대표어
학술연구정보서비스(KERIS)
권호기사보기
| 기사명 | 저자명 | 페이지 | 원문 | 기사목차 |
|---|
국회도서관 홈으로
정보검색
소장정보 검색
결과 내 검색
동의어 포함
-
-
목차보기
Title Page
ABSTRACT
Contents
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 14
1. INTRODUCTION 15
1.1. Research Background 15
1.1.1. Motivation 15
1.1.2. Importance of Ergonomics in Product Design 17
1.2. Research Aim and Method 19
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 20
2.1. Review on Double Diamond Design Process 20
2.1.1. The Double Diamond Design Process 20
2.1.2. Issues on the Conventional Double Diamond Design Process 21
2.2. Previous Studies 24
2.2.1. For an Effective Design Process 24
2.2.2. Additive Manufacturing 24
2.2.3. Design Ergonomics 25
2.3. A Proposed Framework with Ergonomic Interventions 26
2.3.1. Exploratory Design Study 28
2.3.2. Defining the Design Scope and Variables 28
2.3.3. Hierarchical Design Modification Using 3D Printing 28
3. A CASE STUDY: REDESIGNING A CORDLESS VACUUM CLEANER HANDLE 29
3.1. Background 29
3.2. Redesigning 31
3.2.1. Exploratory Design Study: An Experimental Study 31
3.2.2. Defining the Design Scope and Variables 34
3.2.3. Hierarchical Design Modification Using 3D Printing 38
3.3. Design Outcome 40
4. ERGONOMIC EVALUATIONS ON HANDLES 41
4.1. Participants 41
4.2. Instruments 43
4.2.1. Experimental Stimuli 43
4.2.2. Electromyography (EMG) measurement system 45
4.2.3. IMU Sensor 46
4.2.4. A Standard Discomfort Stimulus 47
4.3. Experimental Design 48
4.3.1. Experimental Variables 48
4.3.2. Overall Procedure of Experiment 49
4.3.3. Main Tasks 51
4.3.4. Discomfort Evaluation 54
4.3.5. Subjective Ratings 54
4.3.6. Perceived Weight Evaluation 54
4.4. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis 55
4.4.1. Discomfort Evaluation 55
4.4.2. Subjective Ratings 55
4.4.3. Perceived Weight Evaluation 55
4.4.4. Forearm Muscle Activities 55
4.4.5. Movements of Coordination and Wrist 58
5. EVALUATION RESULT 59
5.1. Discomfort Evaluation 59
5.1.1. Floor Vacuuming Task 59
5.1.2. Space Vacuuming Task 60
5.2. Subjective Ratings 61
5.3. Perceived Weight Evaluation 62
5.4. Forearm Muscle Activities 63
5.4.1. Muscle Activities 63
5.4.2. Joint Analysis of Spectra and Amplitude (JASA) 66
5.5. Movements of Coordination and Wrist 68
5.5.1. Floor Vacuuming Task 68
5.5.2. Space Vacuuming Task 70
6. DISCUSSION 72
6.1. Efficiency in the Design Process 72
6.1.1. Exploratory Design Study: An Experimental Study 72
6.1.2. Defining the Design Scope and Variables 75
6.1.3. Hierarchical Design Modification Using 3D Printing 76
6.2. Performance in Improving Usability 78
6.2.1. Discomfort Evaluation 78
6.2.2. Subjective Ratings and Perceived Weight Evaluation 79
6.2.3. Forearm Muscle Activities 79
6.2.4. Coordination of Handle and Hand 80
7. CONCLUSION 82
7.1. Summary 82
7.2. Limitations and Future Studies 84
7.2.1. In the Case Study 84
7.2.2. In the Ergonomic Evaluations 84
REFERENCE 86
APPENDICES 90
Appendix A 90
Appendix B 93
Figure 1. The Double diamond design process. Retrieved from UK Design Council. 16
Figure 2. Basic differences between corrective ergonomics, ergonomics for design, and prospective ergonomics. 18
Figure 3. How uncertain/unclear convergence of thinking in the define phase increases risk of design failure and project time by providing more variables to the develop phase. 21
Figure 4. A proposed double diamond design process framework with three ergonomic design interventions. 26
Figure 5. Target product: A cordless vacuum cleaner. Retrieved from LGE. 29
Figure 6. Side view of the original handle with the finger support. 30
Figure 7. The desired grip. Locate the index finger above the finger support and from the middle to little fingers under the finger support. 30
Figure 8. Exploratory design study: An experimental study to simulate use. Participants reenacted identified problematic grip patterns that are found to induce discomfort in hand via... 31
Figure 9. Identified target areas; (a) Region A, (b) Region B, (c) Region C, and (d) Region D. 32
Figure 10. Mechanism of how the handle of a cordless stick vacuum cleaner induces discomfort/pain on the user's hand. The momentum generated while push-pull motions cause... 32
Figure 11. Initially proposed problem-solving directions. (A) Raise the location of the control panel, (B) Smooth the curve between the control panel and handle, (C) Lower the vertical height... 34
Figure 12. Identified design scope, marked in red. 35
Figure 13. Geometric variables: (a) vertical height, (b) slope, (c) width, (d) convexity, (e) roundness of the finger support, (f) thickness of the index finger level, and (g) thickness of the... 36
Figure 14. Hierarchical design modifications. 38
Figure 15. The block-type jig. The block, which is the design scope, can be assembled and disassembled. 39
Figure 16. Prototypes manufactured during the hierarchical design modification. From top to bottom, dominant to subordinate level. 39
Figure 17. Design outcome. Original handle (left) and redesigned handle (right). Changes are indicated by yellow arrows. 40
Figure 18. Definition of length and breadth of hand and finger segments. 41
Figure 19. Experimental stimuli. (A) Original handle and (B) Redesigned handle. 43
Figure 20. Overall specifications of experimental stimuli. 44
Figure 21. FlexComp Infiniti System. (A) FlexComp Infiniti encoder, (B) sEMG Sensor, and (C) Connected hardware components. 45
Figure 22. MTw Awinda system. Retrieved from Xsens. 46
Figure 23. The standard discomfort stimulus (12N, 500ms, 7mm diameter plastic tip). It was given to Region B in the participant's left hand twice before each vacuuming task. It attempts to... 47
Figure 24. Experimental variables. Qualitative assessments were conducted to investigate if the redesigned handle relieves hand discomfort and improves the usability of the vacuum.... 48
Figure 25. Four forearm muscles involved in the handgrip. (A) Flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU), (B) Extensor carpi radialis (ECR), (C) Flexor digitorum superficialis (FD), and (D) Extensor... 48
Figure 26. Overall procedure of the experiment. 49
Figure 27. Floor vacuuming route. The infinity-shaped route was drawn on the ground. Participants were asked to vacuum the floor along the route at a constant speed for 10 minutes.... 51
Figure 28. Space vacuuming route. The inverted T-shaped routes (70 by 70 centimeters) was drawn on the wall at the participant's elbow level. One horizontal/vertical stroke represents a... 52
Figure 29. Participant conducting the space vacuuming task. Participants were asked to clean the wall along the route 6 times horizontally (left) and 6 times vertically (right). 53
Figure 30. Example of the JASA plot. 56
Figure 31. Example of computing the EA slope in time series by linear regression. Each dot represents the mean EA during each cycle. The MDF slope was computed with the same method. 56
Figure 32. Definition of coordination and wrist angles in horizontal (left) and vertical (right) direction. The coordination angle is the angle between handle and hand, and the wrist angle is... 58
Figure 33. The result of the discomfort evaluation during the floor vacuuming task (the lower the better). Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation. Participants were allowed to report... 59
Figure 34. The result of discomfort evaluation after the space vacuuming task (the lower, the better). Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation. Participants were allowed to report number... 60
Figure 35. Grip satisfaction on the handles during each vacuuming task (the higher, the better). Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation (*** indicates p〈0.001) 61
Figure 36. Preference on the original and redesigned handles (the higher, the better). Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation. (+ indicates p〈0.005) 61
Figure 37. The result of the perceived weight evaluation. The mean scores of raw data (left) and the normalized score by the mean value of the original handle and the redesigned handle (right).... 62
Figure 38. The 10th, 50th, 90th percentile and mean EMG amplitude of FCU, ECR, FD, and ED during the floor and space vacuuming tasks. Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation. (* indicates p〈0.05)[이미지참조] 64
Figure 39. The mean percentage changes in the 10th, 50th, 90th percentile and mean EMG amplitude of FCU, ECR, FD, and ED within-participant during the floor and space vacuuming tasks using redesigned handle compared to the original handle. A negative value means that the muscle was...[이미지참조] 65
Figure 40. The JASA plot for each muscle (n＝18). Each dot represents each participant. 66
Figure 41. The mean values of coordination and wrist angles in the vertical and horizontal directions during the floor vacuuming task. Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation. 68
Figure 42. The mean values of deviation(range) in coordination and wrist angles in the vertical and horizontal directions during the floor vacuuming task. Error bars indicate 1-standard deviation. 68
Figure 43. The mean values of coordination and wrist angles (left) and mean values of deviation(range) in coordination and wrist angles (right) in the horizontal direction during the... 70
Figure 44. The mean values of coordination and wrist angles (left) and mean values of deviation(range) in coordination and wrist angles (right) in the vertical direction during the... 71
Figure 45. An initial version of the target areas. 73
Figure 46. Desirable (left) and problematic grip patterns (middle and right). (A) Holding the handle too loose and (B) Positioning all four fingers (from index to little finger) under the finger support. 73
Figure 47. Problematic grip patterns and each pattern's corresponding target areas: (A) Holding the handle too loose and (B) Positioning all four fingers (from index to little finger)... 74
Figure 48. Sagittal plane of hand. 76
초록보기
In industry, designers and ergonomists often face situations when the design and ergonomics should be blended. Improving product usability and ergonomic factors is a representative case of interdisciplinary study on design and ergonomics. However, the ergonomic design process has been rarely studied despite the needs and necessity. With these motivations, this study aims to (1) propose an ergonomic design process by revising the double diamond design process (DDDP) with the ergonomic interventions and (2) test the performance and validity of the proposed framework through a case study on a cordless stick vacuum cleaner handle.
The current research consists of a case study and an ergonomic evaluation. The study suggests three ergonomic interventions in the DDDP: (1) Exploratory design study in the discover phase; (2) Defining the design scope and variables in the define phase; and (3) Hierarchical design modification using the 3D printing technology in the develop phase. A cordless vacuum cleaner handle was redesigned through the proposed framework as a case study. Then, ergonomic evaluations evaluated the original and redesigned handles' usability qualitatively and quantitatively. A total of 18 participants performed two vacuuming tasks (floor and space vacuuming) and evaluated the following variables: subject discomfort in hand, grip satisfaction, preference, and perceived weight on each handle. Muscle activity and fatigue formation trends of four forearm muscles and the movements of the coordination of handle in hand and wrist were also studied. Results of measurements were compared and analyzed with a paired t-test.
In the case study, the redesigned handle was derived within 8 weeks, showing that the proposed framework can improve product usability in a timely- and cost-effective manner. Evaluation results revealed that the redesigned handle improved the usability of the handle, and there was no negative effect on the physical demand of users. Overall, hand discomfort was lower when using the redesigned handle. Grip satisfaction and preference for the redesigned handle were significantly higher (p＜0.001 and p＜0.005, respectively), and the perceived weight of the redesigned handle was significantly lighter (p＜0.05) than the original handle. Meanwhile, there were no effects of type of handle on muscle activity, muscle fatigue formation, and movements of the coordination and of the wrist.
As in this study, research on ergonomic design processes where the perspectives of designers and human factor engineers can be synthesized is expected to accelerate efficient and effective product development. Research in methodology is a difficult, comprehensive, and lengthy study. Nevertheless, such attempts should be continued and encouraged to develop interdisciplinary research in design and ergonomics.MARC 보기
오류 데이터 정정요청
*표시는 필수 입력사항입니다.
알림톡 발송
| 전화번호 |
|---|
개인정보 수정 바로가기
연속간행물 권호 선택
우편복사 안내
- ◾ 도서관을 방문하지 못할 경우 인터넷, 팩스 등으로 자료 복사를 신청하고, 복사물을 우편·팩스 등으로 제공받는 서비스
- ◾ 대상자료: 일반도서, 연속간행물 및 학위논문
- ※ 고서, 고잡지, 훼손될 우려가 있는 자료, 마이크로폼 자료 및 신문 등 제외
- ◾ 신청 책수: 1인 5책 이하(1일 기준)
- ◾ 신청 절차: 자료 검색 → 우편복사 목록담기 → 복사 범위 입력 → 우편복사 주문서 입력 → 접수 및 확인
- ※ 저작권법에 의거하여 부분 복사(전체 페이지 수의 1/3 범위 이내)만 가능
- ◾ 복사 범위 입력 예시: (연속 페이지) 1-30, (부분 페이지) 25, 30-40
| 번호 | 발행일자 | 권호명 | 제본정보 | 자료실 | 원문 | 신청 페이지 |
|---|
도서위치안내(서울관)
도서위치안내: / 서가번호:
0
확인
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
내서재에 담기
새로운 서재
*표시는 필수 입력사항입니다.
저장
저장 되었습니다.