International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487

Accessibility and ergonomic analysis of assembly product

and jig designs
Venkat N. Rajan*, Kadiresan Sivasubramanian, Jeffrey E. Fernandez
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0035, USA

Received 10 March 1997; received in revised form 10 September 1997; accepted 11 September 1997

Abstract

In the aircraft industry, the design of floor assembly jigs (FAJs) is an important activity that directly affects
productivity. It involves tool frame generation and locator and clamp placement to ensure that the assembly components
are held properly with respect to each other to meet the required tolerances. The tool designer also has to analyze the
design to ensure that the assembly process does not pose accessibility and ergonomics related problems. The current
approach is dependent on the experience of the tool designer and the limited visualization possible on commercial CAD
systems. This leads to extensive redesign when accessibility and ergonomic related problems are detected on the physical
prototype. In this research, an integrated Virtual Reality-based environment is being developed for the analysis of
assembly product and jig designs. CAD models of the assembly product and jig are imported into a Virtual Reality
(VR)-based visualization system for accessibility analysis. A motion tracking system is integrated to allow ergonomic
posture analysis. The combined VR and motion tracking system allows evaluation of alternate assembly sequences and
the jig design. In this paper, the theoretical basis for the analysis environment is presented along with details of the
prototype implementation of this system.
Relevance to industry
Floor assembly jigs are used extensively by the aircraft industry. Improvement of their design process will lead to
savings in better design and reduced development time and cost. Better designs will require fewer changes after the jigs
have been fabricated. The overall result will be a reduction in product realization time and cost and improved product
quality.  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Assembly planning; Ergonomics; Assembly jig design; Virtual reality; Anthropometry

1. Introduction downstream problems before the commitment of

Spatial simulation of reality aids the design pro-
cess by providing the ability to experience potential
* Corresponding author.
physical resources. Many practical issues generally
encountered during the manufacture of complex
products can be avoided if the designer can predict,
analyze, and effectively resolve them at the design
stage. In assembly operations performed in the
aircraft industry, floor assembly jigs (FAJ) are used

0169-8141/99/$ — see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 9
474 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
extensively to manually create large subassemblies.
Aircraft sections like the fuselage, wing sections,
upper tail cone, and lower tail cone are assembled
separately and then joined together using these jigs.
Such assembly tooling is generally of large dimen-
sions and complex design. The assembly activity in
aircraft manufacturing affects to a significant extent
the quality of the end product, and the productivity
of the entire process.
The assembly tool design activity initially in-
volves the generation of the FAJ frame. This is
based on the general requirements of the subas-
sembly to be created. Then locators and clamps are
designed to ensure that assembly components are
held properly, and assembly processes can be per-
formed. The FAJ should allow orientation, align-
ment, and joining operations to be performed such
that required tolerances are met. Current tool de-
sign methods are based on the experience of the
designer, coupled with the limited visualization
and experiential design capabilities provided by
commercial CAD systems. Problems that arise as
a result of deficient or improper design of these
assembly tools usually result in expensive redesign
efforts. A host of associated problems also arise,
including loss of accuracy, interference, and awk-
ward postures. Conventional CAD and animation
systems usually fail to account for the actual behav-
ioral and geometrical constraints of material,
equipment, and people. Interference, an accessibil-
ity problem, refers to the unintended obstruction
caused by the presence of structural components of
tooling in the assembly trajectory of components,
subassemblies, and hand tools. Problems also arise
when assembly workers are forced to adopt ergo-
nomically stressful postures when assembling com-
ponents on to the assembly jig. The effects of
awkward postures over extended periods lead to
musculoskeletal disorders. The cost of one such case
can be up to $100 000 (CTD News, 1993) which can
drastically affect the financial stability of a company.
Systems available today do not allow the de-
signer to concurrently model the assembly task and
perform several tool design iterations, to improve
accessibility and ergonomic characteristics. Tem-
poral collocation of design and manufacturing/
assembly related issues would help identify prob-
lems before constructing expensive equipment or
tooling. Therefore, there is a need for a system that
is capable of allowing accessibility and ergonomic
analysis in a computer-generated environment.
The objective for this research is to develop a VR
based system to enable interactive analysis and
evaluation of assembly product and tooling for
interference and reach. This paper describes the
overall research framework from which this system
has evolved. An overview of the system implemen-
tation and a case study demonstrating its capabili-
ties are also presented.
2. Background
2.1. Jig and fixture design
Reliable assembly tooling must be able to hold
components and subassemblies in an accurate and
repeatable position, prevent undesired motion of
components, and avoid posing interference prob-
lems in assembly tasks. Previous research has re-
sulted in several different approaches to certain
tooling design problems. Computer-aided design
techniques, heuristic algorithms, and Expert Sys-
tems have been developed and implemented to op-
timize certain aspects of assembly tooling design.
The use of software tools for the computer-aided
design and analysis of fixtures indicates that the
trend is towards expediting product development
by concurrently engineering the manufacturing
process with product design (Anon, 1995).
For fabricating aircraft tubing assemblies, an
FMS has been developed (Kelley and Chu, 1987),
that uses a robot-assisted flexible fixture assembly.
A CAD/CAM system has been incorporated in the
flexible fixture design process and in programming
the robot and machine tool motions. A systems
approach to fixture planning and design integrates
process planning information with results of geo-
metric and kinematic studies of tooling (Hargrove,
1995). Computerized fixture design systems provide
sophisticated means of creating alternative fix-
turing designs, but many of them overlook the
integration of process planning information.
A mathematical model has been developed (Prom-
banpong et al., 1992) to integrate process planning
in fixture design. This model claims to resolve the
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
contradictions between the computerized fixture
design and the process plan.
A Graphical User Interface-based interactive fix-
ture design and assembly environment interacting
with a solid modeler and a fixture elements
database is described by Fuh et al. (1995). This was
found to help designers select and verify fixture
elements from a database before assembling and
constructing them. While much work has been
done in machining fixture design, interactive and
concurrent assembly tool design is yet to be ex-
plored. This would shift the design from being
purely based on experience and trial-and-error, to
one that is based on scientific principles.
2.2. Virtual reality and ergonomics
Virtual Environments (VE) are interactive vir-
tual image displays enhanced by special processing
and nonvisual display modalities, such as auditory
and haptic, to present the effect of immersion in
a synthetic space (Ellis, 1991). VE enables the
modeling of manufacturing systems and com-
ponents using sensory features and feedback to
simulate or design a manufacturing environment.
Boeing Computer Services reports two research
projects in which aircraft CAD information is
loaded into a VE (Mizell, 1994). Applications in-
clude design activities in which engineers can view
and interact with CAD representations as if from
inside a physical prototype. The use of augmented
reality is also reported, wherein the user wears
a see-through head-mounted display with a Virtual
Reality (VR)-style position/orientation sensing sys-
tem for guidance in manufacturing.
As opposed to conventional CAD systems which
have limited 3D visualization capabilities, a VE is
proposed for simulation of an assembly model in
which a designer can visualize and manipulate the
object using precise real time collision detection
(Kim et al., 1995). A virtual system has been de-
veloped (Allen et al., 1995) for assessing manual
assembly forces applied and postures assumed by
human operators. A modified glove input device
and force triggered image capturing facility help in
the assessment, yielding physiological information
for further analysis. This is seen to be useful in the
prevention of repetitive strain injuries at the work-
475
place. Motorola, Caterpillar, John Deere, Genesis
Systems Group, and Tecnomatix Technologies are
some companies that report having benefitted from
using VR (Owen, 1994).
Repetitive strain injuries of the upper limbs and
back persist as shown by the high number of re-
ported workplace illnesses and injuries. Research
clearly shows a relationship between awkward pos-
tures and the risk of injury (Tichauer, 1973; Arm-
strong et al., 1993; Bridger, 1995). Muscle-loading
requirements of the forearm flexors have been
found to change with posture (Moore et al., 1991),
implying that certain postures are more favorable
than others in keeping muscle exertion within safe
limits. The automobile industry is leading the effort
to take advantage of VR technology in addressing
ergonomic issues (Jackson, 1996). Virtual environ-
ments are now used to identify areas of safety and
health concerns, review process changes, and evalu-
ate and rectify ergonomics-related problems in
manufacturing before building physical prototypes
(Holbrook, 1991; Hale, 1994; Deitz, 1995; Hancock
and Lai, 1995). Systems that allow the designer to
evaluate the motions associated with an assembly
task while still in the design stage of the tool would
prove useful in reducing product development time
and therefore time to market, improving quality
and reliability, and lowering costs.
3. Assembly product and jig analysis framework
A system for integrating assembly design, plann-
ing, and analysis with ergonomics, using VR as
a medium is currently under development. Research
done as part of the Product Realization and Intelli-
gent Systems for Manufacture (PRISM) and the
Ergonomics groups at the Wichita State University
forms the basis for this effort, as shown in Fig. 1.
The JIGPRO system incorporates knowledge
available from past research and the functionality
of VR in providing the virtual environment for the
design of assembly tooling and its ergonomic anal-
ysis. The PRISM research is integrated with the
JIGPRO system in three ways. Assembly modeling
research has resulted in the development of assem-
bly representations and constraint propagation
and verification methodologies (Lyons et al., 1997).
476 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
The prototype assembly modeling system is dir-
ectly interfaced with the JIGPRO system to pro-
vide the assembly model. The modular fixturing
research (Rajan et al., 1997a) has resulted in the
development of methodologies for geometric de-
Fig. 1. Structure of overall research effort.
Fig. 2. JIGPRO system architecture.
sign and analysis of fixturing setups. These method-
ologies form the basis for the assembly tool design
system that provides feasible jig designs to the
JIGPRO environment. Virtual Reality has been
used to design factory layouts (Rajan et al., 1997b).
This knowledge is applied to the assembly tool
evaluation process to create the JIGPRO system.
Ergonomics research has been focused in various
areas, such as psychophysics, cumulative trauma
disorders, and anthropometry (Fernandez, 1995).
The effects of various ergonomic risk factors such
as force, posture, duration, and repetition on hu-
man capacity have been extensively studied. Psycho-
physical studies have revealed that deviated wrist
postures affects maximum acceptable frequency of
upper extremity exertions in some assembly tasks
(Fernandez et al., 1995). The JIGPRO system is
designed to integrate this knowledge to evaluate
the ergonomic aspects of a given FAJ.
Fig. 2 shows the architecture of the JIGPRO
system. Currently available systems allow certain
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
limited analyses of assembly jigs and permit the
analysis of simple tool designs. More attention
needs to be given to features that would enable
designers to create virtual mock-ups of typical
assembly tasks on a given tool, manipulate and
‘operate’ hand tools as in manual assembly and
determine the characteristics of the tooling with
regard to accessibility and ergonomics. For accessi-
bility analysis, the JIGPRO system derives its be-
havior from assembly modeling and assembly tool
design considerations. In the ergonomic analysis,
ergonomic principles are used to determine the
appropriateness of postures and work heights.
4. Accessibility and ergonomics analysis
methodology
Simulation of the process to create an assembly
product using the JIGPRO system consists of the
following steps:
1. Import the assembly product CAD model and
process constraints.
2. Import he FAJ CAD model.
3. Import hand tool CAD models.
4. Generate the gross motion trajectory for a feas-
ible assembly component by manipulating it from
its pick up point to near its assembly location.
5. Assemble the component into the current partial
assembly state by following the fine motion tra-
jectory.
6. Manipulate hand tools to perform the assembly
operation.
7. If any additional components remain to be as-
sembled, go to step 4, else stop.
The assembly product model and process con-
straints are obtained from the Assembly Modeling
and Assembly Planning Systems respectively. The
FAJ and hand tools (drill and rivet gun) have been
modeled using a geometric modeling system and
are directly imported into the JIGPRO system. The
gross motion trajectory is obtained by capturing
the motion of the hand within the VE as the user
moves components from their initial to their final
positions. A feasible assembly component is deter-
mined as one whose assembly will not violate any
process constraints. The fine motion trajectories
are obtained from the assembly product model.
477
The user is forced to follow this trajectory when the
component nears its final position and orientation.
Once the component is located in its final position
and orientation, the hand tools are used to perform
the appropriate drilling and riveting operations.
Accessibility problems arise when components in-
terfere with any jig elements during the course of
locating them. Such problems arise when the drill-
ing or riveting work area cannot be reached using
the hand tool because of obstruction by jig
elements. Ergonomics related problems also arise
during component assembly and drilling/riveting
operations.
In the following sections the nature and content
of the assembly product model, process constraints,
and FAJ design will be detailed. The procedure for
determining feasible assembly components for
a given assembly state will also be discussed. The
geometric representations for the gross motion and
fine motion trajectories and their generation are
presented. Methods and tools used to identify ac-
cessibility and ergonomics related problems are
also presented.
4.1. Assembly product and process information
In order to analyze the jig design in a VE, the
assembly process needs to be simulated. Such
a simulation requires information on the assembly
product model and any constraints that affect the
assembly process. As shown in Fig. 2, the assembly
product model is generated by the prototype As-
sembly Modeling System (AMS) and the process
constraints are generated by the Assembly Plan-
ning System (APS) and exported to the JIGPRO
system. The nature and content of the assembly
product model and process constraints are dis-
cussed below.
4.1.1. Assembly product model
The assembly product model needs to include
the models of the various components comprising
the assembly and the relationships that exist be-
tween them. A traditional geometric modeling sys-
tem will yield component geometric models and
their mating constraints. While the component geo-
metric models are useful for determining interferen-
ces, the assembly mating constraints are of little
478 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
Fig. 3. Insert and mate assembly constraints in a peg-in-hole
assembly.
use. These mating constraints are used to specify
the relative location and orientation of compo-
nents. However, mating constraints that specify
contact relationships between components
have significant impact on their degrees of freedom
(Rajan et al., 1997c). For example, consider the
peg-in-hole assembly shown in Fig. 3.
The insert and mate constraints specified between
the mating surfaces of the two components con-
strain each component to translate along and ro-
tate about the axis of the cylindrical surfaces. The
impact of these surface mating constraints on the
component degrees of freedom are not captured by
traditional CAD systems.
In prior research, representations for capturing
joint information and embedding it within a hier-
archical (bill of materials) assembly structure have
been developed (Rajan et al., 1997d). This repres-
entation is shown in Fig. 4. The joint information
includes surface mating constraints between com-
ponents, joint type (rigid or kinematic), and joint
attributes. Component degrees of freedom are clas-
sified into 11 categories, as shown in Fig. 5, and
vary from unconstrained to completely constrained.
As components are added to an assembly and mat-
ing constraints are specified, the component de-
grees of freedom are computed, as shown in Fig. 6.
The assembly representation is then exported by
the AMS for use in the JIGPRO system.
4.1.2. Assembly process constraints
During the assembly process, precedence con-
straints exist and they dictate the order in which
components can be assembled, and cannot be viol-
ated. Such precedence constraints can be computed
by analyzing the degree to which an assembly com-
ponent is constrained. A component is said to be
completely constrained if it cannot be disassembled
from the final assembly state (Rajan and Nof, 1996).
Clearly, for such components, one or more of the
other assembly components needs to be disassem-
bled before they can be removed from the assembly.
For a completely constrained component, the min-
imal precedence constraint (MPC) is defined as the
alternate sets of the other assembly components
whose presence in any partial assembly state will
prevent its assembly (Rajan and Nof, 1996). The
notion of minimal is obtained by the fact that each
alternate set is by itself necessary and sufficient to
prevent the assembly of the completely constrained
component. An example of the MPC is shown in
Fig. 7. Components A and C are completely con-
strained if it is assumed that the only permissible
assembly/disassembly motion is a single translation
from outside the assembly envelope. The MPCs for
these two components are given as
MPC(A)"(BCD)R(BDE)
MPC(C)"(ABE)
The MPCs are computed by the APS and exported
to the JIGPRO system.
4.2. FAJ design information
The jig design information consists of the geo-
metric model of the tool and associated non-geo-
metric information such as material type. The tool
geometric model is in fact an assembly of compon-
ent models. The base model is the tool frame that
provides strength to support the assembly compo-
nents and stability during the assembly processes.
The strength and stability of the frame have to be
such that no significant deflections occur when
components are loaded and processes are per-
formed.
Other geometric models within the tool assembly
model are locators and clamps that are used to
accurately position and constrain the assembly
components. As components are mounted on the
assembly jig, the locators are used to correctly
position components relative to each other. Addi-
tional temporary locators are used to correctly
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487 479

Fig. 4. Representation of kinematic and surface mating constraints, and joint attributes.

locate holes relative to each other as they are dril-
led. After the holes have been drilled, the temporary
locators are replaced by rivets sequentially. To ana-
lyze accessibility and anthropometric character-
istics, it is essential to simulate the loading and
unloading activities and one assembly process,
drilling or riveting. Only one of the four activities
associated with each assembly operation (drilling,
placing the temporary locator, removing the tem-
porary locator, and riveting) needs to be evaluated
because limited accessibility and violation of ergo-
nomics principles for any one activity will apply to
all of them.
4.3. Feasible assembly components
The evaluation of the assembly design involves
determining the ease with which the assembly can
be put together. The assemblability of a set of
components is a function of the assembly sequence.
However, a particular sequence can and should be
selected only by considering the current state of
a given assembly system (Rajan and Nof, 1996).
This ensures that the components can be assembled
in the best possible manner consistent with the
capabilities of the assembly system. Because the
human operator and the assembly tool represent
480 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
Fig. 5. Joint definitions and associated degrees of freedom.
the assembly system, the most effective assembly
sequence that complements the tool design and the
capabilities of the human operator must be
selected. Because the proposed approach also
integrates the evaluation of the tool and assembly
designs, it provides an excellent framework to allow
the human operator to evaluate and determine tool
designs as well as assembly designs/sequences that
best fit his/her capabilities.
In order to allow the operator to experiment
with alternate assembly sequences, the methodo-
logy only enforces assembly process constraints.
Thus, depending on the current partial assembly
state, feasible assembly components are identified.
An assembly component is said to be feasible if its
addition to the current partial assembly state will
not violate the MPC of any unassembled, com-
pletely constrained component (Rajan and Nof,
1996). Consider the example shown in Fig. 8. The
partial assembly state is +B, D,. Of the remaining
assembly components A, C, and E, only A is a feas-
ible assembly component because assembly of C or
E will violate MPC(A).
As the operator evolves the current partial as-
sembly state from completely unassembled to fully
assembled, the appropriate feasible assembly
components are identified by comparing the as-
sembly state with the MPCs of unassembled
completely constrained components. By identi-
fying all feasible assembly components for each
state and allowing the operator to pick any one of
them, he/she can explore all feasible assembly se-
quences. By constraining the selection to only feas-
ible assembly components, it is ensured that only
feasible assembly sequences are explored. There-
fore, the efficiency and quality of the assembly
product and tool evaluation activities are im-
proved.
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487 481

Fig. 6. Computation of component degrees of freedom in the Assembly Modeling System.

4.4. Gross and fine motion trajectory representations
The trajectory used to assemble a component
can be divided into two segments: gross motion and
fine motion. The gross motion trajectory is between
the initial location of the component to a position
near its final location. The fine motion trajectory is
used to maneuver the component from that posi-
tion to its final location to accurately mate the
component with the other assembly components.
The generation of the gross and fine motion tra-
jectories is equivalent to the general 3D findpath
problem which is known to be intractable
(Ahrikencheikh and Seireg, 1994).
The fine motion trajectory is a single transla-
tional motion from outside the assembly envelope
to the final assembly position. This is determined
by the assumption used to generate the MPCs. The
interactive capability of the VE allows us to exploit
the ability of humans to quickly identify good feas-
ible gross motion trajectories. The general trajec-
tory of an object handled by the human hand does
not follow a well-defined geometric path such as
a circle or a parabola. The motion could be charac-
terized by a freeform curve. Because the position of
the object is sampled at particular time instants, the
curve has to fit multiple points in a smooth fashion.
The more closely the points are sampled, the more
accurately will the curve represent the actual tra-
jectory. Because of the need to fit through multiple
points, a Bezier curve formulation (Mortenson,
1985) is adopted to represent the gross motion
482 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
Fig. 7. Completely constrained components in an assembly.
Fig. 8. Partial assembly state +B, D,.
trajectory. An example of the gross and fine motion
trajectories is shown in Fig. 9.
The capture of the gross motion trajectory from
the actual motion adopted by the human operator
eliminates the mathematical complexity associated
with the findpath problem. It also incorporates the
specific motion capabilities of the human operator
performing the simulation. By using a well-defined
fine motion trajectory (straight-line motion), the
problems associated with accurately locating com-
ponents in a VE are eliminated. While the single
Fig. 9. Gross and fine motion trajectories.
translational motion assumption may be somewhat
restrictive, it provides a quick and simple approxi-
mation for fine locational motions without the as-
sociated accurate positioning problems faced by
human operators in computer-generated environ-
ments.
4.5. Accessibility evaluation
Accessibility problems could arise when assem-
bly components cannot be located in their final
assembly position, when the completed assembly
cannot be unloaded from the tool, or when hand
tools cannot access the work area. Such problems
are created when interference between the assembly
component loading/unloading and hand tool tra-
jectories, and the jig elements such as the frame, or
locators and clamps. An example of interference
between the assembly component loading traject-
ory and the jig frame is shown in Fig. 10.
In other cases, while the trajectory may be feas-
ible, the operation cannot be performed because of
interference between the human arm or body with
the jig elements, lack of sufficient space for the arm,
or lack of proper visibility of the work area. In all
these cases, the possible remedies are to redesign
the assembly tool, modify the assembly sequence,
modify the trajectory, or change the assembly de-
sign.
The accessibility problems are detected by com-
puting the intersection of the swept volume of the
moving objects (assembly components, human
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
Fig. 10. Example for interference.
hand, hand tool) at certain time intervals with the
volume occupied by the stationary objects (jig
elements, previously assembled components). Any
intersection between the rest of the body of the
human operator and the jig elements is not detec-
ted because only the hand model exists in the VE.
An extension to this work will create a world model
of the work environment independent of the VR
system. Such a model will allow detection of inter-
ference between the entire human body and the jig
design using a combination of the VE with a real-
time 3D motion tracking system.
4.6. Ergonomics evaluation
Ergonomics related problems arise because of
extended reach of work areas of stressful posture
adopted during assembly operations by the oper-
ator. While some of these problems may be created
because of the lack of operator awareness, usually
they are due to improper design of the assembly
product/sequence or the jig.
The VE only contains a model of the human
hand. Because the local coordinate system of the
human hand is referenced with respect to the global
coordinate system of the VE, no information can be
obtained about the posture of the human operator.
One potential solution to the problem is to create
a model of the entire human body within the VE.
This, however, tends to be a generic human model
483
Fig. 11. Neutral posture and joint degrees of freedom.
and does not capture the particular attributes (i.e.,
anthropometry) of the operator using the tool. In
this research, the VE is combined with a 2D motion
tracking methodology to capture the motion of the
actual human operator. This ensures that the tool
design is customized to the particular capabilities of
the operator.
The motion tracking methodology is used to
obtain human posture information. Only 2D analy-
sis is utilized for the rotational joints at the hip,
shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The hip, shoulder and
elbow joints provide gross motion for the hand
while the joint at the wrist provides orientation
capabilities. The neutral posture is shown in
Fig. 11, while an extended reach posture is shown
in Fig. 12. The base coordinate system is located at
the hip. Motion tracking provides the location and
orientation of each of the joints in Cartesian space.
The location and orientation of the hand joint are
used to identify extended reach and incorrect pos-
ture problems. The inverse kinematics problem is
solved for each of the intermediate positions to
determine the individual joint angles. These values
are used to determine whether the problems are
created because of motion of the shoulder and
elbow within the sagittal plane.
Future extensions to the system include main-
taining an independent world model of the system
to allow accessibility and ergonomic evaluations of
the entire body as described in the previous section.
484 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
Fig. 12. Marker placement and joint angles.
An extension to 3D tracking will allow modeling of
joints that move the arm out of the plane to identify
shoulder, elbow, and wrist abduction problems.
5. System implementation and case study
The JIGPRO system is implemented on a Silicon
Graphics Inc., workstation using the WorldTool-
Kit (WTK) VR modeling software from Sense8
Corporation. Models of assembly tooling (jig and
hand tools) are created using PTC’s Pro/Engineer
CAD software package. VR hardware includes the
Power Glove, VR glasses, and associated peri-
pherals. For ergonomic analysis of the gross
motion assembly trajectory, the Peak5 2D motion
measurement system is used.
5.1. System operation
In the prototype JIGPRO implementation, users
load in a Pro/Engineer CAD model of an assembly
tool into the WorldToolKit VE. The design can be
examined from all directions for a preliminary idea
of assembly locations and distances. Components
are loaded into the environment and moved to-
wards their assembly locations. Once the object is
in a predetermined region near the point of assem-
bly, it automatically moves along the fine motion
trajectory and reaches its mating location.
The motion of a user’s hand during the assembly
of a component is captured by the WTK system as
a series of points in 3D space. A Bezier curve is
fitted to the gross motion trajectory points for each
assembly component. This path can be saved for
further analysis and played back with the user’s
hand constrained to follow this predefined trajec-
tory towards the mating location of the component.
The arm and hand motions of the user during
virtual assembly are videotaped. This video is ana-
lyzed for angles between body segments and hance
the upper extremity postures of the user, on the
Peak5 2D motion measurement system. The output
of this analysis serves as feedback to indicate areas
of improvement in the ergonomics of the assembly
process.
5.2. Case study
A simple jig model imported into the VE was
evaluated for interference and accessibility. The
setup and interaction of the operator with the sys-
tem are shown in Fig. 13. The loading of a compo-
nent, and gross and fine motion trajectories are
shown in Fig. 14. Fig. 14a shows the initial state
with the component at its pick location. Fig. 14b
shows the gross motion trajectory as a set of points.
These points are fitted into a Bezier curve and
stored for future playback. Fig. 14c shows the
straight line fine motion trajectory obtained from
Fig. 13. Simulation of assembly operation on the JIGPRO
system.
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487 485

Fig. 14. Depiction of loading and gross and fine motion trajectories on the JIGPRO system.

the assembly model and Fig. 14d shows the com-
ponent in the final assembly state. Because the
loading operation involves mating the peg with the
hole and no jig elements interfere with the fine
motion trajectory, no accessibility problems are
detected.
The joint positions and trajectories as recorded
and analyzed by the motion tracking system are
shown in Figs. 15 and 16. The risk of injury to the
upper extremities increases with increased devi-
ation of body segments and joints from their neu-
tral position. The variation in elbow angle, seen in
Fig. 15, reveals that certain sections of the jig may
have to be redesigned because of deviation from the
neutral posture. Other information obtained from
this analysis includes linear displacement of the
upper extremity segments shown in Fig. 16. This
information does not reveal any problems in
reachability during the assembly task. If such prob-
lems existed, they could be used to improve the jig
design by eliminating or reducing the need for
working in areas outside the maximum reach envel-
ope of the individual performing the assembly task.
6. Concluding remarks
A prototype VR-based system that allows com-
bined evaluation of assembly product and jig
designs has been developed. The methodology
involves importing the assembly product model
and process constraints, jig design, and hand tool
CAD models into the VE, followed by simulation of
the virtual assembly activity. Gross and fine motion
486 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487

Fig. 15. Angular displacement of upper extremities.

trajectories generated by the user during assembly

of feasible assembly components are captured. Anal-
ysis of accessibility and ergonomics during the as-
sembly process is carried out. In this paper, the
analysis methodology, system implementation, and
a case study outlining its operation have been de-
scribed. This methodology offers a proactive ap-
proach to reducing the risk and associated costs
of musculoskeletal injuries during the assembly Fig. 16. Linear displacement of upper extremities.
process.

Anon, 1995. Computer-aided fixture design. Manufacturing En-

References
Ahrikencheikh, C., Seireg, A., 1994. Optimized-Motion Plann-
ing: Theory and Implementation. Wiley, New York.
Allen, C., Karam, K.Z., Le, C.P., Hill, M., Tindle, T., 1995.
Application of virtual reality devices to the quantitative
assessment of manual assembly forces in a factory environ-
ment. Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control, and Instru-
mentation, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, U.S.A.
gineering 114 (6), 4.
Armstrong, T.J., Buckle, P., Fine, L.J., Hagberg, M., Jonsson, B.,
Kilbon, A., Kuorinka, I.A.A., Silverstein, B.A., Sjogaard, G.,
Viikari-Juntura, E.R.A., 1993. A conceptual model for
work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorder.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health
19, 915—933.
Bridger, R.S., 1995. Introduction to Ergonomics. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
CTD News, 1993. Tallying the True Costs of On-the-Job CTDs.
 V.N. Rajan et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23 (1999) 473—487
Deitz, D., 1995. Human integrated design. Mechanical Engin-
eering 117 (8), 92—96.
Ellis, S.R., 1991. Nature and origins of virtual environments:
Immersed in a synthetic space. Computer Systems in Engin-
eering 2 (4), 321—347.
Fernandez, J.E., 1995. Ergonomics in the workplace. Facilities
13 (4), 20—27.
Fernandez, J.E., Fredericks, T.K., Marley, R.J., 1995. The psy-
chophysical approach in upper extremities work. Contem-
porary Ergonomics.
Fuh, J.Y.H., Nee, A.Y.C., Senthil, K.A., Teo, J.C.S., 1995. IFDA:
An interactive fixture design and assembly environment.
International Journal of Computer Applications in Techno-
logy 8 (1-2), 30—40.
Hale, J.P., 1994. Applied virtual reality in aerospace design.
Proceedings of the 1994 Wescon Conference, IEEE Wescon,
Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 378—383.
Hancock, P.A., Lai, J., 1995. Virtual reality technology to em-
brace information gap in industrial hygiene. Occupational
Health and Safety, January, 59—81.
Hargrove, S.K., 1995. Systems approach to fixture planning and
design. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 10 (3), 169—182.
Holbrook, D., 1991. Stereo viewing, looking ‘into’ manufactur-
ing. Manufacturing Systems 9 (1), 30—31.
Jackson, K., 1996. Virtual Humanity Helps Boost Quality, Cut
Costs. Crain Communications.
Kelley, D.G., Chu, K.-R., 1987. CAD/CAM Design of a Flexible
Fixturing System for Aircraft Tubing Assemblies. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, p. 7.
Kim, H.S., Ko, H., Lee, K., Lee, C., 1995. Collision detection
method for real-time assembly simulation. Proceedings of
the IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task
Planning, IEEE, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 387—392.
Lyons, K.W., Rajan, V.N., Sreerangam, R., 1997. Representa-
tions and methodologies for assembly modeling. Draft NIST
Internal Report, National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899.
487
Mizell, D.W., 1994. Virtual reality and augmented reality in
aircraft design and manufacturing. Proceedings of the 1994
Wescon Conference, IEEE Wescon, p. 91.
Moore, A.E., Wells, R., Ranney, D.A., 1991. Quantifying expo-
sure in occupational manual tasks with cumulative trauma
disorder potential. Ergonomics 34, 1433—1453.
Mortenson, M.E., 1985. Geometric Modeling. Wiley, New York.
Owen, J.V., 1994. Making virtual manufacturing real. Manufac-
turing Engineering 33—37.
Prombanpong, S., Lewis, R.L., Bishop, A.B., 1992. Computer-
aided fixture design system with process planning integra-
tion for prismatic parts manufactured on CNC machining
centers. Computers in Engineering — Proceedings of the 1992
ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference
and Exposition, ASME, New York, NY, U.S.A, pp. 369—380.
Rajan, V.N., Lyons, K.W., Sreerangam, R., 1997c. Generation of
component degrees of freedom from assembly surface mating
constraints. Submitted to the 9th International ASME Con-
ference on Design Theory and Methodology, Sacramento, CA.
Rajan, V.N., Lyons, K.W., Sreerangam, R., 1997d. Identification
of requirements and representations for assembly modeling.
Submitted to the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on
Assembly and Task Planning, Marina del Ray, CA.
Rajan, V.N., Nof, S.Y., 1996. Minimal precedence constraints for
integrated assembly and execution planning. IEEE Transac-
tions on Robotics and Automation 12 (2), 175—186.
Rajan, V.N., Prabhakar, S., Dhananjaya, K., 1997a. A correct
and complete algorithm for geometric design and analysis of
modular fixtures. Transactions of the NAMRI/SME (in
press).
Rajan, V.N., Yashvant M.B., Sreerangam, R., 1997b. Virtual
environment for design and analysis of factory layouts. Ac-
cepted for Presentation at the 1997 SAE General, Corporate
& Regional Aviation Meeting and Exposition (GCRAM),
Wichita, KS.
Tichauer, E.R., 1973. Ergonomic Aspects of Biomechanics. In-
dustrial Environment — Its Evaluation and Control. NIOSH,
Washington, D.C.