Postural implications of obtaining line–of–sight for seated operators of underground mining load-haul-dump vehicles

Operators of load–haul–dump (LHD) vehicles use awkward postures that may be held statically and at extreme ranges of motion for long shift periods to spot hazards in underground mining. This study examined postural variables associated with three amounts of seat rotation intended to maximize line-of-sight during forward driving. Three different models, representing the 1st, 50th and 99th percentile male for height and weight, were positioned with appropriate hand and foot constraints in the virtual LHD cab modelled in Classic JACK v4.0. A total of 15 virtual movement strategies were developed to model the postural behaviour of typical workers and each virtual subject was tested, first with the seat in a neutral 0° position and then with it rotated counter-clockwise to 20° and 45°. Results revealed that reductions in trunk rotation, trunk lateral bend and neck rotation were associated with the seat rotation intervention. The general relationship observed was that as seat rotation increased, view of critical visual attention locations and visible line-of-sight area increased while postural load variables decreased. For the most part, 20° of seat rotation was beneficial but 45° produced significantly greater changes to postural load and visible visual attention locations.

[1]  D J Bottoms,et al.  A swivelling seat to improve tractor drivers' posture. , 1978, Applied ergonomics.

[2]  S Mcgill.  Measured and modeled static and dynamic trunk torsion during twisting in males and females , 1990 .

[3]  B Das,et al.  Computer-aided human modelling programs for workstation design. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[4]  K. Oberg,et al.  Torque resistance of the passive tissues of the trunk at axial rotation. , 1998, Applied ergonomics.

[5]  Josef Loczi.  Application of the 3-D CAD Manikin Ramsis to Heavy Truck Design , 2000 .

[6]  Hiroji Tsujimura,et al.  [Evaluation of a swiveling seat to reduce the physical load on forklift drivers]. , 2002, Sangyo eiseigaku zasshi = Journal of occupational health.

[7]  S. McGill.  The biomechanics of low back injury: implications on current practice in industry and the clinic. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  K Oberg,et al.  Maximum isometric trunk muscle strength and activity at trunk axial rotation during sitting. , 1999, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  Tammy Eger,et al.  Virtual Jack in a Virtual Machine , 2004 .

[10]  Stuart M. McGill,et al.  Low Back Disorders: Evidence-Based Prevention and Rehabilitation , 2002 .

[11]  P Odenrick,et al.  Head posture measurements among work vehicle drivers and implications for work and workplace design. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[12]  L Sjøflot.  Means of improving a tractor driver's working posture. , 1980, Ergonomics.

[13]  Robert A. Walker,et al.  Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Summary Statistics, Interim Report for 1988 , 1989 .

[14]  N. Kumar Kittusamy.  Ergonomic Risk Factors - A Study Of Heavy Earthmoving Machinery Operators , 1900 .

[15]  S. McGill,et al.  Measured and modelled static and dynamic axial trunk torsion during twisting in males and females. , 1990, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[16]  Robert P. Hubbard,et al.  ASPECT: The Next-Generation H-Point Machine and Related Vehicle and Seat Design and Measurement Tools , 1999 .

[17]  A Torén,et al.  Muscle activity and range of motion during active trunk rotation in a sitting posture. , 2001, Applied ergonomics.

[18]  M.g. Boocock,et al.  The problems of restricted visibility from free-steered mining vehicles , 1996 .