Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0
4 1 8 0 rp m
2 0 3 0 rp m
9 9 0 rp m
4 8 0 rp m
2 3 0 rp m
0
I
0
10
0
I
DANGEROUS
AREA
256
80
SAFETY SAFETY
AREA AREA
DANGEROUS
AREA
c
d
Working Place – is the area in the production premises equipped with all necessary
means and designed for operations of the manufacturing process to be performed by
several workers.
Working Environment – this is the environment where all ergonomic relations between
humans, machines and the working place are noticeable.
Operational and measurement tools. These include cutting knives, drills, cutters,
wrenches, screwdrivers and other specialized and measurement tooling.
Work tables. These include both assembly tables and benches. These are rather
working furniture and they should not be confused with machine work tables included
as assemblies in the machines themselves.
Figure 1
Tool drawers. These are usually located within the working place area and are used
to store operational and measurement tools and sometimes, operational documentation
and some personal belongings.
Racks for storing semi-finished products and finished parts. These are located
within the working place area, close to the basic operational equipment.
Packing materials for semi-finished products and finished parts. These are usu-
ally delivered on the spot using the all-purpose transportation devices.
Working place. In this particular case the working place is used to designate the sec-
tion within the production premises occupied by the metal cutting machine being con-
sidered and all the elements of working furnishings required to perform specific opera-
tions. An integrated ergonomic approach should also consider the ergonomic relations
between different work places located within the same premises. For the purposes of
3
the present project we will limit our study in this particular case to just a single work
place.
- Operational relation with control devices – levers, buttons, handles, flywheels, ped-
als, etc.;
- Operational and protective relation with the protective schield of the machine;
Figure 3
In order for the work place to ensure optimum conditions for the functioning of the
human-machine system, it should meet the following requirements:
- Provide sufficient space for the operator to be positioned there and to perform the
required operational movements;
- Provide for suitable and correct position of the body;
- Agree with the technological sequence of performed operations;
- Provide for maximum protection of the operator against disturbances and harmful
factors of the working environment;
- Provide for optimum micro-climate and optimum lighting of the operational sur-
faces;
- Provide for optimum conditions for the circulation of materials and information;
- Provide for optimum functional interconnection between individual work places in
the overall operational flow;
- Provide opportunities for sufficient social contact between the operator and opera-
tors from neighbouring work places;
- Provide optimum access to the work place.
From all described above we are able to identify the working environment components
for machine tools and the ergonomic relations within the system. These ergonomic rela-
tions illustrate how the human factor relates to the system aiming at providing operator
5
safety, efficiency and reliability. So that his tasks are greatly aided and his sence of
comfort and satisfaction is improved.
ALZMETALL. They manufacture a single series achieving low cost and acceptable
quality, making their machines widely used. Following the logical sequence of all we
have carried out so far, we can specifically select product A15 model of the ALZMET-
ALL - (Figure 4).
the return spring. Used to carry out the feeding operation from the operator to the tail-
stick barrel;
Protective shield (5 - fig 6) – protects the operator from chipping metal. This is posi-
tioned in front of the machine operation area and is attached to the drilling head.
Working table (6 - fig 6) – used to position and hold the workpiece. Capable of per-
forming linear movement along the machine column by means of turning the operating
handle. A worm gear moves the gear wheel, which moves the table up or down the gear
rack fixed to the machine column.
Base (7 - fig 6) – provides stable machine support on the bench.
European legislation: reference for the product's health & safety issues
The study carried out indicates that several European regulations are avialable and place
certain safety requirements for column drilling machines. These include:
European Community Machine Tools Regulation 98/37/CEE;
BS EN 292 Industrial safety of machines & equipment;
Regulation for work with low voltage 73/23/CEE;
Electromagnetic compatibility 89/336/CEE.
which feature not only strong ergonomic relations between the human and the
metal-cutting machine but also a very strong ergonomic relation between the metal-
cutting machine and its location;
The A15 model of the company ALZMETALL is widely used and features reason-
able price and good technical characteristics. The product also has the capacity to be
used interactively.
Methods
The objectives of the present project can be achieved using the method of analysis and
subsequent synthesis of analytical results. The method will aim at identifying the ergo-
nomic relations in the Human-Machine-Environment system, making a comparative
analysis and subsequent generation of ideas and possible solutions.
Planning events
Planning events will be necessary to be carried out before the ergonomic development
of the Bench drilling machine A15 product can start and a breakdown of project activi-
ties will be made as a result of these planning events. Thus, individual stages in the
course of work will be identified, as well as the milestones that have to be solved at
each stage and their place in the time schedule.
Study Stage
Analysis Stage
Synthesis Stage
We should keep in mind here that project activities in each individual stage are posi-
tioned in time under certain dependence between each other. Therefore, I shall use the
Ghant Chart Method, a chronogram spread out in time giving corresponding designa-
tions of activities to be carried out.
main rotational movement of the spindle and tool performed around spindle axis;
11
human characteristics. The basic size and proportions of the machine correspond to the
anthropometric and physiologocal requirements of ergonomic indicators. The ergo-
nomic relations thus identified between the human and the machine are as follows:
1. Handle (1 - Fig. 8) of the drill head
cover. This is positioned on the left of
the cover and serves to open the cover.
The contact is established when the hu-
man operator takes the handle to open
the cover. The size (18 mm diameter) is
sufficient for this operation since the tac-
tile contact is established between a sec-
tion of the fingers and the ball provided
on the handle, and the time required for
this contact is short and the frequency of
establishing it is rather low. We can not
Figure 9
say that the handle is convenient and
completely corresponds to its functional
designation.
2. The cover (2 - Fig. 8) is made of plastic material and opens sideways requiring a
minimum effort from the operator. A switch is installed on the drill head to auto-
matically switch motor power off when the cover is opened. The transmission of
movement is thus interrupted to prevent accidental operation of moving elements of
the drive transmission. Thus human-operator safety is ensured during belt changing
and tightening operations and other types of drive handling.
3. The control panel of the machine (3 - Fig. 8) is positioned in front of the drill head
within the operational range of the human operator. No other interfering connections
are avaible here to disturb its operation. The three-position switch (4 - Fig. 8) lo-
cated in the control panel and used to change the direction of rotation, and the main
circuit breaker (5 - Fig. 8), are positioned at a sufficient distance from each other.
Corrsponding graphical indications of their functions assist the operator in distin-
guishing them correctly in terms of ergonomic characteristics. The power-on indica-
tor light is also located on the control panel (6 - Fig. 8). It also provides a visual er-
gonomic relation with the human-operator ensuring the required degree of safety.
4. A transparent guard shield (7 - Fig. 8) is provided to protect the operator from acci-
dental flying metal chips. This is installed on the righthand side of the casing and its
vertical position is adjusted by the operator.
5. The handle levers (8 - Fig. 8) used to feed the machine are positioned on the left-
hand side of the machine head convenient for the operator to operate them with his
right hand. Two such levers are provided positioned at 180° from each other. The
levers themselves are slanted outwards at 20°, such that their round ends move away
from the cover of the machine to ensure sufficient space is available between them
and the machine for operator’s fingers to grip and move freely. An essential tactile
contact is established here between the operator and the machine which also features
high frequency of performance.
13
The levers of the feed mechanism. The sharp edge (9 - Fig. 8) is disturbingly close
to the area of travel of fingers while gripping on the handle. Another drawback of
this system is the need for a second grip on the handle when deeper drilling sections
are involved since only two levers are provided.
The guard shield. A drawback here is the effort required to turn the shield and this is
a problem when tool change handling operations are performed by the operator
while the machine is in off position. Moreover, the gap between the bottom end of
the drill head and the upper edge of the guard shield is too big to allow for a metal
chip to fly out of the guarded area thus exposing the operator to danger.
The colour selection for the machine drill head and cover does not comply with hy-
gienic ergonomic requirements and do not meet to a sufficient extend the aesthetic
requirements needed to ensure the degree of comfort during operation.
Additionally, the position and shape of the cover handle can also be modified.
Handle of the drill head cover. A better solution can be found for the position and
shape of cover lifting handle.
Cover. The colour solution adopted for the drill head and cover does not comply
with hygiene ergonomic criteria and does not meet to a sufficient degree the aes-
thetic requirements needed to ensure a certain degree of comfort throughout the
work process. Moreover, the shape of the cover can also be optimised from an ergo-
nomic viewpoint.
Handle levers and ball handles on them. A few doubts exist as of the need for hav-
ing two levers when drilling depth is only 80mm. Preliminary studies indicated that
machines of this size are available with only a single lever. In other words, we have
to consider if we actually need to take hold of the workpiece during the drilling op-
eration. Additionally, we could re-consider the shape and size of ball handles.
Clash in between levers & the drilling head. A disturbing immediate proximity is
present between the sharp edge (9 - Fig. 9) and the area where the fingers gripping
on the handle are traveling. This may cause injuries and traumas for the operator.
Transparent protective shield. One disadvantage here is the amount of effort re-
quired to move the shield, which is an inconvenience when tool change handling
operations are performed by the operator when the machine is in its off position.
Handle lever of the table lifting mechanism. This is the handle used to move the
worktable. Subject to study for this element are the minimum distance between the
handle and the worktable (when the handle is turned), the convenient design and the
applied effort.
15
Handle of the drill head cover. As we already mentioned above, the handle is posi-
tioned on the lefthand side of the cover and serves to establish a tactile link between
the human operator and the machine when machine cover is opened. The frequency
of establishing this link is rather low. The handle is quite suitable to fulfil its func-
tional purpose but can be further optimised since the round shape it currently fea-
tures, its size (18 mm diameter) and position on the side in the center of the cover
are not the best possible solution. First of all, the size of the ball handle is too small.
Moreover, its position provides only insufficient lifting area for the lifting operation
(its protrusion is only about 16 mm since it is tapered flat on the bottom). We are not
discussing here the force required to lift the cover as this is of minimum amount
(and the weight of the cover is low – it is made of plastic material). The combination
between the small size and its position on the cover results in a psycho-
physiological problem. This is expressed in the fact that when one reaches instinc-
tively for the handle, not looking straight at it, his hand might miss to grip it the first
time. This implies for a new, larger size of the handle to be considered, along with
re-designing its shape and position.
Cover. We could say that the shape of the cover is not sufficiently convenient from
an ergonomic viewpoint and a better result can be achieved through certain modifi-
cations. These modifications are required as a result of the changes involved in the
optimisation of the handle, eliminating the dangerous proximity of the edge 9 and
the feed levers 8 (Figure 9), and hence the modifications to the drill head. The
colouration of the cover is not sufficiently ergonomically appropriate. The white
colour merges with the colour of the drill head and does not provide for any func-
tional distinction between them. Moreover, the white colour features high degree of
reflection of light, which is not good for the operator. Additionally, this is not a very
suitable colour from a practical viewpoint since any stains will be much more visi-
ble on a white background thus disturbing the aesthetics of perception and hence,
the comfort throughout the work process.
Handle levers and ball handles on them. There are two handle levers positioned on
the lefthandside of the machine. The link with the operator is tactile and the fre-
quency of establishing it is rather high. The operator grips on the ball of one of them
(the one which is currently in its up position) and rotates it in the direction towards
16
himself to move the quill and rotating spindle with tool downwards. The required
number of levers will depend on the following factors: the depth of drilling and the
diameter of the gear shaft used to move the quill.
Maximum quill travel is l = 80 mm.
d = 36mm is the step diameter of the gear shaft.
Therefore, we can calculate the number of turns required to rotate the feed handles
to achieve maximum drilling depth. We can calculate this using the formula:
l 80
= = 0.71 turns.
π * d 3.14 * 36
This means that a single lever option is rather unacceptable since this will have to
be rotated at 0.71*360° = 256° - something very inconvenient to do with one hand
(see fig. 11). We can even
consider a three-lever option:
an alternative much more con-
venient for the operator since
for deeper drilling operations
(60÷80mm) he can easily grip
on the levers in alternating se-
quence with a single hand
when three levers are pro-
vided. The amount of rotation
exercised on the levers, and
hence the number of levers,
can be reduced, but this would
imply an increase in the di-
ameter of the gear shaft and
hence, the pitch size of the Figure 11 Feed handles rotating angle - quill
transmission gear will have to travel dependence
be increased, all this resulting
in significant and economically unjustified modifications in the overall design of
the drilling head, quill and gear shaft. Of course, all these modifications could be
built into a new type of machine during the design stage but in our case we have to
consider improvements of the existing model. The shape of ball handles can be kept
round but their diameter should be increased to fit the human grip thus bringing
greater convenience throughout the operation.
Clash in between levers & the drilling head. It is necessary to increase the distance
between them to help avoid the disturbing proximity of the sharp edge in the area of
travel of human fingers gripping on the handle. Moreover, the sharp edge is better
made slightly rounded. It should be kept in mind here that the edge fits into an area
where the circuit breaker switch is positioned (when machine cover is opened). If
we change the design position of this switch we could provide solution to three
problems: the possible clash between levers and drilling head, the shape of the cover
and optimisation of the shape of the drilling head.
17
Transarent protective
shield. (fig. 12) To move
the shield for tool change
handling operations per-
formed by the operator, it
is necessary to untighten
its handle before that and
this is rather inconven-
ient. It is possible to
avoid all this incorporat-
ing a change in the design
that will simplify these
operations meanwhile
keeping the simple design
of mechanisms at a rea-
sonable level. Figure 12 Protection of working area
Cover
We have already identified that the most significant problem of the cover from an ergo-
nomic viewpoint is its colour. The white colour is currently coincident with the colour
of the drill head and does not provide for distinguishing between the two functions –
lack of contrast of colours. Another significant parameter here is the weight of the cover
in as far as it defines the amount of effort required to lift it.
Therefore, the following test criteria and their corresponding boundary conditions can
be applied here:
1. Colour solution – it is necessary to avoid the white colour for the cover. It is
recommended to have it painted in a contrast colour, preferably from the blue or
green line of colours [2], [9].
2. Weight of the cover – defines the resistance required to open the cover. It is ad-
visable that the weight of the cover is within a range that would provide for a re-
sistance force of between 0,08 and 50 Nm [10].
3. Ergonomic characteristics of the shape – it is necessary that the shape of the
cover is a visual continuation of the shape of the drilling head. This can be ex-
pressed as a percentage of the ideal shape, which is considered to be 100%.
4. Functionality – the degree of performing its intended function. The maximum
possible expert assessment score is 100 scores.
5. Frequency of the functional relation– this is almost identical with the previ-
ously described problem area.
Additionally, we could consider here the effort required to rotate the levers and advance
the tool during the drilling operation. The amount of the effort should be sufficient to
overcome the resistance force of the return spring that retracts the quill and holds it in
its upper position. The compression of the spring is adjustable and usually varies within
1,2 and 2,5Nm [4]. Additionally, we have to add here the momentum T = 43.2Nm, aris-
ing from the cutting force acting upwards along the tool axis. This is the maximum re-
sistance force and this results from drilling the maximum possible diameter for the
bench drilling machine A15 - ∅15mm, in steel workpieces.
Based on the above considerations for the c
problem being discussed we can formulate
the following test criteria and their corre-
sponding boundary conditions:
1. Ergonomic dimensions – the diameter
of the sphere (dimension c – fig. 16).
According to available standards, it is
advisable to have this diameter in the
range of 18 to 50 mm [4], [14]. It is
also related to the anthropometric di-
mension “Size of grip of the hand”.
2. Ergonomic shape – it is necessary to
have a soft and convenient to grip
shape of the handles. The maximum
Figure 16
possible expert assessment score is 100
scores.
3. Required effort to successfully establish the functional relation – this is the effort
required to rotate the feed levers during the drilling operation. The amount of this
effort should give consideration to the strength capabilities of the right hand of the
operator.
4. Functionality – the degree of ergonomic compliance with the intended function.
The maximum possible expert assessment score is 100 scores (i.e. the ideal
situation).
5. Frequency of the functional relation– this is the frequency of the contact estab-
lished by the operator and the handles. It is quite obvious that this is featured by
high frequency of contact.
1. Ergonomic dimensions – the distance between the feed handle and cover (dimen-
sion d – fig. 17). This is related to the anthropometric dimension “Palm thickness” +
20mm [8], [6].
2. Frequency of the functional relation– this is almost identical with the previously
described problem area.
Now is the time to clarify that the “Frequency of ergonomic relation” criterion is in-
cluded here only to provide for trustworthy calculation of the overall ergonomic per-
formance assessment for the defined problem area. Therefore, columns “Current Condi-
tion” and “Assessment” and not filled in for this particular criterion and only the
“Weighing” column (1 - fig. 18) is filled in. In other words, this only serves to provide
weighing to the final assessment for each individual element of the identified problem
area when its final evaluation is made. The weighings of the “Frequency of the ergo-
nomic relation” criterion also varies within 0 – 1. Hence, the final assessment of each
element is calculated by multiplying the sum indicated in box 2 (fig. 18) by the weigh-
ing of the “Frequency of ergonomic relations” criterion (1 - fig. 18) and entering this re-
sult in box 3 (fig. 18). Figure 18 is a visual indication of the process of drawing the final
assessment for each individual element.
The overall ergonomic performance assessment for the product is calculated as the sum
of final assessments (3 - fig. 18) for each individual element of the problem area.
At this stage we can design assessment tables for individual elements of the problem
area. We can also design the sample population here.
We found for the first element of the problem area that the recommended diameter
for the spherical handle gripped by the fingers shall be in the upper part of the allowable
range of 12.5 - 40mm. In other words, this range can be viewed as a normal distribution
of values complying with the anthropometric characteristics. Anthropometric parame-
ters are often expressed as so called percentiles. Percentiles are such values of the con-
sidered anthropometric parameter that divide its variation order into 100 identical sec-
tions, such that the number of cases which have their values for this parameter within
two consecutive percentiles is 1% of the total number of cases considered. Therefore,
the values of the range limited by percentiles P50 and P95 – 35 – 40mm shall be entered
into the column “Boundary Conditions”. Figures are rounded to the closest standard
values for such handles (these products feature standard order of diameters).
24
We proceed in a similar way with the “Required effort” criterion but select the range
between P5 and P50 or when rounded up (this is quite insignificant in this particular
case), these are the values within 0.12 and 25 Nm.
For the second element for this criterion, the “Weight of the cover”, we have the
same range as for the previous element 0.12 to 12.5 Nm and the weight of the cover is
converted into kilograms. This is done because the two criteria are directly linked with
each other. We shall have to consider the size of the cover when defining the arm of the
momentum and the resistance of the locking mechanism. An advisable range for the
weight of the cover of 0, 65 - 69 N is thus obtained.
Element 2: Cover
Test Criteria Boundary Conditions Current Condi- Assessment Weighing Assessment*
tion
1 2 3 4 5 6 =4*5
Colour solution Contrast of the cover 0.45
Weight of cover 0.65 – 69 N 1.0
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100 0.5
Functionality 0 ÷ 100
0.5
Frequency of establish-
ing functional relation 0÷1
0.75
Final Assessment =
Some of the identified ergonomic problems are very closely related to each other. This
is mostly true for the third and fourth elements – the feed levers and the clash in be-
tween levers & the drilling head. Moreover, the “Frequency of establishing the ergo-
nomic relation” test criterion is the same for both of them. Therefore, the two ergo-
25
nomic dimensions of the two elements will be arranged one under the other and as-
sessed separately.
The range of allowable values for the diameter of feed lever handles is defined simi-
lar to above, but it should be kept in mind here that the grip is made by the entire palm,
not just the fingers. Therefore, the values of the range limited by percentiles P50 and P95
– 35 ÷ 50 mm will be entered into the “Boundary Conditions” column.
The recommended distance between the feed handle and cover (dimension d – fig.
16) is equal at least to the anthropometric dimension “Palm thickness” + 20mm. For the
anthropometric dimension “Palm thickness” we shall consider percentile P95 for male
individuals, the value of which is 33mm. We can also use here the anthropometric di-
mension “Finger thickness” but since its values for P95 are lower, this was disregarded
for the sake of safety.
The maximum required effort to rotate the levers to advance the tool is = 280N at P5
for male individuals operating with their right hand. This effort is to overcome a resis-
tance of 72Nm. The required effort will have to overcome the resistance of the return
spring and the momentum T = 43.2Nm, caused by the maximum cutting speed (for tools
of ∅15mm Dia).
The Functionality criterion will be assessed for the convenience of operation (the
optimum number of levers for an 80mm feed and its corresponding angle of rotation).
Element 3&4: Handle levers and ball handles on them and Clash in between levers
& the drilling head
Test Criteria Boundary Conditions Current Condi- Assessment Weighing Assessment*
tion
1 2 3 4 5 6 =4*5
Ergonomic dimensions:
- spherical handle dia 35 – 50 mm 1.0
- distance between feed
handle and cover
min. 53 mm (=33+20) 1.0
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100 0.5
For the fifth element, the sum of weighings of the two ergonomic dimensions is equal to
1.0 and forms the overall weighing of the “Ergonomic dimensions” criterion.
26
Functionality 0 ÷ 100
0.85
Frequency of establish-
ing functional relation 0÷1
0.8
Final Assessment =
Issues for the sixth element are very similar to these adopted for element 3 (Handle lev-
ers and ball handles on them):
From all read and analysed so far we can further develop some elements from the prob-
lem area. This will act as a link to generating design solutions that will optimise the er-
gonomic performance of the product.
First of all, a solution can be adopted for the cover for an entirely new design of the
handle used to open it. This will avoid the spherical shape of the handle and a few more
components and will take us to the alternative of having a long plastic handle cast into
the cover. For the purposes of the assessment, we will only have to replace the dimen-
sion in the “Boundary conditions” column with a smaller value.
27
Eventual modification to the shape of the drilling head will result in significant changes
in the problem area: it will be possible to eliminate the hazardous edge, it will be possi-
ble to move the volume with the shut-down sensor, it will be automatically possible to
change the shape of the cover to better match it with the shape of the drilling head thus
providing better functionality. Since we are going to modify the drilling head, we will
also be able to increase the diameter of the gear shaft, thus changing significantly the
nature of the problem – the angle of rotation at maximum quill stroke will be reduced,
which then allows us to consider the option of having a single feed lever. This will in
turn eliminate the “Clash in between levers & the drilling head” problem.
For the guard shield we can say there is no danger of a flying metal chips between the
upper section of the shield and the bottom edge of the drilling head. This is due to the
fact that metal chips and other particles coming off during the cutting operation are cap-
tured by the centrifugal forces acting on the spindle, thus flying out only in the horizon-
tal plane within the safety range of the guard shield. Therefore, this problem is thus
eliminated.
28
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100 50 0.50 25.00
Element 3&4: Handle levers and ball handles on them and Clash in between levers
& the drilling head
Ergonomic dimensions:
- spherical handle dia 35 – 50 mm 25 50 1.00 50.00
- distance between feed
handle and cover min. 53 mm (=33+20) 35 20 1.00 20.00
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100 90 0.50 45.00
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
For element 1 – the assessment for the ergonomic dimension of the spherical handle is
60 although the current diameter (18mm) is beyond the range defined by the boundary
conditions calculated relative to percentiles P50 and P95 - 35 ÷ 40 mm (as we already
discussed in the current logbook, weeks 5 and 6). However, we must keep in mind in
this assessment that it occupies the lower section of the range recommended in existing
standards – 12.5 ÷ 40 mm. Therefore, the final assessment is slightly above 50 scores
as it still meets part of the compulsory requirements and ensures certain ergonomic
compliance with the human factor.
The ergonomic characteristics of shape is given lower score of assessment – 50 scores
and this is exactly due to the problem of the flat bottom section of the spherical handle,
which results in reduction of dimension b (see figure 14). Moreover, the spherical shape
in this particular case is a possible solution but not the best alternative.
The required effort is assessed at 100 scores since it entirely fits into the range calcu-
lated based on percentiles P5 and P50 and occupies the optimum lower section of the
range.
The function of the handle is associated solely with the opening of the cover and is
given a score of 75. This is influenced by some disadvantages in the ergonomic charac-
teristics of shape and the location of the handle itself (in the middle of the cover, on the
side) and this resulted in a 25 scores reduction of the final assessment. In other words,
the assessment here is influenced by previous criteria in as far as any interference is
available between some of the criteria.
Idea generation: Analysis indicates that ergonomic characteristics can be further im-
proved by increasing the size of the handle and altering its shape. The risk of slippage of
fingers when the cover is opened beyond and angle of 45° should be eliminated (figure
15-B). This can be achieved in the following two ways: either by incorporating certain
cutout to increase surface roughness of the sphere, or by altering the shape of the han-
dle. The fact that the grip here is by the fingers of the hand (and not by the palm or part
of the palm) and the negative effect caused by the location of the handle, give us
grounds to give preference to the second alternative.
For element 2 – the assessment given to the colour solution adopted for the machine is
very low, 25 scores, since using white colour as the basic colour for metal cutting ma-
chines is inappropriate. We must consider here the fact that the entire machine is
painted in white and no contrast is provided. Thus, discomfort is brought to the operator
resulting in subliminal sense of strain associated with the sterility of the white colour –
one instinctively is avoiding to touch it fearing of “leaving stains” on the surface. An-
other disadvantage is that white coulour is very easy to become dirty and look unsightly
as well as hard to keep clean. White colour features the lowest degree of “absorbing
dirt” (disguise dirt to a certain extent), which practically makes it impossible to conceal
dirt. Therefore, it is preferable to use other colours, such as some from the blue and
green line of colours usually recommended for engineering equipment.
31
The ergonomic characteristics of shape are given low assessment, only 60 scores, due to
the asymmetrical design and the influence of another element of the pre-defined prob-
lem area, element 4 (Clash in between levers& the drilling head).
The logics in awarding the scores for cover weight (required effort) criterion and func-
tionality criterion is similar to that adopted for element 1 above (certain interference be-
tween some of the criteria).
Idea generation: Analysis indicates that ergonomic characteristics can be further im-
proved by:
1. Re-painting the colour and the entire machine in different colour.
2. Adding contrast between the colour of the cover and the colour of the drill head –
this will rise the score for the assessment of the functionality criterion as a certain
shade of contrast will give an indication of the type of function involved.
3. Alter the shape to achieve symmetry – this can be done only provided certain altera-
tions in the shape of the drilling head are incorporated.
For elements 3&4 – the assessment score for the ergonomic performance of the size of
the spherical handle is 50 due to reasons similar to those given
above for the assessment of the cover handle. Althouth the current
diameter (25mm) is out of the range defined by the boundary con-
ditions calculated based on percentiles P50 and P95 - 35 ÷ 50 mm, it
falls into the lower section of the range recommended by available
industrial standards – 18 ÷ 50 mm. Therefore, it is given as as- ?
sessment score of 50 since it still complies with part of the compul-
sory requirements but it should be kept in mind here that the grip is
on the entire palm. The other ergonomically significant dimension, Figure 19
the distance between the machine feed handle and the cover, is
given an especially low assessment score since it does not comply with the requirements
for a minimum distance of 53mm.
The ergonomic performance of shape has been given a high assessment score of 90
since it is very convenient for the grip of the human hand. 10 scores less than the maxi-
mum score is due to the insufficiently smooth transition between the spherical section
and the elongation under the sphere (fig. 19), designed to give some support to the fin-
ger tips.
The required effort has been given an assessment of 70 scores in view of the fact that a
maximum score would be given to a machine of entirely different design solution
(automatic feed or at least worm driven feed). However, the current effort is still within
the normal range and is much lower when small diameter tools for drilling are employed
(this reduces the cutting force and hence, the effort required to overcome it).
As we already mentioned, when we consider functionality we assess the convenience
associated with functioning, which in this particular case is directly related to the num-
ber of levers. In the case of the current handle, it is necessary to change hands on the
handle lever when deeper drilling operations are involved and levers are rotated beyond
90°. Two is not the optimum number of levers for 80 mm feed distance and the relevant
angle of rotation.
32
To improve operational convenience we will have to consider if two levers are suffi-
cient for the specific feed distance of 80mm and its relevant angle of rotation (256°).
Therefore, we will consider an assessment
criterion for functionality, as well.
Idea generation: increase the size of the
handle and slightly alter the shape of the
transition to the elongated section to im-
prove ergonomic performance. As of the
“required effort” criterion – it is economi-
cally unjustified to make the design more
complicated for this particular type of ma-
chine. Moreover, the current required ef-
fort level is very good.
It would be preferable to have a single-
lever feed with a maximum angle of rota-
tion of 95 ÷ 100°. For this particular type
and size of machine and the degree of pre-
Figure 20
cision involved, it is unjustified to have a
larger number of handle levers, especially
for a feed distance of 80mm.
For element 5 – the assessment score of ergonomic performance of the Transparent
Protective Shield is 100 thanks to its complete compliance with the size of the opera-
tional area.
The ergonomic performance of its rotation has been assessed much lower – 40 scores,
which is due to the difficulty involved in turning it and the need to untighten and re-
tighten the side screw.
Functionality here is high, in as far as it concerns the degree of protection it provides for
the operator.
Idea generation: The only intervention here could be to incorporate a simple design so-
lution to help avoid the need for performing several operations to turn the shield.
For element 6 – the assessment score awarded to this element is rather high and no de-
sign or ergonomic modifications are considered here.
will at the same time result in some alterations in the shape of the drilling head and the
cover.
1. We will have a single handle lever of different shape. To do this, the maximum an-
gle of rotation of this handle should be 95 ÷ 100°. Therefore, we have to increase the
pitch diameter of the gear shaft which transmits movement to the quill (fig. 20). If we
increase this to 100 mm then we will have: 48
25
l 80
= = 0.25 turns.
π * d 3.14 *100
This means the angle of rotation of the handle for
maximum drilling depth (80mm) will be
0.25*360° = 90° (fig. 21). – this is very conven-
ient to handle with just a single hand. The opening Sharp Soft
provided into the shaft will move back 22 mm.
The length of the lever will have to be increased Was Now
to compensate for this displacement and move this Figure 22
handle above the level of the cover handle. This,
along with a slight bend incorporated into the shape of the lever (1 - fig. 23) will move
the cover more than 53mm away (60mm - fig. 23). A longer lever will also reduce the
required effort (the arm of the applied force is longer, hence the required momentum is
reduced). The handle lever original position is vertical + 10° (fig. 21). This is much
more convenient and in compliance with the psycho-motor reactions of the operator,
since when he moves the lever the muscles of the biceps of his right hand contract and
this is the strongest possible movement of the hand. Moreover, the upper position
allows for some rest of the fingers and the palm using the vertical lever with handle as a
kind of support, thus allowing the
hand to relax when no feed is 60 3
2
required. This is exactly why these
+ 10° are added – to change the di-
rection of the load opposite to the
applied load.
2. Alteration in the size and shape 4 1
of the handle. The diameter of the
handle will be increased to
∅48mm. The shape of the handle
will be the same and only the
smoothness of the transition be-
tween the spherical and coni-
cal/cylindrical section will be
changed (fig. 22).
3. The cover will be located sym-
metrically when viewed from the
face. Movement shut-down sensor Figure 23
for “cover open” position is moved
back and into the drilling head to allow for some symmetry of the drilling head, and
hence – the cover of the machine (2 - fig. 23).
34
4. Alteration of the overall concept for the opening handle. The cover opening handle
will be machine-cast into the cover (the handle is part of the cover and hence, more
rigid: 3 – fig. 23) and is rectangular in shape along the length of the cover. The cross-
sectional view shape of the handle features smooth rounded edges, which is sufficiently
large (>20mm) and convenient to hold with the fingers of the hand.
5. Transparent protective shield is of the same shape (2 - fig. 23).. Some design
changes will be introduced on the sides where the clamp and height adjustment mecha-
nism is located. The following alterations are implemented by means of introducing two
additional grooves and a spring:
- When the shield is slightly lifted up (10 mm), it overcomes the pressure exerted by a
small spring and falls into a groove where it can be rotated to provide access to the
operational area of the machine. This is achieved with only a single slight movement
of the hand.
- A slight rotation into the opposite direction causes the spring to move the cover back
into its original lower position
6. Change the colour of the exterior of the machine. The white colour is replaced by
the more suitable and recommended for engineering equipment blue colour. The cover
is painted in deeper shade of blue to provide for some contrast and indication of its
functional purpose (fig. 23).
Figure 23 illustrates the final appearance of the machine after introducing above altera-
tions. This can now be subjected to the same test as the previous variant. The only dif-
ference will be observed in the name of the machine and the Boundary Conditions cal-
culated for the first element, since now it features an entirely different shape:
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 85 0.50 42.50
Frequency of establish-
ing functional relation 0÷1 0.75 235.00
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Frequency of establish-
ing functional relation 0÷1 0.80 205.00
Ergonomic characteris-
tics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Comparative Analysis
Figure 24 illustrates the ergonomic changes introducing above alterations:
Figure 24
Based on the results thus obtained we can draw up a comparative analysis between the
new version, the old version and an ideal variant (with all maximum assessment scores):
The table also shows the percentage improvement of the new version relative to the old
one and the percentage achieved by the new version relative to the ideal variant. Values
are exceptionally high - the overall improvement of ergonomic performance in the de-
fined problem area of the product is increased by 30.4% relative to the old version and
achieves 95.78% of the ideal assessment score, which is a very good result. Actually,
most of the insufficient reminder score is due to the “required effort” criterion for ele-
ment 3 & 4, where we already mentioned there are some objective causes (it is eco-
37
nomically unjustified to introduce automatic feed and the current solution provides for
sufficiently acceptable characteristics for this particular type and size of machine).
This is a very good result. However, the fact that the new version does not achieve
100% of the ideal level does not imply that the modified version is not sufficiently suc-
cessful. We must remember here that the subject of the study here is the currently exist-
ing machine and this means that alterations are introduced observing a number of other
requirements: technical, economic, etc. It is not a matter of designing a new product.
Therefore, some of the decisions are made giving priority to the economic efficiency or
observing available technical capabilities (and not necessarily achieving 100% ergo-
nomic performance). For example, part of the insufficient percentage required to
achieve the maximum value for elements 3 & 4 is due to the “required effort” criterion
where automatic feeding is economically unjustified. However, the score of 93.91%
achieved for this particular element is rather sufficient and ensures excellent
characteristics for this specific type and size of machine.
The analysis thus drawn up allows us to consider the level of ergonomic performance of
individual machine elements and adopt necessary decisions of introducing alterations in
locations where intervention is most required as well as the scope of such intervention.
The conclusion from all said so far is that the suggested new modified version of the
machine can be assessed as very good from ergonomic performance viewpoint.
38
Working Environment
Figure 25 The bench-
The subject of the present project, the bench-drilling machine drilling machine A15
A15, belongs to the type of working environment which is
typical for the operation of Machine Tools (Metal Cutting). Its characteristic features
involve the following components: metal-cutting machine, units, tooling, auxiliary
attachments and equipment, working benches and furniture, production rooms, etc.
Test Criteria
Certain basic criteria were synthesised based on the analysis and these were then used to
assess the adopted ergonomic solutions. These constitute the first and most significant
component of the test being developed [17]. Various elements of the pre-defined
problem area feature the same criteria. For example: Ergonomic dimensions, Ergonomic
characteristics of shape, Functionality, and the Frequency of establishing the functional
relation [18]. It should be kept in mind that each individual criterion strongly and
primarily depends on the specific element it is applied to. For example, the “Ergonomic
dimensions” criterion for Handle of the drill head cover element refers to the size of a
diameter, while for the Transparent protective shield element it refers to linear
dimensions.
Boundary Conditions
This is the second test component. Boundary conditions are directly related to corre-
sponding criteria and the requirements placed by current regulations and standards. But
before being incorporated into the test, boundary conditions are calculated relative to
percentiles applicable to each individual element. For example, the values recom-
mended for the “Ergonomic dimensions” criterion for the first element, Handle of the
drill head cover, are in the range of 12.5÷40mm but since there is a requirement for
these values to fall within the range between percentiles* P50 and P95, then boundary
conditions are re-calculated to arrive at 35÷40mm. Thus, exerpts from statistics of
conducted anthropometric studies are considered. The decision as to which particular
percentile is to be used is based on analytical methods (eg. for external dimensions
small sizes are significant – percentile P5, and for external dimensions – large sizes –
perentiles P95).
Boundary conditions are expressly defined where possible using specific values and
measurement units (such as, for example, for “Ergonomic dimensions” and “Required
effort”) or by means of describing the status (for example, preferred colour for the
*
Anthropometric parameters are often expressed as so called percentiles. Percentiles are such values of the consid-
ered anthropometric parameter that divide its variation order into 100 identical sections, such that the number of
cases which have their values for this parameter within two consecutive percentiles is 1% of the total number of cases
considered.
41
adopted colour solution). The maximum possible expert assessment score for the rest of
the criteria is 100 scores (i.e. the ideal situation).
Indicated in the last sixth column is the result of multiplying the assessment for each in-
dividual criterion by its corresponding weighing.
The assessment for the ergonomic performance of each individual described element of
the problem area is calculated by adding up in a vertical direction the criteria assess-
ments provided in column 6. The sum is then entered into box 2 (fig. 28) against the
“Frequency of ergonomic relation” criterion.
The “Frequency of ergonomic relation” criterion is included here only to provide for
trustworthy calculation of the general ergonomic performance assessment for the de-
fined problem area. Therefore, columns “Current Condition” and “Assessment” are not
filled in for this particular criterion and only the “Weighing” column (1 - fig. 18) is
filled in. In other words, this only serves to provide weighing to the final assessment for
each individual element of the identified problem area when its general assessment (for
the overall Problem Area) is made. The weighings of the “Frequency of the ergonomic
relation” criterion also vary within 0 – 1. Hence, the final assessment of each element is
calculated by multiplying the sum indicated in box 2 (fig. 28) by the weighing of the
“Frequency of ergonomic relations” criterion (1 - fig. 28) and entering this result in box
3 (fig. 28).
Figure 28 is a visual indication of the process of drawing the final assessment for each
individual element (i.e. for each separate section in the general table). The general
assessment of ergonomic performance of the product is derived as the sum total of all
final assessment scores (provided in box 3, Figure 28) for each individual element of the
problem area.
9.4 RESULTS
Element 3&4: Handle levers and ball handles on them and Clash inbetween levers & the drilling head
Ergonomic dimensions:
- spherical handle dia 35 – 50 mm 25 50 1.00 50.00
- distance between feed handle and cover min. 53 mm (=33+20) 35 20 1.00 20.00
Ergonomic characteristics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 90 0.50 45.00
Required effort max. 72Nm 45.7Nm 70 0.70 49.00
Functionality 0 ÷ 100% 60 0.50 30.00
Frequency of establishing functional relation 0÷1 1.00 194.00
Element 3&4: Final Assessment = 194.00
Element 5: Transparent protective shield
Ergonomic dimensions:
- width 150 ÷ 180 mm 150 mm 100 0.50 50.00
- height 120 ÷ 150 mm 120 mm 100 0.50 50.00
Ergonomic characteristics of rotation 0 ÷ 100% 40 0.50 20.00
Functionality 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.85 85.00
Frequency of establishing functional relation 0÷1 0.80 205.00
Element 5: Final Assessment = 164.00
Element 6: Handle lever of the table lifting mechanism
Ergonomic dimensions:
- handle dia 25 – 45 mm 35 100 0.80 80.00
- distance between handle and table min. 53 mm (=33+20) 60 85 0.80 68.00
Ergonomic characteristics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Required effort max. 90Nm 9Nm 100 0.70 70.00
Functionality 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Frequency of establishing functional relation 0÷1 0.75 318
Element 6: Final Assessment = 238.50
Design solutions
Following the analyses carried out and the
idea generation process we proceeded with
the synthesis of specific design solutions
observing to an optimum extent the
ergonomic requirements for individual
elements.
1. A single feed lever is now provided and
its shape is altered, as well. The handle
lever will have a maximum angle of rotation
of 90° for a maximum drilling depth of
80mm (fig. 29). Its original position is
vertical + 10°. This is much more
convenient and in compliance with the
psycho-motor reactions of the operator, Figure 29
44
since when he moves the lever the muscles of the biceps of his right hand contract and
this is the strongest possible movement of the hand. Moreover, the upper position
allows for some rest of the fingers and the palm using the vertical lever with handle as a
kind of support, thus allowing the hand to relax when no feed is required. This is exactly
why these + 10° are added – to change the direction of the load opposite to the applied
load [18].
The change in the shape of the lever (1 - fig. 31) results in moving the cover 60mm
away and expanding the safety area for the hand. The longer lever also results in a
reduction of the required effort. The design changes resulting from all these alterations
are: increased pitch diameter of the gear shaft, which transmits movement to the quill;
and move the shaft 22 mm back. These are technically feasible solutions with the
current design of the drilling head.
3. The cover looks symmetrical when viewed from the face. The movement shut-off
sensor for “cover open” position is moved back and into the drilling head and this
allows us to achieve 60 3
symmetry of the drilling 2
head and hence, the
machine cover (2 - fig. 31).
This alteration is also
technically feasible.
5. New way of turning the Transparent protective shield. The shape of the shield is left
unchanged and only the design solution which provides for its rotation is modified. This
is technically simple and feasible. The following movements are required:
- Slight lift of the shield (10 mm) and it can be rotated to provide access to the
operational area of the machine.
- Slight turn in the opposite direction and the spring retracts it into the previous
lower position.
6. The colour of the machine is changed. White colour is replaced by the far more
suitable and recommended blue colour. The cover is painted in darker shades of blue to
achieve contrast and give an indication of its functional purpose – “colour distinction of
functions” [21]. Thus, all drawbacks of the previously adopted colour solution are
avoided. Figure 31 illustrates the final appearance of the machine after all alterations
are complete. Now it can be subjected to the same test which was applied to the old
version.
Element 3&4: Handle levers and ball handles on them and Clash in between levers & the drilling head
Ergonomic dimensions:
- spherical handle dia 35 – 50 mm 48 100 1.00 100.00
- distance between feed handle and cover min. 53 mm (=33+20) 60 95 1.00 95.00
Ergonomic characteristics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Required effort max. 72Nm 39Nm 75 0.70 52.50
Functionality 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Frequency of establishing functional relation 0÷1 1.00 347.50
Element 3&4: Final Assessment = 347.50
Element 5: Transparent protective shield
Ergonomic dimensions:
- width 150 ÷ 180 mm 150 mm 100 0.50 50.00
- height 120 ÷ 150 mm 120 mm 100 0.50 50.00
Ergonomic characteristics of rotation 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Functionality 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.85 85.00
Frequency of establishing functional relation 0÷1 0.80 235.00
Element 5: Final Assessment = 188.00
Element 6: Handle lever of the table lifting mechanism
Ergonomic dimensions:
- handle dia 25 – 45 mm 35 100 0.80 80.00
- distance between handle and table min. 53 mm (=33+20) 60 85 0.80 68.00
Ergonomic characteristics of shape 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Required effort max. 90Nm 9Nm 100 0.70 70.00
Functionality 0 ÷ 100% 100 0.50 50.00
Frequency of establishing functional relation 0÷1 0.75 318.00
Element 6: Final Assessment = 238.50
The table also includes the coefficient of improvement of the new variant compared to
the old one (column D = B/C*100%), as well as the percentage improvement of the new
version relative to the ideal variant (column F = B/E*100%). Values are especially high
– the overall improvement of ergonomic characteristics of the problem area of the
47
product is improved by 30.4% relative to the old version and reaches up to 95.78% of
the ideal assessment score.
This is a very good result. However, the fact that the new version does not achieve
100% of the ideal level does not imply that the modified version is not sufficiently suc-
cessful. We must remember here that the subject of the study here is the currently exist-
ing machine and this means that alterations are introduced observing a number of other
requirements: technical, economic, etc. It is not a matter of designing a new product.
Therefore, some of the decisions are made giving priority to the economic efficiency or
observing available technical capabilities (and not necessarily achieving 100% ergo-
nomic performance). For example, part of the insufficient percentage required to
achieve the maximum value for elements 3 & 4 is due to the “required effort” criterion
where automatic feeding is economically unjustified. However, the score of 93.91%
achieved for this particular element is rather sufficient and ensures excellent
characteristics for this specific type and size of machine.
Complete match, a 100% achievement of the ideal version, is observed for element 5.
The next highest match percentage is for element 6 (96.36%) where no alterations are
introduced since the result is originally high. High match rates are also observed for the
rest of the elements within the problem area – above 90% as an average.
48
9.7 CONCLUSIONS
The suggested modified version of the bench-drilling machine A15 features 30.4%
higher general ergonomic performance compared to the old variant;
The overall general ergonomic performance achieves an exceptionally high percent-
age of match with the ideal variant, 95.78%;
Causes for failure to achieve a 100% match with the ideal variant in some of the
elements are purely objective; they are of economic and technical nature;
The highest improvement in ergonomic performance compared to the old version is
achieved for element 3&4 – 79.1%;
Improved are both ergonomic and aesthetic characteristics of the machine.
The final conclusion after all said so far is that the suggested new version can be
assessed as very good from an ergonomic viewpoint.
Figure 32 illustrates the final comparison between the old and the new machine:
Figure 32
49
REFERENCES
[1] Christ RE. 1995. Review and analysis of colour coding research for machine tools.
Human Factors, 17:542-570.
[2] Clarke TS, Corlett EN. 1984. The ergonomics of Workplaces and Machines: a De-
sign Manal. Taylor and Francis, London: 57-63.
[3] Warr P(ed.). 1997. Psychology at work, 6th edition. Penguin Books, New York:260-
293.
[4] Eklund JAE, Frievalds A. 1993. Machine Tools for the 1990s. Applied Ergonomics,
24:146-147.
[5] Friedmann K. 1994. The effect of adding symbols to written warning labels on Ma-
chine Tools. Human Factors, 30:507-515.
[6] Kline TJ, Ghali LM, Kline DW, Brown S. 2000. Visibility distance of Machine Tool
signs among young, middle aged and older industrial workers: Icons are better than text.
Human Factors, 30:609-619.
[7] Khaleque A. 1981. Job Satisfaction, perceived effort and heart rate in light industrial
work. Ergonomics, 24:735-742.
[8] Marras WS, Kim JY. 1993. Anthropometry of industrial populations. Ergonomics,
36:371-378.
[9] Norman DA. 1994. Stages and levels in human-machine interaction. International
Journal of Man-Machine studies, 21:365-375.
[10] Pheasant ST, O’Neill D. 1975. Performance in gripping and turning: A study in
hand/handle effectiveness. Applied Ergonomics, 6:205-208.
[11] Pope MH, Bevins T, David RPT, Wilder G, Frymower JW. 1995. The relationship
between anthropometric, postural, muscular and mobility characteristics of males ages
18-55. Spine, 10:644-648.
[12] Rys M, Konz S. 1998. Standing. Ergonomics, 37:677-687.
[13] Singleton WT. 1992. Man-Machine Systems. Penguin, London.
[14] Snook SH, Ciriello VM. 2001. The design of manual handling tasks: Revised ta-
bles of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics, 34:1197-1213.
[15] Wiker SF, Chaffin DB, Langolf GD. 1999. Shoulder posture and localized muscle
fatique and discomfort. Ergonomics, 32:211-237.
[16] H. Yoshikawa, T. Nakagawa, Y. Nakatani, T. Furuta, A. Hasegawa. Development
of an analysis support system for man-machine system design information. Control En-
gineering Practice, Volume 5, Issue 3, March 1997, Pages 417-425.
[17] C.B. Gibbs. Methodology of gain studies in man-machine systems Psychological
Bulletin, Volume 60, Issue 2, March 1963, Pages 147-151.
[18] Gunnar Johannsen, Alexander H. Levis, Henk G. Stassen. Theoretical problems in
man-machine systems and their experimental validation. Automatica, Volume 30, Issue
2, February 1994, Pages 217-231.
50
[19] William B. Rouse, William J. Cody. On the design of man-machine systems Prin-
ciples, practices and prospects. Automatica, Volume 24, Issue 2, March 1988, Pages
227-238.
[20] F. Margulies, H. Zemanek. Man's role in man-machine systems Automatica, Vol-
ume 19, Issue 6, November 1983, Pages 677-683.
[21] V. Sree Krishna Chaitanya. Stability analysis of structurally unstable man–machine
system involving time delays. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, Volume 6,
Issue 5, December 2005, Pages 845-857.
IMPROVEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HUMAN-MACHINE
AN ERGONOMIC TEST FOR A BENCH DRILL DESIGN
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS