D-Lab Design for Human Use
26
D-Lab Design for Human Use
description
D-Lab Design for Human Use. Ergonomics. Ease of use Ease of maintenance Number of interactions Novelty of interactions Safety. Battery Maintenance. Design for as many target users as possible. Consequences of bad design. Ergonomics. Ease of use Ease of maintenance - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of D-Lab Design for Human Use
D-LabDesign for Human Use
Ergonomics
• Ease of use• Ease of maintenance• Number of interactions• Novelty of interactions• Safety
Battery Maintenance
Design for as many target users as possible
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69
Age
Grip strength
male high
male low
Female high
Female low
Consequences of bad design
Ergonomics
• Ease of use• Ease of maintenance• Number of interactions• Novelty of interactions• Safety
Micro-Flail Time and Motion Comparison
Probing- 2-6 minutes
• Set up flail – 15 seconds• Walk away – 90 seconds• Run flail – 10
seconds• Walk back – 90 seconds• Finish operation – 15 seconds
Total ~4 minutes
split/shred bagasse
dry
load into kiln/oil drum
light
wait
cover
seal
wait
empty
crush
grate manioc
boil water
mix manioc w/ cold water
make porridge
let porridge cool
mix with charcoal
make briquettes
bake briquettes
Charcoal Briquette Making Time and Motion Study
Total = ~4 hours
Briquette Making
Original prototype in use
Break process into steps
1. Load charcoal2. Hammer3. Eject Briquette
Define the steps
1. Load charcoal – until hand releases scoop2. Hammer – until hand releases hammer3. Eject Briquette –until hand releases pin
Time study data(seconds)
Cycle # Load hammer eject total cycle1 8.3 7.4 10.5 26.12 9.0 6.3 9.5 24.83 7.1 6.4 11.7 25.24 10.8 5.6 36.5 52.85 9.1 6.5 13.6 29.26 9.2 6.8 11.9 28.07 11.6 6.2 13.2 31.08 10.5 9.3 11.0 30.99 9.3 6.8 14.3 30.4
10 12.4 7.2 11.7 31.311 10.9 7.3 12.9 31.012 9.2 6.4 47.1 62.713 9.5 7.2
Time trial data
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Briquette #
Seconds
LoadHammerEjectTotal
What took so long?
Eject, 42%
Cleaning, 17%
Load, 34%
Hammer, 24%
What took so long?Hammering
•Pick up hammer
•Pick up piston
•Insert piston
•Hammer
•Remove piston
•Set down piston
•Set down hammer
New designs•No corners in compaction area (no cleaning necessary)
•Piston hangs in top of tube (don’t remove and set down piston)
•One handed eject door (don’t set down hammer)
•Use hammer to open eject door (eliminate the closing pin)
Estimated speed = 5 Briquettes per Minute (BPM)
(old machine 2 BPM)
Alternate design: Two pistons
Estimated speed = 5.4 to 6.6 BPM, depending on the loading method.
Conclusion: second piston is not worth the added complexity
New machine 2.5x faster
New machine time breakdown
Load43%
Hammer24%
Eject33%
More people 5.5x faster
Comparison between machines
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14cycle#
Time per cycle (seconds)
Bottom Eject, 3 people
Side Door Eject
Bottom eject, one person
Linear (Side Door Eject)
Linear (Bottom Eject, 3people)Linear (Bottom eject, oneperson)
• External: Compare your product to other products to see what the benefits are (or are not).
• Internal: See if your product is efficient, and identify the best places for improvements.
Types of time studies:
