Isolating In-Situ Grip and Push Force Distribution from Hand-Handle Contact Pressure with an Industrial Electric Nutrunner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Grip force during hand tool operation is the primary contributor to tendon strain and related wrist injuries, whereas push force is a contributor to shoulder injuries. However, both cannot be directly measured using a single measurement instrument. The objective of this research was to develop and test an algorithm to isolate the grip and push force distributions from in-situ hand-handle pressure measurements and to quantify their distributions among industrial workers using an electric nutrunner. METHODS: Experienced automobile assembly line workers used an industrial nutrunner to tighten fasteners at various locations and postures. The pressure applied by the hand on the tool handle was measured dynamically using pressure sensors mounted on the handle. An algorithm was developed to compute the push force applied to the handle of an electric pistol-grip nutrunner based on recorded pressure measurements. An optimization problem was solved to find the contribution of each measured pressure to the actual pushing force of the tool. Finally, the grip force was determined from the difference between the measured pressure and the calculated pushing pressure. RESULTS: The grip force and push force were successfully isolated and there was no correlation between the two forces. The computed grip force increased from low to high fastener locations, whereas the push force significantly increased during overhead fastening. A significant difference across the participants' computed grip forces was observed. The grip force distribution showed that its contribution to total hand force was larger than other definitions in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The developed algorithm can aid in better understanding the risk of injury associated with different tasks through the notion of grip and push force distribution. This was shown to be important as even workers with considerable power tool experience applied significantly more grip and push force than other participants, all of whom successfully completed each task. Moreover, the fact that both forces were uncorrelated shows the need for extracting them independently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".