ZL05裝載機總體及其工作裝置設(shè)計

ZL05裝載機總體及其工作裝置設(shè)計,ZL05裝載機總體及其工作裝置設(shè)計,zl05,裝載,總體,整體,及其,工作,裝置,設(shè)計 Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 265271 Aspects to improve cabin comfort of wheel loaders and excavators according to operators L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers a, *, F. Krause a , P. Vink a,b a TNO Work and Employment, P.O. Box 718, Hoofddorp 2130 AS, The Netherlands b Industrial Design, TU Delft, The Netherlands Received 19 April 2002; received in revised form 25 November 2002; accepted 29 December 2002 Abstract Comfort plays an increasingly important role in interior design of earth moving equipment. Although research has been conducted on vehicle interiors of wheel loaders and excavators, hardly any information is known about the operators opinion. In this study a questionnaire was completed by machine operators to get their opinion about aspects which need to be improved in ordertodesignamorecomfortablevehicleinterior.Theresultsshowthatalmosthalfoftheoperatorsratethecomfortoftheircabin averageorpoor.Accordingtotheoperators,cabcomfortofwheelloaderscanbeincreasedbyimprovingseatcomfort.Besides improving seat comfort, cabin comfort of excavators can be improved by changing the cab design (including dimensions, ingress/ egress), view, reliability, and climate control. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Cabin comfort; Operators opinion; Earthmoving equipment 1. Introduction Comfort plays an increasingly important role in vehicle design. As machine operators of earth moving equipment often spend long hours in their vehicle sometimes even more than 8h a daycomfort is a major issue in interior design of these machines. Operating earth-moving machinery is not a physically heavy job and can be sustained for long periods. Nevertheless, operating such a machine appears to be a risk factor for musculoskeletal disorders, especially when the task is not interrupted by other working activities or breaks. Zimmerman et al. (1997) showed that the main problems of earth-moving machinery operators concern physical complaints in the neck/ shoulder and low back region, general fatigue and feelings of discomfort. This might be attributed to a combination of static load during prolonged sitting frequently in awkward posturesexposure to whole body vibrations, and handling and steering the machine (Zimmerman et al., 1997; Tola et al., 1988; de Looze et al., 2000). A comfortable well-designed vehicle interior may reduce awkward postures and provide an environment that stimulatesoptimaloperatorperformance. Based on a literature review about musculoskeletal disorders and their risk factors, Zimmerman et al. (1997) made four recommendations for reducing work-related musculos- keletal disorders among operators: minimizing of magnitude and frequency of vibration reaching the operator; locating controls optimally to minimize reach distances, trunk exion and trunk rotation; providing maximum operator visibility from an upright supported seated posture; and taking regular breaks to minimize the effects of sustained postures. Improvements of cab comfort are very often based on reducing the risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (Zimmerman et al., 1997; Attebrant et al., 1997). Only a few studies have mentioned aspects which operators wishto see improved. Nakada (1997) describes the desirability ranking for dump trucks and wheel loaders given by product creators, designers, design engineers, operatorsandyoungpeople.Nakada,(1997)showsthat muchdesign attention has been paid to instrument panel/monitors and meters and the operator seat. *Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+31-23-55-49-938;fax:+31-23-55-49- 305. E-mail address: l.kuijtarbeid.tno.nl (L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers). 0003-6870/03/$-see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00032-2 Unfortunately, the operators opinions cannot be distinguished in Nakadas study (1997). However, in order to design a comfortable vehicle interior, the opinion of the operators is important as they are the end-users of the machines. Their user experience may be of great help designing a more comfortable vehicle interior. The aim of the current study is to nd aspects mentioned by wheel loader and excavator operators, which can be used to improve the comfort of vehicle interiors in the future. In this article we describe the results of a questionnaire given to 273 machineoperators.Theywereaskedtheiropinionabout their current machine, their future demands and aspects they considered important to work well with the machine. This allowed us to identify aspects that need improvement in machine design. 2. Method 2.1. Subjects A convenience sample was obtained through ap- proaching operators visiting Bauma (the worlds largest exhibition for construction equipment). Most of the participants were wheel loader operators (n 61) and excavator operators (n 212). The others (n 65) were operators of several construction machines (e.g., mobile cranes, dozers, tower cranes, off-road trucks). Only the results for wheel loader and excavator operators are presented in this article, as they account for 18% and 62.7% of the total number of respondents respectively. Figs.1and2showatypicalwheelloaderandexcavator. 2.2. Questionnaire Data were collected by means of a questionnaire which was completed during an interview. The ques- tionnairewasdividedintothreeparts:(1)characteristics of the population, (2) evaluation of the current machine beingoperated,and(3)futuredemandsonearthmoving machinery. In the rst part we asked the operators age, years of experience as operator, the kind of machinery being operated and its age. In the second part of the questionnaire, operators evaluated their machine by ratingoverallcomfortandtheiropinionofspecicparts of the machine on a four-point scale (very good, good, average,poor).Finally,twoopenquestionsaskedabout the operators future demands: what improvements would make the machine more comfortable and what aspects are the most important to work well with the machine. Fig.1. Excavator. L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers et al. / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 265271266 2.3. Data analysis Data were sorted by machine type, after which the responses of wheel loader operators and excavator operators were separately analyzed. Within these groups, operators of older machinery (X4 years old) were separated from operators of newer machinery (o4 years old). In addition, the categories very good and good were combined (very good/good) and the categories average and poor were combined (average/poor). Frequency tables were made of the operators opinions about overall machine comfort and about their opinions about specic parts of their machines. Chi-square was calculated between age of machine and overall comfort and between age of machine and the operators opinion of specic parts of the machine. We assumedthat if fewer than 80% of the operatorsrated a part of the machine good/very good, improvement of this part could contribute to amore comfortable vehicle interior.Inpartthreeofthequestionnaire,theoperators indicated aspects to improve machine comfort and aspects they found necessary to work well with the machine. We classied these aspects into categories and calculated the percentage responses. 3. Results 3.1. Characteristics of the population Both the wheel loader operators (mean age: 36.579.4 years) andthe excavatoroperators(meanage:36.379.3 years) who participated in this study, were experienced witha mean of 12.3 ( 78.1) and 13.4 (79.2) years of service, respectively. Half of the operators operate machines less than 4 years old (53% of the wheel loader and 50% of the excavator operators; see Fig.3). 3.2. Evaluation of current machine 57.4% of wheel loader operators and 55.9% of the excavator operators rated the overall cabin comfort good/verygood.Fig.4showsthatoperatorsofnewer machinery (o4 years old) rated the overall cab comfort asgood/verygoodmoreoftenthanoperatorsofolder Fig.2. Wheel loader. Age of machines Percentage of machines per category 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Excavators Wheel loaders Machines (%) less than 4 years old 4 years or more Fig.3. The participants machines are divided into two categories: machines o4 years old and machines =4 years old. L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers et al. / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 265271 267 machines (X4 years old). This was found both among wheel loaders (w 2 18:5; po0:04) and among excava- tors(w 2 123:0; po0:001).Seventy-eightpercentofthe operators driving wheel loaders less than 4 years old, rated the comfort oftheir machine asgood/very good. Withexcavator operators this gure was 81%. These results show that during recent years the experienced cab comfort of excavators and wheel loaders has improved. Fig.5 illustrates the opinion of the operators about specic parts of the machines less than 4 years old. As seen in Table 1, fewer aspects of wheel loaders are rated average/poor by more than 20% of the operators, than excavators. Common aspects which can contribute to increase of cab comfort are dashboard and displays, adjustability of seats and controls, vibration and damping, noise reduction, and seat comfort. Excavator operators would also like to see improvementof climate General opinion about comfort of the cab Percentage of operators rating good/very good 0 20 40 60 80 100 Excavators Wheel loaders Operators (%) less than 4 years old 4 years or more Fig.4. Percentage of operators rating their machines good and very good on cab comfort. Excavators less than 4 years old Percentage operators rating good and very good 02040608010 02040608010 Seat comfort Adjustablility of seat and controls Way controls work Pedals Dashboard and displays View Climate control Cab dimension/interior space Machines appearance Noise reduction Vibration and damping Operators (%) Good Very good Good Very good Wheel loaders less than 4 years old Percentage operators rating good and very good Seat comfort Adjustablility of seat and controls Way controls work Pedals Dashboard and displays View Climate control Cab dimension/interior space Machines appearance Noise reduction Vibration and damping Operators (%) Fig.5. Opinion of excavator and wheel loader operators about specic parts of the machines. L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers et al. / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 265271268 control, improved machine appearance, and better cab dimensions (including interior space, ingress/egress), view, and reliability. 3.3. Future demands The participants generated 467 items desired to improve the machines comfort. We classied these aspects into 15 categories (see Table 2). Fig.6 shows which features should be improved according to the operators. Seat comfort, climate control and accessories are often mentioned for bothwheel loaders (20%, 12%, 15%, resp.) and excavators (21%, 19%, 12%, resp.). Excavator operators also mention cab design (including dimensions, ingress/egress; 19%). The aspects considered most important to work well with the machine are summarized in Table 3. Machine performance is by far the most important issue if we look at the averages. Other aspects like view and reliability play less important roles. Table 2 Classication of aspects mentioned by operators Categories Examples TCO (total cost of ownership) Costs of machine (procurement, service costs, rest value) Machine performance Performance, hydraulics, gear Serviceability Cleaning of the machine, manufacturer service Reliability Reliability Seat comfort Seat pan, lumbar support, arm rests, curvature of back support Adjustabilityofseatandcontrols Adjustability of seat height, adjustability of controls Operability Joystick, steering wheel, interaction joystick and beam View View of work, dead angles, position of mirrors Dashboard and displays Usability of dashboard/controls, readability, absent information, position of displays Climate control Temperature, dust lters, ventilation, blower position Design/dimensions/ingress and egress Design and dimensions of cabin and machine, position of steps, grab rails Noise and vibration Noise, vibration, damping Accessories Radio, fridge, storage space, cup holder Safety and stability Feelings of safety, stability of machine Environment Noise outside the machine, exhaust fumes Table 1 Aspects rated average or poor by more than 20% of the operators for both wheel loaders and excavators less than 4 years old Wheel loaders Excavators Aspect Operators (%) Aspect Operators (%) Dashboard and displays 32.0 Seat comfort* 29.5 Adjustability of seat and controls 31.2 Vibration and damping* 27.0 Vibration and damping* 28.1 Dashboard and displays 26.0 Noise reduction 28.1 Climate control* 24.1 Seat comfort 24.9 Machines appearance 24.0 Cab dimensions, interior space, ingress and egress* 22.3 Noise reduction* 21.9 View 21.9 Adjustability of seat and controls* 21.0 Reliability 20.9 Aspects marked by* are rated by signicantly more operators of newer machinery (less than 4 years old) as good or very good compared to machines older machinery (4 years or more). Fig.6. Aspects which need improvement according to excavator and wheel loader operators. L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers et al. / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 265271 269 4. Discussion The aim of the current study was to nd aspects mentioned by wheel loader and excavator operators which can be used to improve the comfort of vehicle interiors in future. In order to nd these aspects, we asked questions about three issues. * aboutcomfortofspecicaspectsofthecab(ratingon a four-point scale); * about aspects necessary to improve the cab comfort (open question); * about aspects important to work well withthe machine (open question). Excavator and wheel loader operators mentioned improved seat comfort, climate control and accessories as ways to increase cab comfort. Excavator operators also mentioned cab design (including dimensions, ingress/egress). These aspects were also rated as average/poor by more than 20% of the operators (except accessories because this was not an item in the second part of the questionnaire). Other aspects which can be taken into account withcab design are those which operators mention as most important aspects to work well with the machine. Especially when these aspects are also rated as average/poor by more than 20% of the operators, they need special attention. Improving these aspects have priority in designing a more comfortable cab. In our study, we collected our data among visitors to the Bauma exhibition in 2001. The advantage of this collection method is that it is possible to reach a large group of operators within a short period of time, at the same time getting a large response, which would normally be very difcult. A disadvantage might be that the vast majority of respondents were German whichcouldmeanthattheresultshavealimitedvalidity among operators in other countries. The German operators may have other ideas about cab comfort than operators,whoworkinothercountries.Thedemandsof the operators on their machine depend on the working environment (e.g., climate, landscape, dust) and their tasks (e.g., driving off road, driving on the main road), which can be different between countries. Besides, the operators based their opinion on their current machine. It is possible that in Germany certain brands are overrepresented compared to other countries and that the operators opinion might vary according to the brand. The most common brands would therefore inuence the results of our study as many operators use one of these machines (Excavators: brand A 22.6%, brandB22.2%;Wheelloaders:brandA21.3%,brandB 18%, brand C 11.5%). Since we used a short questionnaire to collect the data, no detailed information could be asked. The goal of our study was to get a global view on the operators opinion. The open questions gave the operators the opportunity to think open-minded which may render valuable information. Open questions are less suitable for data analysis, because we needed to categorize answers. Inevitably information is lost in this process, but the goal of obtaining a global view was nevertheless achieved. Our results show that seat comfort, climate control, accessories (for wheel loaders and excavators) and cab design (including dimensions, ingress/egress), view, and reliability (for excavators only) are the aspects which can improve cab comfort. All these aspects are rated average/poorbymorethan 20%oftheoperatorsand they are also mentioned as aspects which need improve- ment in order to increase cab comfort. In our opinion designers should give priority to these items when redesigning cabs. It is interesting that operators did not mention vibration as an aspect which can improve comfort, as it was ranked high on the list of machine parts rated average/poor. Besides, whole body vibra- tionisaserioushealthhazard(Houtmanetal.,2001).It is possible that the operators did not mention vibration because they may see vibration as an engine property or an inevitable consequence of working on earthmoving equipment.Operatorsmighthavetheideathatvibration cannot be reduced by redesigning only the cab. It is, however, unclear why operators did not mention vibration. When comparing excavators and wheel loaders, improving seat comfort is an issue for bothwheel loaders and excavators. Although seat comfort in excavators has been improved during recent years (see Table 1), improvements are still necessary. However, thisisnoteasyassittingcomfortdependsonmanyother factors more or less related to seat design: e.g., adjustability of seat and controls, vibration and damp- ing, and view. For example, a bad view from the cabin can result in awkward body postures, which reduces comfort in spite of a comfortable seat. Beyond the common aspect seat comfort, many differences exist between wheel loaders and excavators. One difference we found between the excavator and the Table 3 Aspects considered most important to work well with the machine according to wheel loader and excavator operators Wheel loaders Excavators Aspect Responses (%) Aspect Responses (%) Machines performance 40.3 Machines performance 37.0 View 12.5 Reliability 14.6 Reliability 11.8 View 11.5 Operability 11.1 The aspects noted in more than 10% of the answers are presented. L.F.M. Kuijt-Evers et al. / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 265271270 wheel loader was that excavator cab design (including dimensionsandingress/egress)needsimprovement.This difference may be explained by access and space. First, there is a difference in machine access with grips generally quite wide apart and steps to the cabin far from optimal, being either too high or too narrow. Operators could experience this asa problem. Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between wheel loaders and excavators in the space available for the cab. With the present design, excavators have a limited width available for the cab as it must be positioned between the boom and the left machine side, leaving approxi- mately 1m for the cab. Another difference is that improving view can increase the cab comfort of the excavator. View is a very important aspect to work well withthe excavator. The boom of the excavator has a wide range of motion and the operator needs to see the bucket for the full range. A comfortable cab provides a clear view of the work place and the bucket, without necessitating awkward postures. In the introduction, we stated that comfort plays an importantroleincabdesign.Itisthereforeinterestingto nd that the operators did not mention comfort as one of the most important aspects to work well with the machine. They mentioned aspects such as the machines performance, reliability, view and operability. It seems that operators think rst about the basic requirements needed to perform their task and apparently do not see comfort as one of them. If we compare our results withthe results of Nakada, (1997), in bothstudies the operator seat is ranked as important. Instrument panel, monitors and meters are also ranked as important in Nakadas study. In our study vibration, dashboard and displays are high on the list of parts rated as average/poo