Degree project Ergonomic concept solution -For cartoning machine Authors: Hannes Borg, Kim Bergström Supervisor: Marianne Gille Linnaeus university, Department of Mechanical Engineering Examiner: Samir Khoshaba Linnaeus university, Department of Mechanical Engineering External Supervisor: Peter Johnsson, Norden Machinery AB Date: 2014-05-28, Växjö Semester: Spring 14, 15 ECTS Summary The company Norden Machinery AB has a machine named NP1702. This machine has an insufficient solution concerning ergonomics for the operator who controls the machine. The report includes a concept to an improvement for this. The operator is currently bound to complete a stretching and bending movement which when repeated lies over the human bodies comfort zone and are harmful to several of his/her body parts, when refilling the receptacle in the machine with stacks of leaflets. These leaflets are wrapped along with a tube (containing toothpaste, hair gel etc.) into a carton. The report is mainly built on the eight steps for getting design right. When developing the concept, a big aspect regarding ergonomics is included in the report. For this reason, a big theory concerning ergonomics is included. Along with this, a dialogue with a company which has operated the machine was performed. The operators’ health will be improved, because it avoids the stretching movement, every time he/she refills the receptacle with leaflets and will decrease the risk for malfunctioning. With the concept which has been developed, the operator positions a stack of leaflets to an attached fork and then presses a proceed button. A telescope arm driven by compressed air transports the fork towards the receptacle and the leaflets are positioned in to this. The arm then retreats and the system are ready to do the procedure again. III Sammanfattning Företaget Norden Machinery AB har en maskin med namnet NP1702. Denna maskin har en ergonomiskt otillräcklig lösning vad gäller ett rörelsemoment för en operatör som arbetar med maskinen. Rapporten innehåller ett koncept på en förbättring för denna. I nuläget måste operatören som arbetar med maskinen sträcka sig, när denne fyller på en behållare med informationsblad. En av dessa manualer blir hoppackad med en tub (tandkräm, hårgelé eller dylikt) i en kartong. Rapporten bygger huvudsakligen på de åtta stegen för ”Getting design right”. En stor åtanke på ergonomi är innefattad i utvecklandet av konceptet. Med anledning av detta är ergonomisk teori en viktig del av rapporten. För att få en större förståelse över problemet, genomfördes även ett samtal med ett företag som arbetat med maskinen. Hälsan för operatören kommer att förbättras samtidigt minskas risken för felhantering eftersom operatören har bättre kontroll över processen, för att denne slipper ett långt, utsträckt lyft varje gång denne skall återfylla behållaren med manualer. Med konceptet som rapporten bygger på lägger operatören en hög med manualer på en tillhörande gaffel och trycker sedan på en knapp. En teleskopsarm driven med tryckluft transporterar sedan gaffeln mot behållaren och manualerna placeras i denna. Armen drar sig tillbaka och systemet är redo att utföra proceduren igen. IV Abstract The machine NP1702 has an insufficient solution concerning ergonomically soundness. The report includes a concept to an improvement for this. Currently, the operator is bound to complete a stretching movement which is harmful to several of his/her body parts. To avoid this movement is mainly what the report is focusing on. NP 1702, GUK, fork, leaflets, telescope arm, receptacle, noise reducing lid, sound ergonomics. V Preface This is the final phase in the bachelor of Mechanical engineering program at Linnaeus University in Växjö, Sweden. The project comprises 15 ESCT. Norden Machinery AB in Kalmar provided this degree project. It was with great joy and enthusiasm we took on this project and hopefully our work will be of gain for Norden Machinery AB and for ourselves in the coming years as engineers. We owe Norden Machinery AB many thanks for this opportunity, especially Peter Johnsson, our supervisor at the company. He has been very helpful and always answered our mails and calls. Another thank you is owed to our supervisor at the University, Marianne Gille. She has helped us a lot with finding good literature and has given us good feedback on our ideas and problems. Mr. John Dowson at GSK in England also has our gratitude. He took time out of his busy schedule and answered our questions. A final thanks goes to our families and friends for their patience and understanding during many long nights of hard work. - Thank You! Hannes Borg Kim Bergström Växjö May 2014 VI List of contents Summary ___________________________________________________ III Sammanfattning ______________________________________________ IV Abstract _____________________________________________________ V Preface _____________________________________________________ VI List of contents _______________________________________________ VII 1. Introduction ______________________________________________ 1 1.1 Background ______________________________________________ 1 1.2 Goals ___________________________________________________ 2 1.3 Limitations ______________________________________________ 2 2 Theory __________________________________________________ 3 2.1 Ergonomics ______________________________________________ 3 2.1.1 Demanding postures and movements ______________________ 4 2.1.2 Repetitive labour ______________________________________ 4 2.1.3 Low conditions for visibility _____________________________ 5 2.1.4 Manual handling ______________________________________ 5 2.1.5 Measurements ________________________________________ 5 2.1.6 The Users ____________________________________________ 7 2.2 Product development _______________________________________ 8 2.2.1 Defining the problem ___________________________________ 9 2.2.2 Measuring the need and set the target _____________________ 10 2.2.3 Exploring the design space _____________________________ 12 2.2.4 Optimizing design choices ______________________________ 12 2.2.5 Developing the architecture _____________________________ 13 2.2.6 Validating the design __________________________________ 13 2.2.7 Executing the design __________________________________ 14 2.2.8 Iterating the design process _____________________________ 14 2.3 Compressed air _____________________________________________ 16 2.4 Plexiglas _______________________________________________ 16 2.5 Aluminum ______________________________________________ 16 2.6 Stainless steel ___________________________________________ 17 1.4 Requirements and specifications _____________________________ 18 3 Method _________________________________________________ 19 3.1 Qualitative and quantitative methods _________________________ 19 3.1.1 Qualitative methods ___________________________________ 19 VII 3.1.2 Quantitative methods __________________________________ 19 3.2 Validity ________________________________________________ 20 3.3 Reliability ______________________________________________ 20 3.4 Criticism to the selected method _____________________________ 20 4. Application ________________________________________________ 21 4.1 Defining the project _________________________________________ 21 4.1.1 Description of existing concept ____________________________ 21 4.1.2 Documenting the context of the system ______________________ 24 4.1.3 Identifying the roles _____________________________________ 25 4.1.4 The voice of the customer _________________________________ 25 4.1.5 Use cases ______________________________________________ 27 4.1.6 Functional requirements __________________________________ 32 4.1.7 Finalizing originating requirements _________________________ 33 4.2 Measuring the need and set the targets __________________________ 34 4.2.1 Goal-question-metric ____________________________________ 34 4.2.2Weighting the product objectives ___________________________ 36 4.2.3 Benchmarking __________________________________________ 37 4.2.4 The house of quality _____________________________________ 39 4.3 Explore the design space _____________________________________ 40 4.3.1 Clarifying the problem and decompose the functions ___________ 40 4.3.2 Brainstorming __________________________________________ 41 4.3.3 Generating integrated concepts _____________________________ 44 4.3.4 Identifying subsystems ___________________________________ 47 4.4 Optimizing design choices ____________________________________ 48 4.4.1 Identifying the alternative design concepts ____________________ 48 4.4.2 Identifying the relevant attributes ___________________________ 48 4.4.3 Performing the initial screening of alternatives ________________ 49 4.4.4 Rating the alternatives in each attribute ______________________ 50 4.4.5 Weighting the attributes __________________________________ 51 4.4.6 Scoring and ranking the alternatives _________________________ 51 4.5 Developing the architecture ___________________________________ 52 4.5.1 Operational description template (ODT) _____________________ 52 4.5.2 Identifying interfaces and system states and set target for behaviors 56 4.5.3 Extracting and tracing derived requirements __________________ 62 4.5.4 Identifying interfaces and finalizing subsystems _______________ 64 4.5.5 Documenting links between subsystems _____________________ 64 VIII 4.6 Validating the design ________________________________________ 65 4.6.1 Conducting design reviews ________________________________