-
tion. As part of their macro ergonomic management program the subsequent improvements to the
identified high-risk workstations produced a 39% drop in quality deficiencies representing a cost
saving of $25,000 per year.
www.humanics-es.com
files
//
/
/
A web-based RULA assessment tool is available free of charge at http:
//
www.ergonomics.co.uk.
TABLE 42.1 Choosing between REBA and RULA
Task Demands
Overview Assessment
Detailed Assessment
Whole of body activity (static or
dynamic)
Use REBA
Specific assessment tools (REBA useful as
overview)
Mainly upper body activity
Use RULA
Specific assessment tools (RULA useful as
overview)
Search WWH ::
Custom Search