presentation1 (nitin)
TRANSCRIPT
Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation of Hand Operated Aonla of Hand Operated Aonla
Pricking MachinePricking Machine
Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation of Hand Operated Aonla of Hand Operated Aonla
Pricking MachinePricking Machine Advisor:Advisor: Submitted by: Submitted by: Dr. Dr.
D.K Sharma Nitin KumarD.K Sharma Nitin Kumar 2007AE18B(IV)2007AE18B(IV)
Objectives
To study the ergonomics of hand operated aonla pricking machine.
To study the techno-economic feasibility of hand operated aonla pricking machine.
JustificationEntirely human operated.Ergonomics studies the degree of
comfort, ambient conditions, postural discomfort & safety of humans.
Reduces fatigue during work & thereby increasing work efficiency.
Socially viable.Benefit to the society
Results and discussion
• Collection of anthropometric data.• Analysis & measurement of load.• Collection of ergonomic data.• Energy consumption (KJ/min) ( E.C. = 0.159 x av. working h.r.)• Grip fatigue measurement (%) G.F. = [(Sr – Sw) / Sr ]x 100
Energy consumption (KJ/min)
SubjectsPricking machine (KJ/min)
Fork (KJ/min)
Pricking tool (KJ/min)
Subject 1 20.51 20.98 20.91
Subject 2 14.62 15.13 14.59
Subject 3 15.26 15.58 15.23
Subject 4 16.69
17.04 16.85
0
5
10
15
20
25
Pricking machine(KJ/min)
Fork
Pricking tool (KJ/min)
Grip fatigue (%)
Subjects
Pricking machine
Fork Pricking tool
Left hand (%)
Right hand (%)
Left hand (%)
Right hand (%)
Left hand (%)
Right hand (%)
Subject 1 1.74 4.15 1.27 3.13 1.19 3.47
Subject 2 1.65 3.90 1.42 2.83 1.47 3.11
Subject 3 2.23 4.21 1.38 3.04 0.89 2.91
Subject 4 2.07 4.18 1.66 3.29 1.32 2.83
Measurement of physiological
workload
• Cardiac cost of work (beats)• Cardiac cost of recovery (beats)• Total cardiac cost of work ( C.C.W. + C.C.R.)• Physiological cost of work (b.p.m.) ( T.C.C.W. / av. Time )
SubjectsCardiac cost of work (beats)
Fork Pricking machine Pricking tool
Subject 1 152 83.8 167.1
Subject 2 203 183.3 195
Subject 3 231.4 144.3 172.8
Subject 4 184.7 109.3 169
Cardiac cost of work for different subjects using different methods for pricking
Subjects
Cardiac cost of recovery (beats)
Fork Pricking machine Pricking tool
Subject 1 76 88.5 101.6
Subject 2 145.1 119.2 136.5
Subject 3 131.2 93.1 128.5
Subject 4 95.3 84.2 91.1
Cardiac cost of recovery for different subjects using different methods for pricking
Subjects
Total cardiac cost of work (CCW + CCR)
Fork Pricking machine Pricking tool
Subject 1 228 172.3 268.7
Subject 2 348.1 302.5 331.5
Subject 3 362.6 237.4 301.3
Subject 4 280 193.5 260.1
Total cardiac cost of work for different subjects using different methods for pricking
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4
Total cardiaccost of work(CCW + CCR)Fork
Total cardiaccost of work(CCW + CCR)Prickingmachine
Total cardiaccost of work(CCW + CCR)Pricking tool
Total cardiac cost of work for different subjects using different methods for pricking
Subjects
Physiological cost of work (bpm)
Fork Pricking machine Pricking tool
Subject 1 18 15.2 19.4
Subject 2 24 22.8 24.1
Subject 3 21.7 16.3 18.8
Subject 4 20.1 14.5 17.8
Physiological cost of work for different subjects using different methods
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Subject1
Subject2
Subject3
Subject4
Physiologicalcost of work(bpm) Fork
Physiologicalcost of work(bpm) Prickingmachine
Physiologicalcost of work(bpm) Prickingtool
Physiological cost of work for different subjects using different methods
Ergonomic Evaluation
• Fixtures or clamp system should be fitted.
• A mechanism for adjusting length of the handle.
• Adjustment in the angle between shaft and the handle.
Performance and economic feasibility
• Capacity of 12-18 Kg/hr.• Cent percentage of pricking.• Uniform, quick and safe method.• Less energy consumption.• Low physiological workload.• Economically feasible.
