APPLICATION OF DIGITAL CELLULAR RADIO FOR MOBILE LOCATION ESTIMATION IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 SPACE MAPPING OF HIP AND WRISTS MOTIONS FOR DIFFERENT TRANSFER DISTANCES IN MANUAL MATERIAL HANDLING TASK RADIN ZAID RADIN UMAR1,2*, FATIN AYUNI MOHD AZLI LEE1, MUHAMMAD NAQIUDDIN KHAFIZ1, NADIAH AHMAD1,2, NAZREEN ABDULLASIM3 1Fakulti Kejuruteraan Pembuatan, 2Center of Smart System and Innovative Design, 3Fakulti Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Malaysia *Corresponding author: radinzaid@utem.edu.my (Received: 16th July 2019; Accepted: 9th March 2020; Published on-line: th July 2020) ABSTRACT: Manual material transfer tasks are common in occupational settings. Repetitive lifting tasks usually involve twisting and bending which are associated with occupational lower back injuries. One of the approaches to reduce bending and t wi st i ng is to separate the distance between lifting origin and destination, which will encourage lifters to step and turn entire bodies. However, adding lifting distances is likely to af f ect space usages and requirements. A study was conducted to investigate how the transfer distances influence space usage during the lifting task. Raw data of hip and hand wr i st s motion of 26 male subjects during transfer in 4 different distances were captured using X-Sens motion capture system. MVN Studio software was used to process and extract positional data. Tabulated space mapping revealed limited hip movement and semicircular shaped hand motions for short transfer distances. The pattern changes into a more stretched-curve shape as the distance increases. Overall, it was observed that shorter transfer distance caused participants to adopt more twisting and less bending postures, while further transfer distances resulted in more bending and less twisting. This study may provide industrial practitioners with information to design a space requirement for manual material transfer tasks. ABSTRAK: Kerja-kerja pemindahan barang secara manual adalah biasa dalam persekitaran kerja. Kerja-kerja mengangkat barang yang kebiasaannya melibatkan badan membengkok dan berpusing boleh menyebabkan kecederaan tulang belakang. Salah sat u cara bagi mengurangkan risiko ini adalah dengan memisahkan jarak antara tempat asal dan tempat tuju pemindahan barang. Pemindah barang digalakkan untuk melangkah dan memusingkan seluruh badan. Namun, cara ini menyebabkan penggunaan ruang yang banyak. Satu kajian telah dijalankan bagi mengkaji bagaimana jarak pemindahan bar ang mempengaruhi penggunaan ruang ketika kerja-kerja pemindahan. Data asal pergerakan pinggul dan pergelangan tangan daripada 26 subjek lelaki ketika pemindahan barang pada 4 jarak berbeza diperolehi menggunakan sistem rakaman gerakan X-Sens. Peri si an MVN Studio digunakan bagi memproses dan mengekstrak data ini. Ruang pemetaan berjadual mendedahkan pergerakan pinggul yang terhad dan pergerakan tangan berbentuk separa bulat pada jarak pemindahan terdekat. Corak ini berubah kepada bentuk lengkung memanjang apabila jarak bertambah. Keseluruhannya, jarak pindahan yang kurang menyebabkan para peserta lebih terdedah kepada postur memusingkan badan berbanding membengkok, sementara jarak yang jauh menyebabkan peserta lebih membengkok berbanding memusingkan badan. Kajian ini memberikan maklumat unt uk 164 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 penggiat industri mereka cipta keperluan ruang bagi kerja-kerja pemindahan barang secara manual. KEYWORDS: space mapping; ergonomics; manual material handling; transfer distance 1. INTRODUCTION Application of ergonomic principles has shown good results in increasing productivity and decreasing health issues [1]. Ergonomics consideration in early stage s o f w o rk pla c e design has been shown to yield better outcomes compared to considerations at later design stages. Front end ergonomics involves looking into interfaces between workers and workplace elements such as workstation, task, and work environment. One of the components of front-end ergonomics is the evaluation of work layout, which spe c ific ally looks into space requirements. Manual material handling (MMH) activities are one of the most common tasks in workplaces. High frequency and long duration of exposure to MMH, especially in the industry that still relies on manual labour, can directly impact the workers as they are more likely to be exposed to ergonomic risk factors related to MMH activities [2]. Multiple studies have discussed potential methods to minimize ergonomic risk factors due to MMH such as training [3], assisting devices [4], and workplace layout design [5,6]. However, there have been publications suggesting limited effectiveness of training for preventing lower back pain [7,8]. Assisting devices may also minimize ergonomic related risks, however high tech devices may come at a cost, and there might be resistance to adopt them due to unfamiliarity and slowing down the processes [9]. Workplace layout and space play a direct role in influencing workers’ movements and postures. Poor layout and limited space may contribute to poor work postures for the workers [10]. Lavender and Johnson [6] argued that consideration of good workplace layout allows some degree of control on asymmetric lifting behaviour. In a n o th er s tu d y , Mehta et. al. [5] outlined that separating the origin of the lift station and the destinatio n a t a certain distance may nurture workers to step and turn their whole body which m a y h e lp reduce bending and twisting during the manual handling activity. It wa s suggested that distancing the location between lifts can limit the twisting of body. In an experimental study conducted in the United States of America, Lavender & Johnson [6 ] re v ea le d th a t lateral bending and twisting of the spine were minimized when a separation dista nc e o f 1 meter was created between the lift’s origin and the destination. Poor work postures in combinations of repetitive and long exposure durations can increase risks o f e rgo no m ics issues like sprain, strain, and work-related musculoskeletal disorders [11,12]. Therefore, a good design that focuses on optimizing interaction between workplace setup and w o rk ers can contribute to increased efficiency and productivity in a workplace [13]. In workstation design options to control ergonomic risk factors, existing ergo n o mic s guidelines have been primarily focused on space clearances. There have also been generic guidelines on manual material handling activities [14,15] than can be referred prior to th e design process. However, there has not been much information that specifically focuses on space requirement for manual material handling tasks. The objective of this study is to capture and map the hip and wrist motions during the manual material handling task. Specifically, box transfer processes of different transfer distances and their e ffe c t o n th e space requirement during the handling task have been selected as the focus of s tu dy . It is envisioned that space mapping of motions during manual material handling tasks can provide engineers and designers with space requirement information during the fron t -e nd 165 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 manual material handling workstation design process. Thus, a deeper s tu d y f oc u sin g o n interaction of workers and their space requirement may provide insights that can be utilized in the front-end design of workplaces. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Overview A randomized repeated design of experiment was conducted to map the space requirement behaviours of different transfer distances during manual handling a c tiv itie s . Space mapping data was collected through th e use of 3D body motion capture system Xsens (Xsens Technologies, Netherlands). The system consisted of accelerometers that captured acceleration data at a sampling frequency of 30 data per second. The raw acceleration data were then converted into velocity data, and then positional data through a series of customized programming algorithms developed using Processing software. 2.2 Subject Participants 26 healthy male participants, age ranging from 23 -24 years old (Mean = 23.88, SD=0.35) were recruited in this study. The subjects were screened to ensure that they were free of any history of musculoskeletal disorders or prior injuries that could affect th e w a y they performed the tasks of interest. Other exclusion criteria include any injury within th e past 12 months that caused them to restrict any work or non -work activity, and e x is te n ce of current pain or other musculoskeletal symptoms. 2.3 Data Collection Each subject signed consent forms and filled demographic data before wearing the Xsens sensor-integrated suit. The subject was then asked to transfer boxes of fixed weigh t (10.9 kg) between two stations, the heights of which were set so that the beginning and ending heights were at the 5th percentile of Malaysian population elbow height (0.913 m ) [16]. Lifting load and height were controlled to minimize their effect on experimental outcomes. Each subject was briefed on the simulated task, before being asked to p ra c tic e transferring the boxes. After the practice session, subject was asked to continuously transfer 4 boxes in 4 different transfer distances of 0.50 m, 0.75 m, 1.00 m, and 1.25 m, a s shown in Fig. 1. No specific instructions were given with regard s to transf e r te c hn iqu e s. Figure 2 shows an example of one subject performing the box transfer task. Fig. 1: Workstation setup (left), top view of experimental setup (right). 166 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 Fig. 2: Subject wearing motion capture system performing the box transfer task at 0.5 m distance set up. 2.4 Data Processing and Analysis 2.4.1 Image Analysis Raw data from the Xsens motion capture system were extracted and visualized in MVN Studio software (Xsens Technologies, Netherlands). The 3D simulation was run f or each subject to observe obvious trends and patterns on postural behaviours. Screen captures were taken at the 4th cycle at both origin and destination of lifting for the purpose of image analysis. The observation of 4th cycle data is to represent work postures d u ring continuous transfer, as well as to allow subjects to be more at ease as task familia riz a tio n started to take place. 2.4.2 Space Mapping Analysis Positional data of the hip and right and left wrists were obtained for each subject. These positional data, in X and Y planes were extracted using Cinema 4D software (MAXON Computer GmbH, Germany) that were then tabulated and mapped using Microsoft Excel. The tabulation allows an overview of the motions from the top view. Ea c h d a ta w a s colour-coded to differentiate between the body parts (hip, right wrist, and left w ris t), a n d between transfer distances (0.5 m, 0.75 m, 1.0 m, and 1.25 m). 2.4.3 Analysis on Width Requirements The maximum width distance requirements of each cycle from all transfer dis ta nc e s , across all subjects, were captured through identification of furthest positio na l d a ta in a n excel file. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the differences in width requirements and consequently, in the area used by each subject. Repeated ANOVA measures were conducted using a JASP statistics package (Wagenmakers, Amsterdam) to see if there were significant differences on width requirements between different tra n s fe r d is ta n ce s . Mauchly's test was used for sphericity assumption. A post hoc comparison test was performed using Bonferroni correction to analyse the pairwise comparisons of experimental conditions. 167 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 3. RESULTS 3.1 Image Analysis Qualitative analysis was conducted through observation of images captured using MVN Studio software. It was conducted to identify the relation between bending and twisting postures with transfer distance from different subjects. Figure 3 a n d 4 s h o w th e bending postures whereas Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show twisting postures of one of the su b je cts . Both were captured during the box lifting and placing at four different distan ce s . Fo r th e twisting posture, the images were captured from the top view. It can be seen that the small transfer distance caused the subject to adopt more twisting but less bending p o s tu re . Th e observation was opposite for greater transfer distances. Fig. 3: Forward bending of a subject during th e start of box lifting (origin) at four different transfer distances: (a) 0.50 m, (b) 0.75 m, (c) 1.00 m, and (d) 1.25 m. Fig. 4: Forward bending of a subject during the start of box placement (destination) at four different transfer distances: (a) 0.50 m, (b) 0.75 m, (c) 1.00 m, and (d) 1.25 m. Fig. 5: Lower back twisting of a subject during the start of box lifting (origin) at four different transfer distances: (a) 0.50 m, (b) 0.75 m, (c) 1.00 m, and (d) 1.25 m. 168 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 Fig. 6: Lower back twisting of a subject during the start of box placement (destination) at four different transfer distances: (a) 0.50 m, (b) 0.75 m, (c) 1.00 m, and (d) 1.2 5m. 3.2 Space Mapping Analysis In order to see the patterns of hip and wrist motions, graphs were plotted based on t h e maximum and minimum points of the hip and wrists for all subjects. Figu re 7 s h o w s th e graphs of space mapping data for one subject at different transfer dis ta nc e s w h ile Fig. 8 shows the graphs of space mapping of hip and wrists positional data for all s ubjects during the material handling activity. The starting point of each subject is facing th e p o sitiv e x - axis from the origin. Fig. 7: Space mapping of wrists and hip motion of manual transfer for Subject 23 at 0.50 m, 0.75 m, 1.00 m, and 1.25 m transfer distances. 169 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 It can be seen from the space mapping analysis that more space wa s u tiliz e d d u ring the transfer as the transfer distances increased. The hip movements in 0.5 m transfer distance were seen to be localized in the same area, between 20 cm in bo th x a n d y a x is . As the transfer distance increased, the hip movements were seen to be distributed over larger areas. At 1.25m transfer distance, the hip movements were shown to be th e la rge s t compared to other distances, as shown in Fig. 8. A similar tren d was observ e d w ith b o th right and left wrist movements. The space mapping data shows that movements of hip, right wrist, and left wrist occupied larger areas as the transfer distances increased from 0.5 m to 1.25 m. In addition to the larger occupied area , it can also be seen that different transfer distances affected the movement direction and shape. As transfer distance increased, the hip tended to move further in the y axis direction. In terms of wrists, the movements expended from a semi-circular shape into stretched-out semi-circular shape. Fig. 8: Mapping of (a) hip, (b) right wrist, and (c) left wrist movements for all 26 subjects at 0.50 m, 0.75 m, 1.00 m, and 1.25 m transfer distances. 3.3 Analysis on Width Requirements The positional data involved to map the top view of hip and wrist motions were x an d z points. The maximum value, average, and standard deviation of width a t e a c h tra n s fe r distance from all subjects were calculated and tabulated in Table 1. The values showed 170 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 increase in space width from the shortest (0.50 m) to greatest (1.25 m) tran s fe r d is ta n ce . Figure 9 shows the graph of width average for subject 23. Mauchly's test showed good sphericity assumption (p=0.129), which indic ated that the variances of the differences were equal. Repeated ANOVA measures showed that there was a significant effect of transfer distances (p<0.001) on width require m e nts . Th e post hoc Bonferroni test to analyse the pairwise comparisons between the tr ansfer distances showed significant differences between 0.5 m vs 1.25 m, and 0.75 m v s 1 . 2 5 m at alpha=0.05. The width requirements for transfer distances between 0.5 m vs 0.75 m, 0.50 m vs 1.0 m, and 1.0m vs 1.25m were not statistically significant, as sh own in Table 2. It should be noted that the 0.75 m vs 1.0 m transfer distance showed marginal significance (p=0.055). Fig. 9: Width requirements of wrists and hip motion of manual transfer for different distances for Subject 23. 171 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 Table 1: Maximum value, mean and standard deviation of width requirements for all subjects (n=26) at different transfer distances. Transfer distance (m) Width requirements (cm) Maximum Mean Standard Deviation 0.50 92.02 74.84 10.26 0.75 93.73 74.18 8.81 1.00 109.41 78.95 12.07 1.25 108.02 83.42 14.01 Table 2: Post Hoc analysis to compare significance differences in width requirements between transfer distances. Comparison of transfer distances Mean Difference Standard Error t P bonferroni 0.5 m 0.75 m 0.654 1.818 0.360 1.000 1.0 m -4.111 2.060 -1.996 0.342 1.25 m -8.586 2.660 -3.228 0.021* 0.75 m 1.0 m -4.765 1.686 -2.827 0.055 1.25 m -9.240 2.502 -3.693 0.007* 1.0 m 1.25 m -4.474 2.089 -2.142 0.253 Note: * signifies statistical significant difference 4. DISCUSSION Comparing images visualized from MVN Studio software, it was found that the 0.50m transfer distance encourages twisting the most, compared to longer transfer distances. The limited space and clearance encouraged subjects to stand relatively static a t one place and twist the body while transferring the box. When the transfer distance increased, subjects were able to make some movements while transferring the box causing less possession of twisting, but it was observed that bending posture was more prominen t. In general, hip movement is more dynamic at larger space but the hip position is still within the same relative area (not spread around). This indicates that the subjects tended to move more but were still standing on the same spot. In order to complete the transfer task, subjects tended to bend more during lifting and placing the box in order to reach the stations. The positional data of hip and wrists for different transfer distances during manual transfer were mapped to give an overview of the space requirements. Ov era ll, th e re s u lt showed that in the shortest setup (0.5 m), hip positional data are mostly lo c a liz e d in o n e area, while the wrist motions are in a semi-circular shape. The relatively static hip data suggested that the subjects were adopting twisting motion during the transfer proc e ss . A s the transfer distances increased, the curve pattern for hip and wrists positional data stretched out and resulted in a more stretched curve pattern. This suggests more d y n a mic motions occur during the transfer process, comprising of both body movements and bending, compared to primarily twisting movements in the shortest setup at 0.5 m transf er distance. Body postures during material handling can be influenced by the distance between the lifting origin and the destination stations. Findings from this study show that the magnitude of lower back bending increases as the transfer distance increases. This result is in agreement with a study by Metha et al. [5] which found that the increase of s e pa ra tion 172 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 distance might increase forward flexion of the spine. This posture pose may happen due to the tendency of the workers to reach rather than stepping toward to the destination station. The authors added that longer transfer distance can also increase physio logic a l c o s t a n d transfer time of the handlers. Meanwhile, if the transfer distances between the o rigin a n d destination stations were too close to each other, workers were more likely to adopt a twisting motion due to limited space and clearances. In another study, Kuorinka and Ilk k a [10] also found that limited workspaces and clearances may result in workers adopting incorrect material handling methods. Overall, results in this study are aligned to f in d ings from other researchers that suggest increase in lower back bending magnitude, and decrease in lower back twisting magnitude, as the transfer distances increased. H o w ev er, the detailed analyses on these trends were not the primary focus of this m a n u s crip t. Th e detailed measurement, analysis, and description on the trends of lower back b e nd in g a n d twisting during different transfer distances had been documented in the authors’ other manuscript. The principle of correct manual carrying is by holding the object as close to the b o d y as possible while keeping the back straight [15]. A study conducted by D o la n e t a l. [1 7 ] found that the activity of lifting a weight that is farther in front of the body a s o n e o f th e parameters contributing to a substantial increment in ex tensor moment of the spine. Extensor moment is the tension in the thin muscle groups running at every side of the vertebral column of the body, and can be an indirect measure of the compressive force acting on the spine. In addition, multiple studies have established that lower back bendin g and twisting cause biomechanical load on lower back, hence increasing the risk for lo w e r back pain [18,19]. For example, a case study in Malaysian automotive manufacturing company reported that lower back pain is the highest prevalence of MSD among w o rk e rs [20]. The authors claimed that the workers were found to perform the MMH tasks with improper work postures and incorrect techniques. Poor handling, in combination with poor postures may affect the function and efficienc y of muscle forces. Muscle forces are increased when there are asymmetrical postures during bending and twisting of lower back [21]. The asymmetry in muscle activity occurs due to generation of mechanic al s tif f ne s s by different sets of muscles for spine stabilization process, and this may eventually lead to unequal stress concentrations on the different component structures of the spine. Cholewicki and McGill [22] in a lumbar spine modelling study showed that re d u c tion in passive joint and muscle stiffness in various postures may affect mechanic al s ta b ility o f the spine, consequently increasing the risk of development of chronic back pain. Marras and Granata [18] reported that bending and twisting can cause compres sio n al and shear force loadings on spine discs. Compressive force and shear force exerted on th e intervertebral discs increase as the velocity and acceleration of the trunk inc re a se , w h ic h may happen due to sideways bending and twisting activities. During material handling tasks, the gravitational f orce, initial force of body segments and hand load nota b le to L5 - S1 of spine may cause the upper body to torque-tilt at the lumbosacral (L5-S1) joint [2 3 ]. This torque depends on the motion of the spine and on the acceleration of the body segments, as well as the load. As such, transfer distances at two extremes (too short or to o far away) would increase risks to musculoskeletal strain. An appropriate transfer dis ta nc e that can balance between bending and twisting would reduce biomechanical load, musculoskeletal strain, and ultimately risks to musculoskeletal disorders or injuries. Ev e n though many industries have been providing supporting devices and techniques on prop e r material handling to their workers, they may not be effective enough in p re v en tin g b a c k pain among workers [24]. As such, practitioners may also include consideration of 173 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 appropriate transfer distance as it can influence the magnitude of bending and twisting activities in manual handling tasks. The positional data showed that the different transfer distances may also affect w id th requirements, consequently the overall space requirement. The data across subjects showed similar width requirements between 0.5 m and 0.75 m transfer distances (m e a n = 74.84 cm, SD =10.26 cm for 0.5 m, and mean = 74. 18 cm, SD= 8.81 cm for 0.75 m). These two transfer distances encourage more twisting, due to limited clearance. A s s u c h , this might result in the subjects to naturally pulling the box close to the body during the transferring process of both 0.5 m and 0.75 m transfer distances, hence explaining why the width requirements were similar. As the transfer distance increases, the data trend suggests that the width requirement increases as well (mean = 78.95 cm, SD =12.07 cm for 1 . 0 m , and mean = 83.42 cm, SD= 14.01 cm for 1.25 m). At further transfer d is ta nc e , th e b o d y posture seems to shift from primarily twisting to twisting plus forward bending. As subjects were bending forward, the hands naturally extended out in an ef fort to s p a n th e reaching distances. This is likely to explain the extension of the width requirements in further transfer distances. The repeated measures ANOVA found that there were significant differences in width requirements between transfer distances of 0.5 m vs 1.25 m, and 0.75 m vs 1.25 m at alpha=0.05. Since width requirements for transfer distances of 0.5 m and 0.75 m were similar, it can be argued that 0.75 m transfer distance does not take significantly larger areas than 0.5 m, but at the same time provide larger clearance between the tra n s fe rs. O n the other hand, the 1.25 m transfer distance showed significant difference in width requirement as compared to 0.5 m, 0.75 m, and 1.0 m transfer distances, whic h in d ica te s that it will take larger space area. When translated to area requireme nts, 1.25 m transfer distance on average consumed 64% larger area than 0.5 m, 46% larger area th a n 0 . 7 5 m , and 24% larger area than 1m transfer distances. Larger space area requirement resulte d in additional real estate, which indirectly translated to high er capital and costs. As such, it can be interpreted from data obtained in this study that the optimum transfer distance m a y be between 0.75 and 1.0 m. In this range, there is a middle ground in which the lif te rs d o not have to adopt extreme twisting and f orward bending. In addition, the differences in width requirements are marginal. This can provide the trade-off between postural adoption and space requirements when performing the manual transfer task. It should be noted th a t study by Lavender and Johnson [6] suggest that twisting and lateral moveme n t w o u ld b e minimized when the transfer distances were between 1 and 1.25 meters. Th e d iffe ren ce s may come due to experimental setups, measures, and subject populations. 5. CONCLUSION This study provides a visual mapping of hands and hip movements of manual transfer at four different distances, 0.50 m, 0.75 m, 1.00 m and 1.25 m. Based o n o b s erv atio n o f twisting and bending of subjects in motion capture software, and through visualiza tio n o f hip and hand wrists motion top view mapping, it can be seen that the pattern of the hip motion changes from mostly static to more dynamic movements as the distance increas e s . In addition, patterns for wrists motions change from a semi-circular shape to a more stretched semi-circular shape as the transfer distance increases. Shorter tran s fe r d is ta nc e encourages low back twisting while minimizing bending, whereas the increase of tra n s fer distance reduces the magnitude of low back twisting while individuals adopt more bending postures. As such, the motions of the hip and wrists during the manual h a n dlin g p ro c e s s were affected by the transfer distance. In addition, the study also found that transfer 174 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 distances affect space requirements. As transfer distance increases, the data trend sugges ts that the width requirement also increases, due to shifting from primarily twisting to twisting plus forward bending. Forward bending and arm extension were adopted by subjects to increase their reaching range in further transfer distances, which consequ en tly affect the space requirements. The study suggests that the optimum transfer dista nc e m a y be between 0.75 and 1.0 m, in which there is a balance between extreme twisting and bending. In summary, it can be concluded that the difference in transf er distance does affect the space requirement as well as the postures possessed during manual handling activity. This provides guidance for engineers in designing workplace lay ou ts a s w e ll a s space requirements related to manual transfer tasks, especially in the early engineering design stage. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to the Malaysian government, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for supporting this study. The study is partially funded by research gra n t INDUSTRI (IRMG) / ERGOWORKS / 2019 / FKP-COSSID / I00037. The authors acknowledge Lee Poh Yan and Nur Izzati Azri for their contributions in this study. REFERENCES [1] Duly J, Neumann WP. (2009) Ergonomic contributions to company strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4):745-752. [2] Coenen P, Gouttebarge V, van der Burght AS, van Dieën JH, Frings-Dresen MH, van der Beek AJ, Burdorf A. (2014) The effect of lifting during work on low back pain: a health impact assessment based on a meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71(12): 871-877. [3] Deros BM, Daruis DDI, Rosly AL, Aziz IA, Hishamuddin NS, Hamid NHA, Roslin SM. (2017) Ergonomic risk assessment of manual material handling at an automotive manufacturing company. Press Academia Procedia, 5:317-324. [4] Mital A. (2017) Guide to manual materials handling, London. [5] Mehta JP, Kim TH, Weiler MR, Lavender SA. (2014) Effects of transfer distance on spine kinematics for de-palletizing tasks. J. of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 11(1):1- 8. [6] Lavender SA, Johnson M. (2009) Is there a transfer distance that minimizes twisting and bending motions of the spine?. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(14):882-882. [7] Lavender SA, Lorenz EP, Andersson GB. (2007) Can a new behaviorally oriented training process to improve lifting technique prevent occupationally related back injuries due to lifting?. Spine, 32(4):487-494. [8] Daltroy LH, Iversen MD, Larson MG, Lew R, Wright E, Ryan J, Liang MH. (1997) A controlled trial of an educational program to prevent low back injuries. New England J. of Medicine, 337(5):322-328. [9] Karwowski W. (2005) Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics, 48(5):436-463. [10] Kuorinka I, Lortie M, Gautreau M. (1994) Manual handling in warehouses: the illusion of correct working postures. Ergonomics, 37(4):655-661. [11] Shamsuddin KA, Ani MNC, Ab-Kadir AR, Osman MH. (2014) Analysis on the work- related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD’s) based on ergonomic study in case of industry study. International J. of Engineering Research, 3(4):190-195. 175 IIUM Engineering Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, 2020 Radin Umar et al. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumej.v21i2.1197 [12] Yahya NM, Zahid MNO. (2018) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMDs) risk assessment at core assembly production of electronic components manufacturing company. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 319(1):012036. [13] Kazmierczak K, Neumann WP, Winkel J. (2007) A case study of serial-flow car disassembly: ergonomics, productivity and potential system performance. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 17(4):331-351. [14] Cheung Z, Feletto M, Galante J, Waters T, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007) Ergonomic guidelines for manual material handling. In NIOSH Publication, 2007- 131. [15] Department of Occupational Safety and Health. (2018) Guidelines for manual material handling at workplace 2018, Malaysia. [16] Mohamad D, Deros BM, Ismail AR, Daruis DDI. (2010) Development of a malaysian anthropometric database. In Conference on Manufacturing Technology and Management. [17] Dolan P, Earley M, Adams MA. (1994) Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. J. of Biomechanics, 27(10):1237-1248. [18] Marras WS, Granata KP. (1997) The development of an EMG-assisted model to assess spine loading during whole-body free-dynamic lifting. J. of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 7(4):259-268. [19] Plamondon A, Denis D, Delisle A, Larivière C, Salazar E, IRSST MMH research gr oup. (2010) Biomechanical differences between expert and novice workers in a manual material handling task. Ergonomics, 53(10):1239-1253. [20] Deros BM, Daruis DD, Ismail AR, Sawal NA, Ghani JA. (2010) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers' performing manual material handling work in an automotive manufacturing company. American J. of Applied Sciences, 7(8):1087. [21] Pope MH, Andersson GBJ, Broman H, Svensson M, Zetterberg C. (1986) Electromyographic studies of the lumbar trunk musculature during the development of axial torques. J. of Orthopaedic Research, 4(3):288-297. [22] Cholewicki J, McGill SM. (1996) Mechanical stability of the in vivo lumbar spine: implications for injury and chronic low back pain. Clinical Biomechanics, 11(1):1-15. [23] Jager M, Luttmann A. (1992) The load on the lumbar spine during asymmetrical bi-manual materials handling. Ergonomics, 35(7-8):783-805. [24] Verbeek JH, Martimo KP, Karppinen J, Kuijer PPF, Viikari-Juntura E, Takala EP. (2011) Manual material handling advice and assistive devices for preventing and treating back pain in workers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (6). 176 << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (None) /CalCMYKProfile (None) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.7 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 0 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo false /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 200 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 200 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 400 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV /HUN /ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 6.0 e versioni successive.) /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 6.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents suitable for reliable viewing and printing of business documents. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 6.0 and later.) >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [595.440 841.680] >> setpagedevice