Lifting is a main task for manual material handling (MMH), and it is also associated with lower back pain. There are many studies in the literature on predicting lifting strategies, optimizing lifting motions, and reducing lower back injury risks. This survey focuses on optimization-based biomechanical lifting models for MMH. The models can be classified as two-dimensional and three-dimensional models, as well as skeletal and musculoskeletal models. The optimization formulations for lifting simulations with various cost functions and constraints are reviewed. The corresponding equations of motion and sensitivity analysis are briefly summarized. Different optimization algorithms are utilized to solve the lifting optimization problem, such as sequential quadratic programming, genetic algorithm, and particle swarm optimization. Finally, the applications of the optimization-based lifting models to digital human modeling which refers to modeling and simulation of humans in a virtual environment, back injury prevention, and ergonomic safety design are summarized.
FathallahFAMarrasWSParnianpourM. Regression models for predicting peak and continuous three-dimensional spinal loads during symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks. Hum Factors1999; 41: 373–388.
3.
NIOSH Technical report. Work practices guide for manual lifting. US Department of Health and Human Services, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981.
4.
WatersTRPutz-AndersonVGargA, et al. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics1993; 36: 749–776.
5.
WatersTRGargA. Two-dimensional biomechanical model for estimating strength of youth and adolescents for manual material handling tasks. Appl Ergon2010; 41: 1–7.
6.
University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics. 3D static strength prediction program user’s manual Version 7.0.1. University of Michigan, Technology Management Office Ann Arbor, 2017.
WagnerDWReedMPRasmussenJ. Assessing the importance of motion dynamics for ergonomic analysis of manual materials handling tasks using the AnyBody modeling system. SAE Trans2007; 116: 2092–2101.
9.
HarariYBecharAAsciS, et al. Investigation of 3D dynamic and quasistatic models for spinal moments during combined manual material handling tasks. Appl Ergon2021; 91: 103305.
10.
BattiniDFaccioMPersonaA, et al. New methodological framework to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly system design. Int J Ind Ergon2011; 41: 30–42.
11.
CiminoALongoFMirabelliG. A multimeasure-based methodology for the ergonomic effective design of manufacturing system workstations. Int J Ind Ergon2009; 39: 447–455.
12.
LongoFMirabelliG. Effective design of an assembly line using modelling and simulation. J Simul2009; 3: 50–60.
13.
Ben-GalIBukchinJ. The ergonomic design of workstations using virtual manufacturing and response surface methodology. IIE Trans2002; 34: 375–391.
14.
del Rio VilasDLongoFMonteilNR. A general framework for the manufacturing workstation design optimization: a combined ergonomic and operational approach. Simulation2013; 89: 306–329.
15.
HarariYBecharARaschkeU, et al. Automated simulation-based workplace design that considers ergonomics and productivity. Int J Simul Model2017; 16: 5–18.
16.
HarariYBecharARiemerR. Simulation-based optimization methodology for a manual material handling task design that maximizes productivity while considering ergonomic constraints. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst2019; 49: 440–448.
17.
PascualAIHögbergDSyberfeldtA, et al. Application of multi-objective optimization on ergonomics in production–A case study. In: The 10th International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, 24–28 July 2019, pp.584–594. Washington, DC: Springer, Cham.
18.
BlanchonetteP. Jack human modelling tool: a review. Air Operations Division Australia, AR-014-672, January 2010.
19.
Abdel-MalekKAroraJLawLF, et al. Santos: a digital human in the making. In: IASTED International Conference on Applied Simulation and Modeling, Corfu, Greece, ADA542025, June 2008.
20.
ZamanR. Development of a predictive musculoskeletal hybrid model based on maximum weight lifting task. PhD Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 2022.
21.
ZamanRXiangYCruzJ, et al. Three-dimensional asymmetric maximum weight lifting prediction considering dynamic joint strength. Proc IMech Eng, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2021; 235: 437–446.
22.
AyoubMM. Problems and solutions in manual materials handling: the state of the art. Ergonomics1992; 35: 713–728.
23.
HsiangSMAyoubMM. Development of methodology in biomechanical simulation of manual lifting. Int J Ind Ergon1994; 13: 271–288.
24.
AghazadehFAyoubMM. A comparison of dynamic- and static-strength models for prediction of lifting capacity. Ergonomics1985; 28: 1409–1417.
25.
FreivaldsAChaffinDBGargA, et al. A dynamic biomechanical evaluation of lifting maximum acceptable loads. J Biomech1984; 17: 251–262.
26.
ChangC-CBrownDRBloswickDS, et al. Biomechanical simulation of manual lifting using spacetime optimization. J Biomech2001; 34: 527–532.
27.
GündogduOAndersonKSParnianpourM. Simulation of manual materials handling: biomechanial assessment under different lifting conditions.. Technol Health Care2005; 13: 57–66.
28.
XiangYZamanRRakshitR, et al. Subject-specific strength percentile determination for two-dimensional symmetric lifting considering dynamic joint strength. Multibody Syst Dyn2019; 46: 63–76.
29.
XiangYAroraJSRahmatallaS, et al. Human lifting simulation using a multi-objective optimization approach. Multibody Syst Dyn2010; 23: 431–451.
30.
SongJQuXChenC-H. Simulation of lifting motions using a novel multi-objective optimization approach. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 53: 37–47.
31.
SreenivasaMMillardMKingmaI, et al. Predicting the influence of hip and lumbar flexibility on lifting motions using optimal control. J Biomech2018; 78: 118–125.
32.
XiangYAroraJSAbdel-MalekK. 3D human lifting motion prediction with different performance measures. Int J HR2012; 09: 1250012.
33.
RakshitRXiangYYangJ. Dynamic-joint-strength-based two-dimensional symmetric maximum weight-lifting simulation: model development and validation. Proc IMech Eng, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2020; 234: 660–673.
34.
HuangCShethPNGranataKP. Multibody dynamics integrated with muscle models and space-time constraints for optimization of lifting movements. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2005 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference volume 6: 5th international conference on multibody systems, nonlinear dynamics, and control, Parts A, B, and C, Long Beach, CA, 24–28 September 2005, pp.391–398.
35.
XiangYCruzJZamanR, et al. Multi-objective optimization for two-dimensional maximum weight lifting prediction considering dynamic strength. Eng Optim2021; 53: 206–220.
AndersonFCPandyMG. Dynamic optimization of human walking. J Biomech Eng2001; 123: 381–390.
38.
GeijtenbeekT. SCONE: Open source software for predictive simulation of biological motion. J Open Source Softw2019; 4: 1421.
39.
ZamanRXiangYCruzJ, et al. Three-dimensional symmetric maximum weight lifting prediction. In: Proceedings of ASME 2020 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, volume 9: 40th computers and information in engineering conference (CIE)Virtual online, 16–19 August 2020.
40.
LinCJAyoubMMBernardTM. Computer motion simulation for sagittal plane lifting activities. Int J Ind Ergon1999; 24: 141–155.
41.
SongJQuXChenC-H. Lifting motion simulation using a hybrid approach. Ergonomics2015; 58: 1557–1570.
42.
ZamanRQuarnstromJXiangY, et al. Hybrid predictive model for assessing spinal loads for 3D asymmetric lifting. In: Proceedings of ASME 2022 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2022 )St. Louis, MO, 14–17 August 2022 (Accepted).
43.
ArefeenAXiangY. Design human-robot collaborative lifting task using optimization. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2021 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference Virtual, Online17–19 August 2021.
44.
ThelenDGAndersonFC. Using computed muscle control to generate forward dynamic simulations of human walking from experimental data. J Biomech2006; 39: 1107–1115.
45.
BatainehMMarlerTAbdel-MalekK, et al. Neural network for dynamic human motion prediction. Expert Syst Appl2016; 48: 26–34.
46.
QiaoMYangCYuanX-G. The application of kane equation in the impact prediction of human motion. In: International conference on digital human modeling2007, pp.179–188. Springer.
47.
BlacheYDesmoulinsLAllardP, et al. Effects of height and load weight on shoulder muscle work during overhead lifting task. Ergonomics2015; 58: 748–761.
48.
BjörkenstamSLeyendeckerSLinnJ, et al. Inverse dynamics for discrete geometric mechanics of multibody systems with application to direct optimal control. J Comput Nonlinear Dyn2018; 13: 101001.
49.
DenavitJHartenbergRS. A kinematic notation for lower-pair mechanisms based on matrices. ASME J Appl Mech1955; 22: 215–221.
50.
ArefeenMA. An optimization-based multibody dynamics modeling method for team lifting simulation. Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,OK, 2019.
51.
XiangYArefeenA. Two-dimensional team lifting prediction with floating-base box dynamics and grasping force coupling. Multibody Syst Dyn2020; 50: 211–231.
XiangYAroraJSRahmatallaS, et al. Optimization-based dynamic human walking prediction: One step formulation. Int J Numer Methods Eng2009; 79: 667–695.
54.
ZamanRXiangYCruzJ, et al. Two-Dimensional versus three-dimensional symmetric lifting motion prediction models: a case study. J Comput Inf Sci Eng2021; 21: 044501.
55.
ZamanRXiangYRakshitR, et al. Hybrid predictive model for lifting by integrating skeletal motion prediction with an OpenSim musculoskeletal model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2022; 69: 1111–1122.
MarlerTKnakeLJohnsonR. Optimization-based posture prediction for analysis of box lifting tasks. In: International conference on digital human modeling2011, pp.151–160. Springer.
58.
MaLZhangWChablatD, et al. Multi-objective optimisation method for posture prediction and analysis with consideration of fatigue effect and its application case. Comput Ind Eng2009; 57: 1235–1246.
59.
XiangYAroraJSAbdel-MalekK. Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion. Multibody Syst Dyn2012; 28: 199–224.
60.
HowardB. Digital human posture and motion prediction considering cognitive decision making. PhD Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 2018.
61.
YangJHowardB. Prediction of initial and final postures for motion planning in human manual manipulation tasks based on cognitive decision making. J Comput Inf Sci Eng2020; 20: 011007.
62.
YangJHowardBBausJ. A collision avoidance algorithm for human motion prediction based on perceived risk of collision: part 1-model development. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2021; 9: 199–210.
63.
YangJHowardBBausJ. A collision avoidance algorithm for human motion prediction based on perceived risk of collision: part 2-application. IISE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors2021; 9: 211–222.
64.
AzghaniMRFarahmandFMeghdariA, et al. Design and evaluation of a novel triaxial isometric trunk muscle strength measurement system. Proc IMech Eng, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223: 755–766.
65.
Frey-LawLALaakeAAvinKG, et al. Knee and elbow 3D strength surfaces: peak torque-angle-velocity relationships. J Appl Biomech2012; 28: 726–737.
66.
LooftJM. Adaptation and validation of an analytical localized muscle fatigue model for workplace tasks. PhD Thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 2014.
67.
HussainSJFrey-LawL. 3D strength surfaces for ankle plantar- and dorsi-flexion in healthy adults: an isometric and isokinetic dynamometry study. J Foot Ankle Res2016; 9: 43.
68.
AndersonDEMadiganMLNussbaumMA. Maximum voluntary joint torque as a function of joint angle and angular velocity: model development and application to the lower limb. J Biomech2007; 40: 3105–3113.
69.
AshbyBMDelpSL. Optimal control simulations reveal mechanisms by which arm movement improves standing long jump performance. J Biomech2006; 39: 1726–1734.
70.
ShermanMASethADelpSL. What is a moment arm? Calculating muscle effectiveness in biomechanical models using generalized coordinates. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference2013, p.V07BT10A052. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
71.
MirakhorloMAzghaniMRKahriziS. Validation of a musculoskeletal model of lifting and its application for biomechanical evaluation of lifting techniques. J res health sci2014; 14: 23–28.
72.
BlacheYDal MasoFDesmoulinsL, et al. Superficial shoulder muscle co-activations during lifting tasks: influence of lifting height, weight and phase. J Electromyogr Kinesiol2015; 25: 355–362.
73.
GhiasiMSArjmandNBoroushakiM, et al. Investigation of trunk muscle activities during lifting using a multi-objective optimization-based model and intelligent optimization algorithms. Med Biol Eng Comput2016; 54: 431–440.
74.
StambolianDEltoukhyMAsfourS. Development and validation of a three dimensional dynamic biomechanical lifting model for lower back evaluation for careful box placement. Int J Ind Ergon2016; 54: 10–18.
75.
ZamanRXiangYRakshitR, et al. Muscle force prediction in OpenSim using skeleton motion optimization results as input data. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2019 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference volume 1: 39th computers and information in engineering conferenceAnaheim, CA, 26–29 August 2019.
76.
YangJMarlerTKimH, et al. Multi-objective optimization for upper body posture prediction. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, 30 August–1 September 2004, p.4506.
77.
YangJMarlerTRahmatallaS. Multi-objective optimization-based method for kinematic posture prediction: development and validation. Robotica2011; 29: 245–253.
78.
HowardBCloutierAYangJJ. Physics-based seated posture prediction for pregnant women and validation considering ground and seat pan contacts. J Biomech Eng2012; 134(7): 071004.
79.
DemirelHOAhmedSDuffyVG. Digital Human Modeling: A Review and reappraisal of origins, present, and expected future methods for representing humans computationally. Int J Hum Comput Interact2022; 38: 897–937.
80.
BarmanSXiangYRakshitR, et al. Joint fatigue-based optimal posture prediction for maximizing endurance time in box carrying task. Multibody Syst Dyn2022; 55(3): 323–339.
81.
BatainehMMarlerTAbdel-MalekK. Artificial neural network-based prediction of human posture. In: International conference on digital human modeling and applications in health, safety, ergonomics and risk management2013, pp.305–313. Springer.
82.
GoldbergDEHollandJH. Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1988.
83.
RollerMBjörkenstamSLinnJ, et al. Optimal control of a biomechanical multibody model for the dynamic simulation of working tasks. In: ECCOMAS thematic conference on multibody dynamics, Prage, Czech Republic, 2017.
84.
MiossecSLengagneSKheddarKYA, et al. Motion optimization of robotic systems and validation of HRP-2 robot. In: The 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Nice, France, September 22 to 26 2008.
85.
OngCFHicksJLDelpSL. Simulation-based design for wearable robotic systems: an optimization framework for enhancing a standing long jump. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2016; 63: 894–903.
86.
OstraichBRiemerR. Simulation of a passive knee exoskeleton for vertical jump using Optimal Control. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng2020; 28: 2859–2868.
87.
HartvigsenJHancockMJKongstedA, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet2018; 391: 2356–2367.
88.
VosTAllenCAroraM, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet2016; 388: 1545–1602.
89.
GallagherSMarrasWS. Tolerance of the lumbar spine to shear: a review and recommended exposure limits. Clin Biomech2012; 27: 973–978.
90.
McGillSNormanRYinglingV, et al. Shear happens! Suggested guidelines for ergonomists to reduce the risk of low back injury from shear loading. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the human factors association of Canada, 1998, pp.157–161. Mississauga, ON, Canada.
91.
KimHKZhangY. Estimation of lumbar spinal loading and trunk muscle forces during asymmetric lifting tasks: application of whole-body musculoskeletal modelling in OpenSim. Ergonomics2017; 60: 563–576.
92.
Beaucage-GauvreauERobertsonWSPBrandonSCE, et al. Validation of an OpenSim full-body model with detailed lumbar spine for estimating lower lumbar spine loads during symmetric and asymmetric lifting tasks. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2019; 22: 451–464.
93.
RajaeeMAArjmandNShirazi-AdlA, et al. Comparative evaluation of six quantitative lifting tools to estimate spine loads during static activities. Appl Ergon2015; 48: 22–32.
94.
BazrgariBShirazi-AdlAArjmandN. Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads. Eur Spine J2007; 16: 687–699.
95.
MarrasWSDavisKGJorgensenM. Spine loading as a function of gender. Spine2002; 27: 2514–2520.
96.
PlamondonALarivièreCDenisD, et al. Sex differences in lifting strategies during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl Ergon2014; 45: 1558–1569.
97.
MarrasWSDavisKGKirkingBC, et al. Spine loading and trunk kinematics during team lifting. Ergonomics1999; 42: 1258–1273.
98.
DennisGJBarrettRS. Spinal loads during two-person team lifting: effect of matched versus unmatched standing height. Int J Ind Ergon2003; 32: 25–38.
99.
ArefeenAXiangY. Two-dimensional team lifting prediction with different box weights. In: International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference2020, p.V009T009A004. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
100.
EvrardPKheddarA. Homotopy switching model for dyad haptic interaction in physical collaborative tasks. In: World haptics 2009-third joint EuroHaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems2009, pp.45–50. IEEE.
101.
EvrardPGribovskayaECalinonS, et al. Teaching physical collaborative tasks: Object-lifting case study with a humanoid. In: 2009 9th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots2009, pp.399–404. IEEE.
102.
CalinonSEvrardPGribovskayaE, et al. Learning collaborative manipulation tasks by demonstration using a haptic interface. In: 2009 International conference on advanced robotics2009, pp.1–6. IEEE.
103.
ShengWThobbiAGuY. An integrated framework for human-robot collaborative manipulation. IEEE Trans Cybern2015; 45: 2030–2041.
104.
DelPretoJRusD. Sharing the load: Human-robot team lifting using muscle activity. In: 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2019, pp.7906–7912. IEEE.
105.
ArefeenAQuarnstromJSyedSQP, et al. Human grasping force prediction, measurement, and validation for human-robot lifting. In: In: Proceedings of the ASME 2022 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, St. Louis, MO, 14–17 August 2022 (Accepted).
106.
ArefeenAXiangY. Modeling and simulation of a powered exoskeleton system to aid human-robot collaborative lifting. In: Proceedings of the 7th international digital human modeling symposium (DHM 2022)Iowa City, Iowa, 29–31 August 2022.
107.
ZhengSLiTLiQ, et al. Different phases in manual materials handling have different performance criteria: evidence from multi-objective optimization. J Biomech Eng2022; 144(9): 091004.
108.
SeoJAlwaselALeeS, et al. A comparative study of in-field motion capture approaches for body kinematics measurement in construction. Robotica2019; 37: 928–946.
109.
AurandAMDufourJSMarrasWS. Accuracy map of an optical motion capture system with 42 or 21 cameras in a large measurement volume. J Biomech2017; 58: 237–240.
110.
CappozzoADella CroceULeardiniA, et al. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: part 1: theoretical background. Gait Posture2005; 21(2): 186–196.
111.
ChiariLDella CroceULeardiniA, et al. Human movement analysis using stereophotogrammetry: part 2: Instrumental errors. Gait Posture2005; 21(2): 197–211.
