Citation

Andres RO, Holt KG, Kubo M. Appl. Ergon. 2005; 36(5): 529-534.

Affiliation

Ergonomic Engineering Inc., 20 Gulf Rd., Pelham, MA 01002, USA. bob@ergo.engin.com

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.apergo.2005.03.001

PMID

15894284

Abstract

Five healthy male subjects walked on a control surface (level concrete), and two sloped rock surfaces (walking ballast-rock about 1.9 cm across; main line ballast-rock about 3.8 cm across) while their rearfoot motion (defined throughout as ankle inversion/eversion as seen from the frontal plane) was measured to determine if the different walking surfaces caused different ankle kinematics. The ballast was placed in 5m long trays that were tilted 7 degrees in the transverse plane. Rearfoot motion was measured while the subjects walked the length of the respective surfaces wearing work boots. A repeated measures ANOVA and a subsequent multiple comparison test revealed that the rearfoot range of motion was significantly greater walking on the main line ballast than walking on either the walking ballast or the level concrete. Meanwhile, the mean range of rearfoot motion for walking ballast was not significantly different from that resulting from walking on concrete. Variability was more than twice as great walking on main line ballast than walking on level concrete. Rearfoot angular velocities walking on level concrete and walking ballast were not significantly different, but both were significantly less than walking on main line ballast. Results suggested that rearfoot motion could be reduced if railroads placed walking ballast where trainmen have to walk as part of their jobs.

Language: en