Ergo Study 12-20Rev.Qxp
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ExecutivExecutivee SummarySummary
Ergonomic Lifting Study: Using Intelligent Assist Devices to Increase Productivity & Reduce Product Damage
The Study The following summary is based on a study performed by the Rochester Institute of Technology. The complete study is available by contacting Gorbel at (800) 821-0086 or at ww w .gorbel.com/gforce/study.
The study compared the performance of Gorbel’s G-Force® Intelligent Lifting Device to manual lifting, an air balancer with pendant control, a variable frequency chain hoist, an electric balancer and an air balancer with electric controls.
The study focused on performance of these devices in the following applications: High Cycle Applications • Productivity • Energy expenditure
Precision Placements • Productivity • Energy expenditure • Potential for product damage
Quick Change in Direction (Inertia Management) • Handling force required to reverse direction • Handling force required to raise and lower the load
The subjects simulated high cycle and precision placement, tasks typically performed with lifting devices. Subjects were instructed to work as fast as reasonably possible while keeping their heart rate in a target region of 45-55% of their maximum heart rate, which is considered to be a safe working pace. ® 2 energy between The average performed addition activity themultiple) (METS), Energy energy Medics Energy Energy 45-55% working wore while average Figure Productivity energy expendedenergy illustrate the This times many house T Hig • High device. and between The Hig
energy G-Force® more On G-Force® Operators o Manual
test the numbers numbers
average,
p
a h h main
alletizing expended
or
number
energy
heart 1: Number exceeds expenditure each the was system was the
Cycle
of within to Cycl Cycl energy number
which among Expenditure factory
t manual energy their number the
aining
li
required
in than
in as
measured measured
were extent energy li f rate
ting
blue f
achieved blue
manual
ting
a
five than they
with are that application
e
e maximum
expenditure.
the safe
was of the
Conclusions:
expended with
monitor
a (in of
on
68% on
T T
li
li device
of
a
each to li
required cons f for
measured f could resting expenditure
li
ting.
ft est the
ting est
Figur li Figur order Figur Figur measure
ft the simulated. and s
Palletizing which f
with
s the
in through ting li each
more at
p achieved
f t li
devices, ting ant articular
t Me least
f
to
e e comfor e ained Figure in e in
with heart each other ting was
to
2 2 me 1 1
devices.
insure different a t
a subject
work
abolic show show s productive
required
the ten
breath high
of
t t
p use 78% amount ay devices. abolic
studied
rate.
with articular with
for li t methods.
Each
how able
2 G-Force®
Li f
subjec
minute the ting load. within the
they
cycle shows of Equivalen f
a
the during t
1
each
li s
more by difference difference
difference difference cer rate. far a
device. f range
ting subject
shows
78% to
G-Force®
li
Sensor of were t
Subjec breath safe f s
t
(as application,
ting period. ain
with
show and device the
devices li In
f of energy ting.
a
t ergonomic
the s the li
t f the s ted
could workload a
a
45 expenditure typical
25 30 35 40
20 10 li METS 15 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 lb. 1.0 increase 5 0 f ting 0 G-Force
Gorbel weight G-Force Gorbel
associated
22.6 p 2.85 p alletizing arameters). ’
s ® ’ the
s ® from Figure Figure Balancer Electric
number Balancer than expende fewer 16.3 Electric energy 39% (Normalized li
more
3.01 ft High one 6% with application d s
2: 1:
A position G-Force® Number repeated Cycle w/Electric
Balancer Controls verage of w/Electric 7% fewer Balancer expende 17.0 Controls
33% energy Air li for li ft 3.06 f Air s more d t
Applications s
Energy that
possible of to Energy
manual
w/Pendant Palletizing a
Balancer Control one
w/Pendant
Expenditure) 124% position li fewer Balancer 10.1 and 8% Air Control expende ft energy s 3.08
Air Expended, might more d
while
li the f ting Frequency
V 3’ Li
Frequency Chain find
ariable Hoist fewer
13.0 main expende 74% V li ft energy away other and fts Chain more ariable Hoist 0.7% s 2.87 d
in
t
to main aining complete li
a heart 75% minutes as f could
subjec ting
ware- li Manual expende
energy t
ain Manual more f N/A
78% of rates. 5.08 ting &
d
not
the the t still safe
s
of 10
devices. • Operators were 68% more productive with the G-Force® while exerting approximately the same energy as the other lifting devices.
1Visit our website at ww w .gorbel.com/gforce/study for further explanation of this and other components of this study.
resul li the energy Medics Energy Energy percen in damage threshold the times load t A Force of they load. each shows Figure Productivity each between The and between The was a was simulate Many Precisio the other The Precisio arget f Manual damage The the Operators
ting
force the their
G-Force®. five number blue the blue blue
t p placement. were
G-Force®
li s. device
in G-Force® articular the
Subjec study
f measured precision t force
ting the
ag other
3: Number 3: expenditure maximum of
measuring system was
the li the
numbers numbers this numbers
im
f
Expenditure this, ting li
e
weight
were
the working
Placement
methods average f
p number energy
o ting
of is act li measured plate simulation. were while f
t
f
li s n
n devices,
ting subjec li load 67.5 f im
ft ting
counted wore
that
threshold placement
than s
required on in in in Placemen was Placemen p of the A
expended
methods. tha heart that
act of 51%
main
Figur
Figur Figur Figur to within
system
device. Figur damage
Figur o
the number lbs. lbs. than for measured
t li f peak
t a
damage s
ft with
2.5 forces Precisio
exce
measured
s subjec
heart picked
through each t load
e e more e e
rate.
aining for e e achieved
Figure
See
the 3 4 3 the 4
times
5 5 for an
im with integrated
the show show eded applications
show each
of im
was
the
exceeding subject. p rate safe other the Figure t average
productive s
act up
p li breath a n
G-Force® other
use
ft act load performed
the
the 4 less
with the that cons t s Placemen t device. computed
45 the
monitor a
force
shows range at
T T
difference
45 threshold likelihood
devices.
of difference as
lb.
t
the est 5 est force
ained threshold.
likely produc t into
by
In
ant
a lb. com of
fo
load
of
com require that
G-Force®
Sensor
addition of r
breath
the
70% The The to weight the work
with the each p
at manual
45-55% t with with p ared
to and
insure used of ared
Li
t im of s.
ft the
placing p to 1.5 s
and to act. to
placed
a 20% 30% 40% 50%
10% METS 60% load 10 20 35 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 15 30 1.0 25 0 5 0 0 G-Force
Figure Gorbel G-Force it Gorbel Gorbel Figure
as 14.0 on 2.41 15.3%
Figure gently a ’
’ s ’ ®
4: s s
® ® t 5: able
Balancer
Electric Percen damag Balancer Electric
Electric expende A 2 likely energy li fewer
41% 9.9 31.1% x more as vg. 2.75 ft 3: 14% loa
more s top d
d e Number
to possible th Energy t
age t Air e e Air arget Air w/Electric Controls w/Electric damag
Controls
expende 1.7
Balancer likel energy Balancer fewer 10.7 of 2.85 Balancer more 31% 26.5% li 18% load x
fts
d of more
Expended, y
3’ Li e to to
the
Precision ft awa prevent s
Exceeding Ai
Air w/Pendant Ai w/Pendant y r Control expende
2.5 r Control . .
energy Balancer fewer the damage likel
Balancer 76% more li 7.9 2.88 Balancer
37.8% 20% x ft Underneath
d Precision more load
s
y damage Placement to
Force Chain Frequency Chain expende Frequency V energy fewer V 1.26% V 59% ariable 2.38 li less 8.8 ariable
60.2%
fts ariable d to Placement
Hoist
Threshold
the Li Hoist the exceeding ft subjec 3.3 t
complete None mor s dam- ag o heart
minutes t expended 2.2 li load. damag arget x likely f mor Manual Manual ting Manual e 70% load x 34.4% load 4.10 N/A energy
t more of s rates.
e t could w/o e
likely the e
o th
safe of the 10 T e o
3 3
more energy than the lifting devices. G-Force® Balancer w/Electric w/Pendant Frequency Controls Control Chain Hoist
Precision Placement Conclusions: • Operators were 51% more productive with the G-Force®. • G-Force® was an average of 2.5 times less likely to damage the load than the other devices. • Manual lifting required 70% more energy than the lifting devices. 4 Inertia Management Test The final part of the study measured the handling forces involved in overcoming the inertia required to change the direction of a load being raised or lowered.
Reversing Load Direction Figure 6: Force (in pounds) to Reverse Direction The force required to change load direction from 30 down to up and from up to down was measured for 8.6x more the G-Force®, the electronic balancer and the air force 25 balancer with electric controls. The average force required required to change directions is shown in Figure 6: 20 Force to Reverse Direction. 2.9x more 15 31.2 The numbers in blue on Figure 6 show the difference force required between the force required to reverse direction with the G-Force® compared to the force required with the other 10 devices.
5 10.5 G-Force® required an average of 5.8 times
3.6 less handling force to reverse load direction 0 than the other devices studied in this test. Gorbel’s Electric Air Balancer with G-Force® Balancer Electric Controls
Inertia Management Conclusions: Compared to the electric balancer and air balancer with electric controls, G-Force® required: • An average of 5.8 times less handling force to reverse load direction
Study Conclusions High Cycle Applications: • G-Force® and other lifting devices require 78% less energy expenditure than manual lifting. And while maintaining the same average energy expenditure as the other lifting devices, operators were 68% more productive with G-Force®. Precision Placement Applications: • G-Force® and the other lifting devices require 70% less energy than manual lifting. G-Force® excelled above the other lifting devices by being 51% more productive and 2.5 times less likely to damage the load. Inertia Management: • G-Force® requires the least amount of handling force to reverse load direction - saving your operators from the damaging physical strain these direction changes can have on their bodies.
For More Information • For the full 23 page study, call us toll free at (800) 821-0086 (US and Canada) or (585) 924-6262 • To request a free G-Force® color brochure or to arrange a local demonstration, call (800) 821-0086 or (585) 924-6262
Gorbel Inc. Phone: 800-821-0086 600 Fishers Run Fax: 800-828-1808 Fishers, NY 14453 E-mail: [email protected] http://ww w .gorbel.com
© Gorbel 2006 All Rights Reserved