Advertisement

The Hand-Machine Interface

  • Colin G. Drury
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 25)

Abstract

Three types of interface between the human hand and the world of machinery are distinguished. They are handles for moving objects, handrails for steadying the human and controls for transmitting information to a machine. For each type of human/machine interface the shape, size and texture of the handle need to be considered. The literature is reviewed on handles, handrails and hand controls, giving consistent recommendations on interfaces which fit the hand. Handle position and angle are considered for two types of tasks, manual materials handling and push/pull tasks. Both laboratory and field studies show that handle positions on boxes should encourage a ‘diagonally opposite’ grip which has both horizontal and vertical stability. Handle angle should be such as to minimize radial and ulnar deviations of the wrist. For pushing and pulling tasks the handle should be 900 – 1100 mm above ground level and foot obstructions should be avoided to allow free walking while pushing and pulling.

Keywords

Grip Force Hand Position Human Hand Ulnar Deviation Power Grip 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayoub, M. M., and LoPresti, P., 1971, The determination of optimum size cylindrical handle by use of EMG, Ergonomics, 14:509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayoub, M. M., and McDaniel, J. W., 1974, Effects of Operator stance on pushing and pulling tasks, AIIE Transactions, 6:185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobbert, A. C., 1960, Optimal form and dimensions of hand-grips on certain concrete building blocks, Ergonomics, 2:141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borg, G., 1962, “Physical Performance and Perceived Exertion,” Lund: Gleerups, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, B. M., Ruffell-Smith, H. P., and Ward, J. S., 1974, An investigation of factors affecting the use of buses by both elderly and ambulant disabled passengers, BL, TRRL Contract Report No. CON/3140/32, TRRL, England.Google Scholar
  6. Corlett, E. N., and Bishop, R. B., 1976, A technique for assessing postural discomfort, Ergonomics, 19:175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coury, B. G., and Drury, C. G., in press, Optimum handle position on boxes: a multifactor approach, Ergonomics.Google Scholar
  8. Damon, A., Stoudt, H. W., and Mc Farland, R. A., 1966, “The human body in equipment design,” Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  9. Drury, C. G., 1980, Handles for manual materials handling, Applied Ergonomics, 11:35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drury, C. G., Barnes, R. E., and Daniels, E. G., 1975, Pedestrian operated vehicles in hospitals, AIIE Annual Conferences Proceedings, 184, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Drury, C. G., Law, C. H., and Pawenski, C. S., in press, A survey of industrial box handling, Human Factors.Google Scholar
  12. Garret, J. W., 1971, The adult human hand, some anthropometric and biomechanical considerations, Human Factors, 13:117.Google Scholar
  13. Grandjean, E., 1980, “Fitting the task to the man,” Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg, L., and Chaffin, D. B., 1979, “Workers and their tools,” Perdel Publishing Co., Midland (Mich.).Google Scholar
  15. HEDGE, 1974, “Human factors data guide for evaluation,” U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Grounds (Md.).Google Scholar
  16. Hertzberg, H. T. E., 1955, Some contributions of applied physical anthropometry to human engineering. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 63:616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khalil, T. M., 1973, An electromyographic methodology for the evaluation of industrial design, Human Factors, 15:257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kroemer, K. H. E., 1974, Horizontal push and pull forces, Applied Ergonomics, 5:94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Napier, J. R., 1956, The prehensile movements of the human hand, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 38-B:902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pheasant, S., and O’Neill, D., 1975, Performance in gripping and turning — A study in hand, handle effectiveness, Applied Ergonomics, 6:205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rigby, L., 1973, Why do people drop things?, Quality Progress, Sept.: 16.Google Scholar
  22. Rubarth, B., 1928, Untersuchung zur Bestgestaltung von Handheften für Schraubenzieher und ähnliche Werkzeuge, Industrielle Psychotechnik, 5:129.Google Scholar
  23. Saran, C., 1973, Biomechanical evaluation of T-handles for a pronation-supination task, J. Occupational Medicine, 15:712.Google Scholar
  24. Steinfeld, E., Czaja, S., and Beer, J., 1981, “Human factors research with disabled children,” Report of School of Architecture and Environmental Design, SUNY, Buffalo (N. Y.).Google Scholar
  25. Snook, S. H., 1978, The design of manual materials handling tasks, Ergonomics, 21:963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ulate, C., 1980, “Ulnar and radial wrist deviations in a one-handed static holding task,” M.S. thesis, State University at Buffalo (N.Y.).Google Scholar
  27. VanCott, H. D., and Kinkade, R. G., 1971, “Human engineering guide to equipment design,” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  28. Woodson, W. E., 1971, Godd human engineering is possible using off-the-shelf component products, Human Factors, 13:141.Google Scholar
  29. Woodson, W. E., and Conover, D. W., 1964, “Human engineering guide for equipment designers,” University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles (Cal.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin G. Drury
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringState University of New York at BuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations