Journal of Engineering Science 14(1), 2023, 43-52 JES

an international Journal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/jes.v14i1.67634

ERGONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WORKING POSTURES AT A CONSTRUCTION

SITE USING RULA AND REBA METHOD

Md. Golam Kibria

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology,
Khulna-9203, Bangladesh

Received: 20 August 2022 Accepted: 22 May 2023

ABSTRACT
Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) are the main work-related problems in construction sites around the world.
Awkward working posture is mainly responsible for occupational musculoskeletal injuries. The main objectives
of the research were to analyse the working postures of construction workers and assess the level of risk of
injury in their work. Four categories of working postures were collected from elementary works as a form of
still pictures from the construction site. Two assessment tools RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) & REBA
(Rapid Entire Body Assessment) were used to assess the working postures of construction workers. Results
showed that Beam and column casting and masonry workers were at high risk of injury due to the absence of
maintaining proper working postures during the work. This study suggested to construction workers to maintain
proper postures during works for avoiding any occupational injuries.
Keywords: RULA; REBA; Construction works; Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs).

1. INTRODUCTION
Construction industry is one of the most booming industries in the world. It is one of the most hazardous work
place industries with injuries and health problems for workers. Workers are always exposed to various physical
factors at work, which include awkward posture, heavy lifting, forceful exertion, vibration, and repetitive
motion (Hartmann and Fleischer, 2005). These physical factors were reported to result in an elevated risk for
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) (Holmström and Engholm, 2003). MSDs are a group of illnesses or injuries
that can affect bones, muscles, tendons, nerves, blood vessels, gout, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, joints
(osteoarthritis, fracture), spinal disks (herniated disks), nerves, bones, ligaments, blood vessels, and more.
Muscles can also be affected by tendonitis, fractures, and osteoporosis (Bayzid et al., 2019; Bairwa et al., 2022).
Previous studies revealed that the chances of experiencing MSDs by construction workers could be explained by
variety of jobs performed by workers without maintaining ergonomic guidelines (Babu and Xavier, 2018;
Anagha and Xavier, 2022). The risk of getting occupational health problems can be assessed by applying
ergonomics principles.

The science of ergonomics is the art of matching the job to the worker. It examines how internal and external
pressures affect the human body (Kibria and Rafiquzzaman, 2019; Parvez et al., 2022; Talapatra et al., 2022).
These stresses are developed while workers working on awkward postures (Kulkarni et al., 2018; Parvez et al.,
2018). So, it is necessary to maintain proper postures avoiding work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
Ergonomics helps to identify worker's postures whether it is proper or awkward. It also assesses the risk of
getting injury by the worker with the help of assessment tools (Ahmed et al., 2018). The most commonly used
assessment tools are RULA and REBA method to evaluate the working postures (Lynn and Corlett, 1993;
Hignett and McAtamney, 2000).

RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) is an ergonomic assessment tool for the assessment of working postures
related to upper limb of the workers. If the work is carried out in a predictable posture, it evaluates the posture
and gives a score that indicates the risk level of that work. The risk level identifies the posture whether it is
accepted or not, if not then how much the risk is in the work can be known also (Lynn and Corlett, 1993).
Another ergonomic assessment tool is REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment) used to assess the unpredictable
postures like standing, leaning, or others. It evaluates the working postures and gives a score that describes the
risk level of work for the specific working posture. These two methods are popular ergonomic tools that require
no equipment and easily find out the risk level of predictable and unpredictable postures (Hignett and
McAtamney, 2000).
*Corresponding Author: kibria@iem.kuet.ac.bd https://www2.kuet.ac.bd/JES/
ISSN 2075-4914 (print); ISSN 2706-6835 (online)
44 M. G. Kibria Ergonomic Analysis of Working …………………….

A research was conducted to determine the workload and potential risk for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
during order fulfilment for the role of packer using the REBA method. According to the results, five postures
met the requirements for action category (AC) 2, seven postures met those for AC 3, and one position met those
for AC 4. The weight of the boxed carton, working while standing, maintaining an arched back, and raising the
arms over the trunk; all increased the chance of getting poor posture rating (Lasota, 2014).

Ray et al. (2015) carried out a biomechanical evaluation on a Manual Material Handling (MMH) tasks or jobs to
a typical construction work system in India under diverse work environments. They found the Manual Material
Handling (MMH) tasks or jobs considerable risky. They also recommended redesigning hazardous jobs to
increase workers' ergonomic performance and decrease occupational risks such MSDs, fatigue, work stress, etc.
Purnomo et al. (2016) evaluated the working postures of construction workers using the REBA (Rapid Entire
Body Assessment) approach. They revealed that 80% of construction workers had poor posture due to usages of
conventional techniques and equipment and workers were at significant risk of getting musculoskeletal
problems.

A study was undertaken by Kulkarni et al. (2018) to assess and understand the role of ergonomics in various
tasks in the construction sector. Other objectives of the study were to determine the prevalence of
musculoskeletal disorders and to recommend preventative measures for each job with a high-risk factor. The
study evaluated the workers' posture using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment and Rapid Entire Body
Assessment techniques. A small number of construction procedures, including granite cutting, bricklaying, and
plastering, were investigated to be risky.

Another study on manual feeding of a wood-cutter was carried out to compare RULA and REBA and determine
which method is more appropriate and effective for determining the risk of biomechanical postural overload.
This study evaluated the postures assumed by an operator during manual feeding of a wood chipper. The goal of
the study was to determine which method was more appropriate and effective for determining the risk of
biomechanical postural overload. The findings highlighted a number of upper-limb posture problems and
demonstrated that RULA is a more cautious approach to preserving operator health while performing the
intended duties. Discussion is had over how to enhance interactions between people and wood chippers
(Micheletti Cremasco et al., 2019).

The construction industry is one of the largest industries in Bangladesh. It also plays an important role on
national economy. It has contributed a total of 7.83% to the GDP of Bangladesh (BBS, 2021). Approximately
3.43 million workers are now currently working in this industry (Roy and Islam, 2019). Moreover, the risk of
getting injuries by the construction workers is more than other industries (Ahmed, 2019). On the other hand,
most of the worker are unskilful and unaware aware about this work risks. In addition, they have no knowledge
about constructional working safety as well as ergonomic principles. They do not maintain proper postures
while working. As a result, they are more at risk of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) due to their awkward
postures and in the long run, they can be permanently disabled. So it is necessary to evaluate the working
postures of the workers. As far the author’s knowledge, very few studies were conducted on construction
workers especially in Bangladesh. Therefore, aim of the research is to assess the work postures of construction
workers by using RULA and REBA assessment tools and recommend if the posture is acceptable or not. The
study would be helpful to find out the current state of the working postures of workers on a construction site and
this diagnosis can help them to avoid work-related injuries.

1.1 Scope of the Study

The investigation is limited to four construction tasks with a development of high risk of musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs). The workers those who had at least 5 years working experience in building construction
sector were taken into account in this study. The purpose of this study does not extend to continuous worker
monitoring.

1.2 Limitations of the Study

The construction site is a diverse working area. Only four types of working postures were selected for analysis.
Moreover, a limited number of workers were involved in the study. For analysis, still pictures was used which
were static but the real situation of work is dynamic.
Journal of Engineering Science 14(1), 2023, 43-52 45

2. METHODS

2.1 Participants and Data Collection Procedure

A total of 35 participants working in a building construction site situated in Khulna city, the south west region
of Bangladesh, participated in this study. The participant performed a wide range of activities and four
categories of works (Figure 1) were considered in this study. Author collected still pictures of working postures
shown in figure 1 from the selected building construction site using a portable camera by the supervision of an
ergonomist. Images from multiple frames and angles were captured for better accuracy. Selected categories of
work performed by participants were column and beam casting, masonry, sand and cement mixing, and material
handling works which are briefly described as following:

Figure 1: Workers doing Beam and column casting (Left side), Sand and cement mixing (Middle) and Masonry
(Right side) work in awkward posture.

Column and Beam Casting: Column and beam casting is a crucial process in construction work that involves
creating structural elements such as columns and beams using concrete. These elements provide support and
stability to buildings and other structures.

Masonry: Masonry is a construction technique that involves building structures using individual units, such as
bricks, stones, concrete blocks, or tiles, and bonding them together with mortar. Masonry has been used for
centuries and is known for its durability, strength, and aesthetic appeal.

Sand and Cement Mixing: Mixing sand and cement is a common practice in construction and masonry work.
The mixture of sand and cement is typically used to create mortar, which serves as the binding agent in various
applications, such as bricklaying, plastering, and rendering.

Material Handling: In the construction site, different equipment & tools of construction work need to be
transported from one place to another during the work is considered as Material handling.

2.2 Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA)

The RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) scoring method (Lynn and Corlett, 1993) is used to evaluate the
ergonomic risks associated with upper limb tasks performed by workers. It focuses on assessing the postures and
movements of the neck, trunk, arms, and wrists. Here is a general overview of how to calculate the RULA score:
 Postural analysis: Divide the task into key steps or postures and observe the worker during each step.
Assign a score based on the posture of the upper body, neck, trunk, and arms. The scores range from 1
(low risk) to 7 (high risk) for each body part.
 Force assessment: Evaluate the forces exerted by the worker during the task. Consider factors such as
the weight of objects lifted, the frequency of lifting, and the force exerted by specific body parts.
Assign a score ranging from 1 (low force) to 5 (high force) for each body part involved in force
exertion.
46 M. G. Kibria Ergonomic Analysis of Working …………………….

 Duration: Assess the duration of the task. Assign a score based on the length of time the worker spends
in each posture. Higher scores are given for postures held for longer durations.
 Combine scores: Add the scores from the postural analysis, force assessment, and duration for each
body part. This will result in two separate scores for the upper arm and the wrist/hand.
 Overall score: Use a lookup table or scoring sheet specific to the RULA method to combine the upper
arm and wrist/hand scores. The table will provide a combined score that corresponds to an overall risk
level. The risk levels typically range from low to very high.

Figure 2: RULA Scoring Sheet.

2.3 Rapid Entire Body Assessment

The Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) (Hignett and McAtamney, 2000) is a biomechanical assessment
tool used to evaluate and score the level of musculoskeletal risk associated with specific tasks. It observes the
body posture during each identified task component. Moreover, it assesses the angles and positions of body
segments such as the head, neck, trunk, arms, and legs.

Figure 3: REBA Scoring Sheet.

Journal of Engineering Science 14(1), 2023, 43-52 47

To calculate the REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment) score, follow these steps:
 Postural analysis: Assess the posture of different body parts involved in the task. Assign a score to each
body part based on its posture, ranging from 1 (low risk) to 4 (high risk). Use predefined criteria to
compare the observed postures with the scoring guidelines.
 Force assessment: Evaluate the force exerted by the worker during the task. Consider factors such as
the weight of objects lifted, the frequency of lifting, and the force exerted by specific body parts.
Assign a score to each body part involved in force exertion, ranging from 1 (low force) to 3 (high
force).
 Frequency and duration: Take into account the frequency and duration of the task. Assign a score based
on the number of repetitions or cycles performed and the duration of each cycle. Higher scores are
given for tasks with higher frequencies and longer durations.
 Upper body assessment: Add the scores for the neck, trunk, and upper arms together to obtain the
"upper body score."
 Lower body assessment: Add the scores for the legs and lower arms together to obtain the "lower body
score."
 Final score calculation: Use a scoring table or matrix specific to the REBA method to combine the
upper body and lower body scores. The table will provide a combined score that corresponds to an
overall risk level. The risk levels typically range from low to very high.

2.4 Recommendations of RULA and REBA assessment

According to the grand score of RULA and REBA scoring sheet, work posture is assessed whether it is
appropriate or further investigation is needed for changing the posture based on the recommendation shown in
Table 1.

Table 1: RULA and REBA final Score Elaboration.

Grand Score Risk level Score Meaning (Recommendation)

1-2 1 Posture is acceptable

Further investigation is needed, change may be
3-4 2
needed
RULA
Further investigation is needed, change is needed
5-6 2
soon

7 2 Investigation is needed to implement change soon

1 1 Risk is negligible
2-3 2 Risk is low, change may be needed
4-7 3 Risk is medium, further investigation is needed ,
change soon
REBA
8-10 4 Risk is high, need implement change after
investigation
11+ 5 Risk is very high, implement change

3. RESULTS

3.1 RULA Assessment

In RULA analysis, workers' upper arm, lower arm, wrist position, and wrist twist were evaluated. Neck, trunk,
and leg postures were also scored according to RULA analysis. Moreover, working postures were evaluated
with the help of RULA scoring sheet and all these workers have been categorized here according to the risk
level of RULA recommended in Table 1.
48 M. G. Kibria Ergonomic Analysis of Working …………………….

It has been observed from RULA assessment results shown in figure 4 that the column and beam casting
workers were at a high level of risk among all the construction workers as 80% of them fell in the level 4 risk
region. Moreover, 50% Masonry workers were also fell in this risk region. However, the workers who were
doing material handling, and mixing cement and sand had the least risk of injury which was risk level 2. 80%
material handling workers existed in risk level 3 region which indicates that further postural investigation was
needed for avoiding unexpected MSDs. In addition, masonry (50%), and cement and sand mixing (60%)
workers were also exposed themselves at level 3 risk of getting injuries.

Percentages of worker under RULA Scoring

90
80 80
80
70 Column & Beam
Percentages of workers (%)

60 Casting
60
50 50
50 Masonry

40
Mixing Cement &
30 Sand
20 20 20
20 Material Handling
10 10
10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
1 2 3 4
Risk Level
Figure 4: Percentages of construction workers under RULA Scoring.

3.2 REBA Assessment

The Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) is a biomechanical assessment tool used to evaluate and score the
level of musculoskeletal risk associated with specific work tasks. It observes the body posture during each
identified task component. Moreover, it assesses the angles and positions of body segments such as the head,
neck, trunk, arms, and legs. Working postures were evaluated with help of the REBA scoring sheet and all these
workers have been categorized here according to the risk level of REBA recommended by Table 1.

Percentages of worker under REBA Scoring

100
90
90
80
Column & Beam
70
Percentages of workers (%)

606060 Casting
60 Masonry
50
40
40 Mixing Cement &
Sand
30
2020 2020 Material Handling
20
10
10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
1 2 3 4 5
Risk Level
Figure 5: Percentages of construction workers under REBA level of risk.

It has been observed from REBA assessment that column and beam casting (20%), and masonry workers (20%)
were at a very high level of risk and their risk level fell in the level 5 region shown in figure 4. 60% workers of
each of the category who were doing masonry, column and beam casting, and mixing cement and sand had the
chance of getting injury in the risk level of 4 according to REBA analysis. 90% workers who were doing
Journal of Engineering Science 14(1), 2023, 43-52 49

material handling were also in risk level 4 which asserted that the risk was high and further investigation was
needed. However, workers who did column and beam casting works were at the highest level of risk of injury
compered to masonry, material handling, and cement and sand mixing workers.

3.2 Comparison of RULA and REBA Assessment

Figure 6 shows the percentages of worker fall in the different risk levels according to RULA and REBA score
analysis. RULA score revealed that 51.42% of workers maintained their work postures at high risk level which
signifies investigating and changing their posture as early as possible. In addition, 42.86% workers exposed
themselves at very high risk of getting injuries that indicates to immediately altering their postures. Only 5.72 %
workers exposed a medium level of risk due to their improper working postures.

REBA Score 0% RULA Score

11.43% 0% 0% 5.72%
20%
42.86%
68.57% 51.42%

No risk Neglegible risk Medium risk

High risk Very high risk No risk Medium risk High risk Very high risk

Figure 6: Comparison of RULA and REBA score.

On the other hand, the REBA assessment approach discovered awkward postures and excessive repetitions in
the arm, wrist, and elbow areas that led to the reported injuries. According to REBA assessment, 68.57%
workers who fell into the high level of risk getting MSDs and 11.43 % workers exposed themselves at very high
level of MSDs risk due their awkward working postures. In conclusion, both of the assessment methods
provided a nearly similar results and most of the workers did not maintain acceptable working postures.

4. DISCUSSIONS
In RULA analysis, workers' upper arm, lower arm, wrist position, and wrist twist were evaluated. Neck, trunk,
and leg postures were also scored according to RULA analysis. Results showed that 51.42% of workers were in
risk level 3 and 42.86% of workers were in risk level 4. It indicated that workers’ posture was not acceptable.
On the other hand, the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) is a biomechanical assessment tool used to
evaluate and score the level of musculoskeletal risk associated with specific work tasks. It observes the body
posture during each identified task component. Moreover, it assesses the angles and positions of body segments
such as the head, neck, trunk, arms, and legs. Results showed that 68.57% of workers were in risk level 4 and
11.43% of workers were in risk level 5. It is seemed that most of the workers did not maintain proper working
posturing. Similar findings were noted by researchers (Venkatachalam et al., 2023; Tao et al., 2023). RULA
and REBA assessments of the current study (figure 6) showed that there was a high chance of developing CTDs
and MSDs among the workers. To protect the workers and enhance production, the process needs to be looked
into more thoroughly and changes need to be made (Anagha and Xavier, 2022).

It was evident from Both RULA and REBA (figure 4 and 5) analysis that the column and beam casting ,
material handling and Masonry workers having a high risk of developing CTDs because of their abducted
lower-body postures, repetitive movements, and wrist flexion and extension required to complete their tasks. For
extreme levels of posture, it has been observed that the worker's upper arm and lower arm angle was excess than
normal posture like (45 – 90) ° or more. Their wrist twist & wrist position was not maintained at recommended
angle at 15°. Moreover, their posture was static in long period of time. The majority of concrete block workers
were at high risk because they often bent over and stretched to reach supplies and tools. The concrete blocks,
mortar, and other equipment should be stored on an elevated platform (Kunar et at., 2021; Domingo et al. 2015).
This reduces needless motions and keeps all the equipment within easy reach. A substantial number of manual
material handling workers were at risk from poor lifting practices. In order to properly handle the building
materials, the workers should receive sufficient training (Domingo et al. 2015). They need to stand in ways that
50 M. G. Kibria Ergonomic Analysis of Working …………………….

evenly distribute the weight of the building materials across their bodies. Avoid lifting or carrying objects with
one side of the body as it will strain that side and put a strain on the worker's trunk. The risk was influenced by
the weight of the construction supplies. By using tools like trolleys, these efforts can be reduced (Kulkarni et al.,
2018; Gurnani et al., 2021).

5. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Ergonomic analysis can be used to examine every single task involved in construction sites. In large-scale
construction projects, skilled personnel with having knowledge about ergonomics should be employed for
implementing ergonomic practices. The same worker's working posture should be the subject of an ergonomic
analysis, and recommendations or work designs for the same activity can be communicated to all other workers
with the use of safety training programs, real-world work demonstrations, etc. As a result, a safe and healthy
work environment will be created, lowering the project's overall cost and duration.

6. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, postural analysis has been done for the working posture of construction workers. The identification
of the risk of injury among the workers was the purpose of this study. These four types of construction works
have been evaluated with two popular tools RULA and REBA. Results showed that most of the workers are at
the highest level of risk. Column & beam casting work posture is the riskiest and has the highest score for risk
of injury among other types of working postures. All activities related to Construction work should be analysed
through ergonomics. Ergonomic analysis can be conveyed through postural assessment and proper work design,
arranging safety training, and live demonstration. This will help in reducing worker fatigue, which will enhance
occupational health and reduce overall costs.

6.1 Suggestions and Recommendations

Construction workers should flow the following guidelines to mitigate the risk of getting unexpected MSDs.
 All Activities required to be redesigned.
 The majority of concrete block workers were at high risk because they often bent over and stretched to
reach supplies and tools. For these workers, an immediate adjustment in posture is advised. The
concrete blocks, mortar, and other equipment should be stored on an elevated platform. This reduces
needless motions and keeps all the equipment within easy reach.
 Trolleys or conveyor belts should be used for tasks like moving materials in order to minimize lifting
and external loads on the body of the worker. Additionally, the worker might be given a platform to
rest his bucket on while he loads the dug-up dirt inside, making it easier for him to lift the bucket
without having to bend over significantly.
 When mixing sand and cement, use a mixing container or a cement mixer designed for the task. It is
necessary to position the mixing container at a comfortable working height to avoid excessive bending
or reaching. Shovel or mixing tool with an appropriate handle length can be used to maintain good
leverage and minimize strain on arms and back. It is recommended to mix the materials by using
controlled and smooth movements, avoiding sudden or jerky motions.

6.2 Future Scope

In this study, the RULA and REBA approach are used to analyse the posture of construction workers. Future
works may use more advanced computer-based programs and other ergonomic tools. To increase the precision
of the findings, the sample size can be varied widely. Only four specific tasks were taken into consideration for
this study. This can be enhanced by including all construction tasks in the study location. External factors such
as past medical histories and physical characteristics of the workers can be considered for future studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is very much grateful to Khulna University of Engineering and Technology (KUET), Bangladesh,
for providing its lab facility to pursue this research.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, S., Sobuz, M. H. R., & Haque, M. I. (2018). Accidents on construction sites in Bangladesh: A review.
In 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (pp. 9-11).
Ahmed, S. (2019). Causes and effects of accident at construction site: A study for the construction industry in
Bangladesh. International journal of sustainable construction engineering and technology, 10(2), 18-40.
Journal of Engineering Science 14(1), 2023, 43-52 51

Anagha, R., & Xavier, A. S. (2022). Working posture analysis of construction workers using
ergonomics. Sustainability, Agri, Food and Environmental Research, 10.
Babu, T., & Xavier, A. S. (2018). Ergonomic Analysis of Building Construction Workers Using RII
Method. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) Volume, 5.
Bairwa, R. C., Meena, M. L., Dangayach, G. S., & Jain, R. (2022). Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Disorders
Among the Agricultural Workers: A Review. Ergonomics for Design and Innovation: Humanizing Work
and Work Environment: Proceedings of HWWE 2021, 439-446.
Bayzid, B., Kamrujjaman, M., Hossain, A., & Musa, A. M. (2019). Prevalence and determinant factors OF
musculoskeletal pain among female ready-made garment workers residing IN northern Dhaka City: a
cross-sectional study. Prevalence, 3(2), 345-358.
BBS. (2021). Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics annual report-2021 (Publication, Trans.). Retrieved from
http://www.bbs.gov.bd/: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Domingo, J. R. T., De Pano, M. T. S., Ecat, D. A. G., Sanchez, N. A. D., & Custodio, B. P. (2015). Risk
assessment on Filipino construction workers. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1854-1860.
Gurnani, U., Singh, S. K., Sain, M. K., & Meena, M. L. (2023). A Postural Risk Assessment of Manual Dairy
Farm Workers Using REBA Technique. In Advances in Modelling and Optimization of Manufacturing
and Industrial Systems: Select Proceedings of CIMS 2021 (pp. 717-729).
Hartmann, B., & Fleischer, A. G. (2005). Physical load exposure at construction sites. Scandinavian journal of
work, environment & health, 88-95.
Hignett, S., & McAtamney, L. (2000). Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Applied ergonomics, 31(2), 201-
205.
Holmström, E., & Engholm, G. (2003). Musculoskeletal disorders in relation to age and occupation in Swedish
construction workers. American journal of industrial medicine, 44(4), 377-384.
Kibria, M. G., & Rafiquzzaman, M. (2019). Ergonomic Computer Workstation Design for University Teachers
in Bangladesh. Jordan Journal of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, 13(2).
Kulkarni, V. S., & Devalkar, R. V. (2018). Postural analysis of building construction workers using ergonomics.
International Journal of Construction Management, 19(6), 464-471.
Kunar, B. M., Aruna, M., & Kar, M. B. (2021). Postural analysis of dumper operators and construction
workers–a case study. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 180-185.
Lasota, A. M. (2014). A REBA-based analysis of packers workload: a case study. LogForum, 10(1).
Lynn, M., & Corlett, N. (1993). RULA: A survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb
disorders. Applied ergonomics, 24(2), 91-99.
Micheletti Cremasco, M., Giustetto, A., Caffaro, F., Colantoni, A., Cavallo, E., & Grigolato, S. (2019). Risk
assessment for musculoskeletal disorders in forestry: A comparison between RULA and REBA in the
manual feeding of a wood-chipper. International journal of environmental research and public
health, 16(5), 793.
Parvez, M. S., Parvin, F., Shahriar, M. M., & Kibria, G. (2018). Design of ergonomically fit classroom furniture
for primary schools of Bangladesh. Journal of Engineering, 2018, 1-9.
Parvez, M. S., Tasnim, N., Talapatra, S., Ruhani, A., & Hoque, A. M. (2022). Assessment of musculoskeletal
problems among Bangladeshi University students in relation to classroom and library furniture. Journal
of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 1-14.
Purnomo, H., & Apsari, A. E. (2016). REBA analysis for construction workers in Indonesia. Journal of built
environment, Technology and Engineering, 1(9), 104-110.
Ray, P. K., Parida, R., & Sarkar, S. (2015). Ergonomic analysis of construction jobs in India: a biomechanical
modelling approach. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 4606-4612.
Roy, C., & Islam, M. S. (2019). Hazards and safety issues at construction sites in Bangladesh. MOJ Civil
Engineering, 5, 52-56.
Talapatra, S., Parvez, M. S., Saha, P., Kibria, M. G., & Hoque, A. S. M. (2022). Musculoskeletal risk factors
assessment based on exploratory factor analysis and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1-32.
Tao, Y., Hu, H., Xu, F., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Ergonomic Risk Assessment of Construction Workers and Projects
Based on Fuzzy Bayesian Network and DS Evidence Theory. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 149(6), 04023034.
Venkatachalam, S., Kumar, R. N., Priya, T. D., Maniarasan, S. K., & Saravanan, M. M. (2023). Ergonomics
assessment of critical work posture in construction industries-A state of art review. In AIP Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 2690, No. 1, p. 020015.
52 M. G. Kibria Ergonomic Analysis of Working …………………….

© 2023 JES. Journal of Engineering Science published by Faculty of Civil Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering &
Technology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivatives License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use
is non-commercial and no Modifications or adaptations are made.