2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2019.03.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computation of safety design indexes of industry vehicle operators based on the reach angle, the distance from elbow to ground and the popliteal height

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More specifically, [8], based on the literature's examination, determined the dominant RAA methods, and categorized them into three principal classes, i.e., the qualitative, the quantitative, and the hybrid (semi-quantitative or qualitative-quantitative) methods, wherein the first ones are grounded mainly on the safety-managers' capability, the second ones express the risk by a mathematical relation in conjunction with real accident data recorded in a workplace, and finally, the third ones are characterized by a high complexity due to their ad-hoc feature. A plethora of other works confirm the results of this study, and also the importance of its classification, like the articles of (i) da Costa et al (2020) [18], Gul and Celik (2018) [19], AriamuthuVenkidasalapathy et al (2018) [20], Ozkan and Uluta (2017) [21] (for quantitative RAA), (ii) Athar et al (2019) [22], Sanmiquel-Pera et al (2019) [23], Domínguez et al (2019) [24] (for qualitative RAA), and (iii) Kharzi et al (2020) [25], Cinar and Cebi (2020) [26], Mutlu et al (2019) [27], Bora et al, (2019) [28], Kamsu-Foguem and Tiako (2017) [29], Zheng et al (2017) [30], Mentes and Ozen (2015) [31] (for hybrid RAA).…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More specifically, [8], based on the literature's examination, determined the dominant RAA methods, and categorized them into three principal classes, i.e., the qualitative, the quantitative, and the hybrid (semi-quantitative or qualitative-quantitative) methods, wherein the first ones are grounded mainly on the safety-managers' capability, the second ones express the risk by a mathematical relation in conjunction with real accident data recorded in a workplace, and finally, the third ones are characterized by a high complexity due to their ad-hoc feature. A plethora of other works confirm the results of this study, and also the importance of its classification, like the articles of (i) da Costa et al (2020) [18], Gul and Celik (2018) [19], AriamuthuVenkidasalapathy et al (2018) [20], Ozkan and Uluta (2017) [21] (for quantitative RAA), (ii) Athar et al (2019) [22], Sanmiquel-Pera et al (2019) [23], Domínguez et al (2019) [24] (for qualitative RAA), and (iii) Kharzi et al (2020) [25], Cinar and Cebi (2020) [26], Mutlu et al (2019) [27], Bora et al, (2019) [28], Kamsu-Foguem and Tiako (2017) [29], Zheng et al (2017) [30], Mentes and Ozen (2015) [31] (for hybrid RAA).…”
Section: Literature Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They structured an experiment in MATLAB in order to rank workstations according to their ergonomic risk levels. In another study, Bora et al (2019) use an automated neural network search (ANS) approach for REBA and RULA integrated prediction system that is proposed for industrial vehicle drivers. They use CATIA software with other techniques to analyze the posture parameters of subjects and make a conclusion about the risk levels of the tasks.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the first, Balaji and Alphin [88] took photographs of operators who handled industrial excavators, observing that 46% of workers were exposed to high levels of danger; this resulted in the tasks being optimized and redesigned. In the second, Bora et al [89] evaluated posture parameters in industrial vehicles using CATIA software.…”
Section: Production Linesmentioning
confidence: 99%