An ergonomic intervention in operation of a rotary maize sheller

P S TIWARI; M M PANDEY; L P GITE; A K SHRIVASTAVA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v84i7.41916

Authors

P S TIWARI Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 038
M M PANDEY Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 038
L P GITE Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 038
A K SHRIVASTAVA Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 038

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v84i7.41916

Keywords:

Dynapod, Physiological responses, Psychophysical responses, Rotary maize sheller, Shelling capacity, Shelling efficiency

Abstract

Research work on the ergonomics of bicycle, reported in literature, mainly deals with sports and rehabilitation activities. However, the use of pedal power for occupational work such as stationary farm operations has got scant attention in the past. Keeping these points into consideration a study was conducted at CIAE, Bhopal to optimise the design parameters for a pedal operated rotary device (dynapod), which could be used as an interface between human worker and any rotary type process machine. The developed dynapod was interfaced with a hand operated rotary maize sheller and the performance of the machine and drudgery reduction while operated in pedalling mode was quantified and compared with those of hand cranking mode. The results indicated a significant increase in output capacity of the machine (282.7 kg/h versus 144.42 kg/h) with a significant reduction in work pulses (Î”HR) during the operation of the machine (35 beats/min versus 59.4 beats/min) in pedalling mode using dynapod. It was concluded that the rotary maize sheller should be popularised along with the dynapod for its better adoptability by the farmers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aminoff T, Smolander J, Korhonen O and Louhevaara V. 1998. Prediction of acceptable physical work loads on responses to prolonged arm and leg exercise. Ergonomics 41(1): 109–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398187350

Kang J, Robertson R J, Goss F L, Dasliva S G, Suminski R R, Utter A C, Zoeller R F and Metz K F. 1997. Metabolic efficiency during arm and leg exercise at the same relative intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 29(3): 377–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199703000-00013

Legg S J and Mahanty A. 1985. Comparison of five methods of carrying a load close to the trunk. Ergonomics 28(12): 1 653– 60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138508963301

Marais G, Dupont L, Maillet M, Weissland T, Vanvelcenaher J and Pelayo P. 2002. Cardiorespiratory and efficiency responses during arm and leg exercises with spontaneously chosen crank and pedal rates. Ergonomics 45(9): 631–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130210151821

Schneider D A, Wing A N and Morris N R. 2002. Oxygen uptake and heart rate kinetics during heavy exercise: a comparison between arm cranking and leg cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology 88: 100–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0690-5

Tiwari P S, Gite L P, Pandey M M and Shrivastava A K. 2011. Pedal power for occupational activities: Effect of power output and pedaling rate on physiological responses. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41(3): 261–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2011.02.011

Tiwari P S, Pandey M M, Gite L P and Shrivastava A K. 2011. Effect of operating speed and cob size on performance of a rotary maize sheller. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 47(2): 1–8.