PSI - Issue 8

F. Caputo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 8 (2018) 297–308 F. Caputo/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000 – 000

306 10

Numerical results, based on simulation data, are provided by EAWSdigital software.

Table 2. Alfa Romeo MiTo central tunnel assembly: numerical vs. experimental results. Numerical results

Experimental results

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

80.5

76.5

0 0

0 0

38

36.5

The results ( Table 2) show a high risk in section 1 and a moderate risk in section 4. Section 2 and 3, according to the method, don’t contribute to the index due to low exerted forces , each one about 5 N (less than 30 N, the minimum value for considering forces points), and low loads (less than 3.5 Kg, the minimum value for considering manual handling points) handling. The high value of section 1 due to the assumed posture. In fact, the most part of the activity is carried out in a kneeling position, causing a high value for the index. 3.2 Jeep Renegade: numerical vs. experimental results The same evaluation methods, described in 3.1, have been applied to evaluate the performance of Jeep Renegade central tunnel assembly. Because of the activity is carried out by two workers, the biomechanical overload risk has been evaluated for the worker more stressed, the one that handles the central tunnel. Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11 show some of main posture angles trends (trunk flexion, arm elevation and elbow flexion) of upper body.

Figure 9. Trunk flexion.

Figure 10. Left arm elevation.