Modification of OWAS Checklist base on Maximum Holding Time in Standing Posture

碩士 === 國立清華大學 === 工業工程與工程管理學系碩士在職專班 === 101 === The purpose of this research is to review and evaluate the influence of the unhealthy posture by OWAS (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System) analysis which is verified by the MHT (Maximum Holding Time) base on 22 kinds of working postures. If the inco...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lin, Doris, 林秋君
Other Authors: 游志雲
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2013
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/02785155502562063807
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立清華大學 === 工業工程與工程管理學系碩士在職專班 === 101 === The purpose of this research is to review and evaluate the influence of the unhealthy posture by OWAS (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System) analysis which is verified by the MHT (Maximum Holding Time) base on 22 kinds of working postures. If the inconsistency exists between OWAS and MHT, the OWAS evaluated data has to be modified according to the revised grading standards of working posture and MHT action categories. Refer to the Miedema’s MHT posture matrix, it is calculated with 3 persons and 22 kinds of working postures. Thereupon, make the MHT of all postures in ascending order and define the uncomfortable grading standard of each working posture. Eventually, evaluate the data between MHT and OWAS to review the accuracy of OWAS. The result shows 8 of 22 working postures are consistency, for example, 25%SH (Shoulder Height) / 25%AR (Arm Reach) posture is judged as AC3 category by MHT and OWAS analysis; 8 of 22 working postures, 25%SH/75%AR, are judged as AC3 category by OWAS analysis and AC4 category by MHT analysis; 4 of 22 working postures, 100%SH/100%AR, are judged as AC1 category by OWAS analysis and AC3 category by MHT analysis, and 2 of 22 working postures, 125%SH/100%AR are judged as AC1 category by OWAS analysis and AC4 category by MHT analysis. Eventually, propose the warning level for body discomfort for the MHT of static posture refer to the level 2 defined in rating of perceived exertion scale of Borg-CR10. Above all, there is different outcome detected in these 14 of 22 postures comes from the criteria of OWAS which considered about not only static posture but also dynamic posture. Therefore, there is miscarriage of justice about the personnel’s evaluating index in this thesis considered static posture as only factor actually reflects the tired feeling of experimental subject in static posture. In conclusion, suggest considering the time of MHT’s each comfortable scale as the criteria of OWAS working posture scale to modify the risk assessment of static posture in OWAS.