Niosh Lifting Ecuation
Niosh Lifting Ecuation
and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
Page Left Intentionally Blank
Applications Manual for the
R EV ISED
NIOSH
LIF TING
EQUATION
Thomas R. Waters, Ph.D.,
Vern Putz–Anderson, Ph.D.,
Arun Garg, Ph.D.
DISCLAIMER
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites.
SUGGESTED CITATION
NIOSH [1994]. Applications manual for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. By Waters TR,
Ph.D., Putz–Anderson V, Ph.D., Garg A, Ph.D. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-110 (Revised 9/2021),
https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB94110revised092021.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB94110revised092021
September 2021
Publication of the RNLE in 1994 generated substantial interest among researchers and
field safety professionals, and has contributed to improved risk assessments for manual
lifting jobs. A notable improvement included validating the task variables used to compute
the Recommended Weight Limit (RWL). Additional studies validated the Lifting Index
(LI) as a measure of risk for workers performing manual lifting jobs. Based on the
findings from these studies, the LI calculated from the RNLE is well-regarded as a valid
and practical tool for assessing the risk of low back disorders associated with most two-
handed manual lifting tasks. In addition, surveys have shown that certified professional
ergonomists in the United States and many other English-speaking countries recognize
the RNLE as an effective ergonomic risk assessment tool.
The RNLE has contributed greatly to ergonomic risk assessments and prevention of
work-related low back disorders. It has served as the basis for standard setting by the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for their standard 11228-1 as well
as the industry trade associations, Automotive Industry Action Group and Society of
Automobile Engineers, for their Ergonomic Guidelines for Small Lot Delivery Operations.
As a direct result of the wide application of the RNLE in assessing manual lifting tasks,
many other LI values, such as the sequential LI, variable LI, and cumulative LI have been
developed and validated by the research community.
The 1994 version of the manual will be archived online by NIOSH as a permanent record.
For citation of the RNLE applications manual, use the citation suggestion provided in the
updated manual. Finally, the significant contributions of the late Dr. Thomas R. Waters
and the late Dr. Arun Garg to the development of the RNLE and their efforts to validate
associated outcomes of the RNLE are gratefully acknowledged. The RNLE is anticipated to
continue serving workers and employers well by contributing to the prevention of low back
disorders, which are common and costly musculoskeletal health problems in the workplace.
CHAPTER 3
Table 1: Horizontal Multiplier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 2: Vertical Multiplier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 3: Distance Multiplier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 4: Asymmetric Multiplier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 5: Frequency Multiplier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 7: Coupling Multiplier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 8: General Design/Redesign Suggestions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
The DOL’s conclusions are consistent with current workers’ compensation data indicating
that “injuries to the back are one of the more common and costly types of work-related
injuries” (National Safety Council, 1990). According to the DOL report, back injuries
accounted for nearly 20% of all injuries and illnesses in the workplace, and nearly 25%
of the annual workers’ compensation payments. A more recent report by the National
Safety Council (1990) indicated that overexertion was the most common cause of
occupational injury, accounting for 31% of all injuries. The back, moreover, was the body
part most frequently injured (22% of 1.7 million injuries) and the most costly to workers’
compensation systems.
More than ten years ago, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) recognized the growing problem of work-related back injuries and published the
Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting (NIOSH WPG, 1981). The NIOSH WPG (1981)
contained a summary of the lifting-related literature before 1981; analytical procedures
and a lifting equation for calculating a recommended weight for specified two-handed,
symmetrical lifting tasks; and an approach for controlling the hazards of low back injury
from manual lifting. The approach to hazard control was coupled to the Action Limit (AL), a
resultant term that denoted the recommended weight derived from the lifting equation.
In 1985, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) convened
an ad hoc committee of experts who reviewed the current literature on lifting, including
the NIOSH WPG (1981).1 The literature review was summarized in a document entitled
Scientific Support Documentation for the Revised 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation: Technical
Contract Reports, May 8, 1991, which is available from the National Technical Information
Service [NTIS No. PB-91-226-274]. The literature summary contains updated information
on the physiological, biomechanical, psychophysical, and epidemiological aspects
of manual lifting. Based on the results of the literature review, the ad hoc committee
recommended criteria for defining the lifting capacity of healthy workers. The committee
used the criteria to formulate the revised lifting equation. The equation was publicly
presented in 1991 by NIOSH staff at a national conference in Ann Arbor, Michigan
entitled A National Strategy for Occupational Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention—
Implementation Issues and Research Needs.2 Subsequently, NIOSH staff developed the
1 The ad hoc 1991 NIOSH Lifting Committee members included: M.M. Ayoub, Donald B. Chaffin, Colin G. Drury, Arun
Garg, and Suzanne Rodgers. NIOSH representatives included Vern Putz-Anderson and Thomas R. Waters.
2 For this document, the revised 1991 NIOSH lifting equation will be identified simply as “the revised lifting equation.”
The abbreviation WPG (1981) will continue to be used as the reference to the earlier NIOSH lifting equation, which was
documented in a publication entitled Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting (1981).
The revised lifting equation reflects new findings and provides methods for evaluating
asymmetric lifting tasks, and lifts of objects with less than optimal couplings between the
object and the worker’s hands. The revised lifting equation also provides guidelines for a more
diverse range of lifting tasks than the earlier equation (NIOSH WPG, 1981).
The rational and criterion for the development of the revised NIOSH lifting equation are
provided in a separate journal article entitled: Revised NIOSH Equation for the Design and
Evaluation of Manual Lifting Tasks, by Waters, Putz-Anderson, Garg, and Fine, 1993.
We suggest that those practitioners who wish to achieve a better understanding of the
data and decisions that were made in formulating the revised equation consult the
article by Waters et al. 1993. This article provides an explanation of the selection of the
biomechanical, physiological, and psychophysical criterion, as well as a description of
the derivation of the individual components of the revised lifting equation. For those
individuals, however, who are primarily concerned with the use and application of the
revised lifting equation, the present document provides a more complete description of
the method and limitations for using the revised equation than does the article by Waters
et al. 1993. This document also provides a complete set of examples.
Although the revised lifting equation has not been fully validated, the recommended weight
limits derived from the revised equation are consistent with, or lower than, those generally
reported in the literature (Waters et al, 1993, Tables 2, 4, and 5). Moreover, the proper
application of the revised equation is more likely to protect healthy workers for a wider
variety of lifting tasks than methods that rely only a single task factor or single criterion.
Finally, it should be stressed that the NIOSH lifting equation is only one tool in a
comprehensive effort to prevent work-related low back pain and disability. [Other
approaches to prevention are described elsewhere (ASPH/NIOSH, 1986)]. Moreover,
lifting is only one of the causes of work-related low back pain and disability. Other
causes which have been hypothesized or established as risk factors include whole body
vibration, static postures, prolonged sitting, and direct trauma to the back. Psychosocial
factors, appropriate medical treatment, and job demands (past and present) also may be
particularly important in influencing the transition of acute low back pain to chronic
disabling pain.
Horizontal Distance of the hands away from the mid-point between the
Location (H) ankles, in inches or centimeters (measure at the origin and
destination of lift). See Figure 1.
Vertical Location (V) Distance of the hands above the floor, in inches or centimeters
(measure at the origin and destination of lift). See Figure 1.
Vertical Travel Absolute value of the difference between the vertical heights at
Distance (D) the destination and origin of the lift, in inches or centimeters.
Asymmetry Angular measure of how far the object is displaced from the front
Angle (A) (mid-sagittal plane) of the worker’s body at the beginning or
ending of the lift, in degrees (measure at the origin and destination
of lift). See Figure 2. The asymmetry angle is defined by the
location of the load relative to the worker’s mid-sagittal plane,
rather than the position of the feet or the extent of body twist.
Neutral Body Described the position of the body when the hands are directly
Position in front of the body and there is minimal twisting at the legs,
torso, or shoulders.
Lifting Frequency (F) Average number of lifts per minute over a 15 minute period.
The following list identifies a set of work conditions in which the application of the lifting
equation could either under- or over-estimate the efficient of physical stress associated
with a particular work-related activity. Each of the following task limitations also highlight
research topics in need of further research to extend the application of the lifting equation
to a greater range of real world lifting tasks.
1. The revised NIOSH lifting equation is based on the assumption that manual handling
activities other than lifting are minima and do not require significant energy expenditure,
especially when repetitive lifting tasks are performed. Examples of non-lifting tasks
include holding, pushing, pulling, carrying, walking, and climbing. If such non-lifting
activities account for more than about 10% of the total worker activity, then measures of
workers’ energy expenditures and/or heart rate may be required to assess the metabolic
demands of the different tasks. The equation will still apply if there is a small amount of
holding and carrying, but carrying should be limited to one or two steps and holding
should not exceed a few seconds. For more information on assessing metabolic demand,
see Garg et al. (1978) or Eastman Kodak (1986).
2. The revised lifting equation does not include factors to account for unpredicted
conditions, such as unexpectedly heavy loads, slips, or falls. Additional biomechanical
analyses maybe required to assess the physical stress on joints that occur from traumatic
incidents. Moreover, if the environment is unfavorable (e.g., temperatures or humidity
significantly outside the range of 19° to 26°C [66° to 79°F] or 35% to 50%, respectively),
independent metabolic assessments would be needed to gauge the effects of these
variables on heart rate and energy consumption.
3. The revised lifting equation was not designed to assess tasks involving one-handed lifting,
lifting while seated or kneeling, or lifting in a constrained or restricted work space.3
The equation also does not apply to lifting unstable loads. For purposes of applying the
equation, an unstable load would be defined as an object in which the location of the
center of mass varies significantly during the lifting activity, such as some containers
of liquid or incompletely filled bag, etc. The equation does not apply to lifting of
wheelbarrows, shoveling, or high-speed lifting.4 For some task conditions, independent
and task specific biomechanical, metabolic, and psychophysical assessments may be
needed. For information on other assessment methods refer to Eastman Kodak (1986),
Ayoub and Mital (1989), Chaffin and Andersson (1991), or Snook and Ciriello (1991).
3 The research staff of the Bureau of Mines have published numerous studies on lifting while kneeling and in restricted
workspaces (See Gallagher et al 1988; Gallagher and Unger, 1990; and, Gallagher, 1991).
4 Although lifting speed is difficult to judge, a high speed lift would be equivalent to a speed of about 30 inches/second.
For comparison purposes, a lift from the floor to a tabletop that is completed in less than about 1 second would be con-
sidered high speed.
5. The revised lifting equation assumes that lifting and lowering tasks have the same
level of risk for low back injuries (i.e., that lifting a box from the floor to a table is as
hazardous as lowering the same box from a table to the floor). This assumption may
not be true if the worker actually drops the box rather than lowering it all the way to
the destination. Independent metabolic, biomechanical, or psychophysical assessments
may be needed to assess worker capacity for various lowering conditions.
(See reference provided above.)
In summary, the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation does not apply if any of the following
occur:
For those lifting tasks in which the application of the revised lifting equation is not
appropriate, a more comprehensive ergonomic evaluation may be needed to quantify the
extent of other physical stressors, such as prolonged or frequent non-neutral back postures
or seated postures, cyclic loading (whole body vibration), or unfavorable environmental
factors (e.g., extreme heat, cold, humidity, etc.).
Any of the above factors, alone or in combination with manual lifting may exacerbate or
initiate the onset of low back pain.
Where:
The term task variables refers to the measurable task descriptors (i.e., H, V, D, A, F, and
C); whereas, the term multipliers refers to the reduction in the equation (i.e., HM, VM,
DM, AM, FM, and CM).
Each multiplier should be computed from the appropriate formula, but in some cases it will
be necessary to use linear interpolation to determine the value of a multiplier, especially when
the value of a variable is not directly available from a table. For example, when the measured
frequency is not a whole number, the appropriate multiplier must be interpolated between the
frequency values in the table for the two values that are closest to the actual frequency.
A brief discussion of the task variables, the restrictions, and the associated multiplier for each
component of the model is presented in the following sections.
Horizontal Location (H) should be measured. In those situations where the H value
cannot be measure, then H may be approximated from the following equations:
Where: W is the width of the container in the sagittal plane and V is the vertical location
of the hands from the floor.
H in HM H cm HM
≤ 10 1.00 ≤ 25 1.00
11 .91 28 .89
12 .83 30 .83
13 .77 32 .78
14 .71 34 .74
15 .67 36 .69
16 .63 38 .66
17 .59 40 .63
(Continued)
H in HM H cm HM
18 .56 42 .60
19 .53 44 .57
20 .50 46 .54
21 .48 48 .52
22 .46 50 .50
23 .44 52 .48
24 .42 54 .46
25 .40 56 .45
>25 .00 58 .43
60 .42
63 .40
>63 .00
When V is at 30 inches (75 cm), the vertical multiplier (VM) is 1.0. The value of VM
decreases linearly with an increase or decrease in height from this position. At floor level,
VM is 0.78, and at 70 inches (175 cm) height VM is 0.7. If V is greater than 70 inches,
then, VM=0. The VM value can be computed directly or determined from Table 2.
V in VM V cm VM
0 .78 0 .78
5 .81 10 .81
10 .85 20 .84
15 .89 30 .87
20 .93 40 .90
25 .96 50 .93
30 1.00 60 .96
35 .96 70 .99
40 .93 80 .99
45 .89 90 .96
50 .85 100 .93
55 .81 110 .90
60 .78 120 .87
65 .74 130 .84
70 .70 140 .81
>70 .00 150 .78
160 .75
170 .72
175 .70
>175 .00
D in DM D cm DM
≤10 1.00 ≤25 1.00
15 .94 40 .93
20 .91 55 .90
25 .89 70 .88
30 .88 85 .87
35 .87 100 .87
40 .87 115 .86
45 .86 130 .86
50 .86 145 .85
55 .85 160 .85
60 .85 175 .85
70 .85 >175 .00
>70 .00
5 It may not always be clear if asymmetry is an intrinsic element of the task or just a personal characteristic of the worker’s
lifting style. Regardless of the reason for the asymmetry, any observed asymmetric lifting should be considered an
intrinsic element of the job design and should be considered in the assessment and subsequent redesign. Moreover, the
design of the task should not rely on worker compliance, but rather the design should discourage or eliminate the need
for asymmetric lifting.
1. The origin and destination of the lift are oriented at an angle to each other.
2. The lifting motion is across the body, such as occurs in swinging bags or boxes from
one location to another.
3. The lifting is done to maintain body balance in obstructed workplaces, on rough
terrain, or on littered floors.
4. Productivity standards require reduced time per lift.
The asymmetry angle (A), which is depicted graphically in Figure 2, is operationally
defined as the angle between the asymmetry line and the mid-sagittal line. The
asymmetry line is defined as the horizontal line that joins the mid-point between the
inner ankle bones and the point projected on the floor directly below the mid-point of the
hand grasps, as defined by the large middle knuckle.
The sagittal line is defined as the line passing through the mid-point between the inner
ankle bones and lying in the mid-sagittal plane, as defined by the neutral body position
(i.e., hands directly in front of the body, with no twisting at the legs, torso, or shoulders).
Note: The asymmetry angle is not defined by foot position or the angle of torso twist, but
by the location of the load relative to the worker’s mid-sagittal plane.
In many cases of asymmetric lifting, the worker will pivot or use a step turn to
complete the lift. Since this may vary significantly between workers and between
lifts, we have assumed that no pivoting or stepping occurs. Although this assumption
may overestimate the reduction in acceptable load weight, it will provide the greatest
protection for the worker.
The asymmetry angle (A) must always be measured at the origin of the lift. If significant
control is required at the destination, however, then angle A should be measured at both
the origin and the destination of the lift.
If A is greater than 135°, then AM = 0, and the load is zero. The AM value can be
computed directly or determined from Table 4.
1. Short-duration defines lifting tasks that have a work duration of one hour or less,
followed by a recovery time equal to 1.0 times the work time [i.e., at least a 1.0
recovery-time to work-time ratio (RT/WT)].
2. Moderate-duration defines lifting tasks that have a duration of more than one hour, but
not more than two hours, followed by a recovery period of at least 0.3 times the work
time [i.e., at least a 0.3 recovery-time to work-time ratio (RT/WT)].
For example, if a worker continuously lifts for 2 hours, then a recovery period of at
least 36 minutes would be required before initiating a subsequent lifting session. If the
recovery time requirement is not met and a subsequent lifting session is required, then
the total work time must be added together. If the total work time; exceeds 2 hours,
then the job must be classified as a long-duration lifting task.
3. Long-duration defines lifting tasks that have a duration of between two and eight
hours, with standard industrial rest allowances (e.g., morning, lunch, and afternoon
rest breaks).
Note: No weight limits are provided for more than eight hours of work.
The difference in the required RT/WT ratio for the short-duration category (less than 1
hour), which is 1.0, and the moderate-duration category (1–2 hours), which is .3, is due to
the difference in the magnitudes of the frequency multiplier values associated with each of
the duration categories. Since the moderate-duration category results in larger reductions
in the RWL than the short-duration category, there is less need for a recovery period
between sessions than for the short-duration category. In other words, the short duration
category would result in higher weight limits than the moderate duration category, so
larger recovery periods would be needed.
Frequency
Work Duration
Lifts/min
(F)‡ ≤1 Hour >1 but ≤2 Hours >2 but ≤8 Hours
V<30 †
V≥30 V<30 V≥30 V<30 V≥30
≤0.2 1.00 1.00 .95 .95 .85 .85
0.5 .97 .97 .92 .92 .81 .81
1 .94 .94 .88 .88 .75 .75
2 .91 .91 .84 .84 .65 .65
3 .88 .88 .79 .79 .55 .55
4 .84 .84 .72 .72 .45 .45
5 .80 .80 .60 .60 .35 .35
6 .75 .75 .50 .50 .27 .27
7 .70 .70 .42 .42 .22 .22
8 .60 .60 .35 .35 .18 .18
9 .52 .52 .30 .30 .00 .15
10 .45 .45 .26 .26 .00 .13
11 .41 .41 .00 .23 .00 .00
12 .37 .37 .00 .21 .00 .00
13 .00 .34 .00 .00 .00 .00
14 .00 .31 .00 .00 .00 .00
15 .00 .28 .00 .00 .00 .00
>15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
†
Values of V are in inches.
‡
For lifting less frequently than once per 5 minutes, set F=.2 lifts/minute.
3. Use the resulting value as the frequency (F) to determine the frequency multiplier
(FM) from Table 5.
For example, if the work pattern for a job consists of a series of cyclic sessions requiring
8 minutes of lifting followed by 7 minutes of light work and the lifting rate during the
work sessions is 10 lifts per minute, then the frequency rate (F) that is used to determine
the frequency multiplier for this job is equal to (10 × 8)/15 or 5.33 lifts/minute. If the
worker lifted continuously for more than 15 minutes, however, then the actual lifting
frequency (10 lifts per minute) would be used.
When using this special procedure, the duration category is based on the magnitude
of the recovery periods between work sessions, not within work sessions. In other
words, if the work pattern is intermittent and the special procedure applies then the
intermittent recovery periods that occur during the 15-minute sampling period are not
considered as recovery periods for purposes of determining the duration category. For
example, if the work pattern for a manual lifting job was composed of repetitive cycles
consisting of 1 minute of continuous lifting at a rate of 10 lifts/minute, followed by 2
minutes of recovery, the correct procedure would be to adjust the frequency according
to the special procedure [i.e., F = (10 lifts/minute × 5 minutes/15 minutes = 50/15 = 3.4
lifts/minute] The 2-minute recovery periods would not count towards the WT/RT ratio,
however, and additional recovery periods would have to be provided as described above.
The effectiveness of the coupling is not static, but may vary with the distance of the
object from the ground, so that a good coupling could become a poor coupling during
a single lift. The entire range of the lift should be considered when classifying hand-
to-object couplings, with classification based on overall effectiveness. The analyst must
classify the coupling as good, fair or poor. The three categories are defined in Table 6.
If there is any doubt about classifying a particular coupling design, the more stressful
classification should be selected.
Loose parts or Comfortable grip Grip in which hand Non-rigid bags (i.e.
irregular objects (i.e. hand can easily can flex about 90 bags that sag in the
(i.e. castings, wrap around the degrees [see note 4 middle)
stock, and supply object) [see note 6 below].
materials) below].
1. An optimal handle design has .75 – 1.5 inches (1.9 to 3.8 cm) diameter, ≥4.5 inches
(11.5 cm) length, 2 inches (5 cm) clearance, cylindrical shape, and a smooth
non-slip surface.
3. An optimal container design has ≤16 inches (40 cm) frontal length, ≤12 inches
(30 cm) height and a smooth, non-slip surface.
4. A worker should be capable of clamping the fingers at nearly 90° under the container,
such as required when lifting a cardboard box from the floor.
5. A container is considered less than optimal if it has a frontal length >16 inches (40 cm),
height >12 inches (30 cm), rough or slippery surfaces, sharp edges, asymmetric center
of mass, unstable contents, or requires the use of gloves. A loose object is considered
bulky if the load cannot easily be balanced between the hand-grasps.
6. A worker should be able to comfortably wrap the hand around the object without
causing excessive wrist deviations or awkward postures, and the grip should not
require excessive force.
Coupling Multiplier
Coupling Type V<30 inches (75 cm) V≥30 inches (75 cm)
Good 1.00 1.00
Fair 0.95 1.00
Poor 0.90 0.90
The following decision tree may be helpful in classifying the hand-to-object coupling.
Where Load Weight (L) = weight of the object lifted (lbs or kg).
1. The individual multipliers can be used to identify specific job-related problems. The
relative magnitude of each multiplier indicates the relative contribution of each task
factor (e.g., horizontal, vertical, frequency, etc.)
2. The RWL can be used to guide the redesign of existing manual lifting jobs or to design
new manual lifting jobs. For example, if the task variables are fixed, then the maximum
weight of the load could be selected so as not to exceed the RWL; if the weight is fixed,
then the task variables could be optimized so as not to exceed the RWL.
3. The LI can be used to estimate the relative magnitude of physical stress for a task or job.
The greater the LI, the smaller the fraction of workers capable of safely sustaining the
level of activity. Thus, two or more job designs could be compared.
4. The LI can be used to prioritize ergonomic redesign. For example, a series of suspected
hazardous jobs could be rank ordered according to the LI and a control strategy could
be developed according to the rank ordering (i.e. jobs with lifting indices above 1.0 or
higher would benefit the most from redesign).
Some experts believe, however, that worker selection criteria may be used to identify
workers who can perform potentially stressful lifting tasks (i.e., lifting tasks that would
exceed a LI of 1.0) without significantly increasing their risk of work-related injury (Chaffin
and Anderson, 1984; Ayoub and Mital, 1989). Those selection criteria, however, must be
based on research studies, empirical observations, or theoretical considerations that include
job-related strength testing and/or aerobic capacity testing. Nonetheless, these experts agree
that nearly all workers will be at an increased risk of a work-related injury when performing
highly stressful lifting tasks (i.e., lifting tasks that would exceed a LI of 3.0). Also, informal
or natural selection of workers may occur in many jobs that require repetitive lifting tasks.
According to some experts, this may result in a unique workforce that may be able to work
above a lifting index of 1.0, at least in theory, without substantially increasing their risk of
low back injuries above the baseline rate of injury.
2.1 Options
Prior to the assessment the analyst must determine (1) if the job should be analyzed as
a single-task or multi-task manual lifting job, and (2) if significant control is required at
the destination of the lift.
A single-task manual lifting job is defined as a lifting job in which the task variables do
not significantly vary from task to task or only one task is of interest (e.g., worst case
analysis). This may be the case if the effects of the other tasks on strength, localized muscle
fatigue, or whole-body fatigue do not differ significantly from the worst case task.
On the other hand, multi-task manual lifting jobs, which are defined as jobs in which
there are significant differences in task variables between tasks, are more difficult
to analyze because each task must be analyzed separately. Therefore, a specialized
procedure is used to analyze multi-task manual lifting jobs.
1. That performing multiple lifting tasks would increase the physical or metabolic load,
and that this increased load should be reflected in a reduced recommended weight
limit and increased Lifting Index.
2. That an increase in the Lifting Index depends upon the characteristics of the additional
lifting task.
3. That the increase in the Lifting Index due to the addition of one or more tasks is
independent of the Lifting lndex of any of the preceding tasks (i.e., Lifting Indices from
tasks already performed).
Although the procedure does not consider the potential interaction between individual lifting
tasks, we believe this effect is minimal.
The new method is based on the concept that the Composite Lifting lndex (CLI), which
represents the collective demands of the job, is equal to the sum of the largest Single Task
lifting Index (STLI) and the incremental increases in the CLI as each subsequent task is
added. The incremental increase in the CLI for a specific task is defined as the difference
between the Lifting Index for that task at the cumulative frequency and the Lifting
Index for that task at its actual frequency. For example, consider two identical tasks
(A and B), each with a lifting frequency of 1 lift/minute.
In these equations, the numeric part of the subscript represents the frequency, such that
LIB,2 indicates the LI value for Task B at a frequency of 2 lifts/minute and LIB,1, indicates
the LI value for Task B at a frequency of 1 lift/minute.
Since task A and B are identical, LIA,1 and LIB,1 cancel out and CLI= LIB,2. As expected
the CLI for the job is equivalent to the LI value for the simple task being performed at a
rate of 2 times/minute. Now, if the two tasks are different, then
In this case, LIA,1 and LIB,1 do not cancel each other out. The CLI is equal to the sum of
LIA,1, which refers to the demand of Task A, and the increment of demand for Task B,
with the increment being equal to the increase in demand when the frequency for Task
While the new method has not been validated at the workplace, this multi-task version
will minimize errors due to averaging; and thereby, provide a more accurate method for
estimating the combined effects of multi-tasked lifting jobs than was provided in the
NIOSH WPG (1981).
Many of the lifting jobs in the workplace have multiple lifting activities, and therefore
could be analyzed as either a single or a multi-task lifting job. When detailed
information is needed, however, to specify engineering modifications, then the multi-
task approach should be used. On the other hand, the multi-task procedure is more
complicated than the single-task procedure, and requires a greater understanding of
assessment terminology and mathematical concepts. Therefore, the decision to use the
single or multi-task approach should be based on: (1) the need for detailed information
about all facets of the multi-task lifting job, (2) the need for accuracy and completeness
of data in performing the analysis, and (3) the analyst’s level of understanding of the
assessment procedures.
To perform a lifting analysis using the revised lifting equation, two steps are
undertaken; (1) data is collected at the worksite and (2) the Recommended Weight
Limit and Lifting Index values are computed using the single-task or multi-task analysis
procedure. These two steps are described in the following sections.
1. Weight of the object lifted. Determine the load weight (L) of the object (if necessary,
use a scale). If the weight of the load varies from lift to lift, record the average and
maximum weights.
2. Horizontal and vertical locations of the hands with respect to the mid-point between the
ankles. Measure the horizontal location (H) and vertical location (V) of the hands at
both the origin and destination.
3. Asymmetry angle. Determine the asymmetry angle (A) at the origin and destination of
the lift.
4. Frequency of lift. Determine the average lifting frequency rate (F), in lifts/min,
periodically throughout the work session (average over at least a 15-minute period).
If the lifting frequency varies from session to session by more than two lifts/min, each
The assessment is completed on the single-task work sheet by determining the lifting
index (LI) for the task of interest. This is accomplished by comparing the actual weight of
the load (L) lifted with the RWL value obtained from the lifting equation.
3. Compute the Composite Lifting Index (CLI) for the overall job.
1. The tasks are renumbered in order of decreasing physical stress, beginning with the
task with the greatest STLI down to the task with the smallest STLI. The tasks are
renumbered in this way so that the more difficult tasks are considered first.
Where:
Note that (1) the numbers in the subscripts refer to the new task numbers and (2) the
FM values are determined from Table 5, based on the sum of the frequencies for the
tasks listed in the subscripts.
The following example is provided to demonstrate this step of the multi-task procedure.
Assume that an analysis of a typical three-task job provided the following results:
Task Number 1 2 3
Load Weight (L) 30 20 10
Task Frequency (F) 1 2 4
FIRWL 20 20 15
FM .94 .91 .84
STRWL 18.8 18.2 12.6
FILI 1.5 1.0 .67
STLI 1.6 1.1 .8
New Task Number 1 2 3
To compute the Composite Lifting Index (CLI) for this job, the tasks are renumbered in
order of decreasing physical stress, beginning with the task with the greatest STLI down to
the task with the smallest STLI. In this case, the task numbers do not change. Next, the CLI
is computed according to the formula shown on the previous page. The task with the greatest
CLI is Task 1 (STLI = 1.6). The sum of the frequencies for Tasks 1 and 2 is 1+2 or 3, and the
sum of the frequencies for Tasks 1, 2 and 3 is 1+2+4 or 7. Then, from Table 5, FM1 is .94, FM1,2
is .88, and FM1,2,3 is .70. Finally, the CLI = 1.6 +1.0 (1/.88 − 1/.94) + .67 (1/.70 − 1/.88) = 1.6 +
.07 + .20 = 1.9. Note that the FM values were based on the sum of the frequencies for the
subscripts, the vertical height and the duration of the lifting.
Ergonomic design/redesign includes: (1) physical changes in the layout of the job,
(2) reductions in the lifting frequency rate and/or the duration of the work period,
and (3) modifications of the physical properties of the object lifted, such as type, size,
or weight and/or improvement of hand-to-object coupling.
The lifting equation and procedures presented in this document were designed to
identify ergonomic problems, and evaluate ergonomic design/redesign solutions. By
examining the value of each task multiplier, the penalties associated with each job-
related risk factor can be evaluated, thereby determining their relative importance in
consideration of alternate workplace designs. The task factors that cause the greatest
reduction in the load constant should be considered as the first priority for job redesign.
Ten examples are provided to demonstrate the proper application of the lifting
equation and procedures. The procedures provide a method for determining the
level of physical stress associated with a specific set of lifting conditions, and assist
in identifying the contribution of each job-related factor. The examples also provide
guidance in developing an ergonomic redesign strategy. Specifically, for each
example, a job description, job analysis, hazard assessment, redesign suggestion,
illustration, and completed worksheet are provided. The ten examples were chosen
to provide a representative sample of lifting jobs for which the application of this
equation was suitable.
Note, you might obtain slightly different values from those displayed in the worksheet
examples due to differences in rounding, especially when these values are compared
to those determined from computerized versions of the equation. These differences
should not be significant. Also, for these examples, multipliers are rounded to two
places to the right of the decimal and weight limit (RWL, FIRWL, and STRWL) and
lifting index values (LI, FILI, STLI, and CLI) are rounded to one place to the right of
the decimal.
A. Single Task, Performed a Few Times Per Shift Loading Punch Press Stock, Example 1
Loading Supply Rolls, Example 2
Loading Bags into a Hopper, Example 3
H HM in H cm HM V in VM V cm VM
≤10 1.00 ≤25 1.00 0 .78 0 .78
11 .91 28 .89 5 .81 10 .81
12 .83 30 .83 10 .85 20 .84
13 .77 32 .78 15 .89 30 .87
14 .71 34 .74 20 .93 40 .90
15 .67 36 .69 25 .96 50 .93
16 .63 38 .66 30 1.00 60 .96
17 .59 40 .63 35 .96 70 .99
18 .56 42 .60 40 .93 80 .99
19 .53 44 .57 45 .89 90 .96
20 .50 46 .54 50 .85 100 .93
21 .48 48 .52 55 .81 110 .90
22 .46 50 .50 60 .78 120 .87
23 .44 52 .48 65 .74 130 .84
24 .42 54 .46 70 .70 140 .81
25 .40 56 .45 >70 .00 150 .78
>25 .00 58 .43 160 .75
60 .42 170 .72
63 .40 175 .70
>63 .00 >175 .00
D in DM D cm DM A deg AM
≤10 1.00 ≤25 1.00 0 1.00
15 .94 40 .93 15 .95
20 .91 55 .90 30 .90
25 .89 70 .88 45 .86
30 .88 85 .87 60 .81
35 .87 100 .87 75 .76
40 .87 115 .86 90 .71
45 .86 130 .86 105 .66
50 .86 145 .85 120 .62
55 .85 160 .85 135 .57
60 .85 175 .85 >135 .00
70 .85 >175 .00
>70 .00
CM
Coupling Type V<30 in V≥30 in
Good 1.00 1.00
Fair .95 1.00
Poor .90 .90
A series of general design/redesign suggestions for each job-related risk factor are
provided in Table 8. These suggestions can be used to develop a practical ergonomic
design/redesign strategy.
If HM is less than 1.0 Bring the load closer to the worker by removing any
horizontal barriers or reducing the size of the object.
Lifts near the floor should be avoided; if unavoidable, the
object should fit easily between the legs.
If VM is less than 1.0 Raise/ lower the origin/ destination of the lift. Avoid
lifting near the floor or above the shoulders.
If DM is less than 1.0 Reduce the vertical distance between the origin and the
destination of the lift.
If AM is less than 1.0 Move the origin and destination of the lift closer together
to reduce the angle of twist, or move the origin and
destination further apart to force the worker to turn the
feet and step, rather than twist the body.
If FM is less than 1.0 Reduce the lifting frequency rate, reduce the lifting
duration, or provide longer recovery periods (i.e., light
work period).
If the RWL at the Eliminate the need for significant control of the object at
destination is less than the destination by redesigning the job or modifying the
at the origin container/ object characteristics. (See requirements for
significant control.
The grip, however, would be poor because the object is bulky and hard to handle and the
fingers could not be flexed near 90° when picking up the reel (see Table 6, Note 4).
The RWL and corresponding LI values for this preferred combination of task variables (i.e.,
loading the machine from the side) are shown on the modified job analysis sheet (Figure 7).
At the origin, the RWL is 35.1 lbs and the LI is 1.3. At the destination, the RWL is 24.6 lbs
and the LI is 1.8. Since the LI is still greater than 1.0, however, a more comprehensive
3.2.1.5 Comments
Although ergonomic redesign is preferred, this example demonstrates how a change in
work practices (i.e., insuring that the operator can load the reel from the side) can reduce
the magnitude of physical stress associated with a manual lifting task. This approach,
however, relies more on worker compliance than on physical job modifications.
Using Table 6, the coupling is classified as poor because the worker must reposition the
hands at the destination of the lift and they cannot flex the fingers to the desired 90° angle
(e.g., hook grip). No asymmetric lifting is involved (i.e., A=0), and significant control of
the object is required at the destination of the lift. Thus, the RWL should be computed at
both the origin and the destination of the lift. The multipliers are computed from the lifting
equation or determined from the multiplier tables (Tables 1 to 5, and Table 7). As shown in
Figure 9, the RWL for this activity is 28.0 lbs at the origin and 18.1 lbs at the destination.
If the cart cannot be modified, then the results of the equation may be used to suggest task
modifications. The worksheet displayed in Figure 9 indicates that the multipliers with the
smallest magnitude (i.e., those providing the greatest penalties) are .50 for the HM at the
destination, .67 for the HM at the origin, .85 for the VM at the destination, and .90 for the
CM value. Using Table 8, the following job modifications are suggested:
1. Bring the load closer to the worker by making the roll smaller so that the roll can be
lifted from between the worker’s legs. This will decrease the H value, which in turn will
increase the HM value.
2. Raise the height of the destination to increase the VM.
3. Improve the coupling to increase the CM.
If the size of the roll cannot be reduced then the vertical height (V) of the destination
should be increased. Figure 10 shows that if V was increased to about 30 inches, then VM
would be increased from .85 to 1.0; the H value would be decreased from 20 inches to 15
inches, which would increase HM from .50 to .67; the DM would be increased from .93
to 1.0. Thus, the final RWL would be increased from 18.1 lbs to 30.8 lbs, and the LI at the
destination would decrease from 1.9 to 1.1.
In some cases, redesign may not be feasible. In these cases, use of a mechanical lift may be
more suitable. As an interim control strategy, two or more workers may be assigned to lift
the supply roll.
Using Table 6, the coupling is classified as fair because the worker can flex the fingers
about 90° and the bags are semi-rigid (i.e., they do not sag in the middle). Significant
control of the object is not required at the destination of the lift so the RWL is computed
only at the origin. The multipliers are computed from the lifting equation or determined
from the multiplier tables (Tables 1 to 5, and Table 7). As shown in Figure 12, the RWL for
this activity is 18.9 lbs.
3.2.3.5 Comments
This example demonstrates that certain lifting jobs may be evaluated as a single-task or
multi-task job. In this case, only the most stressful component of the job was evaluated.
For repetitive lifting jobs, the multi-task approach may be more appropriate. (See
Examples 7–10).
The multipliers are computed from the lifting equation or determined from the multiplier
tables (Tables 1 to 5, and Table 7). As shown in Figure 14, the RWL for this activity is 34.9
lbs at the origin and 15.2 lbs at the destination.
3.3.1.5 Comments
Since the lifting pattern is continuous over the 45 minute work session, the lifting frequency
is not adjusted using the special procedure.
Using Table 6, the coupling is classified as Good. Significant control is required at the
destination of the lift. Using Table 5, the FM is determined to be .80. As shown in Figure
16, the RWL is 14.4 lbs at the origin and 13.3 lbs at the destination.
As in the previous example, since the lifting pattern is continuous over the full duration of
the work sample (i.e., more than 15 minutes), the lifting frequency is not adjusted using
the special procedure.
3.3.3.5 Comments
Although several alternate redesign suggestions are provided, reducing the asymmetry
angle should be given a high priority because a significant number of overexertion lifting
injuries are associated with excessive lumbar rotation and flexion.
As in the earlier examples, the lifting pattern is continuous over the full duration of the
work sessions. Thus, the lifting frequency is not adjusted using the special procedure
described in the Frequency Component section.
This job is divided into five tasks representing the five tiers of loaded pallets. Task
numbering is arbitrary and the sequencing does not reflect the order in which the tasks
are performed. It is important, however, to identify each distinct type of lifting task. Note,
it may not be appropriate to use the lifting equation for mixed-task jobs that require
significant amounts of pushing, pulling or carrying.
The following measurements/observations were made and recorded on the job analysis
worksheet (Figure 22):
1. Carton dimensions are 16 inches × 16 inches × 16 inches.
2. The vertical locations at the origin represent the position of the hands under the
cartons. The top of the conveyor is 20 inches from the floor.
3. For this example, assume that the horizontal locations were not measured, but
estimated using the formulas provided in the Horizontal Multiplier section. From these
formulas, H = (8 +16/2) or 16 inches for the top four tiers and H = (10+16/2) or 18
inches for the bottom tier.
4. The pallet is 4 inches in height.
5. No asymmetric lifting is involved (i.e., A=0).
6. Cartons are continuously unloaded at the rate of 12-per minute (i.e., 2.4 lifts/min per
tier) for 1 hour.
7. The job consists of continuous 1-hour work sessions separated by 90-minute recovery
periods.
8. Using Table 6, the coupling is classified as fair.
Step 1
Compute the frequency-independent-RWL (FIRWL) and frequency-independent-lifting
index FILI values for each task using a default FM of 1.0.
These results indicate that none of the tasks are particularly stressful, from a strength
point of view, but that tiers 1and 5 do require the most strength. Remember, however, that
these results do not take the frequency of lifting into consideration.
Step 2
Compute the STRWL and STLI values for each task, where STRWL = FIRWL × FM. The
FM for each task is determined by interpolating between the FM values for 2 and 3 lifts/
minute from Column 2 of Table 5. The results are displayed in Figure 22.
STRWL STLI
Tier 1 18.4 lbs .7
Tier 2 25.6 lbs .5
Tier 3 25.8 lbs .5
Tier 4 21.4 lbs .6
Tier 5 17.9 lbs .7
These results suggest that none of the tasks are stressful, if performed individually. Note,
however, that these values do not consider the combined effects of all of the tasks.
Step 3
Renumber the tasks starting with the task with the largest STLI value, and ending with the
task with the smallest STLI value. If more than one task has the same STLI value, assign
the lower task number to the task with the highest frequency.
As shown on Figure 22, the CLI value for this job is 1.4. This means that some healthy workers
would find this job physically stressful. Therefore, some redesign may be needed. Analysis of
the results suggest that any three of these tasks would probably result in a CLI below 1.0, which
would be acceptable for nearly all healthy workers. However, when the other two tasks are
added, the overall frequency increases the lifting index above 1.0. This suggests that the overall
frequency should be reduced to limit the physical stress associated with this job.
An engineering approach should be the first choice for job redesign (i.e., physical changes
in layout; such as raising or lowering shelves, tables, or pallets) rather than worker
compliance. In this case the high frequency rate is a significant problem and should be
reduced. A reduction in frequency could decrease the CLI to about 1.0.
3.4.1.5 Comments
With more complicated tasks, such a simple solution will not necessarily be possible,
and more detailed analyses may be required to determine compressive forces, strength
requirements, and energy expenditures.
This job is divided into three tasks. Task 1 is defined as lifting from the cart to the lower
shelf. Task 2 is defined as lifting to the center shelf, and Task 3 is defined as lifting to the
upper shelf. Since task 3 requires a reposition of grip at the destination, it must be analyzed
at both the origin (Task 3a) and the destination of the Lift (Task 3b). The left and right shelf
positions are considered to be equivalent, since the worker can step toward the shelf during
the lift.
The following task variable data were measured and recorded on the job analysis
worksheet (Figure 24):
1. Cans are 8 inches in height.
2. Cart is 15 inches high.
3. Shelf 1 is 2 inches high.
4. Shelf 2 is 22 inches high.
5. Shelf 3 is 42 inches high.
6. At the origin, the horizontal distance (H) is 17 inches, the vertical height (V) is 23
inches, and the asymmetry angle (A) is 45° for all lifts.
7. At the destination, (H) is 22 inches, and A is 45° for all lifts.
8. The cans are lifted in an intermittent work pattern at a rate of 9 lifts/min (i.e., 3 Lifts/
min per shelf) for a duration of 1 hour.
9. Using Table 6, the couplings are classified as poor.
FIRWL FILI
Task 1 21.2 lbs 1.4
Task 2 22.1 lbs 1.4
Task 3a 19.7 lbs 1.5
Task 3b 13.7 lbs 2.2
These results indicate that all of the tasks may require considerable strength, especially at
the destination of Task 3. Remember, however, that these results do not take the frequency
of lifting into consideration.
Step 2
Compute the STRWL and STLI values for each task, where the STRWL for a task is
equivalent to the product of the FIRWL and the FM for that task. In this example, the
work pattern is intermittent so the frequency is adjusted using the special procedure.
Thus, for this job, F = (3 lifts/minute × 6 minutes/period × 2 periods) /15 minutes, which
is equal to36/15, or 2.4 lifts/minute. As in the previous example, the FM values must be
determined by interpolating between the FM values for 2 and 3 lifts/minute from Column
2 of Table 5. The results are displayed in Figure 24 and summarized below.
STRWL STLI
Task 1 19.1 lbs 1.6
Task 2 19.9 lbs 1.5
Task 3a 17.7 lbs 1.7
Task 3b 12.4 lbs 2.4
These results indicate that all of the tasks would be particularly stressful, if performed individually.
Note, however, that these values do not consider the combined effects of all of the tasks.
As shown in Figure 24, the CLI for this job is 2.9, which indicates that there is a significant
level of physical stress associated with this job. It appears that strength is a problem for all
three tasks, since the FILI values all exceed 1.0. Therefore, the overall physical demands
of the job are primarily the result of excessive strength demands, rather than the lifting
frequency rate. This may not be the case if the duration exceeds 15 minutes, due to an
increase in endurance demands.
1. Bring the load closer to the worker to increase HM by reducing the size of the can and/
or bringing the load between the workers legs.
2. Reduce the angle of twist to increase AM by moving the origin and destination closer
together or further apart.
3. Provide containers with handles or handhold cutouts to increase CM.
4. Raise the origin of the lift to increase VM.
Raising the vertical height at the origin would also decrease the vertical displacement (D),
and reduce the angle of twist. Since the size of the H value at the origin depends on the
size of the container, the only way to reduce H would be to reduce the container size. An
additional benefit of reducing container size is an accompanying reduction in H at the
destination for Task 3.
If (1) the height of the cart is increased, (2) twisting is eliminated, and (3) Task 3 is
deleted, then the FIRWL for Tasks 1 and 2 would be 27.1 lbs (i.e., 51 × .59 × 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0
× 1.0 × 0.90), and the FILI would be reduced from 1.4 to 1.1, which would be acceptable
to many more workers than before.
3.4.2.5 Comments
In this example, the cans were not stacked higher than a single can on the cart. The cans,
however, could be stacked higher. For a second layer, the vertical height (V) at the origin
would be near knuckle height (i.e., about 31 inches). The vertical multiplier (VM) would
be increased and the FIRWL would be higher than for lifting from the lowest layer, thus
reducing the risk. A third layer, however, may increase the risk of overexertion injury and
result in a more stressful job for some workers.
Task 1:
1. At the origin of the lift, the horizontal distance (H) is 21 inches and the vertical
distance (V) is 38 inches.
2. At the destination of the lift, H is 10 inches and V is 36 inches.
3. If the rolls are handled lengthwise, as shown in Figure 25, then the couplings are
classified as “poor”, because the fingers can’t be flexed near 90° (See Table 6).
Task 2:
1. At the origin of the lift, H is 10 inches and V is 0 inches.
2. At the destination of the lift, H is 10 inches and V is 6 inches.
3. The couplings are classified as “fair” because the fingers can be flexed under the box
about 90° (See Table 6).
The lifting frequency rate for each task is 1 lift/minute. This means that two lifts occur
each minute, since both Task 1 and Task 2 occur about once per minute.
FIRWL FILI
Task 1a 20.7 lbs 1.1
Task 1b 44.1 lbs .6
Task 2 37.8 lbs .7
Step 2
Compute the STRWL and STLI values for each task, where the STRWL for a task is
equivalent to the product of the FIRWL and the FM for that task. Based on the given
frequencies, vertical heights, and durations, the FM values are determined from Table 5.
STRWL STLI
Task 1a 15.5 lbs 1.6
Task 1b 33.1 lbs .8
Task 2 28.4 lbs .9
These results indicate that, if performed individually, Task 2 would not be stressful, but
that Task 1 would be stressful for some healthy workers. Note, however, that these values
do not consider the combined effects of all of the tasks.
Step 3
Renumber the tasks starting with the task with the largest STLI value, and ending with the
task with the smallest STLI value. If more than one task has the same STLI value, assign
the lower task number to the task with the highest frequency.
1. Bring the load closer to the worker to increase HM by reducing the size of the roll and/
or bringing the load between the workers legs at the origin for Task 1.
2. Raise the vertical height of the lift for Task 2 at the origin and at the destination to
increase VM.
3. Provide better couplings for Task 1 to increase CM.
The largest penalty comes from lifting the rolls from the wrapping table into the box. A
practical job redesign would be to provide a recess for the box at the end of the table, so
that the worker could easily slide the roll into the box without lifting it. The worker could
then slide the box to the edge of the table, and lift it from the table to the pallet. This job
As an alternative job modification, the worker could be rotated from this job to a job with
light work every one to two hours to decrease the lifting duration. This would provide a
sufficient recovery period for the worker, so that fatigue would not become a problem. The
light duty work, however, should last for at least .3 times the amount of time spent on the
packaging job.
3.5.1.5 Comments
There is an inherent danger in trying to simplify a complex lifting job. The overriding
concern is that the worker is not exposed to excessive biomechanical or physiological
stress. This multi-task analysis procedure was designed to provide a series of intermediate
values that would help guide the redesign of physically demanding lifting tasks. These
values include the FIRWL, FILI, STRWL, and STLI. These intermediate values should not
be used as design limits, since they only provide task specific information. The overall risk
of injury for a lifting job is dependent upon the combined effects of the job, rather than
the individual effects of the tasks.
This job can be divided into three tasks represented by cartons A, B, and C. The following
measurements were made and recorded on the job analysis worksheet figure 28):
1. The horizontal locations (H) for each task at the origin and destination are as follows:
Box A, 16 inches; Box B, 12 inches; and Box C, 8 inches.
2. The vertical locations (V) at the origin are taken to be the position of the hands under
the cartons as follows: Box A, 0 inches; Box B, 0 inches; and Box C, 30 inches.
3. The vertical locations (V) at the destination are the vertical position on the cart as
follows: Box A, 30 inches; Box B, 6 inches; and, Box C, 39 inches.
4. The average weights lifted for each task are as follows: Box A, 22 lbs; Box B, 33 lbs; and,
Box C, 11 lbs.
5. The maximum weights lifted for each task are as follows: Box A, 33 lbs; Box B, 44 lbs;
and, Box C, 22 1bs.
6. No asymmetric lifting is involved (i.e., A = 0).
7. The lifting frequency rates for each task are as follows: Box A, 1 lift/min Box B 2 lifts/
min; and Box C 5 lifts/min.
8. The lifting duration for the job is 8 hours, however, the maximum weights are lifted
infrequently (i.e., less than or equal to once every five minutes for 8 hours).
9. Using Table 6, the couplings are classified as fair.
These results indicate that two of the tasks require strength demands that exceed the
RWL level. Remember, however, that these results do not take the frequency of lifting
into consideration.
Step 2
Compute the STRWL and STLI values for each task, where the STRWL for a task is
equivalent to the product of the FIRWL and the FM for that task. Recall that the STLI
is computed for each task by dividing the average weight of that task by its STRWL. The
appropriate FM values are determined from Table 5.
STRWL STLI
Task 1 15.8 lbs 1.4
Task 2 20.4 lbs 1.6
Task 3 17.8 lbs .6
These results indicate that Tasks 1 and 2 would be stressful for some workers, if performed
individually. Note, however, that these values do not consider the combined effects of all of
the tasks.
Step 3
Renumber the tasks in order of decreasing physical stress, as determined by the STLI
value, starting with the task with the highest STLI value.
In this example the magnitude of the FILI, STLI and CLI values indicate that both
strength and endurance would be a problem for many workers. Therefore, the redesign
should attempt to decrease the physical demands by modifying the job layout and
decrease the physiological demands by reducing the frequency rate or duration of
continuous lifting. If the maximum weights were eliminated from the job, then the CLI
Those lifts with strength problems should be evaluated for specific engineering changes,
such as (1) decreasing carton size or removing barriers to reduce the horizontal distance;
(2) raising or lowering the origin of the lift; (3) reducing the vertical distance of the lift;
improving carton couplings, and (4) decreasing the weight to be lifted. The redesign
priority for this example is based on identifying interventions that provide the largest
increase in the FIRWL for each task (Step 2 on worksheet). For example, the maximum
weight lifted for carton A is unacceptable; however, if the carton at the origin were on
the upper shelf, then the FIRWL for Task 1 would increase from 21.0 lbs to 27.0 lbs. The
maximum weight lifted still exceed the FIRWL, but lifts of average weight are now below
the FIRWL. Additionally, providing handles, decreasing box size, or reducing the load to
be lifted will decrease the stress of manual lifting.
3.5.2.5 Comments
This example demonstrates the complexity of analyzing multi-task lifting jobs. Errors
resulting from averaging and errors introduced by ignoring other factors (e.g., walking,
carrying, holding, pushing and pulling activities, and environmental stressors), can only
be resolved with detailed biomechanical, metabolic, cardiovascular, and psychophysical
evaluations.
1. The horizontal distance (H) for Task 3 was less than the 10.0 inches minimum.
Therefore, H was set equal to 10 inches (i.e., multipliers must be less than or equal to
1.0).
2. The vertical travel distance (D) in Task 2 was less than the 10 inches minimum.
Therefore, D was set equal to 10 inches.
Asymmetry Angle (A) The angle between the Asymmetry Line and the Sagittal
Line of the worker’s body, as defined by the worker’s
neutral body position; measure at the origin and
destination of lift and use to compute the Asymmetric
Multiplier (see Asymmetry Line, Asymmetric
Multiplier, and Neutral body position).
Asymmetry Line The auxiliary line that connects the mid-point of the line
drawn between the inner ankle bones and the point
projected down to the floor directly below the center of
the hand grasps.
Composite Lifting Index (CLI) The term denotes the overall lifting index for a multi-
task manual lifting job.
Distance Variable (D) The vertical travel distance of the hands between the
origin and destination of the lift measured in inches or
centimeters; used in the Distance Multiplier (see DM).
(Continued)
Frequency of Lifting (F) The average number of lifts per minute over a 15
minute period; used in the Frequency Multiplier
(see FM).
Horizontal Location (H) The horizontal distance between the mid-point of the
hand grasps projected down to the floor and the mid
point of the line between the inner ankle bones; used in
the Horizontal Multiplier (see HM).
Lifting Index (LI) A term defined as L/RWL; generally relates the level of
physical stress associated with a particular manual
lifting task to the number of workers who should be
able to perform the task (see Load Weight)/ A value of
1.0 or more denotes that the task is hazardous for some
fraction of the population.
(Continued)
Load Weight (L) A term defining the weight of the object to be lifted, in
pounds or Newtons, including the container, used in the
Lifting Index (see LI).
Recommended Weight Limit The product of the lifting equation; the load that nearly
(RWL) all healthy workers could perform over a substantial
period of time for a specific set of task conditions.
Sagittal Line The line passing through the mid-point between the
inner ankle bones and lying in the sagittal place, as
defined by the neutral body position.
(Continued)
Vertical Location (V) The distance of the hands above the floor measured
at the origin and destination of the lift in inches or
centimeters; used in the Vertical Multiplier (VM).
Ayoub, M. M. and Mital, A. 1989. Manual Materials Handling. Taylor & Francis, London.
Chaffin, D. B. and Anderson, G. B. J. (1984). Occupational Biomechanics. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
DOL (BLS) (1982). Back Injuries Associated with Lifting, Bulletin No. 2144. US Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Eastman Kodak Company, Ergonomics Group (1986). Ergonomic Design for People at Work, Vol. 2.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Gallagher, S., Marras, W.S., and Bobick T.G. (1988). Lifting in stooped and kneeling postures: effects
on lifting capacity, metabolic costs, and electromyography of eight trunk muscles. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 3, 65–76.
Gallagher, S. and Unger, R. L. (1990). Lifting in four restricted lifting conditions: psychophysical,
physiological and biomechanical effects of lifting in stooped and kneeling postures. Applied Ergo-
nomics, 21, 237–245.
Gallagher, S. (1991). Acceptable weights and physiological costs of performing combined manual
handling tasks in restricted postures, Ergonomics, 34(7), 939–952.
Garg, A. (1991). Epidemiological Basis for Manual Lifting Guidelines, NIOSH Project Report (Avail-
able from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS number 91–227–348).
Garg, A., Chaffin, D. C., and Herrin, G. D. (1978). Prediction of metabolic rates for manual materials
handling jobs. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 39(8), 661–764.
National Safety Council (1990). Accident Facts. National Safety Council, Chicago, IL.
NIOSH (1981). Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. NIOSH Technical Report No. 81–122.
US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Cincinnati, OH.
Waters, T. R. (1991). Strategies for assessing multi-task manual lifting jobs, Proceedings of the Human
Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting- 1991, San Francisco, California.
Waters, T. R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., and Fine, L. J. (1993). Revised NIOSH equation for the
design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks, Ergonomics, 36(7), 749–776.
Argentina Israel
Australia Italy
Canada Japan
Finland Portugal
France Spain
Germany Sweden
India Taiwan