Berkeley Ergonomic Arm

1. Berkeley Ergonomic Arm Filling the Vacuum in Dynamic Arm Support (Technology Transfer Partnership Opportunity) TEAM: Jeffrey Chung, Michael Siminovitch, Robin Lafever, Steve Dellinges, John Bercovitz and Chris Kniel

2. The National Business Concern • 43% of all disabling workplace injuries and illnesses (nation-wide) are associated with ergonomics and at a financial cost of $16.8 billion. [Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index Report – 2002] • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says, “one-third of OSHA lost work day cases were result of over exertion and repetitive motion”. • Ergonomic injuries financially cost companies • $20 billion a year.

3. Individual and Lab-Wide Needs ... • 62% worker injury cases caused by ergonomics. • 20% employee visits to Health Services triggered by computer use. • 145 WComp claims are “ergo-related” costing > $2M and 13,602 days of TD/Loss Work Days. • Property dBase tracks > 9,800 computers used by 4,000 employees. Vision – Reach - Body Posture

4. Why Design for Dynamic Support? • Business and Institutional Manufacturers Association (BIFMA) addresses working postures: • “There isn’t a uniquely correct working posture that would fit any user for an extended period of time and/or accommodate every personal working habit”. • There’s no one correct posture: • Body needs to move throughout the day • Non-neutral postures need to be supported to minimize static muscle loading.

5. Benefits of Ergonomic Intervention • Rising Workers Compensation costs (medical, disability, rehabilitation and insurance premiums) • Industrial and non-industrial (ADA) injury recovery and accommodation assistance • Injury prevention across variety of industries • Aiding the disabled and elderly population Productivity WComp Costs Quality of Work Life Company $ Bottom Line

6. Background - Ergo Arm Support Project • EH&S management provided $25,000 seed money for Phase I: • Interdisciplinary Team Science (EH&S, EETD and Engineering) • Brainstormed creative concepts, developed engineering model • Senior Lab management invests $150,000 funds to pursue Phase II: • Engineering design and prototype development of engineering model • Device evaluation/field testing with human subjects “Multi-Functionality” Design Application Goal: Dynamic musculoskeletal arm support across variety of work environments, working with or without tools.

7. Phase I, Design Effort

8. Project Evolution and Direction We are Here ! Phase I Phase II Phase III McGraw Presentation Industry CRADA or SBIR LBNL Technology Transfer LBL Presentation Engineering Development Engineering Concepts Idea Product Development Invention Disclosure Industry Solution Commercialization $ $ $ $ Seed money Production Prototype Funding Development Funding Lab set up Concept generation Hardware Fab, Mod, Iterate Testing and Evaluation Screen candidates Acquire instrumentation Measure Muscle Activity Refine Evaluation Criteria Develop Engineering Prototypes Conduct Engineering tests Develop Product requirementsDesign for manufactureProduce production prototypesConduct product field testing

9. At Risk Thresholds • Per OSHA, certain situations create MSD risks: • Performing same motion pattern every few seconds for > 2 hours continuously or 4 hours daily. • Maintaining non-neutral (unsupported, static/fixed or awkward posture > one (1) hour continuously or four (4) hours daily. • Forceful hand exertions > two (2) hours daily. • Unassisted frequent or heavy lifting • Boredom and monotony

10. Sources of Workplace Ergonomic Risks • Repetitive Exertions • Postural Stressors • Contact Stressors • Static Exertions • Forceful Exertions Independently or In Combination Force – Frequency – Posture - Duration

11. Resulting Musculoskeletal Problems • Muscle Pain • Tendon Injuries • Blood Circulation Disorders • Nerve Damage

12. Ergo Risks During Computer Use • Vision • Reach • Body Posture Risk Reduction Thru: • Reach (static and dynamic) • Mobility (range of motion) • Loads/Forces Dynamic Support for the “Working Envelop/Spheres”

13. Field Testing Experimental Protocol • Evaluate effectiveness of engineered/functional prototype through collection of: • Quantitative data from EMG measurements • Qualitative data from user feedback surveys • Eleven (11) subjects participated in study: • 5 females (all Caucasian) • 6 males (3 Caucasian, 3 Asian) • Stature Range (60” to 74”) • Dominance (10 right hand, 1 left hand) • No current upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders

14. Field Testing Experimental Protocol • Target Muscle Groups: • Forearm extensor (left or right) • Tricep-lateral head (left or right) • Upper trapezius (left or right) • Middle trapezius (left or right) • Supraspinatus (left or right)

15. EMG Testing Scenarios

16. Field Testing

17. Field Testing

18. Results:95% Confidence Benefit From Device • * Static muscle loading was reduced in these muscle groups. • +Typing and mousing activity showed positive effect/benefit, but didn’t reach the 95% confidence level.

19. Field Testing Conclusions • Dynamic arm support concept and engineered prototype does significantly help reduce muscle activity “at resting levels” (MVC-APDF 10) involved with sitting and standing activities under: • Static positions/postures involving the upper arm and shoulder of the dominant hand side. • Swinging movements involving the upper arm and shoulder of the dominant hand side. • Reaching movements involving the upper arm and shoulder of the dominant hand side • Drilling tasks involving the upper arm • Mousing and typing activities also showed reduced “at resting levels” (MVC-APDF 10), but not at the 95% confidence level • User subjective feedback was consistently favorable in terms of sensations of reduced shoulder effort, ease of task and forearm comfort.

20. Questions . . .