Construction workers frequently perform physically demanding tasks under harsh environmental conditions and tight schedules, often without sufficient rest. These factors elevate the risk of fatigue, posing serious health and safety concerns.
Objective
This study aimed to identify the physiological, ergonomic, and personal risk factors contributing to perceived physical fatigue among construction workers.
Methods
A cross-sectional observational study was conducted involving 50 construction workers aged 31–52, representing five trade categories: laborers, masons, painters, steelmen, and carpenters. Physiological data—including heart rate, pulse rate, energy expenditure, and distance traveled—were collected using an ECG-PPG medical-grade smart health tracker. Work posture was evaluated using the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) tool, while perceived fatigue was measured using the Samn-Perelli Fatigue Scale at three points during the work shift. One-way ANOVA was used to determine significant differences among trades, followed by Tukey's HSD for pairwise comparisons. Pearson correlation analysis assessed associations between fatigue levels and contributing factors.
Results
Fatigue levels showed strong positive correlations with distance traveled (r = 0.865, p < 0.001), oxygen saturation (r = 0.854, p < 0.001), energy expenditure (r = 0.818, p < 0.001), and REBA posture scores (r = 0.720, p < 0.001). Moderate correlations were also observed for pulse rate (r = 0.403, p = 0.032) and sleeping habits (r = 0.379, p = 0.041). Post hoc analysis revealed that masons and laborers had significantly higher energy expenditure and fatigue scores compared to other trades.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that physiological and ergonomic factors, particularly energy expenditure, poor posture, and physical workload, play a substantial role in construction worker fatigue. Trade-specific ergonomic interventions and fatigue management strategies are recommended to enhance worker safety, health, and productivity.
JungSKimTKKimYJ, et al.Epidemiology of occupational injuries in construction workers between 2009 and 2018 in South Korea. Am J Ind Med2023; 66: 155–166.
2.
CaldwellJACaldwellJLThompsonLA, et al.Fatigue and its management in the workplace. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2019; 96: 272–289.
3.
AlotaibiAGambateseJ. Impact of task demand and physical energy on mental workload experienced by construction workforce: insights of construction professionals. Pract Period Struct Des Construct2024; 29: 04024006.
4.
YuYUmerWYangX, et al.Posture-related data collection methods for construction workers: a review. Autom Constr2021; 124: 103538.
5.
LingardHTurnerM. Making time for life: a whole-of-industry initiative to reducing work hours and promoting health and gender inclusion in project-based construction work. Project Leadership Soc2022; 3: 100065.
6.
YuYLiHYangX, et al.An automatic and non-invasive physical fatigue assessment method for construction workers. Autom Constr2019; 103: 1–12.
7.
EmuzeF. Factors causing fatigue and safety-related errors on construction sites in Bloemfontein. Management2020; 215: 224.
8.
XingXZhongBLuoH, et al.Effects of physical fatigue on the induction of mental fatigue of construction workers: a pilot study based on a neurophysiological approach. Autom Constr2020; 120: 103381.
9.
ZhangMMurphyLAFangD, et al.Influence of fatigue on construction workers’ physical and cognitive function. Occup Med (Chic Ill)2015; 65: 245–250.
10.
GumasingMJJPrasetyoYTOngAKS, et al.Ergonomic design of apron bus with consideration for passengers with mobility constraints. Safety2022; 8: 33.
11.
GumasingMJJSasotZB. An occupational risk analysis of garbage collection tasks in the Philippines. In: 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA), 2019, April, pp.408–413: IEEE.
12.
VisserSvan der MolenHFSluiterJK, et al.Evaluation of the effects of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies. Ergonomics2019; 62: 42–51.
13.
GumasingMJJLlamasCMAMartinCAA. The effects of energy expenditure on the mental fatigue of construction workers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Dubai UAE, 2020, March, pp.10–12.
14.
CunninghamTRGuerinRJFergusonJ, et al.Work-related fatigue: a hazard for workers experiencing disproportionate occupational risks. Am J Ind Med2022; 65: 913–925.
15.
KarthickSKermanshachiSPamidimukkalaA, et al.A review of construction workforce health challenges and strategies in extreme weather conditions. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2023; 29: 773–784.
16.
AnwerSLiHAntwi-AfariMF, et al.Evaluation of physiological metrics as real-time measurement of physical fatigue in construction workers: state-of-the-art review. J Constr Eng Manag2021; 147: 03121001.
17.
TsiorasPAKhooshdohbatMNikooyM, et al.The impact of body posture on heart rate strain during tree felling. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 11198.
18.
OSHA. Commonly used statistics | Occupational safety and health administration. (n.d.). Retrieved August 27, 2022, from https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats
19.
ChangFLSunYMChuangKH, et al.Work fatigue and physiological symptoms in different occupations of high-elevation construction workers. Appl Ergon2009; 40: 591–596.
20.
SerdarCCCihanMYücelD, et al.Sample size, power and effect size revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical, clinical and laboratory studies. Biochem Med (Zagreb)2021; 31: 27–53.
21.
FerreiraDMde SaPMFerreiraDB. The feeling of fatigue scale for Brazilian fighter pilots. Aerosp Med Hum Perform2025; 96: 39–44.
22.
ChevanceGGolaszewskiNMTiptonE, et al.Accuracy and precision of energy expenditure, heart rate, and steps measured by combined-sensing fitbits against reference measures: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth2022; 10: e35626.
23.
ChaudharyHJaswinder SinghJS. A literature review on msds using ergonomic body assessment tools: RULA and REBA. International Journal of Scientific Research2012; 2: 147–149.
24.
WibowoAHMawadatiA. The analysis of employees’ work posture by using rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and rapid upper limb assessment (RULA). In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, Vol. 704, No. , 2021, March, pp.012022: IOP Publishing.
25.
CampbellMJSwinscowTDV. Statistics at square one. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
26.
HargreavesMSprietLL. Skeletal muscle energy metabolism during exercise. Nat Metab2020; 2: 817–828.
27.
TianFQiuWLiH, et al.A multimodal physiological-psychological data-driven study on differentiation in miners’ job burnout and risk preferences. Front Psychol2024; 15: 1438772.
28.
LiuZWangLKongF, et al.The effect of the standing angle on reducing fatigue among prolonged standing workers. Work2021; 68: S281–S287.
29.
TraversGKippelenPTrangmarSJ, et al.Physiological function during exercise and environmental stress in humans—an integrative view of body systems and homeostasis. Cells2022; 11: 383.
30.
ProostMHabayJDe WachterJ, et al.How to tackle mental fatigue: a systematic review of potential countermeasures and their underlying mechanisms. Sports Med2022; 52: 2129–2158.
31.
ChodkowskiJ. The role of nutrition and hydration in injury prevention and recovery: a review. J Educ Health Sport2024; 71: 56117–56117.
32.
SoaresCOPereiraBFGomesMVP, et al.Preventive factors against work-related musculoskeletal disorders: narrative review. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho2019; 17: 415.
33.
CharlesLEMaCCBurchfielCM, et al.Vibration and ergonomic exposures associated with musculoskeletal disorders of the shoulder and neck. Saf Health Work2018; 9: 125–132.
34.
PalikheSYirongMChoiBY, et al.Analysis of musculoskeletal disorders and muscle stresses on construction workers’ awkward postures using simulation. Sustainability2020; 12: 5693.
35.
RyuJAlwaselAHaasCT, et al.Analysis of relationships between body load and training, work methods, and work rate: overcoming the novice mason’s risk hump. J Constr Eng Manag2020; 146: 04020097.
36.
ChennaouiMVanneauTTrignolA, et al.How does sleep help recovery from exercise-induced muscle injuries?J Sci Med Sport2021; 24: 982–987.
37.
WeiXMaJLiuS, et al.The effects of sleep deprivation on risky decision making. Psychon Bull Rev2025; 32: 80–96.
38.
DarabsehMZMaden-WilkinsonTMWelbourneG, et al.Fourteen days of smoking cessation improves muscle fatigue resistance and reverses markers of systemic inflammation. Sci Rep2021; 11: 12286.
39.
OgeilRPBargerLKLockleySW, et al.Cross-sectional analysis of sleep-promoting and wake-promoting drug use on health, fatigue-related error, and near-crashes in police officers. BMJ open2018; 8: e022041.
40.
KatterfeldARobertsAWheelerC, et al.Conveying and construction machinery. In: Springer handbook of mechanical engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp.829–991.
41.
JimenezJSharotryAMendez MediavillaFA. Forklift operator safety & productivity: A review of current research and future directions. 2023.
42.
DhawanKTookeyJEGhaffarianHoseiniA, et al.Using transport to quantify the impact of vertical integration on the construction supply chain: a New Zealand assessment. Sustainability2023; 15: 1298.
43.
GonsalvesNJ. Understanding underlying risks and socio-technical challenges of human-wearable Robot interaction in the construction industry. 2023.
44.
RicharzHUTamayoARahmigJ, et al.The impact of mechanical devices for lifting and transferring of patients on low back pain and musculoskeletal injuries in health care personnel—A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Occup Health2023; 65: e12423.
45.
KatterfeldARobertsAWheelerC, et al.Conveying and construction machinery. In: GroteKHHefaziH (eds) Springer handbook of mechanical engineering. Cham: Springer, 2021, pp.829–991.
46.
GumasingMJJPrasetyoYTJaurigueJ, et al.The effects of biomechanical risk factors on musculoskeletal disorders among baggers in the supermarket industry. Work2023; 75: 315–324.
47.
GumasingMJJPrasetyoYTCardosoMM, et al.Determining the ergonomic risk factors affecting the musculoskeletal disorders of traffic enforcers in Manila city, Philippines. Work2023; 75: 603–614.
48.
GumasingMJJOngAKSBareMAD. User preference analysis of a sustainable workstation design for online classes: a conjoint analysis approach. Sustainability2022; 14(19): 12346.
