Ergo Study 12-20Rev.Qxp

ExecutivExecutivee SummarySummaryErgonomic Lifting Study: Using Intelligent Assist Devices to Increase Productivity & Reduce Product DamageThe 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 expenditurePrecision Placements • Productivity • Energy expenditure • Potential for product damageQuick Change in Direction (Inertia Management) • Handling force required to reverse direction • Handling force required to raise and lower the loadThe 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 theCycle 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 theConclusions: expended with monitor a (in of on 68% onT T li li device of a each to li required cons f for measured f could resting expenditure li ting. ft est the ting estFigur li Figur order Figur Figur measure ft the simulated. and sPalletizing 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 to2 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 able2 G-Force®Li f subjec minute the ting load. within the they cycle shows of Equivalen f a the during t1 each li s more by difference difference difference difference cer rate. far a device. f range ting subject shows78% toG-Force® liSensor of were tSubjec 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 a45 expenditure typical25 30 35 4020 10 li METS 15 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 lb. 1.0 increase 5 0 f ting 0 G-ForceGorbel weight G-Force Gorbel associated22.6 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 more3.01 ft High one 6% with application d s2: 1:A position G-Force® Number repeated Cycle w/ElectricBalancer Controls verage of w/Electric 7% fewer Balancer expende 17.0 Controls33% energy Air li for li ft 3.06 f Air s more d tApplications sEnergy that possible of to Energy manual w/Pendant Palletizing aBalancer Control one w/PendantExpenditure) 124% position li fewer Balancer 10.1 and 8% Air Control expende ft energy s 3.08Air Expended, might more d while li the f ting FrequencyV 3’ LiFrequency Chain find ariable Hoist fewer13.0 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/A78% 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 theirG-Force®. five number blue the blue blue t p placement. wereG-Force® li s. device in G-Force® articular theSubjec study f measured precision t force ting the ag other3: Number 3: expenditure maximum of measuring system was the li the numbers numbers this numbers im fExpenditure this, ting li e weight were the workingPlacement 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% mainFigurFigur Figur Figur to within system device. Figur damageFigur o the number lbs. lbs. than for measured t li f peak t a damage s ft with2.5 forces Precisio exce measured s subjec heart picked through each t load e e more e e rate. aining for e e achievedFigureSee the 3 4 3 the 4 times5 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 nG-Force® other use ft act load performed the the 4 less with the that cons t s Placemen t device. computed45 the monitor a force shows range atT T difference 45 threshold likelihood devices. of difference as lb. t the est 5 est force ained threshold. likely produc t into byIn 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 manual45-55% t with with p ared to and insure used of aredLi 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-ForceFigure Gorbel G-Force it Gorbel Gorbel Figure as 14.0 on 2.41 15.3%Figure gently a ’’ s ’ ®4: s s® ® t 5: ableBalancerElectric Percen damag Balancer ElectricElectric expende A 2 likely energy li fewer41% 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 damagControls expende 1.7Balancer likel energy Balancer fewer 10.7 of 2.85 Balancer more 31% 26.5% li 18% load x fts d of moreExpended, y3’ Li e to to thePrecision ft awa prevent sExceeding AiAir w/Pendant Ai w/Pendant y r Control expende2.5 r Control . . energy Balancer fewer the damage likelBalancer 76% more li 7.9 2.88 Balancer37.8% 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 ariable60.2% fts ariable d to PlacementHoistThreshold the Li Hoist the exceeding ft subjec 3.3 t complete None mor s damag 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 o3 3 more energy than the lifting devices. G-Force® Balancer w/Electric w/Pendant Frequency Controls Control Chain HoistPrecision 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 times3.6 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 ControlsInertia 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 directionStudy 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) 924-6262Gorbel 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

Ergo Study 12-20Rev.Qxp

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support