E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

Analysis Workstation in Manufacturing Industry using

Occupational Repetitive Action (OCRA) Index Method to Reduce
Risk of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorder
Muhamad Romi Firdaus 1*, and Taufik Roni Sahroni2
1Industrial Engineering Department, BINUS Online Learning, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
2Industrial Engineering Department, BINUS Graduate Program – Master of Industrial Engineering, Bina Nusantara University,
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480

Abstract. According to analysis of Global Burden of Disease (GDB) 2019 data, approximately 1.71 billion
people have musculoskeletal disorder (MSDs) worldwide. It could cause constant pain and limitations in
mobility, dexterity, and reducing people’s ability to work. Musculoskeletal disorders can be caused by
repetitive and heavy work activities. On Hub 2/3 work station, production is carried out by machining
processes using CNC machines, drilling machines and tapping machines with predetermined target outputs.
In this process, there are repetitive actions which have risk of musculoskeletal disorders. By using the OCRA
method and calculating the OCRA Index value, the operator 1 is in the red zone, then operator 2 and operator
3 are in the yellow zone which means the work conditions at workstations must be improved. The objective
of this paper is to analyze Hub 2/3 workstations in order to minimize the risk of musculoskeletal disorders
for each operator. The proposed improvement are given to fulfill the objectives of this paper. The results of
the OCRA calculations with the assumption that all proposed improvements are applied are smaller than the
previous calculations which means the risk of musculoskeletal disorders is reduced.

1 Introduction OCRA checklist to asses risk and design human-centered

According to analysis of Global Burden of Disease (GDB)
2019 data, approximately 1.71 billion people have
musculoskeletal conditions or musculoskeletal disorder
worldwide. It can cause constant pain and limitations in
mobility, dexterity, and reducing people’s ability to work
[1].
Musculoskeletal disorders could occur due to work. In
manufacturing industry, upper limb is very often used for
work. Therefore, the research is focused on analyzing the
upper limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders (UL-
WMSD). UL-WMSD are caused by repetitive and/or
forceful movements of the upper limbs performed for
prolonged periods in the workplace, which put the joints,
muscles, tendons, and other soft tissues under significant
strain and can also affect the peripheral nerves [2].
The ergonomic workstation and work organization are
necessary to prevent UL-WMSD. Ergonomics (or human
factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the
understanding of interactions among humans and other
elements of a system [3]. Ergonomics adopts a systems
approach to designing effective work, and that requires
consideration of relevant cognitive, physical, and
organizational factors [4].
There are many methods to evaluate the risk of UL-
WMSD. Rorecrance et al. [5] use strain index method and
OCRA checklist to asses risk of cheese processing tasks.
Gualtieri et al. [6] use Rapid Upper Limb Assessment and
collaborative assembly workstations.
This paper use OCRA index to analyze and evaluate
Hub 2/3 workstations because this methods used in
international and have been adopted by International
Standard (ISO). [7] The occupational repetitive actions
(OCRA) index is the most precise method for analyzing
and evaluating the risk of exposure to repetitive tasks. The
OCRA index is a particularly useful tool for those
involved in designing the content and duration of work
cycles. The index will help them to monitor and manage
not just productivity but also risk levels, the likelihood of
occupational diseases and disorders, and therefore also
costs [2]. Likewise, Tiacci L et al. Use OCRA index for
risk evaluation and balancing/sequencing decisions for
mixed model stochastic. [8]
This research focuses on mass production processes
that produce fixed number of products every hour. The
type of production process carried out is a machining
process that uses CNC lathe 2-axis and multi drill
machine. In this process the operator perform repetitive
work for 8 hours lifting objects weighing 15 kg.
In order to reduce risk of UL-WMSD, redesign
workstation or work condition are necessary after
calculating the OCRA index. The design of workstation
should be pay attention to the task, workplace, and work
organization. The tasks should be designed in a way that
extreme ranges of joint movement, prolonged static
postures and/or repetitive movements, combined with

* Corresponding author: muhamad.firdaus001@binus.ac.id

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

external forces, are avoided. The workplace should be OCRA

ATA
(1)
designed in such a way that working postures and their RTA

sequences can be optimized. The work should organize to The overall value of ATA calculated from actual
make the task duration not too long, the frequency of action performed by operator per shift. At any rate: [3]
movements and or force exertions should not too high and
can be adjusted by the worker to his/her own individual ATA ¦ ( FJ uD J ) (2)
capabilities, and there should be sufficient recovery
Dj = net duration (in minutes) of task j
periods. [9]
Fj = average frequency of action per minute of task j
({number of technical action * 60} / total net cycle
2 Methods time duration)

This study uses quantitative and qualitative methods in
obtaining the data. Some data obtained from the company
such as process production data, duration of working
hours and rest time, layout of Hub 2/3 workstation. Other
data was obtained by observing the conditions of work
environment, work attitude, and working posture of Hub
2/3 operators then assigning a score to the results. There
are potential confounding variables that may have
influenced the results of this study such as the posture of
operator, the fitness and the strength of operator.
The OCRA index is produced by the ratio of the
absolute number of actual technical actions (ATA)
currently performed in a work shift to the corresponding
number of recommended technical actions (RTA).
In order to calculating RTA, there are risk factors or
multiplier that must be considered such as force
multiplier, posture multiplier, repetitive multiplier,
additional multiplier, duration multiplier and recovery
multiplier.
Force multiplier determined by interviewing workers
about the force exerted by workers while doing their
work. The interview results are then converted into values
based on the Borg CR-10 scale so that FoM values can be
determined by calculating the duration of each force
issued. Table 1 proposes a model for applying the Borg
scale to gather information about perceived physical
exertion and Table 2 used to assign the force multiplier
(FoM).

Table 1. Borg CR-10 [2]

Borg CR-10 Score 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely Very Extremely
Description Light Moderate Hard Very Hard
Light Light Hard

Table 2. Force multiplier [2]

Borg CR-10 Score 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 •
Force Multiplier (FoM) 1 0.85 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.45 0.35 0.2 0.1 0.01

Table 3. Assessment of awkward shoulder posture / movement [2]

% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 51 55 60 65 70 75 81 >84
ABD 45° 0.25 0.5 1.3 2.4 4 4 4.4 5.2 6.5 8 8 8.3 8.9 9.7 10.7 12 12
EXT 20° 0.25 0.5 1.3 2.4 4 4 4.4 5.2 6.5 8 8 8.3 8.9 9.7 10.7 12 12
FL-AB 80° 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 24 24 24.6 25.5 26.8 28 28 28

Table 4. Assessment of awkward elbow posture / movement [2]

% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 51 55 60 65 70 75 81 >84
FLX/EXT 0 0.3 0.7 1.3 2 2 2.2 2.5 3.1 4 4 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.3 6 6
PRON 0 0.3 0.7 1.3 2 2 2.2 2.5 3.1 4 4 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.3 6 6
SUPIN 0.25 0.5 1.3 2.4 4 4 4.4 5.2 6.5 8 8 8.3 8.9 9.7 10.7 12 12

Table 5. Assessment of awkward elbow posture / movement [2]

% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 51 55 60 65 70 75 81 >84
Radioulnar 0 0.3 0.7 1.3 2 2 2.2 2.5 3.1 4 4 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.3 6 6
FLEX 0.2 0.4 1 1.8 3 3 3.3 3.8 4.7 6 6 6.2 6.6 7.2 8 9 9
EXT 0.25 0.5 1.3 2.4 4 4 4.4 5.2 6.5 8 8 8.3 8.9 9.7 10.7 12 12

2
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

Posture multiplier determined by observing the posture

the operator forms while performing the job and
determining the value by calculating the duration of the
awkward posture performed. This method focuses on
postures and movements of the arm with respect to the
shoulder, movements involving the elbow, wrist postures
and movements, and hand postures and movements.
Figure 1 shows the postural involvement of the shoulder
which categorized as awkward posture and the score of Fig. 2. Awkward elbow posture/ movement [2]
the posture are shown in Table 3.
Figure 3 shows the postural involvement of the wrist
which categorized as awkward posture and the score of
the posture are shown in Table 5.

Fig. 1. Awkward shoulder posture/ movement [2]

Figure 2 shows the postural involvement of the elbow
which categorized as awkward posture and the score of
Fig. 3. Awkward wrist posture/ movement [2]
the posture are shown in Table 4.

Table 6. Assessment of awkward hand and fingers posture / movement [2]

% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 51 55 60 65 70 75 81 >84
Radioulnar 0 0.3 0.7 1.3 2 2 2.2 2.5 3.1 4 4 4.1 4.3 4.7 5.3 6 6
FLEX 0.2 0.4 1 1.8 3 3 3.3 3.8 4.7 6 6 6.2 6.6 7.2 8 9 9
EXT 0.25 0.5 1.3 2.4 4 4 4.4 5.2 6.5 8 8 8.3 8.9 9.7 10.7 12 12

Table 7. Posture multiplier [2]

Score 0 4 5.4 6.7 8 9.4 10.7 12 13.4 14.7 16 17.4 18.7 20 21.4 22.7 24 25.4 26.7 28
Posture
0.66 0.63 0.56 0.53 0.44 0.38 0.25 0.17 0.05 0.04
Multiplier 1 0.7
67 33
0.6
67 33
0.5
33 67
0.33
33 67
0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07
67 33
0.03
(PoM)

Figure 4 shows the postural involvement of the hand Table 8. Repetitive multiplier [2]
and fingers which categorized as awkward posture and the
score of the posture are shown in Table 6. Scenario High Repetitive
Identical technical
actions or groups of
identical technical
actions repeated for
almost the entire
cycle (more than
80%).
Fig. 4. Awkward hand and fingers posture/ movement [2]
Static postures
Table 7 shows the elements required to go from the sustained for over
descriptive effort score to the corresponding PoM. This 80% of the cycle time
table will be used for each segment of the upper limb and (e.g., pro-longed
separately for each limb. The most penalizing posture gripping of a knife or
multiplier (PoM) is used, corresponding to the highest screwdriver).
postural effort from among the scores for the hand, wrist, Extremely short
elbow, or shoulder of each limb. cycles lasting less
than 8 s, featuring
Repetitive multiplier can be determined by two different
actions that involve
scenarios as shown in Table 8. the upper limbs.
Repetitive
Multiplier 0.7
(ReM)
Moderate Repetitive
Identical technical
actions or groups of
identical technical
actions repeated for
over 50% of the cycle
time.
Static postures
sustained for over
50% of the cycle time
(e.g., prolonged
gripping of a knife or
screwdriver).
Extremely short
cycles lasting less
than 15 s, featuring
actions that involve
the upper limbs.
0.85

3
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

Additional multiplier can be by observing the work Table 9. Additional risk factor multiplier [2]
station whether there are other factors that interfere with
Score 0-4 4-7 8-11 12-15 •
the work process such as the working environment Additional
(lighting, vibration, temperature, noise) which is not Multiplier 1 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80
good. In addition, observations were made on the personal (AdM)
protective equipment whether it cause more difficult to
work, risks workers exposure to cold from the ambient Duration multiplier determined by obtaining the total
temperature or from tools or materials.Table 9 shows the net duration value when performing repetitive actions,
elements used to assign the additional risk factor namely by subtracting the duration of one full shift with
multiplier (AdM), based on the descriptive classifications breaks, lunch, movements that are categorized as recovery
presented. periods and the total duration of movements that do not
include repetitive movements. Table 10 provides the
parameters for dealing with the duration multiplier
(DuM).
Table 10. Duration multiplier [2]
Duration of
performing
” 121-180 181-240 241-300 301-360 361-420 421-479 480-540 541-600 601-660 661-720 >720
repetitive
action / shift
Duration
Multiplier 2 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.83 0.66 0.5 0.35 0.25
(DuM)

Table 11. Recovery multiplier [2]

No. of
hours
without <0.5 h 1h 1.5 h 2h 2.5 h 3h 3.5 h 4h 4.5 h 5h 5.5 h 6h 6.5 h •K
adequate
recovery
Recovery
Multiplier 1 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.52 0.45 0.3 0.25 0.17 0.10
(RcM)

Recovery multiplier determined based on the longest Table 12. OCRA index classification [2]
working time performed by the worker without adequate Zone OCRA Risk Suggested
recovery. Table 11 illustrates the scores for ReM. Index Classification Action
Value
After all of risk factors or multipliers value Green Up to Optimal None
determined. The overall number of RTA is calculated by 1.5
following general formula: Green 1.6-2.2 Acceptable None
Yellow 2.3-3.5 Borderline Recheck, if
RTA
n
> @
¦ CF u FoMj u PoMj uRe Mj u Ad Mj u D j u RcM u Du M
j 1
(3) possible
improve
working
N = number of repetitive tasks per shift conditions
J = generic (j-th) repetitive task performed by the upper Red- 3.6-4.5 Slight improve
limbs Low working
CF = RTA frequency (30) per minute under reference conditions;
conditions health
FoMj; PoMj; ReMj; AdMj = multipliers, chosen in relation to the surveillance;
behavior of the force, posture, repetitiveness, and training
additional risk factors embedded in each j-th task under Red- 4.6-9.0 Medium improve
examination Medium working
Dj = duration (in minutes) of each j-th repetitive task conditions;
RcM= multiplier for the “lack of recovery period” risk factor health
(one only for jobs with 1 or more repetitive tasks) surveillance;
DuM= multiplier that takes into account the net duration of training
repetitive tasks (one only for jobs with 1 or more Red- More High improve
repetitive tasks) High than 9.0 working
conditions;
Furthermore, the final value of OCRA index are health
classified on Table 12 to determine the suggested action. surveillance;
training

4
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

The last step are analyze each risk factor to find Table 14. Actual Technical Actions Operator 1, 2 & 3
potential improvement to redesign Hub 2/3 in order to Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3
reducing or minimize the risk of UL-WMSD for each Left Right Left Right Left Right
operator. No. Of
Technical 23 53 17 32 5 31
Action
3 Results and discussions Total Net
114.75 99.8 108.15
Cycle Time
Frequency 12.03 27.71 10.22 19.24 2.86 16.61
Data collection was carried out at Hub 2/3 workstations
ATA 5532.0 12747 4701.4 8849. 1276. 7911.
with 3 operators operating 5 machines. Operator 1 3 .71 0 70 01 23
operates CNC Lathe machines 1,2 & 3. Operator 2
operates a drill machine and Operator 3 operates a tap
machine. The data obtained from observations are cycle 3.2 Factor multiplier of RTA
time data and technical actions carried out by each
operator which are recorded with a camera and interview In the calculation of RTA required multiplier factor of
with the operator. force, posture, repetitive, additional, duration of repetitive
Table 13 show the data of technical action of left upper action and recovery.
limb and right upper limb on Operator 1.
3.2.1 Force Multiplier
Table 13. Technical action Operator1
The force multiplier obtained with the use of Borg CR-10
Left Right scale are shown in Table 15 and assign the multiplier on
Technical No. Of No. Of Table 16.
No.
Action Duration Technica Duration Technical
l Action Action
Loading
1 material to 3.2 2 4.63 3 Table 15. Assessment of Borg CR-10 Scale right upper limb of
Machine-1 Operator 1
Machining
2 process on 0 0 13.92 7 Borg Duration
Machine-1 Technical CR-10 Action Weighted
Microphase
Manual Action Scale with Force
3 2.17 2 8.59 5 Score Force
process 1
Unloading Machining Put material on
7 1.8 10.80
& loading process on Machine-1
4 3.27 2 3.27 2 Machine-1
material to Adjust material
Machine-2 2 3.61 7.22
position
Machining Close machine door 2 1.92 3.84
5 process on 3.89 2 6.7 4 Press button on
Machine-2 0.5 1.21 0.61
machine
Manual Pick the air gun 0.5 0.86 0.43
6 1.23 1 9.18 4
process 2 Spray work piece
Unloading 1 4.13 4.13
with air gun
& loading Put the air gun 0.5 0.39 0.20
7 0 0 4.35 4
to machine
3
8
Manual
7.57 3 4.78 3
Table 16. Assessment of force multiplier of Operator 1
process 3
Quality Weighted Force
9 4.12 3 18.66 8 No. Technical Action
check 1 Left Right
Write Loading material to
1 22.40 35.61
10 production 1.91 3 5.52 4 Machine-1
code Machining process on
2 0 30.94
Quality Machine-1
11 6.22 3 12.77 7 3 Manual process-1 15.19 27.74
check 2
Move work Unloading & loading
4 22.89 22.89
12 piece to 7.97 1 7.97 1 material to Machine-2
Operator 2 Machining process on
5 5.14 5.01
Waiting for Machine-2
13 machining 8 1 8 1 6 Manual process-2 0.62 36.73
process Unloading & loading to
7 0 30.45
TOTAL 49.55 23 108.34 53 machine-3
8 Manual process-3 13.24 3.61
9 Quality check-1 9.58 28.50
3.1 Actual Technical Actions (ATA) calculations 10 Write production code 3.57 4.83
11 Quality check-2 19.76 10.91
The data of technical action that has been obtained, then Move work piece to
12 15.94 15.94
Operator 2
able to be processed to obtain the frequency value and Waiting for machining
ATA which shown in Table 14. 13 0 0
process
TOTAL 128.325 260.66
AVERAGE 1.11 2.27
Force Multiplier (FoM) 0.75 0.55

5
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

3.2.2 Awkward posture multiplier 3.2.3 Repetitive multiplier

For awkward posture multiplier, the posture and Table 18 show the technical action adapted to repetitive
movement of operator are assessed and analyzed with scenario to obtain repetitive multiplier.
Table 3,4,5 & 6. The results are shown in Table 17.

Table 17. Assessment of posture multiplier of right upper limb Operator 1

Shoulder Elbow Wrist Hand and fingers

Flexion-extension
Pronation >60°

Radial deviation
Flexion abduction

Supination >60°

Ulnar deviation
Extension >20°

Extension >45°

Wide grip (4–

Flexion >45°

Small finger
Narrow grip

Palmar grip
movements
Abduction

Hook grip
(1.5 cm)
45°-80°

5 cm)
>60°

Pinch
>15°

>20°
>80°

Total
4.42 0 0 0 0.76 0 0 0 0.83 2.96 30.68 21.68 0 8.54 0 17.18
duration
Total net
cycle 114.75
time
%
duration 0.72 2.58 26.74 18.89 7.44
3.85% 0 0 0 0.66% 0 0 0 0 0 14.97%
of cycle % % % % %
time
Score 2 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0.25 1 1.3 0 0.4 0 1.3
Group
2 0 0.25 4
score
Multiplier 1 1 1 0.7
Posture
Multiplier 0.7 (choose the worse between shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand and fingers)
(PoM)

Table 18. Assessment of repetitive multiplier

Operator 1, 2 & 3 Table 19. Shift duration multiplier of Hub 2/3 workstation

Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 Shift Description Minutes

Left Right Left Right Left Right Shift duration 540
Most Morning break 10
repeated Meal break 50
10.04 10.54 66.35
identical 14% 16.04% 3.26% Time counted as recovery period 0
% % %
action in
Morning meeting 10
cycle
Most 5S at the end of shift 10
12.46 26.74 20.08 83.14 Net duration of repetitive tasks 460
sustained 32.21% 3.26%
% % % %
static posture Duration Multiplier 1
Net duration
114.75 99.8 104.73
of cycle time
Repetitive 3.2.6 Recovery multiplier
multiplier 1 1 0.7
(ReM) The distribution of recovery time during shift 1 working
hours at Hub 2/3 workstations is shown in Figure 5.
3.2.4 Additional multiplier 09.30 11.40

09.40 12.30

According to the data obtained. There are no additional 07.00 08.00 09.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00

factors that affect the risk of UL-WMSD of the workers = Process time = Recovery time

Operator 1, 2 & 3. Therefore, the additional multiplier Fig. 5. Distribution of recovery time
value is 1.
According to Figure 5, the number of hours without
3.2.5 Duration multiplier adequate recovery are 3.5 hours from 12.30 until 16.00.
Therefore, the recovery multiplier is 0.65.
According to the data obtained. Duration of shift-1
workstation Hub 2/3 area 540 minutes with detail
description shown in Table 19. 3.3 Recommended technical action (RTA)
calculations
The overall calculation of the number of RTA is used to
determine the recommended technical measures. The
results are shown in Table 20.

6
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

Table 20. Recommended technical action (RTA) of Operator back support for operator, the score will be reduced
1, 2 & 3 because back support can reduce low back injuries by
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3 34% [10].
Left Right Left Right Left Right
CF 30 30 30 30 30 30
FoM 0.75 0.55 0.75 0.65 1 0.75 4.4 OCRA index after improvement
PoM 1 0.7 1 0.66 1 0.7
ReM 1 1 1 1 1 0.7 After improve workstation using OCRA index, the
AdM 1 1 1 1 1 1 proposed improvement has been implemented and be
D 460 460 460 460 460 460
shown in Table 22.
RcM 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
DuM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 22. OCRA Index after improvement
RTA 6727.50 3453.45 6727.5 3848.13 8970 3296.48
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3
Left Right Left Right Left Right
5532. 12747.7 4701.4 8849.7 1276.0 7911.2
3.4 OCRA Index calculations ATA
03 1 0 0 1 3
7762. 5123.2
The final step in data processing on the OCRA Index is to RTA 4709.25 7762.5 10350 7762.5
50 5
calculate the value of the OCRA Index which is done by OCRA
0.71 2.71 0.61 1.73 0.12 1.02
comparing the results of the value of the number of actual Index
technical actions (ATA) and the overall value of the
number of reference technical actions (RTA). The results 5 Conclusion
are shown in Table 21.
Table 21. OCRA index of Operator 1, 2 & 3 The results of the OCRA calculations were obtained 0.82
on left hand of operator 1 and 3.69 on right hand of
Operator 1 Operator 2 Operator 3
operator 1, 0.70 on left hand of operator 2 and 2.30 on
Left Right Left Right Left Right
5532 12747.7 4701.4 8849.7 1276.0 7911.2 right hand of operator 2, 0.14 on left hand of operator 3
ATA and 2.40 on right hand of operator 3. Therefore operator
.03 1 0 0 1 3
RTA
6727
3453.45 6727.5
3848.1
8970
3296.4 1 is classified in the red zone, operator 2 and operator 3
.50 3 8 are classified in the yellow zone which means the work
OCRA
Index
0.82 3.69 0.70 2.30 0.14 2.40 conditions at workstations must be improved. After
improvement, OCRA index were obtained 0.71 on left
hand of operator 1 and 2.71 on right hand of operator 1,
4 Proposed Improvements 0.61 on left hand of operator 2 and 1.73 on right hand of
operator 2, 0.12 on left hand of operator 3 and 1.02 on
Proposed improvements are given to reduce the value of right hand of operator 3. From these results it can be seen
the OCRA index so as to reduce the risk of workers the OCRA index after improvement are lower than before
against UL-WMSD. improvement. It means the risk of musculoskeletal
disorders for each operator on Hub 2/3 work station is
4.1 Proposed recovery time reduced. In other words the Hub 2/3 work station is more
ergonomic.
The current workstation has 2 rest periods with numbers According on the results of the analysis, the longer
of hours without adequate recovery period for 3.5 h. operator perform works without adequate recovery, the
Figure 6 show the proposed distribution of recovery time longer operator sustain static postures, the higher force
which has 3 rest periods with numbers of hours without used to perform works, then the risk of musculoskeletal
adequate recovery period for 2.5 h. Therefore, the RcM disorders for operator are higher.
value becomes 0.7. After this research, there is a potential for future
09.30 11.40 14.30
research to analyze work equipment such as checking
09.40 12.20 14.40
tables, conveyor tables, raw material pallet and finished
07.00 08.00 09.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00
goods pallet using the Recommended Weight Limit
method to maximize the value of force multiplier.
= Process time = Recovery time

Fig. 6. Proposed distribution of recovery time

References
4.2 Proposed install flexible hose in Machine5
1. A. Cieza et al, Global estimates of the need for
In the process of operator 3, there are a posture gripping rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of
the air gun for 83.14% of the cycle time. by installing a Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the
flexible hose on Machine5 then this can be eliminated so Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, The Lancet,
that the ReM and PoM value decreased. 396, (2020)
2. D. Colombini and E. Occhipinti, Management of
4.3 Proposed use of back support for operators Repetitive Actions A Guide for Applying the OCRA
System (Occupational Repetitive Actions), Boca
The work piece weight of 15.2 kg makes the Borg CR-10 Raton: CRC Press (2017)
score 7 when lifting & placing the work piece. By using

7
E3S Web of Conferences 426, 01080 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342601080
ICOBAR 2023

3. W. Karwowski, A. Szopa, M.M. Soares, Handbook

of Standards and Guidelines in Human Factors and
Ergonomics, Boca Raton: CRC Press (2021)
4. A. Hedge, Ergonomic Workplace Design for Health,
Wellness, and Productivity, Boca Raton: CRC Press
(2017)
5. J. Rosecrance, R. Paulsen, L. Murgia, Risk
assessment of cheese processing tasks using the
Strain Index and OCRA Checklist, International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 61, 142-148
(2017)
6. L. Gualtieri, I. Palomba, F.A. Merati, E. Rauch, R.
Vidoni, Design of Human-Centered Collaborative
Assembly Workstations for the Improvement of
Operators’ Physical Ergonomics and Production
Efficiency: A Case Study, Sustainability, 12, 3606
(2020)
7. G.J.L. Micheli, L.M. Marzorati, Beyond OCRA:
Predictive UL-WMSD risk assessment for safe
assembly design, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, xxx, 1-10 (2017)
8. L. Tiacci and M. Mimmi, Integrating ergonomic
risks evaluation through OCRA index and
balancing/sequencing decisions for mixed model
stochastic asynchronous assembly lines, Omega The
International Journal of Management Science, 78,
112-138 (2018)
9. ISO 11228-3:2007(E) Handling of low loads at high
frequency, Switzerland (2007)
10. J.F. Kraus, K.A. Brown, D.L. Mcarthur, C. Peek-
asa, L. Samaniego, C. Kraus, L. Zhou, Reduction of
Acute Low Back Injuries by Use of Back Supports,
Int J Occup Environ Health,2, 4 (1996)