CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
A manual hand operated trolley is a small transporting device used to move significant load from
place to place. In most if the industries hand trolleys normally used to transport finished product
or row materials. There are many different kinds of trolleys exist. The type of trolley commonly
chosen based on the kind of material it will move. For example, wheeled trolley, folding trolley,
garden trolley, sack trolley, kitchen trolley … Trolleys can protect peoples from back injuries.

In Ethiopia we have a shortage of material handling tools. As a developing country we have

some basic needs are not available. Like the access of pure tap water, a stable power supply, a
clean environment and a standard place to live.

In a developing country like Ethiopia there are a lot of on-going construction with a very little-
to-non material handling tool. The use of trolleys for transportation of different materials in
construction site is already a habitual thing. And also, as you can see in the street of Addis Ababa
there are a lot of young kids transporting water by the means of trolley. Other people who are
using trolleys are for waste management system workers. In Addis Ababa there are a lot of
enterprises working on waste management and almost all of them uses trolley for transporting
waste. And lately we have seen the use of trolleys for delivery if goods like Injera whole sellers,
coal seller’s beverage whole sellers and for delivery of items.

These trolleys have a lot of room for development and redesigning. The main problem in using
trolleys is the power the power requirement from the operator. The power required to start
motion, control the speed, change direction, slowing down and stopping. In our observation all
the trolleys do not have a braking mechanism there for it makes it vary hard to control the speed
and movement of the trolley these resulting a great deal of stress on the operator.

A brake system for a movable cart, such as a tool cart and trolleys have mechanism for inhibiting
rotation of at least one wheel of the cart, a brake release mechanism, and an actuator for
manually actuating the brake release mechanism. The brake mechanism includes a lever arm
pivotally coupled to the cart and having first and second portions disposed on opposite sides of a
pivot axis. The lever arm has a braked position wherein the first portion is pressure-loaded
against the cart wheel to inhibit rotation of the wheel. The brake release mechanism includes a
cam member rotatably coupled to the frame and disposed adjacent to the second portion of the
lever arm. The actuator is operatively coupled to the cam member, such that actuation of the
actuator rotates the cam member and causes the cam member to engage the second portion of the
lever arm and pivots the lever arm to a released position wherein the first portion of the lever arm
is disengaged from the cart wheel to permit rotation of the wheel. In a further aspect of the
invention, the brake system is configured to provide simultaneously braking of a pair of cart
wheels.

In this thesis study we will try to develop and redesign the existing manual, two-wheel trolley
with some additional features like barking mechanism based on the principle of product design
by considering need of the customer and following the product design and development
principles for redesign of products like trolley.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
With rapid technological advancement, automation and mechanization have been applied in
many industries and in our daily activities. Manual material handling (MMH) is not an
exception. In general, MMH recognized that objects are being lifted, lowered, carried, pushed
and pulled by hand (Snook et al., 1978). In industrial sectors, many hand carts and trucks are
used as excellent alternatives to reduce lifting and carrying activities. Various case studies have
reported that well-designed handling aids can help to reduce workload and the risk of injuries. In
our country Ethiopia especially in the city it is common to see people pushing two wheeled
trolleys carrying different types of goods. Most common goods transported are jar of water,
different beverage, dry waste, and other countless staffs. Trolleys are quite effective and simple
of transporting load from place to place. It very powerful lever mechanism which made possible
to move the goods with little effort, which could have been impossible to lift and move such
amount of weight.

However, as powerful as the mechanism is, it has its own drawback. One drawback is lack of
braking system. As you may see those are two wheeled which makes them less complex and
easy to make. But they are less stable and hard to control than four wheeled trolleys, which bring
about the need for control mechanism. You can imagine the struggle to control the trolley when
going down the hill with full load. This is due to horizontal component of component of the
weight of the load and the trolley itself. We need tremendous amount of pulling force to control
the speed the trolley, otherwise it leads to uncontrollable situation. This uncontrollable condition
(over speed) may cause damage to the loaded goods especially the good is fragile such as glass
bottled beverages. The same force pushes us back when climbing up the hill, causing similar
problem only in reverse direction this time. The problem could be exaggerated when driving on
slippery road. In addition, since these trolleys are parked at the road side, sudden slippage can
lead to traffic accident, equipment damage and injury to pedestrians. The other problem of these
trolleys we observe is, they are not made with much analysis that they are not ergonomically
correct. That means either too high or too low in their operating position. Also have improper
arm length which is very important to reduce human effort to lift and drive.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
The significant of this study is by redesigning a better trolley including the designing of braking
system that can be adopted in the available two-wheel hand driven manual trolleys. Our study
will decrease the stress on the operator by decreasing the power required to control and
maneuver the trolley thus decreasing the accidents that are happening due to un attended trolley
and also it will significantly decrease the energy required from the operator to stop the trolley.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of the study is up to development of detail design including the strength and the
working
mechanisms of the machine with in simple and available material which can be incorporated on
the existing trolley and also simple to manufacture, easy to maintain and easy to assemble and
disassemble by the considering the manufacturing process of each material and their property.

OBJECTIVE
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this paper is to redesign of trolley with the including of braking
mechanism for hand operated trolleys.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
 To generate concepts viable for our fast-food trolleys.
 To Select suitable mechanism for the braking system of food delivering trolleys based
on ease of integration, part availability and affordability.
 To do geometrical analysis using solid work.
 To select appropriate materials for each component.
 To do analytical analysis by hand
 To develop component and assembly drawing using solid work
CHAPTER 2

LITRATURE REVIEW
Numerous studies on material handling aids have been carried out using different carriers,
including one-wheeled barrows, two-wheeled hand trucks, and four-wheeled carts. Usually,
different features of the same material handling aids were the focus of the study. aspects related
to design, the environment, the operator, the task, and usability difficulties were comprised.
Many of the aids, according to [1]were either poorly made or improperly employed to lessen and
evaluate the potential for damage with any manual material handling duties, they gave
instructions for their selection and assessment. In their research, the primary parameters were
established using data from a survey, evidence gleaned from the written word and acknowledged
ergonomic principles. Fig. 1 displayed the primary criteria listed by [1].

Design Characteristics Environment Conditions

 Interface (handle type, height,  Compatibility with workplace and
orientation) other equipment
 Size  Space available
 Weight  Obstacles
 Platform height and dimensions  Terrain – floor surface
 Load securing system  Surface friction
 Wheelbase  Slopes or ramps
 Wheel type and size  Steps, stairs
 Catering of wheels  Maintenance condition
 Lightening
 Vibration

Load Characteristics Performance Aspects:

 Type of load  Usability
 Size  Forces required
 Weight  Steerability
 Weight distribution  Stability
(Center of gravity) Manual  Field of view
 Shape  Physiological energy demands
transport  Ease of loading/unloading
aids  Efficiency (e.g., load capacity)
 Safety

Operational Conditions
 Frequency & duration of task User Characteristics
 Speed of work  Sex
 Required load per trip  Age
 Work Pressure  Anthropometry
 Availability of assistance  Strength
 Direction of motion  Training and task knowledge
 Motivation
 Motion phase

Figure 1: Factors which are important to the usability of manual transport aids
The design characteristics included interface (handle type, height, and orientation), size, weight,
platform height and dimensions, load securing system, wheelbase, wheel type and size, and
catering of wheels. Compatibility with the workplace and other equipment, space availability,
barriers, topography, slope and ramps, steps and stairs, maintenance state, illumination, and
vibration were all factors that made up the environment. The type of load, size, weight, weight
distribution, and form were among the load characteristics. Operation requirements included job
frequency and length, work rate, necessary load of each trip, work pressure, support and
availability. Last but not least, user characteristics included motivation, sex, age, anthropometry,
strength, training and task knowledge. All factors together, the performance may be assessed.
The measurements covered the physiology, steerability, stability, force required, ease of
loading/unloading, efficiency, and safety. [1]
Four-wheeled aids
Design characteristics
One of the most important features of material handling aids is design characteristics. Interface
as a design characteristic includes handle type, height, and orientation. Handle interface needs to
be well placed and of the appropriate type, affecting both ease of steering and biomechanical
stresses when exerting force. In addition, carts’ size, weight, and wheel type and size should be
considered as design characteristics.

A laboratory experiment to find factors affecting minimum push and pull forces of the four-
wheeled carts. As design characteristics, they compared different wheel sizes and orientations.
The four-wheeled cart had a dimension of 610×1020×820 mm (width × length × height). The
weight of the cart was 15.3 kg without the wheels. Their wheels had two different widths (25
mm and 38 mm). A diameter of 102 mm (hard rubber) was used to evaluate the effect of wheel
width. In the following experiment, the cart had three different wheel diameters (51, 102, and
152 mm) with 25 mm wheel width for evaluation of the effect of the wheel diameter. F0R0 (all
four wheels aligned in the forward direction), F0R90 (the two front wheels, the wheels furthest
from the cart handle, aligned in the forward direction and the two rear wheels, the wheels closest
to the cart handle, aligned at 90° to the forward direction), F90R0 (the two front wheels aligned
at 90° to the forward direction and the two rear wheels aligned in the forward direction), and
F90R90 (all four wheels aligned at 90° to the forward direction was tested as wheel orientations.
In this study, they found the wheel width did not have a significant effect on the minimum pull
forces on carpet and on concrete. In addition, as considering wheel diameter and orientation, they
found that larger diameter and F0R0 had less pull forces. [2]
A study with three different handle heights; knuckle, elbow, and shoulder. In their study, they
found the vertical forces were smallest at the elbow level. Handle height, interaction between
handle height and cart load were also significant for the initial hand forces. However, Al-Eisawi
and his colleagues did not provide the size of the carts in their study. [3]

A study for a better design of a meal cart. They used the horizontal, cylindrical cart handle with
handle height of 121 cm. They found the placement of the handle did not allow a comfortable
posture for the small (5th percentile female) or a large (95th percentile male) person. [4]

An experiment for measuring the change of force direction and load on the shoulder and low
back. In their study, the adjusting bar heights with 60%, 70%, and 80% of the shoulder height
were used for the pushing operation. In addition, they used handle heights of 50%, 60%, and
70% of for pulling operation. In pushing, the direction ranged from pushing downward at the
mean (SD) angle with respect to the downward vertical of 45.6 (3.3°) at the lowest force level
and handle height, to pushing slightly upward at 96.1(2.6°) at the highest force level and handle
height. The absolute shoulder torque was significantly and positively affected by handle height
and horizontal force level. The mean decrease in total force exertion from the lowest to highest
handle height was 36 N (= 22%), 26 N (= 10%), and 7.4 N (= 2%) at the low, middle, and high
horizontal force level. A tripling of the horizontal force level in pushing yielded increases in the
total force exertion of 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8 times for the three handle heights. In pulling, the effects
of the force level and handle height were also significant but considerably smaller than pushing.
Among conditions, the direction varied from pulling upward at 25.6 (15.3°) at the lowest force
level and handle height to pulling slightly downward at 256.3 (6.1°) at the highest force level and
handle height. The effect of the horizontal force level was positively correlated and the effect of
handle height was negatively correlated to the absolute shoulder torque. However, the effects of
handle height on the shoulder torque were generally much smaller than the effects of the force
level. Finally, it was found that handle height clearly affected the direction of force exertion,
which influences the shoulder and low back load. [5]

Mack found the handle height had the most serious effects on cart design and the dimension of
trolleys made them difficult to push in their survey. [1]
Load characteristics

Reports from two studies showed load characteristics according to two separate experiments. In
1999a study, they chose cinder blocks as the type of load and increased load weight from 0 to
181.4 kg in increments of 36.3 kg for investigating the effect of wheel width, diameter, and
orientation. In another experiment, the load weights increased from 0 to 217.7 kg in increments
of 36.3 kg for investigating the effect of floor material. In two experiments, they revealed that
the minimum push/pull forces were linearly proportional to cart weight. In 1999b study, they
investigated the effect of handle height and cart load on the initial hand forces in cart pushing
and pulling. Handle heights were set to knuckle, elbow, and shoulder levels and cart loads were
set to 73 kg and 181 kg. In this study, the results showed that higher force was applied as cart
load increased. The statistical results also showed that cart load was significant (p ≤ 0.0001) and
the interaction between cart load and handle height was also significant (p ≤ 0.0001). [3, 2]

In an additional test, measured five different cart loads to see biomechanical load on L5/S1. The
results indicated subjects produced excessive spinal compression forces when the load reached
450 kg. In addition, they concluded that cart loads should be kept under 225 kg to avoid high
back forces. [6]

Van der Beek found pushing and pulling a postal cage with 2450 N required the use of 50%
physiological capacity of postal workers. [7]

Environmental conditions
Environment conditions were usually categorized as space available, obstacles, floor surface,
surface friction, and slopes or ramps. This study included more factors such as compatibility with
workplace and other equipment, steps, stairs, maintenance condition, lightening, and vibration in
their usability model. However, most current researches have focused on the first five factors in
their study. [1]

While people exert pushing or pulling forces with the cart, two frictions (shoes friction and
rolling friction) are involved in the starting, sustained and ending phases. Those frictions were
summarized on Table 1 and Table 2 based on the results of previous studies. [3, 8]

Floor Coefficient of rolling 95% confidence of interval Comparison with

 friction (mm) (mm) concrete
Concrete 2.205 2.144 – 2.266 -
Tile 2.362 2.327 – 2.403 7% higher
Asphalt 3.261 3.139 – 3.383 48% higher
Carpet 4.541 4.440 – 4.648 106% higher

Table 1: Coefficient of rolling friction for the different floor materials (Al-Eisawi et al. 1999a)

Factors High coefficient of Low coefficient of

friction (COF) floor friction (COF) floor
Measured coefficient of 0.68 0.26
friction (MCOF)
Required coefficient of 0.321 0.193
friction (RCOF)
Initial horizontal force (N) 403.8(SD=129.4) 240.2 (SD=67.6)
Sustained horizontal force 221.5(SD=31.6) 136.8 (SD=21.1)
(N)
Cart weight (kg) 13(SD=1.7) 21 (SD=7.8)

Table 2Friction parameters and significant factors between high COF and low COF for two
different coefficients of friction between floor and shoes (Ciriello et al., 2001)
Al-Eisawi conducted an experiment to investigate the effect of environment conditions such as
floor surface for minimum push and pull forces. They chose four different floor surfaces: smooth
concrete, tile, asphalt, and industrial carpet. In their study, tile as a floor material had 1.07 times
higher coefficient of friction (COF) than concrete. In addition, asphalt had 1.48 times higher and
carpet had 2.06 times higher than concrete (Table 1). [3]

Ciriello psychophysically determined the maximum acceptable horizontal forces and load
weights on the floors having different coefficients of friction with shoes as shown in Table 2. In
their study, they distinguished two different coefficients of friction: high and low. The results
showed the maximum acceptable weights of push cart tasks on the low COF were significantly
lower (31%) than those on the high COF. Initial and sustained horizontal forces on the low COF
were also lower (41% and 38%, respectively) than those on the high COF. However, initial and
sustained vertical forces were not significantly different between two floor surfaces. Finally,
push duration on the low COF floor was longer (62%) than that on the high COF floor. [8]
Das and Wimpee conducted an experiment on carpet and tile as floor materials. They found the
higher push force of the carpet floor could be attributed to the higher coefficient friction of the
carpet compared to the tile. The pull forces were basically the same as the push forces. However,
they didn’t provide any specific mathematical results in their study although they found
sustained push and pull forces were considerably less than initial push or pull forces. [4]

In addition, Haslam confirmed that a difference existed between the mean peak initial horizontal
ground forces between slippery and non-slippery flooring conditions (p < 0.05). A significant
difference (p < 0.05) was also found with the mean peak initial vertical forces associated with the
maximum acceptable loads. [9]

In other experiment conducted by Jansen, more detailed results were presented. Jansen et al.
(2002) found that the initial forces had a small range from 147 N for the SCC on linoleum to 167
N for the SCC on carpet. Sustained forces were somewhat lower compared to the initial forces (-
62 to -112 N). [10]

Mack pointed out that the condition of floor surfaces was a major problem for cart design from
the result of their survey. Sticky and carpeted floors increased the forces required to move the
aid, while rough surfaces and bumps or steps not only increased the force, but made it difficult to
move at all. [1]

Resnick and Chaffin (1995) reported that hand forces were affected by floor condition in their
study. The peak velocities reached ranged only from 0.2 m×s -1 to 1.1 m×s -1 (MTM standard
1.80.m×s-1) for long distances. They concluded that these slower movement speeds were required
for pushing of heavy loads, especially over short distances. [6]

Operational conditions

Mack suggested some factors such as frequency and duration of task, speed of work, required
load per trip, work pressure, and availability of assistance as operational conditions. However, a
few studies regarding those factors have been studied. For this study, direction and phases of
motion have been added to operational conditions. [1] Previous studies revealed that the
direction of motion greatly influenced both the maneuverability of trolleys and the required
forces to move them. [4, 10]
The frequency of use of four-wheeled carts depends on the industry. Mack surveyed 12
industries and found that 80% of four-wheeled carts were used more than once a day and 30%
were used more than 10 times a day. However, only 20% of carts were four-wheeled in the trash-
collecting industry. [11]

For the direction of motion, Das and Wimpee conducted an experiment with a hospital meal cart.
For pulling, this cart caused an awkward posture on the neck, back and trunk to move the cart.
For pushing, the posture minimized health hazards especially neck, back, and trunk. The results
should be correct in only this kind of job; however, direction of motion should be selected based
on the purpose of tasks. [4]

A study investigated the effect of change of directions with four-wheeled carts; SCC, Hupfer,
and Animo models. They found that pushing the SCC resulted in significantly higher values of
Finitial, pushing than pushing one of the prototypes, but the F initial , pulling was significantly lower for
straight activities. In line with pushing straight, mean values for F initial, pushing were lowest in
pushing the Huffer cart on linoleum and highest in pushing the SCC on carpet. [10]

User characteristics
User characteristics such as sex, age, anthropometry, strength, training and task knowledge, and
motivation may be very important to usability. [2, 7]However, another study reported that the
relationship between maximum acceptable trolley load and subject weight and height was not
significantly related. [9]

Al-Eisawi studied initial hand force with five males and five females. The average age of the
male group was 28.4 years with 3.6 years of standard deviation while average age of the female
group was 21.6 years with 1.5 years of standard deviation. The average height of male group was
181.6 cm with 6.6 cm of standard deviation and the average height of female group was 169.6
cm with 9.7 cm of standard deviation. The study showed that strength capability and gender did
not influence hand force. However, the difference among subjects within gender was
significant (p ≤ 0.0001). [2]

Van der Beek studied gender differences in exerted forces during pushing and pulling of wheeled
cages by postal workers. Twelve experienced postal workers participated in the study. The
participants were between 20 and 30 years of age with body weight ranging from 50 to 64 kg.
However, individual anthropometry data was not provided in their study. The results showed
gender differences were significant for all dependent variables (average force, initial force,
ending force, oxygen uptake, and heart rate; p= 0.030 ~ 0.000). Male workers exerted significant
higher average forces than females, while differences regarding initial forces and physiological
load were not significant. Gender differences in exerted forces were not caused by differences in
anthropometry and maximum capacity. [7]

Two-wheeled aids

Studies related to two-wheeled carriers are comparatively fewer than those of four-wheeled carts.

Design characteristics
Laursen and Schiby conducted an experiment with seven waste collectors. The two-wheeled
container were pushed and pulled on three different surfaces: flagstones, paving stones, and
grass. The empty weight of the container was 15 kg and the wheel size was 0.25 m diameter and
0.045 m width. The results showed that container weight affected the magnitude of push/pull
forces and the load on the shoulders but not the load on the lumbar spine. [12]

Mack found the handle height had the most serious effects on cart design and the dimension of
trolleys made it difficult to push. [1] Investigated the effect of handle design. Handle orientation
was compared with 35°, 50°, and 70°. Handle length was set to 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 m. The weight
of the cylinder was 37 kg. In this study, they found that the height and angle of the handles
affected the tilted angle of the trolley. In turn, the angle of handles affected the position of the
handles and of the center of mass (COM) with respect to the axis of the wheels, thereby
influencing the required forces at the handle and the resulting joint loading. As a result, the
elbow stresses were significantly affected by the design of the trolley handle, as was the degree
to which the trolley was tilted while moving forward with the load. [13]

Suherman and Plaut measured the magnitude of the time delay, the coefficient of the puller’s
restoring moment, and the amplitude and frequency of the excitation moment with a two-
wheeled suitcase. In their study, they concluded that the average side-to-side frequency of a
person walking was approximately 1 Hz, which corresponds to Ω (excitation frequency) = 1.37,
and the average response time was about 0.1 sec, which corresponds to δ (time delay) = 0.46.
The results showed, with no time delay, the suitcase did not overturn during 20 cycles of
excitation. If δ = 0.1, the suitcase fell down after 11 impacts. With δ = 0.5, overturning occurred
after one impact, and with δ = 1.0 the suitcase exhibits “immediate overturning” in one direction
with no rocking back and forth. [14]

Kuijer investigated effects of the redesigned two-wheeled container for refuse collection on
mechanical loading of low back and shoulders. They conducted an experiment by changing the
height of the handle, horizontal distance between the handle and the wheel-axis, and diameter of
the wheels. The handle was displaced at 0.1 rearwards in the horizontal and 0.1 m in the vertical
direction. The volume of the container was 0.24 m³ and the wheel axis was lengthened from 0.55
m (standard) and 0.69 m (redesigned). The diameter of the wheel was also increased from 0.2 to
0.3 m. The results indicated that the redesigned two-wheeled container resulted in lower peak
and sustained exerted hand forces for the activities of pulling and pushing and lower peak value
for the turning (all p < 0.001). The peak moment at the low back for pulling with the redesigned
container was lower than for pulling the standard container (p = 0.03). The same effect was
found for peak moment at the low back for turning (p = 0.02). However, the type of two wheeled
container did not affect the compression force at the low back. These effects were caused by the
change of handle height, the change of horizontal distance between handle and wheel-axis, and
the change of wheel diameter. [15]

Kingma investigated the effect of the hand force and joint loading by horizontal and vertical
center of mass (COM) and handle locations. They considered 8 different COMs and 11 different
handle locations. The dimension of the container was 0.240 m³ and the bottom of the container
was 0.49 × 0.56 m (width × depth). Wheel diameter was 0.2 m. The study reported a 0.1 m
increase of the handle height slightly reduced the required vertical force without adverse effects
on joint loading. [16]

In study conducting, for starting, the best configuration proved to be 35° handle angle and a 1.0
m handle length. However, the results were less clear in determining the best configuration for
pushing the trolley forward. Mean wrist flexion was least (1.5°, 2.51 SD) with 50° handle angle
and 1.2 m handle length, the highest (8.0°, 10.84 SD) with 35° handle angle and 1.0 m handle
length. Mean wrist extension was least (17.1°, 12.16 SD) with the 35° handle angle and 1.0 m
handle length, the highest (32.5°, 13.63 SD) with 35° handle angle and 1.2 m handle length, and
(27.3°, 7.87 SD) with 50° handle angle and 1.1 m handle length. Mean radial deviation was least
(4.0°, 5.10 SD) with the 35° handle angle and 1.0 m handle length, and highest (12.1°, 8.37 SD)
with the 70° handle angle and 1.2 m handle length. [13]

Load characteristic
Not many studies regarding the load characteristics were found. In their study reported that the
force was 10 - 30% larger on grass compared to flagstones and it could be caused by a reduction
in the acceleration when the container weight was increased for at least the tilting and initial
phase. [12]

Another study used concrete blocks as loads controlling by foams and straps to prevent slipping.
The load weight was 59.4 kg (SD= 0.9 kg) and 9 conditions of COM was considered. In their
study, they revealed that backward displacement of the COM increased low back loading and
forward displacement of the COM increased shoulder and elbow loading. However, a COM
displacement in the direction of wheel axis did not have negative effects on joint loading and
reduced the forces, needed to tilt the container. [16]

Environmental conditions
Conducted an experiment on three different floor surfaces as environment conditions.
Flagstones, paving stones, and grass floor surfaces were compared in their study. In their study,
the type of surface affected the magnitude of the push/pull forces during initial and sustained
phases, and affected the load on the shoulder in the sustained phase. However, it did not affect
the compression in the lumbar spine. The largest force found in the initial phase when pushing
the heaviest container on grass. In the initial phase, the force was 10 - 30% larger on grass
compared to flagstones. [12]

Categorized the motion of the container as four different activities: (1) tilting the two-wheeled
container and pulling it with the one hand; (2) tilting the two-wheeled container and pushing it
with two hands; (3) turning the two wheeled container around; and (4) pulling the empty two-
wheeled container up onto the pavement in their study. [15]
Operational conditions
Reported high stresses at the elbow and considerable wrist deviations were found to occur during
the initial phase. Higher forces were required in the vertical direction when the weight of the
trolley was tilted to free the wheels for movement. [13]

In their study reported that the compression at L4/L5 is from 605 to 1445 N during pushing and
pulling. The extension torque at L4/L5 produced by the push/pull force was counteracted by the
forward leaning of the upper body. The shear force was below 202 N in all situations. The torque
at the shoulders was between 1 and 38 Nm. In their experiment the torques at the low back and
the shoulders were low during pushing and pulling. No relation was found between the size of
the external force and the torque at the low back and the shoulder. [17]

In their study emphasized the effect of experience of collecting activity and reported the
experienced workers had better control of the load. However, any comparison tests were not
provided. [15]

User characteristics
Recruited three different subject groups (a 5th percentile male, a 95th percentile male, and two
participants of intermediate body height) for the study. [16]

The effect of the participant and the push versus pulling indicated that there was a significant
effect of the participant due to body height variations on most of the dependent variables for
COM conditions and handle conditions.

Braking system
The present invention provides [16]a brake for a wheeled cart. The cart has frame, a front caster,
a pair of rear wheels, and a handle. The handle moves between a first and a second position. A
cable is connected to the handle and extends downwardly to at least one rear wheel. The cable
connects to a brake linkage. The brake linkage is contained within the rear wheel and is slidably
mounted to a fixed plate within the rear wheel. The linkage has a first and second cam. A brake
drum is attached to the inner surface of the rear wheel. A brake shoe shifts between an engaged
position against the brake drum and a disengaged position away from the brake drum. The brake
shoe engages when the handle is in the first position and shifts to a disengaged position when the
handle lever is moved to the second position. The brake shoe has two curved shoe brackets, each
having a pivot end and a free end. The shoe brackets pivot about a common brake shoe pivot pin.
The outer surface of each bracket has a traction surface for contacting the brake drum and
locking the wheel. Each bracket has a cam slot to slidably engage the respective first and second
cam of the brake linkage. A spring connects between the free ends of the shoe brackets. The
spring is in compression and forces the brake shoe against the brake drum when the handle is in
the first position and the spring compresses such that each brake shoe surface is not contacting
the brake drum when the handle is in the second position. [18]
A stroller with a braking mechanism that automatically configures itself in a braking position
provides protection against the unattended stroller from rolling away. By applying force to a
handle, the braking mechanism is released and the stroller is able to be pushed as usual. The
handle and braking mechanism are biased in the braking position by a spring located near the
rear wheels. The braking mechanism applies sufficient frictional force against the tire of the
wheel to prevent the wheel from rolling. [19]
A braking system for a cart is described herein. The braking system can include a pair of chocks
positioned proximate to a wheel of a wheel assembly, where the wheel assembly is coupled to a
cart frame. The braking system can also include a handle mechanically coupled to the cart frame,
where the handle has an engaged position when a force is applied to the handle, and where the
handle has a disengaged position when no force is applied to the handle. The braking system can
also include a brake release mechanism coupled to the pair of chocks and the handle. When the
handle is in the disengaged position, the pair of chocks are engaged with the wheel and the brake
release mechanism is disengaged. When the handle is in the engaged position, the pair of chocks
are disengaged from the wheel and the brake release mechanism is engaged. [20]
A brake device for use on an infant or child stroller that prevents or stops an unattended stroller
from moving by engaging a pin with a socket formed in the side of a wheel when a brake
handlebar is released. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the brake device is
comprised of at least one wheel/brake assembly having a pin and socket configuration, a brake
handlebar positioned in close proximity to stroller's handle, and a cable for connecting each
wheel/brake assembly to a pivoting brake handlebar. The device enables an operator to
disengage the brake device by squeezing the brake handlebar together with the stroller's handle,
thus disengaging said pin member from its socket. The brake device can be incorporated into the
design of new strollers, as well as, retro-fitted onto existing strollers. [21]
A brake for a wheeled cart of the type having a container supported on at least a pair of rear
wheels carried on a cart frame, that includes a brake manipulator pivotally mounted on the cart
frame in, and including a handle portion and a cam portion. An elongate brake member is
pivotally attached to the manipulator and extends into a position proximate the at least one. A
braking element is positioned on a lower end of the brake member for being selectively moved
into and out of frictional braking engagement with a tread surface of the wheel. [22]
Shopping cart brakes slow or render a shopping cart immobile. A brake lever has one end
pivotably connected to a clamp that is attached to one end of a vertical member of a shopping
cart adjacent to its handle. Two brake cables are enclosed by brake cable housings and have one
end connected to the brake lever. A plurality of brake cable supports secures the brake cable
housings to the vertical member. Alternatively, the brake cables and brake cable housings can be
enclosed by vertical members and a horizontal member. The opposing end of the brake cables is
attached to calipers. The calipers have brake pads removably connected to them. A brake lever
housing is also connected to the clamp. The brake lever housing is attached to an adjuster barrel
and houses a brake lever locking mechanism comprising a locking tab, locking button, slot, and
locking button hole. [23]
A rear wheel synchronous brake system used in a pushcart such as a baby jogging stroller is
disclosed to include two rear brakes respectively coupled to the two rear wheels of the baby
jogging stroller, a hand control unit mounted on the handle of the baby jogging stroller at the top,
and two brake lines coupled between the brake lever of the hand control unit and the two rear
brakes for driving the rear brakes to brake the two rear wheels of the baby jogging stroller
synchronously when the user pulling the brake lever. [24]
A wheelbarrow includes three wheels so that it may be pushed without being lifted, thereby
minimizing the potential for operator injuries due to lifting the wheelbarrow. A braking
mechanism including a lever having one end for engaging a user's hand or foot, and another end
for engaging a sprocket secured to one of the wheels, may be used to resist movement of the
wheelbarrow when such movement is not desired. [25]
A pallet sled includes a base and a plurality of tines extending forward from the base. At least
one of the plurality of tines includes a wheel supporting the tine away from the base. A brake
assembly is positioned adjacent the wheel to selectively brake the wheel. The brake assembly
may include a drum adjacent the wheel. Alternatively, the brake assembly may include a brake
shoe selectively directly contacting the wheel to brake the sled. [26]
A cart having a frame for conveying cargo. The cart includes at least one brake assembly
mounted within the frame of the cart. The brake assembly is configured to provide braking by
engaging and disengaging a rear wheel axle. The cart further includes a control mechanism
configured to selectively engage and disengage the brake assembly by rotation of a cart handle.
In addition, the cart includes a brake release device configured to disengage the brake assembly
when carts are nested. [27]
Chapter 3

Conceptual design
Mission statement
Before beginning the development project, the firm typically specifies a particular market
opportunity and lays out the broad constraints and objectives for the project. This information is
frequently formalized as a mission statement (also sometimes called a charter or a design brief).
Product description  A two-wheel drive, manual (hand
driven) with braking system for
carrying different items from place to
place.
Benefit preposition  Transport items from place to place
more quakily and with less effort with
a better control with brakes.
Primary market  Cart pushers in the city
 Shared companies on dry waste
management.
 Soft drink whole sellers.
Secondary market  Construction sites material handling.
 Do it yourself consumers.
Assumption  Hand driven
 Two wheeled
 Braking system
 Rectangular prism structure
Stakeholders  Users
 Addis Ababa waste management
department
 Retailer
 Sales force
 Service center
 Production and manufacturers
  Legal department
Choosing customers
Needs can be identified more efficiently by interviewing lead users and/or extreme users. According to von Hippel,
lead users are customers who experience needs months or years ahead of the majority of the market and stand to
benefit substantially from product innovations (von Hippel, 1988). These customers are particularly useful sources
of data for two reasons:

1. They are often able to articulate their emerging needs, because they have had to struggle with the
inadequacies of existing products, and
2. They may have already invented solutions to meet their needs.

By focusing a portion of the data collection efforts on lead users, the team may be able to identify needs that,
although explicit for lead users, are still latent for the majority of the market. Developing products to meet these
latent needs allows a firm to anticipate trends and to leapfrog competitive products.

Extreme users are those who use the product in unusual ways or who have special needs. For example, in our case
extreme users are construction site material handling. Extreme users can help the team identify needs that
may be felt less acutely by the mainstream market, but are nevertheless important opportunities for competitive
advantage.

The choice of which customers to interview is complicated when several different groups of people can be
considered “the customer.” For many products, one person (the buyer) makes the buying decision and another
person (the user) actually uses the product. A good approach is to gather data from the end user of the product in all
situations, and in cases where other types of customers and stakeholders are clearly important, to gather
data from these people as well.

A customer selection matrix is useful for planning exploration of both market and customer variety. Burchill
suggests that market segments be listed on the left side of the matrix while the different types of customers are listed
across the top (Burchill et al., 1997), as shown in Exhibit 5-5. The number of intended customer contacts is entered
in each cell to indicate the depth of coverage. [28]

Customer identification matrix

Lead users Retailers or Service

users sales out let center

Occasional users (do it yourself consumers) 0 2

Frequent users (cart pushers, dry waste management companies 4

10 6 3
and soft drink whole sellers)

Heavy duty users (construction site material handling) 2 3 3

Gather raw data from customers

Consistent with our basic philosophy of creating a high-quality information channel directly from the customer,
gathering data involves contact with customers and experience with the use environment of the product. The
following methods were used:

1. Interviews
 An interview with cart pushers was done. The interview was guided by interview questions.
We make the questions manly open ended so that the customers may add their opinion on the
matter. The interview was held manly on the street of Addis Ababa and some soft drink
whole sellers.

2. Questioners

A questioner was prepared for the customers and filled by customers and were later analyzed
to determine the customer need.

3. Observation

Watching customers use an existing product or perform a task for which a new product is intended reveal
important details about customer needs. Observation was the major method of data gathering method because
mostly the customer we get did not know much about the product and was not be able to give us enough
information.

Interpreted customer need

Costumer statement Interpreted
1 Trolleys Park outside so it should be able to resist the harsh Corrosion resistance and
environment of the outside like rain, sun, wind, dust… durable
2 It should be designed with the consideration of the average Ergonomically fit
human height, power and speed
3 A better control over the movement and the speed of the Steering Controlled
trolley
4 The baring damaged often so a better way of replacing Repairing and Lubrication
them
5 It would be better if it has a stand during loading and Parking support
unloading
6 The trolleys have to be able to carry very dense loads for Carrying capacity
the available volume
7 It would be better if it has a hand control braking system Braking & controlling
for better control
8 I would like to lift and push it easily Easy to handle and move
9 There shouldn’t be any risk of structural instability during safe
 loading, motion and unloading
10 I don’t like the frequent maintenance and servicing Reliable
11 It should be safe to stop suddenly from high speed and the Controlled and balanced
items won’t fail off
12 It should be easy to assemble and disassemble for Accessible easily
maintenance purpose
13 It should be affordable for peoples without job. Low cost
14 It should be easy to maneuver, change direction, park, Controllable and
speed up, speed down and emergency brake maneuverable
15 It should have a huge volume as much as possible Sufficient carrying space
16 It should be designed in to consideration of different items Adjustable and compatible
for load.

Primary needs

 Durability
 Ergonomically fit
 Braking system
 Low energy usage
 Easy to maneuver and control
 Ease of maintenance
 Reliable

Secondary needs

 Adjustable and compatible

 Cost
 Parking support
 Ease accessibly
 Maximum load
 Aesthetic
Conceptual Design modeling
Among parts of the design process, the conceptual design is the stage where the feature of the
two-wheel trolley cart with braking system is a preset as a stepping stone for designing the
trolley cart. different features are discussed, compared and specified based on geometrical
consideration and expected mechanical, ergonomic and aesthetic requirements for better
operation and use of the two-wheel trolley cart. Having different kinds of the two-wheel trolley
with breaking mechanism such as mechanical operated by a means of lever, linkage, pedal, cam,
bell crank type, powered brake operated by air, air-hydraulic, vacuum, electric type or hydraulic
by operated the help of fluid type, the main focus or consideration is on the mechanical braking
system.
The main concern of the design of two-wheel trolley cart is to find a simple, with easy of
manufacturability, low cost and good quality so as to meet a requirement of the design. Different
models of mechanical brake system for two-wheel trolley cart
Model A: Trolley cart with band brakes
The operating principle is when we tighten a ribbon of high-friction material around a pulley
attached to the rotating axle; by pushing or pulling the handle by hand on the pulley cart handle
rail which is linked with cable or rod to the lever of the band mechanism, it starts to breaks it. If
the pull on the band is in the direction of axle rotation the brake is self-energizing.
Components of the band breaks are
-key
-ribbon of band
-drum
-brake levers.
-brake anchor or pins
Model B: a trolley cart with single block or shoe brake type
The operating principle of this type of brake is, when the handle of the brake of the trolley is
pulled or pushed by hand the block or shoe which is pressed against the rim of a revolving brake
wheel. The friction between the block and the wheel causes the tangential braking force to act on
the wheel. The block is pressed against the wheel by a force applied to one end of the lever
which is pivoted at the fulcrum. The block is rigidly fixed to the lever. The angle of contact
between the block and the brake drum is usually
small.
Components of the brakes are
-shoe block
-pin and fulkrum
-brake lever

Model C: a trolley cart with double block or shoe brake type:

The operating mechanism of this types of trolley cart is the same as the above single shoe Block
type, except the brake application is on the two side of the wheel and it is more effective to Stop
and decelerate the wheel in a very short time.

Model D: trolley cart with drum breaks

When the handle of the brake of the trolley cart is pulled or pushed the shoe stars to stop and
decelerate the trolley as the brake drum is fixed to the wheel and turns with it and n braking, the
wheel cylinder forces the fixed brake shoes apart and presses them against the brake drum, thus
slowing it down and it stops the trolley cart. when the brake handle of the trolley is released the
shoe is back to normal break released position by retractor spring.
Components of drum brakes are
- Backing plate
- Brake drum
- Wheel cylinder
- Brake shoe
- adjuster
-retractor springs
-pins
Model E: Trolley cart with disc brake type:
the operating mechanism of this types of brake is when pulling or pushing the trolley cart brake
handle, the brake rotors of disc brakes rotating with the wheels, and brake handle, which are
fitted to the brake calipers, clamp the rotors to stop or decelerate the wheels using a connection
of rod bar mechanism. Which are the brake pads pushing against the rotors to stop using friction.
Component of disc brake are:
-rotor
-brake handle
-pins
-caliper
-cylinder piston
-disc brake

Model F: trolley cart with internal expanding brake system:

By applying a push or pull of the handle of the trolley brake rod lever, it is forcing outward
against the drum to produce the braking action. One end of the shoe is hinged to the backing
plate by an anchor pin, while the other end is unattached and can be moved in its support by the
operating mechanism. When force from the lever mechanism is applied to the unattached end of
the shoe, the shoe expands and breaks the wheel to stop or decelerate.
Components of internal expanding brake are:
-brake shoe
-drum
-backing plate
-anchor pins
-brake linings
-lever rod

Design matrix
This is a system of finding good alternatives among many model solutions for a particular
problem. There are different types of Design Matrices that are used to make systematic decisions
on choosing best alternatives of given two or more alternative designs. The following method is
selected so that to help reach at the best decision. This method has been adopted to meet the case
of manual trolley. Besides, the functional requirements or weights are selected to suit to
expectation to physical, mechanical and environmental fitness of the seeder. Generally, there are
six basic alternatives investigated so far concerning the banking system for manual trolley.
Key

1. very poor, very small, very few, very difficult,

2. poor, small, few, low, difficult

 3. acceptable, average, normal

4. good, high, large, possible

5. excellent, very high

Each requirement is taken out of five. For example, the one with value higher for a
given requirement means it responds positive than others for that specified requirement.
And a lower value represents drawbacks for that requirement.

No. Function requirements Model designations

    A B C D E F
Physical requirements            

-Compatibility 4 3 4 3 3 3
- Less number of
components 4 5 4 2 3 3

-Complexity 5 5 4 4 3 3
-Weight 5 5 4 3 4 3
1 -Operability 1 2 4 4 5 4
Mechanical requirements            
-Wear failure avoidance 3 4 4 3 2 3
-Reliability 3 3 4 4 5 4
-Durability 3 4 5 4 4 4
2 -Stability 4 4 5 5 5 5
Materials requirements            
-Strength 3 3 4 4 5 5
-Availability 4 5 4 3 3 2
-Affordability 4 4 3 2 2 2
-Manufacturability 4 4 4 3 4 2
3 -Maintainability 3 3 3 3 4 2
Total positive weight for each model 50 54 56 47 52 45
Percentage weight of each model 16.45% 17.76% 18.43% 15.46% 17.10% 14.80%

Comparing the above concepts of obtaining mechanism for manual trolley breaking
system in many directions especially based on mechanical properties and cost-
effectiveness; the selection of the feature in type ‘C’, a trolley cart with double block
or shoe brake type is a beneficial and viable decision. Some of the drawbacks of this
model of the mechanism are expected to get remedies in the design analysis phase with
considerations and through a good search for suitable alternatives.
Chapter 4

Design, Result and Discussion

Chapter 5

Conclusion and recommendation

REFERENCES

[1] Mack, K., Haslegrave, C. M., & Gray, M. I. , " Usability of manual handling aids for transporting
materials," Appl Ergon, no. 26(5), pp. 353-364, 1995.

[2] Al-Eisawi, K. W., Kerk, C. J., Congleton, J. J., Amendola, A. A., Jenkins, O. C., & Gaines, W.,
"The effect of handle height and cart load on the initial hand forces in cart pushing and pulling,"
Ergonomics, no. 30(3), pp. 235-245, 1999b.

[3] Al-Eisawi, K. W., Kerk, C. J., Congleton, J. J., Amendola, A. A., Jenkins, O. C., & Gaines, W. ,
"Factors affecting minimum push and pull forces of manual carts," Appl Ergon, no. 30(3), pp. 235-
245, 1999a.

[4] Das, B., & Wimpee, J., "Ergonomics evaluation and redesign of a hospital meal cart.," Appl Ergon,
no. 33(4), pp. 309-318, 2002.

[5] de Looze, M. P., van Greuningen, K., Rebel, J., Kingma, I., & Kuijer, P. P., "force direction and
physical load in dynamic pushing and pulling," Ergonomics, no. 43(3), pp. 377-390, 2000.

[6] Resnick, M. L., & Chaffin, D. B. , "An ergonomic evaluation of handle height and load in maximal
and submaximal cart pushing," Appl Ergon, no. 26(3), pp. 173-178, 1995.

[7] van der Beek, A. J., Kluver, B. D., Frings-Dresen, M. H., & Hoozemans, M. J., "Gender differences
in exerted forces and physiological load during pushing and pulling of wheeled cages by postal
workers," Ergonomics, no. 43(2), pp. 269-281, 2000.

[8] Ciriello, V. M., MCGorry, R. W., & Martin, S. E, "maximum acceptable horizontal and vertical
forces of dynamic pushing on high and low coefficient of floor friction," International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics,, no. 27, pp. 1-8, 2001.

[9] Haslam, R. A., Boocock, M., Lemon, P., & Thorpe, S., "Maximum acceptable loads for pushing and
pulling on floor surfaces with good and reduced resistance to slipping," Safety Science, no. 40, pp.
625-637, 2002.

[10] Jansen, J. P., Hoozemans, M. J., van der Beek, A. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H., "Evaluation of
ergonomic adjustments of catering carts to reduce external pushing forces," Appl Ergon, no. 33(2),
pp. 117-127, 2002.

[11] de Looze, M. P., Stassen, A. R., Markslag, A. M. T., Borst, M. T., Wooning, M. M., & Toussaint, H.
M. , "Mechanical loading on the low back in three methods of refuse collecting," Ergonomics, no.
38, pp. 1993-2006, 1995.

[12] Laursen, B., & Schibye, B., "The effect of different surfaces on biomechanical loading of shoulder
and lumbar spine during pushing and pulling of two-wheeled containers," Appl Ergon, no. 33(2), pp.
167-174, 2002.

[13] Okunribido, O. O., & Haslegrave, C. M., "Effect of handle design for cylinder trolleys," Appl
Ergon, no. 30(5), pp. 407-419, 1999.
[14] Suherman, S., & Plaut, R. H. , "Effect of human response time on rocking instability of a two-
wheeled suitcase," Journal of Sound and Vibration, no. 207(5), pp. 617-625, 1997.

[15] Kuijer, P. P., Hoozemans, M. J., Kingma, I., Van Dieen, J. H., De Vries, W. H., Veeger,D.J., "Effect
of a redesigned two-wheeled container for refuse collecting on mechanical loading of low back and
shoulders," Ergonomics, pp. 543-560, 2003.

[16] Kingma, I., Kuijer, P. P., Hoozemans, M. J., van Dieen, J. H., van der Beek, A., & FringDresen, M.
H., "Effect of design of two-wheeled containers on mechanical," International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, no. 31, pp. 73-86, 2003.

[17] Schibye, B., Sogaard, K., Martinsen, D., & Klausen, K., "Mechanical load on the low back and
shoulders during pushing and pulling of two-wheeled waste containers compared with lifting and
carrying of bags and bins," Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon), , no. 16(7), pp. 549-559, 2001.

[18] Daniel L. Otterson, Gary Erickson, "cart automatic brake mechanism," US6237725B1, 1998.

[19] J. I. Geeslin, "stroller with braking device," US8333393B2, 2008.

[20] K. M. Hussain, "cart braking system," US9108657B2, 2012.

[21] G. Fite, "reake device for infent stroller," US20140196991A1, 2013.

[22] L. D. Reep, "Cart brake and cart with user-operable brake," US8562003B2, 2012.

[23] Christina L. Hackbarth, Timothy Hackbarth, "shopping cart brake," US7255206B1, 2005.

[24] S.-L. Liu, "Rear wheel synchronous brake system for pushcart," US7222874B1, 2005.

[25] B. Albert, "therr wheeled braking wheelbarrow," US20050258007A1, 2005.

[26] Dane Gin Mun Kalinowski, Travis James Englert, William Robinson, "Delivery sled brake system,"
US11254342B2, 2017.

[27] Keith Louis Amdahl, Dan L. Otterson, "Brake assembly and control mechanism for a cart, and
method," US7857108B2, 2003.

[28] Karl T. Ulrich & Steven D. Eppinger, "Product Design and development," 5th edition.
Appendix I: questioners
This questionnaire is prepared to gather information for the design of manual trolley with
braking system. The purpose of this study is to collect data for the customer requirement and
design specification for new and a better design of trolley with braking system in the partial
fulfillment of BSc thesis in Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering in Addis
Ababa University. Hence, you are kindly requested to fill this questionnaire to achieve the grand
objective of the study. Your response will be kept highly confidential and used only for this
research. I thank you very much in advance for participating in this survey and providing you’re
thoughtful Feedback.
I. Interview questions
1. When do you use trolleys?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

2. Why do use trolleys?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

3. What do you like about the existing trolleys?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

4. What do you dislike about the existing trolleys?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

5. What improvement would you like to make to the existing trolleys?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

6. What issues do you consider when buying trolleys?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Questioners
II. Choose the best answer in your opinion. Note that there are no wrong if the answer
you want to give is not in the given alternative feel free to add any response to the
question.
1. There isn’t enough material handling in Addis Ababa
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know
2. Trolleys have a lot of use for developing countries like ours.
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know
3. Transporting loads with 2-wheel trolley cart is much better than carrying
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know
4. Transporting loads with trolley is much better when the trolley is trolley with
A. 2-wheel B. 3-wheel C. 4-wheel

Other _____________________________________________________________

For Q4 please justify your answer:

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

5. There isn’t enough supply of trolley in Addis Ababa.

A. I agree B. I disagree C. I don’t know
6. Where did you buy your trolley?
A. local workshop B. I built it myself C. other

If others then please explain ______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

7. Human powered 2-wheel trolley carts are easy to maneuver and easily controllable.
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know
8. In two wheeled trolley it would be preferable if the wheels are located
A. Infront of the frame B. In the midpoint of the frame C. In the back of the frame
9. It is dangerous to use trolleys in urban areas like Addis Ababa.
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know
10. Human powered 2-wheel trolley in Addis Ababa need a braking system
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know
11. If braking system were to be adopted to the existing trolleys it would be better if the
braking system controlled by:
A. Hand B. Foot C. other

If others then please explain ______________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________
Appendix II: bill of material
Appendix III: drawings