Sustained Operations in Confined-Space Military Vehicles

• Autorzy: Delleman N. J. , Colaciuri V. , Wiederkehr E. , Valk P. J. L.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper reports 2 baseline studies and 1 experiment performed in a confined-space military vehicle concerning the effects on fitness and performance of time in a sitting posture and workstation characteristics. On average physical fitness decreased by slightly more than 10% per hour, the observation performance decreased by ~30% per hour, and the technical performance (of gunners) showed a relatively small decrease, i.e., less than 5% per hour. So-called active breaks (changing sitting into standing and walking) led to a significant reduction in the decrease of physical fitness, almost reducing it to zero. Furthermore, the level of confinement was shown to affect physical fitness.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

fitness; performance; active breaks

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2008
• Tom: Vol. 14, No. 3
• Strony: 313--325
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 7 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Delleman N. J.

• TNO Human Factors, Soesterberg, The Netherlands
• Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

autor

Colaciuri V.

• Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

autor

Wiederkehr E.

• Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

autor

Valk P. J. L.

• TNO Human Factors, Soesterberg, The Netherlands

Bibliografia

• 1.International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ergonomics—evaluation of static working postures (Standard No. ISO 11226:2000). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2000.
• 2.European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Safety of machinery—human physical performance—part 4: evaluation of working postures and movements in relation to machinery (Standard No. EN 1005-4:2005). Brussels, Belgium: CEN; 2005.
• 3.Mathiassen SE, Christmansson M. Variation and autonomy. In: Delleman NJ, Haslegrave CM, Chaffin DB, editors. Working postures and movements—tools for evaluation and engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press/London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2004. p. 330–66.
• 4.Drury CG, Paquet VL. Performance. In: Delleman NJ, Haslegrave CM, Chaffin DB, editors. Working postures and movements—tools for evaluation and engineering. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press/London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2004. p. 403–23.
• 5.Corlett EN, Bishop RB. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 1976;19:175–82.
• 6.Borg G. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: Geissler HG, Petzold P, editors. Psychophysical judgement and the process of perception. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland; 1982. p. 25–34.
• 7.Van der Grinten MP, Smitt P. Development of a practical method for measuring body part discomfort. In: Kumar S, editor. Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety IV, Proceedings of the Annual International Ergonomics and Safety Conference, Denver, CO, USA. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1992. p. 311–8.