Citation

Hsiao H, Hause M, Powers JR, Kau TY, Hendricks S, Simeonov PI. Hum. Factors 2008; 50(1): 27-36.

Affiliation

Protective Technology Branch, NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Rd., Morgantown, WV 26505, USA. hhsiao@cdc.gov

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

18354969

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the most favorable strategy for carrying scaffold end frames while minimizing the risk of injuries from being struck by an object, falling, and overexertion. BACKGROUND: Scaffold erectors are at risk of high exposure to the aforementioned hazards associated with the dynamic human-scaffolding interface and work environments. Identifying an optimal work strategy can help reduce risk of injuries to the worker. METHOD: Three carrying methods, four types of work surfaces, two weights of scaffold frames, and three directions of stepping movement were tested in a laboratory with 18 construction workers. RESULTS: The effects of carrying method on postural instability and task difficulty rating were significant for handling the 22-kg end frame. Response time, postural instability, and perceived task difficulty rating were significantly reduced when the 9-kg end frame was used as compared with the 22-kg frame. CONCLUSION: The symmetric side-carrying method was the best option for handling 22-kg scaffold end frames. A 9-kg end frame (e.g., made of reinforced lightweight materials) has the potential to reduce injury risk among scaffold handlers during their scaffold erection and dismantlingjobs. APPLICATION: Scaffold erectors may want to adopt the symmetric side-carrying method as the primary technique for handling the 22-kg scaffold end frame, which is currently the one most used in the industry.

Language: en