1996
DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(96)84538-6
View full text |Buy / Rent full text
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: In manual materials handling jobs a reduction in the weight of materials often concurs with an increase in handling frequency. The effect of weight and inversely related frequency on spinal load was studied in two bricklaying tasks: building the skin and the floor of a steel ladle. In both tasks five subjects laid bricks of varying weight and frequency (obtained from field observations). The load parameters investigated were peak values and time integrals of the compressive force on the L5-S1 motion segment an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the energetic demands and biomechanical demands categories, seven studies evaluated the effects of interventions on the studied work demand. Four studies examined the effect of block weight [de Looze et al, 1996;Naqvi et al, 2000;Anton et al, 2005;van der Molen et al, 2007a] and three studied the effect of raised bricklaying compared to conventional bricklaying [Vink et al, 2002;van der Molen et al, 2004;Luijsterburg et al, 2005]. Other authors studied differences between different types of bricklayers (according to, for example, the type of building the bricklayer is working on) [Fleischer, 2002;Fleischer and Becker, 2002;Hartmann and Fleischer, 2005] (Table III).…”
Section: Physical Demandsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In the energetic demands and biomechanical demands categories, seven studies evaluated the effects of interventions on the studied work demand. Four studies examined the effect of block weight [de Looze et al, 1996;Naqvi et al, 2000;Anton et al, 2005;van der Molen et al, 2007a] and three studied the effect of raised bricklaying compared to conventional bricklaying [Vink et al, 2002;van der Molen et al, 2004;Luijsterburg et al, 2005]. Other authors studied differences between different types of bricklayers (according to, for example, the type of building the bricklayer is working on) [Fleischer, 2002;Fleischer and Becker, 2002;Hartmann and Fleischer, 2005] (Table III).…”
Section: Physical Demandsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Compression forces up to nearly 6 kN were calculated [Naqvi et al, 2000]. Work with lighter bricks and blocks (less then 5 kg) resulted in maximal peak compressive forces of approximately 3.5 kN [de Looze et al, 1996]. van der Molen et al [2007a] did not find an effect of lower block weight (11 kg compared to 14 and 16 kg) on cumulative spinal load during a full working day, nor on the energetic demand.…”
Section: Biomechanical Demands and Loadmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Positioned between the place in which the bricks are set out and the wall that is being built, bricklayers lay between 800 and 1000 bricks each workday. A bricklayer must therefore frequently bend and rotate at the trunk, and this movement can be regarded as the main physical workload problem (2,3). A study by Jäger and his colleagues (4) showed that lumbar load during bricklaying (as indicated by the moment of force and the force at the lumbosacral disc) was unacceptably heavy when bricks were stacked at a height between 0 and 20 inches (0-50.8 cm) from the floor (4).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%