Publicação

Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment

Ver documento

Detalhes bibliográficos
Resumo:Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) pose significant challenges in various industries due to factors like repetitive movements, forceful exertions, and awkward postures. Implementing proactive and reactive strategies, alongside biomechanical assessment tools, is crucial for mitigating these risks. However, advancements in computer-based technologies have created new opportunities in the ergonomics field. From this background, this study aims to compare the performance of an observational method (Rapid Upper Body Limb Assessment—RULA) against a computer-based method (LEA tool) concerning the risk evaluation of awkward postures. For that, biomechanical risk assessments of a single workstation in a Portuguese automotive part company were conducted. Among main findings, this study highlights methodological disparities between the two methods, such as body parts definition and scoring systems, influencing the final risk scores. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Observation-based RULA is simple and quick, but neglects task duration, whereas LEA considers the time spent in different postures but omits factors like wrist position and muscle use. In conclusion, the LEA method proved effective for rapid ergonomic assessment. Despite this, a detailed follow-up ergonomic analysis is recommended due to its inherent limitations, including the fact that it only evaluates awkward postures, not assessing other risk factors.
Autores principais:Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
Outros Autores:Colim, Ana; Carneiro, Paula; Lopes, Sérgio I.; Jesus, Cristiano
Assunto:Physical ergonomics Biomechanics Musculoskeletal disorders Risk assessment Technology
Ano:2026
País:Portugal
Tipo de documento:capítulo de livro
Tipo de acesso:acesso a metadados
Instituição associada:Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
Idioma:inglês
Origem:Repositório Científico IPVC
_version_ 1869070644937752576
author Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
author2 Colim, Ana
Carneiro, Paula
Lopes, Sérgio I.
Jesus, Cristiano
author2_role author
author
author
author
author_facet Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
Colim, Ana
Carneiro, Paula
Lopes, Sérgio I.
Jesus, Cristiano
author_role author
country_str PT
creators_json_txt [{\"Person.name\":\"Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.\"},{\"Person.name\":\"Colim, Ana\"},{\"Person.name\":\"Carneiro, Paula\"},{\"Person.name\":\"Lopes, Sérgio I.\"},{\"Person.name\":\"Jesus, Cristiano\"}]
datacite.creators.creator.creatorName.fl_str_mv Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
Colim, Ana
Carneiro, Paula
Lopes, Sérgio I.
Jesus, Cristiano
datacite.date.Accepted.fl_str_mv 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z
datacite.date.available.fl_str_mv 2026-03-30T09:55:02Z
datacite.date.embargoed.fl_str_mv 2026-03-30T09:55:02Z
datacite.rights.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_14cb
datacite.subjects.subject.fl_str_mv Physical ergonomics
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal disorders
Risk assessment
Technology
datacite.titles.title.fl_str_mv Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
Colim, Ana
Carneiro, Paula
Lopes, Sérgio I.
Jesus, Cristiano
dc.date.Accepted.fl_str_mv 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2026-03-30T09:55:02Z
dc.date.embargoed.fl_str_mv 2026-03-30T09:55:02Z
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11960/4810
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Nature
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_14cb
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Physical ergonomics
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal disorders
Risk assessment
Technology
dc.title.fl_str_mv Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_3248
description Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) pose significant challenges in various industries due to factors like repetitive movements, forceful exertions, and awkward postures. Implementing proactive and reactive strategies, alongside biomechanical assessment tools, is crucial for mitigating these risks. However, advancements in computer-based technologies have created new opportunities in the ergonomics field. From this background, this study aims to compare the performance of an observational method (Rapid Upper Body Limb Assessment—RULA) against a computer-based method (LEA tool) concerning the risk evaluation of awkward postures. For that, biomechanical risk assessments of a single workstation in a Portuguese automotive part company were conducted. Among main findings, this study highlights methodological disparities between the two methods, such as body parts definition and scoring systems, influencing the final risk scores. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Observation-based RULA is simple and quick, but neglects task duration, whereas LEA considers the time spent in different postures but omits factors like wrist position and muscle use. In conclusion, the LEA method proved effective for rapid ergonomic assessment. Despite this, a detailed follow-up ergonomic analysis is recommended due to its inherent limitations, including the fact that it only evaluates awkward postures, not assessing other risk factors.
dirty 0
eu_rights_str_mv metadataOnlyAccess
format bookPart
id ripvc_447cd0f70eae9bcdb28d17d8d75df9f6
identifier.url.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11960/4810
inst_facet_str urn:organizationAcronym:ipvc{{{_:::_}}}Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
instacron_str ipvc
institution Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
instname_str Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
language eng
network_acronym_str ripvc
network_name_str Repositório Científico IPVC
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ipvc.pt:20.500.11960/4810
organization_str_mv urn:organizationAcronym:ipvc
person_str_mv Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
Colim, Ana
Carneiro, Paula
Lopes, Sérgio I.
Jesus, Cristiano
publishDate 2026
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Nature
repo_facet_str urn:repositoryAcronym:ripvc{{{_:::_}}}Repositório Científico IPVC
reponame_str Repositório Científico IPVC
repository_id_str urn:repositoryAcronym:ripvc
service_str_mv urn:repositoryAcronym:ripvc
spelling pt_PTWork-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) pose significant challenges in various industries due to factors like repetitive movements, forceful exertions, and awkward postures. Implementing proactive and reactive strategies, alongside biomechanical assessment tools, is crucial for mitigating these risks. However, advancements in computer-based technologies have created new opportunities in the ergonomics field. From this background, this study aims to compare the performance of an observational method (Rapid Upper Body Limb Assessment—RULA) against a computer-based method (LEA tool) concerning the risk evaluation of awkward postures. For that, biomechanical risk assessments of a single workstation in a Portuguese automotive part company were conducted. Among main findings, this study highlights methodological disparities between the two methods, such as body parts definition and scoring systems, influencing the final risk scores. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Observation-based RULA is simple and quick, but neglects task duration, whereas LEA considers the time spent in different postures but omits factors like wrist position and muscle use. In conclusion, the LEA method proved effective for rapid ergonomic assessment. Despite this, a detailed follow-up ergonomic analysis is recommended due to its inherent limitations, including the fact that it only evaluates awkward postures, not assessing other risk factors.application/pdfengSpringer Naturept_PTComparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessmentAnacleto Filho, Paulo C.Colim, AnaCarneiro, PaulaLopes, Sérgio I.Jesus, CristianoHandlehttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11960/4810ISBNIsPartOf978-3-031-82291-9DOIIsPartOf10.1007/978-3-031-82291-9_62026-03-30T09:55:02Z2026-01-01T00:00:00Z20262026-03-29T17:24:48Zhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_14cbmetadata only accesspt_PTPhysical ergonomicspt_PTBiomechanicspt_PTMusculoskeletal disorderspt_PTRisk assessmentpt_PTTechnology866963 byteshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_14cbapplication/pdffulltexthttp://repositorio.ipvc.pt/bitstream/20.500.11960/4810/1/Filho_et_al._-_2026_-_Comparative_Analysis_Between_Computer-Based_and_Observational_Methods_for_Biomechanical_Risk_Assessm.pdfliteraturehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_3248book part
spellingShingle Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
Anacleto Filho, Paulo C.
Physical ergonomics
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal disorders
Risk assessment
Technology
status SINGLETON
subject.fl_str_mv Physical ergonomics
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal disorders
Risk assessment
Technology
title Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
title_full Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
title_fullStr Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
title_short Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
title_sort Comparative analysis between computer-based and observational methods for biomechanical risk assessment
topic Physical ergonomics
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal disorders
Risk assessment
Technology
topic_facet Physical ergonomics
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal disorders
Risk assessment
Technology
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11960/4810
visible 1