Manual spot-welding operators often engage in repetitive motions, awkward postures, and prolonged standing. These factors increase the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), particularly affecting the lower limbs and back. Additionally, inadequate workstation design impacts workers’ health, safety, and productivity.
Objective
Identify the optimal conditions for the spot-welding interface using a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach with three input parameters: pedal height (30, 35, 40 cm), worker distance (70, 80, 90 cm) and worksheet thickness (22, 25, 30 gauge).
Methods
The study employed L27 orthogonal array experimental design. Entropy Weight Method (EWM) was used to determine weight of each factor. The optimal input parameters were identified using Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS) method, with validation from Weighted Grey Relational Analysis (WGRA) and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) determined the significance of input parameters, and a confirmation test validated the findings.
Results
EWM calculated a weight of 0.3404 to task time, 0.3401 to pedal force, and 0.3193 to comfort level. WASPAS, WGRA, and TOPSIS identified the optimal parameters as pedal height of 35 cm, worker distance of 80 cm, and worksheet thickness of 30-gauge. ANOVA showed that worksheet thickness had the greatest impact on response, followed by worker distance and pedal height. The confirmation test validated the result with high reliability (0.88% error).
Conclusion
This study explored ergonomic recommendations for optimizing spot-welding environments using a statistical and MCDM model focused on improving pedal force, task time, and comfort.
SinghAKMeenaMLChaudharyH, et al.Ergonomic evaluation of cumulative trauma disorders among female carpet weavers in India: guidelines to an effective sustainability in work system design. Int J Hum Factors Ergon2018; 5: 129.
2.
SoaresCOPereiraBFGomesMVP, et al.Fatores de prevenção de distúrbios osteomusculares relacionados ao trabalho: revisão narrativa. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho2019; 17: 415–430.
3.
KhanIA. Multi-response ergonomic design of human–CNC machine interface. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM)2014; 8: 13–31.
4.
KoiralaRNepalA. Literature review on ergonomics, ergonomics practices, and employee performance. Quest Journal of Management and Social Sciences2022; 4: 273–288.
5.
MarkováPŠkurkováKL. The impact of ergonomics on quality of life in the workplace. System Safety: Human - Technical Facility - Environment2023; 5: 121–129.
6.
KingPHFriesRC. Design of biomedical devices and systems second edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2008. Epub ahead of print 22 August 2008. DOI: 10.1201/9781439878071.
7.
SankathSSShimpiARayasR. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in tailors of Pune city. Acta Scientific Orthopaedics2023; 6: 08–14.
8.
RahmanMNAZuhaidiMFA. Musculoskeletal symptoms and ergonomic hazards among material handlers in grocery retail industries. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2017; 226: 012027.
9.
BanerjeeSBandyopadhyayLDasguptaA, et al.Work related musculoskeletal morbidity among tailors: a cross sectional study in a slum of Kolkata. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ)2016; 14: 305–310.
10.
DrostJPShaferMDBushTR. Comfortable leg splay of mid-sized males in automotive seats. Appl Ergon2020; 85: 103062.
11.
Ahmad ZifruddinANAhmadSIsaHMD, et al.Parametric modelling of pedal pressing activities during road traffic delay. Journal of Modern Mechanical Engineering and Technology2022; 9: 1–12.
12.
GallagherSHebergerJR. Examining the interaction of force and repetition on musculoskeletal disorder risk. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society2013; 55: 108–124.
13.
RomainPXuguangW. Development of objective discomfort evaluation indicators for a task-oriented motion using less constrained motion concept: application to automotive pedal clutching task. Work2012; 41: 1461–1465.
14.
PannetierRWangX. A comparison of clutching movements of freely adjusted and imposed pedal configurations for identifying discomfort assessment criteria. Appl Ergon2014; 45: 1010–1018.
15.
WangXPannetierRBurraNK, et al. A biomechanical approach for evaluating motion related discomfort: illustration by an application to pedal clutching movement. In: LNCS. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp.210–219.
16.
ZhouJWiggermannN. Effects of brake pedal horizontal location of hospital beds on force exertions and work efficiency. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting2017; 61: 1005–1009.
17.
AlamDMohsinSKhanIA, et al.Ergonomic design of arc welding workstation using younger age group operators. Int Journal of Engineering Research and Application2018; 8: 12–22.
18.
AlamDMohsinSKhanIA, et al.Effect of higher age on the ergonomic evaluation of arc welding workstation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Mechatronics2018; 6: 61–70.
19.
KatariaKKSharmaMMohan SuriN, et al.Analyzing musculoskeletal risk-severity among small scale casting workers using ergonomic assessment tools: a statistical approach. Work2022; 72: 1429–1442.
20.
ChenLLiWYangY, et al.Evaluation and optimization of vehicle pedal comfort based on biomechanics. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering2020; 234: 1402–1412.
21.
MačužićSLukićJGlišovićJ, et al.Pedal force determination respect to ride comfort. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2017; 252: 012010.
22.
MehtaCRTiwariPSRokadeS, et al.Leg strength of Indian operators in the operation of tractor pedals. Int J Ind Ergon2007; 37: 283–289.
23.
OlmedaEFuentes del ToroSGarrosaM, et al.Clutch pedal sensorization and evaluation of the main parameters related to driver posture. Sensors2018; 18: 2797.
24.
HotaSTewariVKChandelAK, et al.An integrated foot transducer and data logging system for dynamic assessment of lower limb exerted forces during agricultural machinery operations. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture2020; 4: 96–103.
25.
KumarASahBSinghAR, et al.A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2017; 69: 596–609.
26.
PereiraJLJOliverGAFranciscoMB, et al.A review of multi-objective optimization: methods and algorithms in mechanical engineering problems. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering2022; 29: 2285–2308.
27.
FazlollahtabarH. A subjective framework for seat comfort based on a heuristic multi criteria decision making technique and anthropometry. Appl Ergon2010; 42: 16–28.
28.
ChakrabortySChakrabortyS. A scoping review on the applications of MCDM techniques for parametric optimization of machining processes. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering2022; 29: 4165–4186.
29.
BhatPAgrawalCKhannaN. Development of a sustainability assessment algorithm and its validation using case studies on cryogenic machining. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing2020; 4: 42.
30.
DivyaChRajuLSSingaravelB. Application of MCDM methods for process parameter optimization in turning process— Singapore, A review. Springer, 2021, pp.199–207.
31.
BhanotNRaoPVDeshmukhSG. An integrated sustainability assessment framework: a case of turning process. Clean Technol Environ Policy2016; 18: 1475–1513.
32.
VassoneyEMammoliti MochetADesiderioE, et al.Comparing multi-criteria decision-making methods for the assessment of flow release scenarios from small hydropower plants in the alpine area. Front Environ Sci2021; 9: 1–20. Epub ahead of print 16 April 2021. DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.635100.
33.
BeltonVStewartTJ. Implementation of MCDA: practical issues and insights. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2002, pp.261–292.
34.
EmovonIOghenenyerovwhoOS. Application of MCDM method in material selection for optimal design: a review. Results in Materials2020; 7: 100115.
35.
SinghMPantM. A review of selected weighing methods in MCDM with a case study. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management2021; 12: 126–144.
36.
ShaikhMBNAliMKhanZA, et al.An MCDM approach for multi-response optimisation of machining parameters in turning of EN8 steel (AISI-1040) for sustainable manufacturing. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM)2023; 17: 3159–3176.
37.
HasaniHTabatabaeiSAAmiriG. Grey relational analysis to determine the Optimum process parameters for open-End spinning yarns. J Eng Fiber Fabr2012; 7: 155892501200700.
38.
SatapathyS. Work place discomfort and risk factors for construction site workers. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management2022; 13: 668–680.
39.
IncekaraCO. Post-COVID-19 ergonomic school furniture design under fuzzy logic. Work2021; 69: 1197–1208.
40.
SahooSKGoswamiSS. A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances2023; 1: 25–48.
41.
MahadiMNazmiNBaniNA, et al.Electromyography (EMG) and hand gripping force during standing and sitting. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2021; 1096: 012077.
42.
McGorryRWLinJ-H. Power grip strength as a function of tool handle orientation and location. Ergonomics2007; 50: 1392–1403.
43.
ZhangYWuXGaoJ, et al.Simulation and ergonomic evaluation of Welders’ standing posture using jack software. Int J Environ Res Public Health2019; 16: 4354.
44.
HabesDJGrantKA. An electromyographic study of maximum torques and upper extremity muscle activity in simulated screwdriving tasks. Int J Ind Ergon1997; 20: 339–346.
45.
YassiA. Repetitive strain injuries. The Lancet1997; 349: 943–947.
46.
ChaikliengSSuggaravetsiriP. Risk factors for repetitive strain injuries among school teachers in Thailand. Work2012; 41: 2510–2515.
47.
DinNAMZuhailawatiHAnasyidaAS. Resistance spot welding of AA5052 sheet metal of dissimilar thickness. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2016; 114: 012126.
48.
CorlettENBishopRP. Foot pedal forces for seated operators. Ergonomics1975; 18: 687–692.
49.
OligEMWilsonSReddyM. Output force and ratio of laparoscopic graspers: an evaluation of operating room ergonomics. Am J Obstet Gynecol2023; 229: 307.e1–307.e9.
50.
TurrellYNLiF-XWingAM. Estimating the minimum grip force required when grasping objects under impulsive loading conditions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers2001; 33: 38–45.
51.
LinJHMcGorryRWChangCC. Effects of handle orientation and between-handle distance on bi-manual isometric push strength. Appl Ergon2012; 43: 664–670.
52.
NawazADilshad AlamMdKhanIA, et al.Ergonomic design of angle of abduction in arc welding environment. Singapore: Springer, 2021, pp.325–333.
53.
GogginsKAThompsonTJLesselCE, et al.The effects of standing foot-transmitted vibration on self-reported discomfort ratings. Work2024; 78: 153–165.
54.
AswalekarUVTungikarVB. Assessment of ergonomic environment and risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among welders in micro small and medium sized enterprises, 2017. Epub ahead of print 2017. DOI: 10.26488/IEJ.6.10.5.
55.
HosseiniZSTavafianSSAhmadiO, et al.Predictive factors of ergonomic behaviors based on social cognitive theory among women workers on assembly lines: application of Bayesian networks. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2023; 24: 924.
56.
TaherdoostH. What Is the Best Response Scale for Survey and Questionnaire Design; Review of Different Lengths of Rating Scale / Attitude Scale / Likert Scale, https://hal.science/hal-03741841 (2019).
57.
LiG-LFuQ. Grey relational analysis model based on weighted entropy and its application. In: 2007 International conference on wireless communications, networking and Mobile computing. Shanghai: IEEE, 2007, pp.5495–5498.
58.
KhandanMNiliMKoohpaeiA, et al.Integrating the ergonomics techniques with multi criteria decision making as a new approach for risk management: an assessment of repetitive tasks -entropy case study. J Res Health Sci2016; 16: 85–89.
59.
CanbulutGKöseEArikOA. Public transportation vehicle selection by the grey relational analysis method. Public Transport2022; 14: 367–384.
60.
LuNLiuSDuJ, et al.Grey relational analysis model with cross-sequences and its application in evaluating air quality index. Expert Syst Appl2023; 233: 120910.
61.
RudnikKBocewiczGKucińska-LandwójtowiczA, et al.Ordered fuzzy WASPAS method for selection of improvement projects. Expert Syst Appl2021; 169: 114471.
62.
MantikJManurungSSarkis SimamoraIM, et al.Comparison of Moora, Waspas and SAW Methods in Decision Support Systems. 2021.
63.
DurmazVYazganEDeliceEK, et al.Evaluating airports’ sustainable development goals by using multi-criteria decision making methodologies. Work2024; 77: 851–864.
64.
KalitaKPalSHaldarS, et al.A hybrid TOPSIS-PR-GWO approach for multi-objective process parameter optimization. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability2022; 6: 1011–1026.
65.
ÖztürkYYazganEDeliceEK. Hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach proposal for evaluating workloads of aircraft maintenance technicians. Work2024; 77: 901–918.
66.
ÖzcanSÇelikAK. A comparison of TOPSIS, grey relational analysis and COPRAS methods for machine selection problem in the food industry of Turkey. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering2021; 9: 81.
67.
GargAHegmannKKapelluschJ. Short-cycle overhead work and shoulder girdle muscle fatigue. Int J Ind Ergon2006; 36: 581–597.
68.
MooreAWellsR. Effect of cycle time and duty cycle on psychophysically determined acceptable levels in a highly repetitive task. Ergonomics2005; 48: 859–873.
69.
EscorpizoRMooreA. The effects of cycle time on the physical demands of a repetitive pick-and-place task. Appl Ergon2007; 38: 609–615.
70.
DekkerDBuzinkSNMolenbroekJFM, et al.Hand supports to assist toilet use among the elderly. Appl Ergon2007; 38: 109–118.
71.
MinarikTSausengPDunneL, et al.Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on visually guided learning of grip force control. mdpi.com, https://www.mdpi.com/92626 (accessed 22 June 2023).
72.
DebnathBBariABMMHaqM, et al.An integrated stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis and weighted aggregated sum product assessment framework for sustainable supplier selection in the healthcare supply chains. Supply Chain Analytics2023; 1: 100001.
AsjadMTalibF. Selection of optimal machining parameters using integrated MCDM approaches. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management2018; 10: 109.
75.
YahyaSMAsjadMKhanZA. Multi-response optimization of TiO 2 /EG-water nano-coolant using entropy based preference indexed value (PIV) method. Mater Res Express2019; 6: 0850a1.
76.
IshratSIKhanZASiddiqueeAN, et al.Optimising parameters for expanded polystyrene based pod production using Taguchi method. Mathematics2019; 7: 847.
77.
DoğanAKarasuFYilmazL. The effects of nurses’ use of personal protective equipment on their vital signs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work2022; 71: 843–850.
78.
StåhleLWoldS. Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems1989; 6: 259–272.
