Assessing required safety measures for belt

conveyors
Designing a safety assessment tool regarding standard 620+A1:2010

Samuel Andersson & Marcus Widstrand

Civilingenjör, Teknisk design

2020

Luleå tekniska universitet

Institutionen för ekonomi, teknik och samhälle
CIVILINGENJÖR I TEKNISK DESIGN
Master of Science Thesis in Industrial Design Engineering

Master Thesis – D7014A

Assessing required safety measures for belt conveyors

-Designing a safety assessment tool regarding standard 620+A1:2010

© Samuel Andersson & Marcus Widstrand

Published and Distributed by

Luleå University of Technology
Se-971 87 Luleå, Sweden
Telephone: + 46 (0) 920 49 00 00

Cover: Illustration by Marcus Widstrand & Samuel Andersson

Printed in Luleå Sweden by

Luleå University of Technology Reproservice
Luleå, 2020
Acknowledgement
Before you read this report, we would like to show our appreciation towards the
people that have guided us and helped during this project. We will start by thanking
SITE, everyone that works there. Thank you for the warm welcoming and treatment
that we have been receiving during our stay at your facility. A special thanks goes out
to Björn Karlsson and Fredrik Kroll. For always being willing to help and discuss, for
guiding us in our visits at SSAB and for giving valuable feedback during the whole
project. We would also like to thank Susanne Larsson together with her colleagues at
LKAB. We have enjoyed this project, and an important factor to that was your
cooperation and help. We sincerely hope that our work can become beneficial to you
in the near future. At last we would like to thank our mentor and supervisor at Luleå
University of Technology, Lars Eklöf, and our examiner Åsa Wikberg Nilsson for all
their help and advice.

Luleå 17th of January, 2020

Abstract
This is a Master of Science Thesis in Industrial Design Engineering conducted at
Luleå University of Technology with the orientation towards product design and
development. This report comprises 30 credits, started autumn 2019 and ended in the
beginning of 2020. This thesis was done together with SITE, in cooperation with
LKAB to together find a solution that could verify standard 620+A1:2010, to
conclude if requirement of engaging more protection at belt conveyors would be
necessary.
The purpose of this master thesis is to find a solution in the form of a safety assessment
tool which could aid investigations regarding standard 620+A1:2010 and whether the
requirements are fulfilled or not regarding nip points on carrying and return idlers.
This thesis also includes additional requirements given by LKAB that must be
followed. The result should consist of a concept that can, with the help of a 50x50
mm plate, determine if a conveyor belt can be lifted 50 mm with a force of 150 N.

To be able to find a solution to this problem a design process named Snowflake has
been used which consists of four phases: Context, Ideation, Concept and Product.
The work is built on a theoretical framework with topics such as industrial design
engineering, belt conveyors, ergonomics, user experience, interaction design and
usability. This, combined with several creative methods to enhance creativity and
inspiration followed by an extensive evaluation process, enabled the project team to
develop a solution to the acknowledged problem.

The project resulted in a conceptual tool that, with the help of a torque wrench, can
determine the amount of force required during a safety assessment. Its shape allows
measurements to be performed on belt conveyors with a vast variety of roller
dimensions. The tool is designed to allow the user to use minimal effort to operate in
all its usage stages, from carrying the tool to using it. By having a distance gauge that
moves when the tool lifts the belt and stays at the threshold value, the results can be
read away from the nip point which increases user safety and usability,

The result fulfils the stated criteria and is therefore considered to be a successful result,
but it may also serve as a foundation for further development considering the
extensive theoretical research which supports the design and functions, despite it
being a conceptual product.

In the end, the project has resulted in a tool that clearly answers whether safety
protectors are required for belt conveyors at nip points, according to parameters stated
in safety standard 620+A1:2010, regarding carrying and return idlers.

KEYWORDS: industrial design, belt conveyor, ergonomic, standardization, SS-EN

620, nip-point, safety assessment, idler
Sammanfattning
Detta är ett examensarbete utfört av två studenter från Civilingenjörsprogrammet
Tekniks design på Luleå tekniska universitet med inriktningen produktdesign.
Rapporten omfattar 30 högskolepoäng, påbörjades hösten 2019 och avslutades början
av 2020. Denna avhandling har gjorts tillsammans med SITE, i samarbete med LKAB
för att tillsammans hitta en lösning på hur man kan verifiera standard 620+A1:2010
för avgöranden om krav på ingreppskydd vid transportband uppfylls.

Examensarbetets syfte är att hitta en lösning i form av ett säkerhetsbedömningsverktyg

som kan utföra undersökningar för standard 620+A1:2010 och avgöra om dess krav
uppfylls eller inte angående klämpunkter vid bärande och returrullar. Arbetet
innefattar även ytterligare krav från LKAB som måste efterföljas. Resultatet ska bestå
av ett koncept som med hjälp av en 50x50 mm platta avgöra om ett transportband
kan lyftas 50 mm med en kraft på 150 N.

För att kunna hitta en lösning på problemet så har en designprocess med namnet
Snowflake används som består av fyra faser: Kontext, Ideation, Koncept och Produkt.
Arbetet bygger på ett teoretiskt ramverk så som tekniks design, transportband,
ergonomi, användarupplevelse, interaktionsdesign och användbarhet. Detta,
kombinerat med flertal kreativa metoder för att höja kreativitet och inspiration som
följts av en omfattande utvärderingsprocess, gjorde det möjligt för projektgruppen att
utveckla en lösning till det erkända problemet.

Projektet resulterade i ett koncept som, med hjälp av en momentnyckel, kan avläsa
kraften som krävs vid en säkerhetsundersökning. Dess form möjliggör att mätningar
kan ske på en stor mängd olika transportband med varierande rullstorlekar. Verktyget
är utformat för att kräva minimal ansträngning av användaren under alla
användningssteg, från att bära verktyget till användning. Genom att en avståndsmätare
rör sig då verktyget lyfter bältet och stannar kvar vid avståndets tröskelvärde så kan
resultatet avläsas borta från mätpunkten, vilket ökar användarsäkerhet och
användbarhet.

Resultatet uppfyller de fastställda kriterierna och kan därför anses vara ett
framgångsrikt resultat, men det kan också användas som grund till vidareutveckling
med tanke på det omfattande teoriresultat som stödjer utformning och funktion, trots
att produkten endast är konceptuell.

Projektet har i slutändan resulterat i ett verktyg som tydligt visar om ingreppskydd
måste monteras på bältestransportörer vid klämpunkter, enligt parametrar från
säkerhetsstandard 620+A1:2010 angående bärande och returrullar.

NYCKELORD: industriell design, teknisk design, transportband, ergonomi,

standardisering, SS-EN 620, klämpunkt, säkerhetsåtgärd, stödrulle
Project team
The project team consist of two members, Samuel Andersson and Marcus Widstrand.
Both started this project for their Master thesis in Industrial Design Engineering
oriented towards product design development.

The project team with Samuel Andersson on the left and Marcus Widstrand on the right
Content
Final Product Development 42
Introduction 1 Product development via a master sketch 42
Background 1 Concept part development 43
Stakeholders 2 Finite Element Analysis 46
Objective and Aims 4 Shape Builder 46
Research Questions 4 Manufacturing 47
Project Scope 4
Thesis Outline 5 Results 48
Context Results 48
Context 6 Ideation Results 50
Current State 6 Concept Development Result 53
Market Analysis 6
Requirements 7 Final Results 58
Mission Statement 8 The Product 58
Rotation Point & Torque Adapter 60
Theoretical Framework 9 Bearing Dimension 61
Industrial Design Engineering 9 Fem & Material Analysis 62
Belt Conveyors 10 Idler Arm Shape 62
Design for Safety & Ergonomics 12 Material Reduction 63
Tool Handle Design & Ergonomics 16 Lift Arm Shape 64
User Experience 17 Plate Shape & Placement 65
Interaction Design 18 Handle Dimensions 66
Usability 18 Insertion Handle 68
Distance Gauge 70
Method & Implementation 20 Manufacturing 71
Process 20
Context 20 Discussion 72
Ideation 21 The Result 72
Concept Development 21 Assessing required safety measures for belt
Product 21 conveyors 72
Project Planning 22 Usage and User safety 73
Context 23 Contributing to industrial design
Interviews 23 engineering 74
User Journey 24 Reflection 74
Field Study 25 Methods 74
Ideation 27 Information gathering and user opinions 74
Concept Development 34 Project Planning 75
Pugh 34 Conclusions 75
Ergonomic Evaluation 35 Project Objective and Aims 75
Idler Dimensions and Tool Functionality 35 Research Questions 75
Prototyping and Experimentation 36 The Mission Parameters 76
LKAB Evaluation Meeting 37
ASA Risk Assessment Method 38 References 77
Final Selection 41
List of Appendix
Appendix 1 Project Stakeholders …………………………………………. 2 Pages
Appendix 2 Concept Development ………………………………………. 14 Pages
Appendix 3 Ergonomic evaluation ……………………………………….. 2 Pages
Appendix 4 SSAB Force test. …………………………………………….. 7 Pages
Appendix 5 Shape Builder and FEM Analysis ……………………………. 18 Pages
Appendix 6 ASA Risk Assessment Method ………………………………. 20 Pages
Appendix 7 Pairwise Comparison ………………………………………… 1 Pages
Appendix 8 Force and Torque Calculations………………………………. 4 Pages

List of Equations
Equation (1) Belt tension .................................................................................. 11
Equation (2) Accessory tension .......................................................................... 11
Equation (3) Start up tension ............................................................................. 11
Equation (4) Optimal idler spacing .................................................................... 12
Equation (5) Reduced capacity force ................................................................. 13
Equation (6)Calculating torque value ................................................................ 60

List of Tables
Table 1 Belt tension variables ............................................................................ 11
Table 2 Startup tension ..................................................................................... 11
Table 3 Idler spacing ......................................................................................... 12
Table 4 Reduced capacity variables on force ..................................................... 13
Table 5 Forces, one arm work........................................................................... 14
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Project stakeholders [Illustration] ....................................... 3
Figure 2 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Measurement constrains on carrying idler [Illustration] ...... 7
Figure 3 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Measurement constrains on return idler [Illustration] ......... 7
Figure 4 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Troughed belt conveyor system [Illustration] ................... 10
Figure 5 – Rossi et.al, 2014, tested handle shapes [Illustration] ................................................. 16
Figure 6 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Process [Illustration] ........................................................ 20
Figure 7 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Project gantt chart [Illustration] ....................................... 22
Figure 8 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Field study SSAB belt conveyor [Photography] .............. 26
Figure 9 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Site Workshop [Photography] ......................................... 31
Figure 10 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Rapid prototyping [Photography] ................................. 33
Figure 11 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Free body diagram [Illustration]..................................... 35
Figure 12 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, SSAB force measurement [Photography] ....................... 36
Figure 13 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Wedges used during experiment [Photography]............. 36
Figure 14 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Conveyor lock [Photography] ....................................... 37
Figure 15 - MSHA, 2019, Metal/Nonmetal Mine Fatality [Illustration] ................................... 38
Figure 16 - Marcus Widstrand, 2020, Rotation point, arms and idler sizes [Illustration]............ 43
Figure 17 - Marcus Widstrand, 2020, Handle sketch [Illustration] ............................................ 44
Figure 18 - Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Early rotation mechanism [Illustration] .......................... 45
Figure 19 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, User journey [Illustration] ............................................ 48
Figure 20 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Belt conveyor, dust cover.............................................. 49
Figure 21 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Small part of the ideation results [Illustration] ................ 50
Figure 22 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Concept development [Illustration] ............................... 53
Figure 23 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, SSAB belt conveyor suspended [Photography]............... 54
Figure 24 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Final Selection Concepts [Illustration] ........................... 56
Figure 25 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Final selection criteria evaluation [Illustration] ............... 56
Figure 26 – Samuel Andersson & Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Final product 1 [Rendering] ......... 58
Figure 27 – Samuel Andersson & Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Final product 2 [Rendering] ......... 59
Figure 28 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, User with tool at belt conveyor [Illustration] ................. 60
Figure 29 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Rotation component [Rendering] ................................. 61
Figure 30 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Rotation Point, Ball Bearing, Spacer, Nut [Rendering] . 61
Figure 31 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Idler arm [Rendering] ................................................... 62
Figure 32 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Protection Detail [Rendering] ....................................... 63
Figure 33 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Material Reduction on Idler Arm [Rendering] .............. 64
Figure 34 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Lifting arm [Rendering] ................................................ 65
Figure 35 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance measuring arm [Rendering]............................. 65
Figure 36 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Plates insertion position [Rendering] ............................. 66
Figure 37 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Plates at lifting position [Rendering].............................. 66
Figure 38 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Handle [Rendering] ...................................................... 67
Figure 39 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Handle Hole [Rendering] ............................................. 68
Figure 40 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Insertion handle [Rendering] ........................................ 69
Figure 41 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Insertion handle [Rendering] ........................................ 69
Figure 42 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Insertion handle parts [Rendering] ................................ 69
Figure 43 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance gauge [Rendering] .......................................... 70
Figure 44 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance gauge screw hole [Rendering] ......................... 70
Figure 45 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance gauge edge [Rendering] .................................. 71
Introduction
It is always vital to maintain the safety of the personnel working in an industrial
environment. In order to do so, risk assessments of working hazards are imperative to
discern whether machinery, moving objects, heavy loads etc. are properly enclosed
and shielded from the workers to prevent injury in case accidents or mishaps should
occur.

This is a report for a master thesis project performed and documented by Marcus
Widstrand and Samuel Andersson within Industrial Design Engineering at Luleå
University of Technology, during the autumn of the year 2019. The project was
conducted for Swedish Industrial Technology (SITE), in collaboration with
Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB (LKAB) with the purpose of developing a safety
assessment tool for discerning whether safety detail implements would be necessary
for belt conveyor systems.

Throughout the rest of the report, the term “the team” will refer to the two students;
Marcus Widstrand and Samuel Andersson.

Background
The Swedish Work Environment Authority reports that in Sweden during 2017, 99
individuals working with belt conveyor systems were involved in reported work-
related accidents, resulting in either sick leave or even death (Arbetsmiljöverket, 2017).
The United States Department of Labor reports that between 2015 and 2018, 312
individuals sustained injury related to belt conveyor systems where 203 of those were
hospitalized and 176 suffered amputations either during the accident or as a necessary
surgery (OSHA, 2019).

LKAB is an international mining company that mines and refines iron ore for the
global market. During this master thesis project, LKAB was conducting an evaluation
regarding the safety of their belt conveyors including both machine protectors and
control system safety. A project group was evaluating potential solutions to increase
the safety of their workers, which is why they reached out to SITE, with a request
for them to present any solutions that the company may have on this challenge.

SITE is a consultant firm with its specialization towards heavy industrial design and
together with them, the team had a meeting at LKAB in Kiruna. In addition to SITE
presenting their solutions, the meeting also provided the team with mission
parameters to define their project towards discerning necessary safety installations
according to standardizations regarding belt conveyor systems. SITE also helped the
team establish contact with a steel industry company, Svensk Stål AB (SSAB), located
in Luleå which also expressed an interest in the project, as they use belt conveyor
systems throughout their ore refinery process.

The focus for this project originated from standard SS-EN 620+A1:2010 (SIS, 2010)
which incorporates, amongst other things, how to correctly assess the required level
of safety for belt conveyor systems.

1
 ...idlers shall be safeguarded in working and traffic areas unless:
− the nip point of the return idlers is at a safe distance in accordance with EN
294:1992

or

− there is no risk of people being injured because the belt can yield (leave the idlers)
to produce a clearance of at least 50 mm at the nip point without trapping or
crushing... (SIS, 2010), section 5.1.4.3

The standard entails that if the conveyor belt can be lifted 50 millimetres (mm) from
its original position, there is no need to add certain safety blocks and engagement
protection details at nip points. Additional project parameters, which were produced
in consultancy with LKAB, states that the lift should be performed with a plate of
50x50 mm and that the force should be 150 Newton (N) or less. These parameters
may be included in future renditions of the standard, which verifies its relevance to
the project.

At the time of this project, there were no reliable methods or products that could
provide these measurements and both SITE and LKAB requested safe and accurate
measurements. In the end, this would save time, money and increase the safety for
service/inspection personal at LKAB. It would also be providing SITE with a
powerful safety assessment tool which they can use in their work as consultants at
SSAB and other companies.

Stakeholders
To find the stakeholders for this project, a list of questions was used from a method
developed to identify the different stakeholders and what kind of impact they can
have, (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010). By answering these questions, a map of the
stakeholders could be created to show who may be affected by the project. This
helped to develop a strategy on how to make these individuals interested and engaged
in the project. These questions and the answers can be found in Appendix 1 - Project
Stakeholders.

The result of this analyzation resulted in three main stakeholders; the project team,
SITE and LTU, with three secondary stakeholders LKAB, SSAB and other companies
that uses standards regarding this project.

2
 Figure 1 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Project stakeholders [Illustration]

The project team is the first main actor as they are the primary force in the project.
The thesis result represents their first work as engineers. a result which allows the
team members to show their competence, graduate from Luleå University of
Technology and serve as a strong reference in their future careers.

LTU, Luleå University of Technology, is the second main stakeholder in this project.
The main actors involved from the university are the supervisors and examinators,
their goal being that they can assure that this project result is of high quality and adds
to their research of Industrial Design Engineering.

SITE, the third main actor in this project, have their interest in acquiring relevant
theory and a safety assessment tool for future consultancy assignments. With the
resulting concept, SITE may be able to more accurately assess a required safety level
for belt conveyor segments as well as building a beneficial relationship for future
project with LKAB, SSAB and other companies.

LKAB and SSAB are secondary stakeholders, as they have their focus more on the
practical application of the results from this project. The companies need to improve
their safety regarding their belt conveyors and control safety system, and the project
may offer a possible solution to verify where belt conveyor protection is necessary.
The result of this project may also affect associates and personnel of LKAB and SSAB
by creating a safer work environment in hazardous areas caused by belt conveyors.
The main users of the end product will be service personnel and engineers that
evaluate safety standards.

3
In addition to the main and secondary stakeholders, there are also companies which
are affected by standards that needs to be taken in consideration. This regarding to
safety standards of work environment which these companies must adhere to.

Objective and Aims

The objective of the project was to create a detailed concept for a product solution
which address safety assessments regarding belt conveyor maintenance and usage. The
solution should be designed according to international standards and adhere to user
safety.

The aim with this project was to increase safe usage and maintenance work regarding
belt conveyors by enabling more accurate assessment of required safety measures, as
well as contribute with new research and insight to Industrial Design Engineering as
a subject.

Research Questions
Research questions are used to help the team dive deeper into the project and provide
a foundation for areas that needs to be further explored.

- How can we, by using design, correctly assess required safety levels of
conveyor belt usage and maintenance for workers and people in the vicinity?

- How can industrial design development benefit from international safety

standards?

Project Scope
The project was conducted during the autumn of 2019 and consisted of
approximately 20 weeks of work with 40 hours each week. These hours were divided
between practical aspects of the project as well as documentation and academic work
towards a master thesis report.

Because of the time limit, the focus of this project was on determining how to
accurately and safely utilize standard SS-EN 620+A1:2010, section 5.1.4.3, as well as
the additional parameters acquired from LKAB to assess safety. The project did not
include any work regarding safety engagement equipment that may be
required if the safety level of a belt conveyor system is not up to standard, nor
did it involve redesigning implemented belt conveyor system parts for better
safety.

4
Thesis Outline
Here is a short description of each chapter and what they contain.

Context
Under this chapter information about the project can be found. Requirements and
mission statement give an understanding of the goals that this project aims to achieve
and its user environment. This chapter also provides a market analysis to find lack of
knowledge within the parameters of this project.

Theoretical framework
This chapter contains theoretical studies about industrial design engineering, belt
conveyor systems, design for safety and ergonomics, tool handle design and
ergonomics, risk assessment, field research, interview, user experience, interaction
design and usability that provides argumentations and reason towards the decisions
that have been made during this project.

Method and Implementation

The chapter accommodates different methods and how they have been implemented
to achieve better immersion of the context that is relevant to this project. The process
and the project planning are visualized to gives better insight in the project and
important deadlines that needed to be followed. To attain better immersion a user
journey and field study where conducted. The studies provided the project with
insight and understanding of the current obstacles and challenges that needed to be
solved during the project’s timeline, as well as knowledge which could be used to
generate solutions around specific problems.

To generate a diversity of ideas, the following ideation methods were used: The Anti-
Problem, Brainstorming, Dark Horse, Braindrawing, Pre-Mortem, Wordplay,
Morphological Matrix, Gamestorming and Rapid prototyping. When a large base of
ideas where built the method, Pugh’s Matrix was used to evaluate which ideas that
could become feasible and reasonable to develop further. Four evaluation methods
were conducted before the final selection could be accomplished. After the final
selection the project entered the product phase where every detail of the concept was
further developed.

Results
This section contains all results from previous phases such as Context, Ideation and
Concept development.

Final results
The final result is presented and explained in detail. All parts, design decisions and
functions are described, assessed and strengthened by the results from previous project
phases.

Discussion
This section contains conclusions and discussions regarding the process and results
that have been given throughout the project. The research questions are answered,
reflections are given, and recommendations are discussed.

5
Context
This chapter provides studies and information that have been collected to better
understand the extent and purpose of the project. This was done by surveying the
market for similar products, analysing the used safety standards, looking at the current
state of the field of belt conveyors relevant for this project and then compiling this
information to create a list of requirements and formulating our mission statement.

Current State
The belt conveyor market consists of a very large variety of conveyor models and
configurations. However, the products differ depending on where the belt conveyors
are used and in what environment. This project focuses on industrial belt conveyors
that handles bulk materials within the mining industry by transporting base materials
in troughed conveyor belts.

Today there are many involved when operating and maintaining belt conveyors and
it can be very difficult to assess work hazards as well as judging whether or not safety
requirements are being met. The SS EN-standard 620+A1:2010, regarding safety
measures at nip points on belt conveyor idlers, is hard to verify because of the lack of
assessment tools that are needed. Today there is no established method or product
that can deliver the required measurements to determine if safety measurements are
needed.

Market Analysis
During the market analysis, which was conducted by using the Google search engine
(Google, n.d.) and asking LKAB, there were no product or service found that were
constructed to measure parameters needed to assess standard 620+A1:2010 and the
parameters given by LKAB. There were products designed to measure tension with
the use of laser, acoustics and other parameters but only on drive belts, which are
.synchronous belt drives, which is a system of at least one pulley and a synchronous
belt which is used to translate rotation, (ISO, 2017). This provided inspiration towards
finding solutions as well as confirming the need for a safety assessment tool for belt
conveyor systems.

6
Requirements
The information and data that has been gathered was analysed to create a list of
requirements that helped the project to achieve its goals. The list consists of details
that this project needed to deliver in the final result to satisfy the stakeholders, see
figure 2 and 3.

• The project will result in a safety assessment tool for measuring belt conveyor
properties at idler nip points
• The measurements must be able to be used to discern whether safety features
are necessary or not, according to standard 620+A1:2010 and the further
requirements from LKAB which states that safeguards must be used unless:

o Belt is lifted 50 mm at nip point, on carrying and return idlers

o A maximum force of 150 N is used
o The force is distributed on a 50x50 mm plate
o The plate distance to the nip point is only allowed to be distance of
the radius combined with the diameter of the idler at most. (𝐷 )
o The measurements are performed on an empty and stationary belt
conveyor

Figure 2 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Measurement constrains on carrying idler [Illustration]

Figure 3 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Measurement constrains on return idler [Illustration]

7
Mission Statement
From the list of requirements and benchmarking, a mission statement was created in
order to define the projects limitations, which could be used to decide whether the
result could be considered successful or not.

Our mission is to develop a safety assessment tool designed for

evaluating belt conveyor safety, referring to SS EN-standard
620+A1:2010 regarding the determination of required protections
at nip points on carrying- and return idlers

8
Theoretical Framework
This chapter describes relevant theory about industrial design engineering, belt
conveyor systems, design for safety and ergonomics, tool handle design and
ergonomics, risk assessment, field research, interviews, user experience, interaction
design and usability. This information provide argumentation and reasoning towards
the decisions that has been made during this project.

Industrial Design Engineering

Humans should be the focus for industrial design engineers in each product
development, both users but also service personnel and assembly workers (Götz &
Maier, 2007). This statement connects Industrial Design Engineering to this project,
as the safety of personnel is the theme and purpose of this project.

An industrial design engineer as a term that can be defined as a designer or a design

team that has acquired knowledge and experience from both the area of mechanical
engineering and industrial design (Vere, Melles, & Kapoor, 2010). And according to
Gerda Smets (1995), the term is a common way to describe design of complex
technical problems and aesthetics that combines the mathematical part with the
human factors (Smets, 1995).

Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA, 2019) defines industrial design as the
practice of designing products focuses not just on functionality or appearance of
products but also product value and user experience, referring to all relevant product
aspects simultaneously. “If architects design the house, then industrial designers design
everything inside” (IDSA, 2019).

According to Nielsen (2013), industrial designers have a profound impact today by

inventing products, systems and processes prolifically by working on projects for
organizations from private enterprises to government entities (Nielsen, 2013).

Nielsen (2013) claims that not only are industrial designers creating or improving
visual and ornamental designs for products, but also inventing new products and useful
processes themselves at the same time. Industrial designers use design as a creative and
professional tool to influence system change and inspire innovation.

This view is shared by Götz and Maier (2007) who also states that Industrial Design
Engineers should focus specifically on customers being able to use the full
performance of their products. The authors also illuminate the importance of
knowing that object identification, and subsequently also product identification,
derives from the user’s knowledge which affects the overall interpretation.

According to Norman D.A (2013) the engineering side is more viewed as the logical
side. They are trained to think logical and therefore they expect everyone to think
logically. “If only people would read the instructions,” they say, “everything would
be all right”. Even if the engineering side is important, the understanding of human
behaviour is relevant in the design of technology (Norman D. A., 2013).

9
 “Engineering design is a systematic, intelligent process in which designers
generate, evaluate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or processes
whose form and function achieve client´s objectives or user’s needs while
satisfying a specified set of constraints”. (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer,
2005)

This can be interpreted as a definition which states that engineer design is a process
used to systematically achieve design concepts that are focused on the client’s
objectives and the user’s needs, a definition strengthened by the earlier presented
views of Götz and Maier (2007).

Belt Conveyors
A thorough understanding on the mechanics and workings of belt conveyors were
very important to have in the project in order to correctly assess risk factors and
usability of eventual concepts.

A belt conveyor system is used to move materials in most processing and

manufacturing industries, where raw material and products needs to be moved to one
stage to another. The conveyor belt is designed to make the process easy, cheap, fast
and safe without any human interaction (Daniyan, Adeodu, & Dada, 2014).

After the discovery of rubber technology, transporting bulk material became more
common as the design of belt conveyors was improved. They now mostly consists of
a drive pully, a tail pulley, a vertical gravity take-up and idlers along the belt, see
figure 4 (Lodewijks, 2002).

Figure 4 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Troughed belt conveyor system [Illustration]

Belt conveyors hold a dominant position in transporting materials in bulk due to their
inherent advantages compared to other methods. As their economy, reliability,
operation safety, versatility and a range of capacity only limited by the width of the
belt. In the heavy industry; materials ranges in size from large stones, lumpy ore blocks
or even wooden logs down to very fine chemical dust. The rubber belt has an inherent
high resistance to abrasion and corrosion which keeps the maintenance costs low
when transporting materials such as sinter or alumina (CEMA, 2002).

Belt tension around carrying and return idlers is mentioned in the SS-EN
620+A1:2010 standardization (SIS, 2010). CEMA (2002) has defined the variables
that cumulatively contributes and affects effective belt tension at drive, 𝑇 which can
10
be obtained with the following basic equation using a various variables, see table 1
(CEMA, 2002):

𝑇 = LK (𝐾 + 𝐾 W + 0.015W ) + W (L K ± H ) + T (1)
+ T + T

𝑇 =𝑇 +𝑇 +𝑇 +𝑇 (2)

Table 1 Belt tension variables

H Vertical distance that material is lifted or lowered, ft
Kt Ambient temperature correction factor
Kx Actor used to calculate the frictional resistance of the idlers and the sliding
resistance between the belt and idler rolls, lbs per ft
Ky Carrying run factor used to calculate the combination of the resistance of
the belt and the resistance of the load to flexure as the belt and load move
over the idlers
L Length of conveyor, ft
Tac Total of the tensions from conveyor accessories, lbs:
Tam Tension resulting from the force to accelerate the material continuously as
it is fed onto the belts, lbs
Tbc Tension resulting from belt pull required for belt-cleaning devices such as
belt scrapers, lbs
Tp Tension resulting from resistance of belt to flexure around pulleys and the
resistance of pulleys to rotation on their bearings, total for all pulleys, lbs
Tpl Tension resulting from the frictional resistance of plows, lbs
Tsb Tension resulting from the force to overcome skirtboard friction, lbs
Ttr Tension resulting from the additional frictional resistance of the pulleys
and the flexure of the belt over units such as trippers, lbs
Wb Weight of belt in pounds per foot of belt length.
Wm Weight of material, lbs per foot of belt length

During start-up the tension in the conveyor belt will be according to Daniyan et al.
(2014) much higher than under steady state. This can be calculated using the
following equation:

𝑇 =𝑇 ×𝐾 (3)

For variable explanation, see table 2:

Table 2 Startup tension

Ts Belt tension while starting
Tss Belt tension at steady rate
Ks Start up factor (1.08) according to (Daniyan, Adeodu, & Dada, 2014)

11
Another focus area worth investigating is idler spacing, as the space between the idlers
forms an abstract dimensional constrain which a potential product solution may be
forced to adhere to. According to Daniyan et al. (2014), the optimal spacing between
the idlers can be obtained using the following equation:

8 × 𝑇 × 𝑆𝑔 (4)
𝐼𝑠 =
𝑀𝑝 × 9.81𝑒−3

For variables, see table 3:

Table 3 Idler spacing

Mp The mass of the belt and its load
T Tension measured at a particular point
Sg Percentage of idler spacing

Design for Safety & Ergonomics

Ergonomics (or Human Factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the
understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system and the
profession that applies theory principles, data and methods to design in order to
optimize human well-being and overall system performance. (IEA, 2000)

It is vital that the user’s needs are taken into consideration when designing an
assessment tool, which is why ergonomics play a large role in the project. To achieve
good design, the end user needs to be taken into consideration early in the design
process to be able to implement ergonomic requirements and the rules behind them.
This is because of difficulties that can occur if changes need to be done at the
finalization stage, and due to the increasing of costs and time consumption. It is also
done to improve the quality of the product and its safety. “Ergonomists must ensure
a match between the optimal usability conditions of the new product and the safety
conditions for the future users” (Aurélie Robert, 2012).

According to Swedish Institute of Standards (2008) there are five standard segments
that covers three types of human’s physical performance variables, that need to be
included when designing for machinery usage. These three parts include Body
dimensions, Postures and movements, and Force requirements (SIS, 2008).

The ability for people to use machinery in a safe manner is related to their
proportional and geometric relationship to the product (SIS, 2009). By having data
of body dimensions, products can be design for ergonomics for the operator. This can
entail that the user has sufficient clearance and reach when handling the product. SS-
EN 614-1:2006+A1:2009 (E), section 4.3.2, says that machinery should consider
body dimensions including static, dynamic, suitable cloths and other personal
protective equipment, the range and movement of the body, safety distance,
dimensions for accessibility during use and maintenance.

12
To prevent unnecessary stress on the human body the design should be compatible
with the operator and its environment. According to section 4.3.2 the following
aspects should be taken into consideration when designing;
Work position: the machinery should be adjustable to accommodate to different
environments and work tasks.
Space: there should be enough space to allow the operator to perform the objective
in a good working posture, and also allow the operator to change its posture if the
work is repetitive.
Controls: machinery controls shall be designed to suit the functional anatomy of the
hand or other parts that is used to control the tool.
Ease of use: controls that are commonly used shall be placed so that the operator can
easily reach them when in appropriate operating position (SIS, 2009).

Section 4.2.2.4 focuses on the calculation behind the force used to complete a task
and the variables that can reduce the force. There are three variables that is related to
the force 𝐹 that calculates the reduced capacity, see table 4. These variables, see
table 4, are used in the following equation:

𝐹 =𝐹 ×𝑚 ×𝑚 ×𝑚 (5)

Where:

Table 4 Reduced capacity variables on force

𝐹 Reduced capacity on force, 𝐹
𝐹 Maximal isometric force
𝑚 Velocity multiplier
𝑚 Frequency multiplier
𝑚 Duration multiplier

These variables can be taken from section 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 and is adjusted
depending on how the task is performed. 𝐹 is taken from section 4.2.1 with
alternative 1 that includes data out off a mixed gender and age population. The values
are calculated to accommodate for optimal working postures and that the
manufacturer is aware that physical strength is dependent on the related working
posture and in which direction the force is intended for. Forces that are relevant to
this project are one arm work upwards, downwards, outwards, inwards, pushing and
pulling without trunk support and during professional usage, see table 5 (SIS, 2008).

13
Table 5 Forces, one arm work
MOTION ACTIVITY FORCES,
𝑭𝑩 in N
Hand grip Power grip 250
One arm work:

Upwards 50

Downwards 75

Outwards 55

Inwards 75

Pushing
-With trunk support 275
-Without trunk support 62

Pulling
-With trunk support 225
-Without trunk support 55

Whole body work:

Pushing 200

Pulling 145

Work tasks done by two hands and the amount of weight a person can lift is also
relevant to this project. This can be determined using the Calculation of Lifting Index
14
according to SIS-ISO_TR_12295_2014, under section A.2.3. This can be
determined using the Calculation of Lifting Index according to SIS-
ISO_TR_12295_2014, under section A.2.3 (SIS, 2014). The standard is an
application document for manual handling evaluation of static working postures. The
document compiles information from ISO 11228-1, ISO 11228-2, ISO 11228-3 and
ISO 11226 with the scope to provide users with criteria and procedures to provide
an assessment method for easily recognizable activities and, if such an activity is
deemed unsafe, provide a detailed assessment of risks according to standards with the
Calculation of Lifting Index.

The index contains seven different variables that change depending on how the lift is
performed. This calculation can provide the recommended amount of weight a
person should do depending on the situation. The variables that effects the total
amount is

Male or Female: This variable change depending on the sex and age.

Vertical Location: The distance from to floor to the starting positioning of

the hands.

Vertical-Displacement: The vertical distance between the start of the lift

and the end.

Horizontal Distance: The maximum distance of the object to the body

during the lift.

Asymmetry: Angular displacement of the load seen from the sagittal plane.

Coupling: Valuation of how well the grip is of the object

Frequency: Duration and how many lifts that is being performed per minute
(SIS, 2014).

Osvalder and Ulfvengren (2010) describes several circumstances which may

contribute to work related hazards such as;

- Inaccurate usage of products

- Intended but still unsafe usage of products
- Usage requires abilities which surpass the user’s capabilities
- A product’s function is not consistent with user expectations
The environment affects the product in an unknown way for the user.

Physical and psychosocial factors may also affect individuals as well as products
themselves which contributes to an increase risk and decrease user safety (Osvalder &
Ulfvengren, Människa-tekniksystem, 2010).

15
Tool Handle Design & Ergonomics
By designing the handle to benefit the ergonomics of the hand for a specific task,
upper musculoskeletal disorders including carpel tunnel syndrome, hand-arm
vibration syndrome and tendonitis of the forearm and wrist attributable by hand tool
can be prevented. These injures can result in unnecessary loss of work personal due
to pain which can derive to economic losses to the organization (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2017) (Dababneh A, 2004).

Designing the tool after the ergonomics of the hand and anatomically the handle can
increase the overall contraction of the hand. (Rossi, Goislard De Monsabert, Berton,
& Vigouroux, 2014). By optimizing the diameters created by each finger a greater
contact area can be achieved, which will lower the contact pressure of the hand and
increase the user’s subjective comfort. But this can also restrain the user to one hand-
position instead of using a singular shape, which would allow the user to adapt the
position of the hand according to the situation. The benefits of using an anatomical
design on the handle, forces and moments can be transferred to the handle at the same
time increasing the stability and lower the friction. Rossi, Goislard De Monsabert,
Berton & Vigouroux, (2014), performed an experiment using three different shapes,
circular, elliptic and double-frustum, see Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Rossi et.al, 2014, tested handle shapes [Illustration]

The power grip can be increased by neither having a circular or double-frustrum

shape at the thumb and avoiding elliptic shaped because of the reduction difference
of approximately 42.5 percent. On the contrary, the middle finger has the highest
power grip using an elliptic handle. On the index, ring and little finger the difference
are not as significant, but favours the elliptic shape except on the little finger where
circular shaped has the highest increment of power grip., (Harih & Dolsak , 2012).

According to Yong-Ku Kong & Dae-Min Kim (2015) the diameter of the handle
should increase by 5 mm from the little and index finger to the ring and middle finger.
An experiment was conducted where greatest grip force where acquired with a handle
using 50 mm for the index and little finger, and 55 mm for ring and middle finger.
The shape of the handle during the experiment was elliptic and this handle acquired
a grip force of 229,7 N (Kong & Kim, 2015).

“Select tools that do NOT require wrist flexion, extension or deviation” and “Bend
the tool, not the wrist” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017).
16
Something that is also important to consider, according to Canadian Centre for
Occupational Health and Safety (2015) is that a worker, in an ideal situation, should
be able to operate a tool with one hand. The weight of the tool should be around 2,3
kg or less, if the usage involves tool positions away from the body and/or at shoulder
height. Precision tools should not exceed 0,4 kg to allow for good control. Another
important factor is that the centre of gravity should be aligned with the gripping
hand’s centre.

It should be effortless to hold the tool in a usable position and handles should be
designed for a power grip and that handle shape should be adapted to the intended
use (CCOHS, 2015). Tools with bent handles or pistol-grips should be used when
the force is exerted in line with the straightened forearm and wrist. Tools with straight
handles should be used when the force exerted is perpendicular to the straightened
forearm and wrist, and shaped tools with bent handles are most effective when the
tasks are performed in the same plane and height as the hand and arm. In general,
high contact forces and static loading should be avoided (CCOHS, 2015).

Recommendations for handle diameter varies. Generally, cylindrical handles offer a

better power-grip in ranges of 30-50 mm. Handle diameters of 8-16 mm are
recommended for precision grips, which helps dexterity and speed (CCOHS, 2015).

Tool handles should exceed 100 mm in length as the force extends across the entire
width of the palm. Handles that are shorter may cause unergonomic compression
based at the middle of the palm. The recommended handle length is around 120 mm,
while tools used with gloves may require even longer handles. If a tool has two
handles, they should have a handle separation distance of between 65 – 90 mm, as
any larger or smaller span will reduce one’s maximum grip strength (CCOHS, 2015).

User Experience
User experience is a consequence of brand image, presentation, functionality, system
performance, interactive behaviour, and assistive capabilities of a system, product or
service. It also results from the user´s internal and physical state resulting from prior
experience, attitudes, skills, abilities and personality; and from the context of use.
(Human-centered design for interactive system, 2019) with the source from ISO
9241-11:2018, 3.2.3

Correct and satisfying usage of the resulting product is important, both for the
products success at implementation but foremost for the user’s safety while operating.
User Experience Design (UX) is a process used during the product development
process to give the product a purpose to the user and deliver a satisfactory experience.
This is done by using a platform consisting of the entire design process, that includes
the entire user journey, product integration, the branding, design, the products
usability and its functions (Interaction Design Foundation, 2019).

No product is an island. A product is more than the product. It is a cohesive,

integrated set of experiences. Think through all of the stages of a product or service
– from initial intentions through final reflections, from first usage to help, service,
and maintenance. Make them all work together seamlessly. Quote from Don
Norman according to Interaction Design Foundation (2019)

17
Hassenzahl (2019) claims that experience can be distinguished into three different
levels when you design a user experience through interaction with an object; What,
How and Why. The ‘What’ addresses things that people can and may do with an
interactive product or object, i.e. using it. It is often reflected by the product’s
functionality and intimately tied to a product’s genre or the technology. The ‘How’
instead addresses when you, on an operational or sensory-motor level, act through an
object by pressing a button or navigating a menu. It is even more tied to the designed
object and the context of use. The ‘Why’, an often forgotten and ignored part of a
user experience, addresses the reason why. It clarifies the needs and emotions behind
and involved in an activity, the experience, the meaning (Hassenzahl, 2019). Norman
(2019) writes in response to this and says that although the product provides the
‘How’, it is up to the users, the people, to provide the ‘Why’ and ‘What’. Experiences
can’t be designed, only supported (Norman D. A., 2019).

Interaction Design
Interaction design is a section of user experience design (UX), the focus of interaction
design is when the product is being used and how the interactive experience for the
user can be enhanced. If the user is delayed by unpractical functions, long
notifications, time consuming animations and more the product will not accomplish
its goals. Interaction design is what gives the products its absolute value (Interaction
Design Foundation, 2019). Within interactive products, interaction design can be
used to peruse emotion within the design to broadened usability that includes
pleasurably (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006). In Interaction Design, there are also a lot of
different aspects that needs to be taken in consideration. It is not only how a system
feels and looks to the user, it also incorporates how well a system functions according
to its purpose (Cooper & Reimann, 2003). “The design of complex, user-focused
behaviours of interactive systems” (ibid.).

Usability
“Extent to which a system, product or service can be used by specified users to achieve
specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of
use.” (ISO, 2018). Usability is defined by the Interaction Design Foundation (2019)
as a part of the area “user experience” and that it refers to the ease of use and access
of a product or a website, where the features together with the context of the user
determines the level of usability the product or website possesses. Usability is
dependent on the circumstances in which a product, system or service is used, and is
a more comprehensive concept of the terns “user friendliness” and “ease-of-use”
(ISO, 2018).

Because of the development of technology, the interface is becoming more clustered

and complex thanks to new features and functions. Because of the evolution the
usability is one of the most important aspects when designing. When looking at the
usability of a product there is a deviation between a physical product and software
system. The deviation can be a control button that has a unique function and the
usability in the meanings of image, impression and performance (Sung H. Han, 2000).

Usability may be further divided into two segments; usage which entails that the
product or system in question contains correct and working functionality, and user
18
friendliness which entails that the system is easy to understand and handle for the
intended user (Osvalder & Ulfvengren, Människa-tekniksystem, 2010).

The Interaction Design Foundation (2019) writes in an article that there are three
main outcomes for a usable interface that determines the level of usability:

-The ease of which the user becomes familiar and competent with the product
-The ease of which the user achieves their objective by using the product
-The ease of which the user may recall the user interface’s function and
knowledge about usage in subsequent visits.

Nielsen (2012) defines five usability components: Learnability, Efficiency,

Memorability, Errors and Satisfaction, but he also emphasizes another important
quality to usability, which is utility; a design’s functionality and whether it provides
the user with the features sought.

It is normal for a development process to have a continuous measuring of a design’s

usability from ideas to the final deliverable, as it determines whether a concept’s
existing attributes are satisfactory (IDF, 2019).

The most useful method for studying usability is user testing, which includes getting
hold on some representative users, asking them to perform representative tasks and
observing them as they do and note where they succeed or fail and where they have
difficulties with the interface (Nielsen, 2012). “Shut up and let the users do the
talking” (ibid.).

19
Method & Implementation
This chapter describes the process and the strategy that have been used are context
gathering, ideation and concept development together with evaluation and
analyzation methods are implemented and explained.

Process
The project followed the process model of Snowflake (Wikberg, Ericson, & Törlind,
2013) with eventual agile iterative phases within each phase. This design process was
chosen for this project because of its ease of use and adoptability depending on the
projects focus. The process was used as a guide and reference which could be modified
and adapted to enhance the project and deliver a result in the end. The main phases
in the project is Context, Ideas, Concepts and Product, see figure 6.

Figure 6 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Process [Illustration]

Context
The first phase is used to get a wide variety of information. This was done by doing
a market analysis to see if there was earlier work done within the subject, creating a
theoretical framework that could be used to verify ideas and concepts, field studies to
get an insight in the different stakeholders and interviews to find needs from the
stakeholders. The framework includes subjects such as industrial design engineering,
belt conveyor systems, design for safety and ergonomics, tool handle design and
ergonomics, risk assessment, field research, interview, user experience, interaction
design and usability. This provided us with different perspectives that could be
summarized to get a deeper understanding of the problems and solutions that exists
today. The requirements were set together with a mission statement and a project
plan.

Literature review was be used to gather theoretical material to get a wider view of
the subject. The different methods where books from both earlier courses at the
University and other sources, articles from Google Scholar and Luleå University of
Technology libraries search engine, PRIMO. Articles were backtracked to find the
original source to get the best understanding of the material that has been referenced.

20
Ideation
The ideation phase was used to create a platform of ideas, thoughts and solutions that
solves the different requirements and needs, that were taken from the context phase.
This was done with multiple creative methods for idea generations, Rapid
prototyping to visualize early ideas, Clustering to categorize ideas after which problem
they solve, workshop to get inspiration from other sources and more.

Concept Development
Concept development helped us deliver detailed concepts built on combinations of
ideas from the previous phase. The different concepts went through evaluation to
determine pros and cons, concept redesign to fix potential problems or conflicts,
prototyping in both virtual and in physical form to find problems and solutions. These
concepts then went through detailed development to refine each concept.
Verification with the aid of the theoretical framework is necessary to eliminate
concepts that does not fulfil the requirements and thereby making the selection
towards a final concept easier.

Product
The product phase began after the final selection were done. The final product could
then be developed even further regarding all information, theory and parameters
established from earlier phases. It was designed with all measurements and dimensions
defined and be evaluated according to material and strength analyses.

21
Project Planning
To visualize the project a Gantt chart was used, see Figure 7. This provided an
overview of the process and its time limits. It allowed the team to manage the time
in a productive way and make sure that results can be delivered within the separate
deadlines.

Figure 7 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Project gantt chart [Illustration]

22
Context
This chapter contains information and methods that were used to collect and gather
new knowledge about the project. This was done by doing a user journey to visualize
each step the final product would have to go through, as well as the user. A field study
was conducted to broaden the insight about the environment and how the belt
conveyors are constructed. This was all done to improve the ideation and stimulate
creativity and understanding.

Interviews
Qualitative data and user opinions as well as insight in the environmental risks and
demands were very important during the project, which is why the theory on how
to conduct a successful interview was investigated.

Interviewing is a commonly used method when collecting qualitative information

and data about applicants’ thoughts and feelings alongside their experience values,
opinions, dreams and how they reason. However. the data collected during an
interview with the applicant will be subjective to that person (Osvalder, Rose, &
Karlsson, Metoder, 2010).

According to Osvalder, et al. (2010), there are many reasons to conduct an interview
as the method is very flexible, can be modified to the area and invite to more
discussions which can lead to a deeper understanding of the area and its purpose. By
having the opportunity to ask further questions, the risk of incorrect interpretation is
minimized. The cons are that the applicant needs to be present during the whole
interview and depending on personality, attitude, interests, position and its
organization, the answers can differ. The applicant might adjust its answers to satisfy
the interviewer, the so called the interview effect. It is also important to observe the
applicant to verify that the personal data is correct in correlation with the real
situations (Osvalder, Rose, & Karlsson, Metoder, 2010).

When performing an interview, there are three different categories according to

Osvalder et al. (2010) and Wikberg et al. (2015): structured, semi-structured or
unstructured, where the first option will give very direct answers with no chance to
receive further information which was not included in the interview guide. An
unstructured interview resembles an open conversation with the user, as he or she
explains their view or opinions which is investigated. A semi-structured interview is
a combination of the two: an interview based on prepared questions which also
enables flexible and further inquiring questions inspired by the interviewed persons
answers.

The structure of the interview is decided from the purpose and the kind of
information collected. To obtain the right information that is needed, the interview
needs to be adapted and planed so that the question form is applicable to the area. In
the beginning of the interview it is important to inform the applicant about the
purpose, how the data will be used and how the documentation will be done. The
questions should follow a relevant sequence and end with short brief of the interview
(Osvalder, Rose, & Karlsson, Metoder, 2010).

23
James Spradley (2016) states that one of the greatest challenges to initiate, develop and
maintain a positive and productive relationship with your informant. Consequently,
careful planning and sensitivity to the informant will carry you through the largest
hurdles when interviewing, although it is impossible to plan or control all possible
scenarios and interview outcomes (Spradley, 2016).

Interviewers should avoid having a pre-set based opinion of the subject. A

confirmation biased individual will interpret and recall information favourably
towards one’s prior opinions, hypotheses or beliefs (Plous, 1993).

In order to collect reliable and valid data of a qualitative-, as well as a quantitative

kind, it is also vital that the questions are framed carefully and in a culturally
appropriate manner. Previous qualitative research is therefore required to best frame
quantitative questions for optimal understanding and acquirement of valid data, and
they must be phrased using words and concepts which the respondent understands.
This is true regardless of whether the questions relate to knowledge, behaviour or
attitude, numerical data or text data (Schensul, Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999).

Mail conversation between the team, Swedish Institute of Standards (SIS) committee
and LKAB was held to enable collecting information regarding the standard and its
parameters. The mail’s mainly contained questions such as the size of the plate, the
lifting distance, the force required, where the measurements should be performed and
other standards that could inflict with our project. Because the conversations between
SIS and the team was conducted by mail, a semi-structured formality was used
(Wikberg et al., 2015). This allowed us to give follow-up questions if necessary and
on other topics if it would arouse.

Numerous questions could also be answered by SITE employees in the form of

multiple unstructured interviews interlinked between each other. SITE: s expertness
regarding standards and knowledge around the project helps us aim our focus when
searching for answers.

The unstructured interviews that we had with SIS and LKAB worked very well. But,
a formal meeting eye to eye would potentially had given us further information that
could have been used. There were also assumptions that the SIS committee had made
which we thought were something they needed to take a deeper look into. Due to
the secrecy regarding the parameters and the standards, there are a lot of aspects that
we were not allowed to discuss/include during this project.

User Journey
Because of the absence of knowledge regarding how the result would be used and the
different steps that needed to be fulfilled a user journey was made. This method was
used to provide details during the products applications and the steps necessary to
perform its tasks (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010). By categorizing the different
steps which a product undergoes during its usage, the result could provide a series of
evaluation criteria which the concept had to exceed in to be considered successful.

24
By using this method, insight could be obtained which later could be used as an
inspiration source during the ideation phase but also as a tool to evaluate the future
concepts. Which is something that we have valued very much. This was also a helpful
way for us to visualize the different steps at the same time explain to others what was
needed to successfully accomplish the task. By evaluating each step, a more thorough
evaluation could be accomplished and areas that needed to be further developed could
be listed. This also gave a more organized workflow which in the end saved us time.
Through the use of a more basic view of the user journey, it also became a more
sufficient way to communicate within the team, by referring do different steps in the
process, every concept gained a common standpoint which could be discussed
around.

Field Study
“The field researcher is a methodological pragmatist. He sees any method of inquiry
as a system of strategies and operations designed -at any time— for getting answers to
certain questions about events which interest him.” (A.L, Schatzman, Bucher,
Ehrlich, & Sabsin, 1964).

Activities that can be conducted during a field study can include observation and
comparison of work processes, mapping of the different tasks, sample taking and
taking photos to illustrate scenarios (Vassala, 2006). As the team was able to visit
SSAB’s facilities and experience the environment first-hand, theory of how to
conduct field research became relevant. A field study, or field research, provides the
user with the opportunity to interact and be involved in real situations at the same
time apply previous knowledge in a new context. By observing and reflecting on the
observations; first-hand data about the situation and the daily experience can be
gathered. Field studies can also help to communicate and illustrate situations and the
interaction between professional engineers and non-engineers (Kandamby, 2018).

A participating observer researching in the field is, compared to an interviewer, more

aware of interference problems due to changes in perspective and discussions of the
subject because of the observer’s gathering of data in a context rich with social cues
and all kinds of information. The observer sees and hears many people in situations
of the kind that normally occur, instead of an isolated and formal interview. This
allows the observer to build an ever-growing impression fund and provides an
extensive base for interpretation and analytics of the environment. This is, in turn,
brought along and developed in subsequent observations (Becker & Geer, 1957).

According to Burgess (1986), field research contains different methods that can be
implemented, observation, informal or unstructured interviews, formal interviews
which can be done by surveys and personal documents in the sort of photography,
written and oral data collection. These methods of collecting and analysing data can
be combined and modified to better focus on the intent of the field visit. Burgess
(1986) quotes Schatzman and Strauss (1973, p, 14) who claims that:

Field method is not an exclusive method in the same sense, say that experimentation
is. Field method is more like an umbrella of activity beneath which any technique
may be used for gaining the desired information and for processes of thinking about
this information. (Burgess, 1986)

25
To be able to understand the circumstances that the service personnel must go
through, both regarding the different belt constructions and the environment, a field
study was conducted at SSAB´s steel production factory in Luleå. The goal was to
allow the team to see belt conveyor systems in action, to observe the environment in
which the conveyors operate and identify limitations and possible avenues to explore
further in the creative process, see Figure 8.

Figure 8 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Field study SSAB belt conveyor [Photography]

By having the opportunity to see the environment first-hand, inspiration and

knowledge about the project and where the project needed to go, could be obtained.
This gave an insight about idler sizes, dust covers and other differences that can change
depending on the bulk material and in what process stage the belt conveyor is placed.
This was a very important step for us to better understand what the project entailed.
Before this point in the project there had only been theory about the area, and this
let us visualize what we had read. By knowing in person how the environment and
the surrounding works, a more comprehension and understanding perspective about
the employees could be had. Neither one of us understood how dirty and dusty the
work area could be. At one time it even reached the point where sight was obscured
completely by the dust in the air. This meant that the interaction and usability of the
final product would take a bigger part within this project then what we thought from
the beginning.

26
Ideation
In the project, a series of creative methods were performed to generate a large number
of ideas of large variety. This was set up to take advantages of the different methods
and there focus areas, to create creativity and a variety of solution-based ideas, from
the creativity given from the previous methods.

In this section each method that have been used to generate ideas and concepts, are
explained and described how they contributed to this project. During this phase
different methods was used to create a variety of ideas and increase the creativity to
find solutions to different areas of the problem. During the ideation phase, about 180
ideas where created. Most derived from creative methods but also randomly during
discussions and other dialogues.

The Anti-Problem
The phase started with a method called The Anti-problem that was used to engage
the project team to understand the problem from a new perspective and increase
creativity. The method can also be used to help teams who are running out of creative
ideas and are at their wits end; the Anti-Problem helps evaluating a problem
differently and allow teams to break free from existing patterns by tackling the
complete opposite of a problem (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010). The method is
based of an activity called Reverse It, and the game is a powerful tool to identify the
main points where solutions may fall short or fail (Spencer, 2008). The method’s main
focus is to produce solutions that worsens the conditions, e.g the problem is an anti-
problem which may be improved upon.

In this project, the Anti-Problem was “How can we make the plate stick to the belt
and cause an accident during operation?”. These ideas were thereafter further
developed into ideas which provides solutions to the actual problem. For example,
ideas such as plates with high grit sandpaper and adhesive material became plates with
very low friction or even contactless surfaces using compressed air.

The reason this method was chosen was because the project team had been reading a
lot of standardization documents while listening to other people and what they
thought of this project. The anti-problem allowed for limitless creativity which
stimulated the project team’s ingenuity. It was a great method for getting in the right
mindset and finding areas as well as new perspectives that had not already been
thought about. It was a fun method to use which also made the ideation phase more
energetic.

Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a known method for idea generation which has been developed to
generate suggestions and ideas from groups (Osvalder, Rose, & Karlsson, Metoder,
2010). This is done to find a quantity of solutions and unique ways of solving
pragmatic problems, this can be done by using different techniques focused on
different problem areas (Al-Samarraie & Hurmuzan, 2018). The most common way
of conducting a brainstorm is to use post-it notes and during a set amount of time,

27
jot down any ideas that spring to mind that may solve a stated problem. The method
was used multiple times in the Ideation phase to generate a myriad of ideas.

This was a method that was deemed great to use after The Anti-Problem because of
the increase of creativity from the previous method. It started off quite well, but it
did not go long until the creative flow started to run out. The method only gave us
29 ideas which did have potential, but we had expectations of a larger amount. Even
if the amount wasn’t what we had expected us, the result still gave a clear indication
that a solution to this project could be found. The team was not perturbed by this
however since the creative process had only begun.

Dark Horse
To refill our creativity, a method called Dark horse was used. It was used to open the
horizon for new ways of solving difficult problems that have elevated during this
project. By thinking outside the box and creating unrealistic and fictional solutions
on paper, it can be used to navigate towards more realistic creative ideas with the
origin from the impossible. This was done by implementing and combining the
method Brainstorming to further develop the Dark horse ideas (Wikberg Nilsson,
Ericson, & Törlind, 2015).

This was a great method because of its unlimited possibility’s and increase of
imagination inside of the team. The creative flow had started to diminish so a more
open and diverse method without boundaries was just what was needed. This method
also generated a lot of feasible ideas which wasn’t the first intent for this method. It
was originally intended to increase the creative flow, but a biproduct of that was new
feasible ideas. By having this method after a more traditional and strict method such
as brainstorming in the sense of realistic ideas, it provided new energy and ways of
looking at the problem.

Braindrawing
Braindrawing is a method from Wikberg et al. (2015) with the focus on creating ideas
and working together. The main difference between this method and Brainstorming
is that this method focuses on drawing the ideas and using simple sketches to explain
a thought. It was conducted by generating ideas on papers before passing the paper to
the other team member who would then use the ideas as either inspiration or a basic
concept to evolve and develop further. This method was used to get a mutual look
at the different problems and parameters that needed to be taken in consideration. By
working together, a united perspective of the problem was given which did
strengthen the creative flow and delivered a more developed and well thought ideas.

Braindrawing ended up delivering more than we had expected. The method took
longer time to perform but the outcome more than made up for the extended time
required. The generated ideas motivated and provided insight in how different
solutions could be tested with simple prototypes. But it was also difficult to avoid
focusing and spending too much time on a certain idea and not move on. A term that
we used when we got stuck was “kill your darlings” which meant that we needed to
leave our favourite idea and halt the enthusiastic detailed additions to the concepts in
order to enable us to generate more and perhaps better alternatives in the long run.
Looking back, this method would have perhaps been better suited closer to the end
28
of the ideation phase. But from experience this method can also provide a early
ground which later ideas can stand on, it all depends on the situation and how it is
used.

Pre-Mortem
To ensure that the ideation and the concepts where going towards the right direction,
Pre-Mortem was used. By using Pre-Mortem as a method, the possibility of
wrongdoing and getting off-track late in the process may be adverted. Instead of
learning from your mistakes, the mistakes that could occur are pointed out and listed
beforehand. This provides a list of accidents that can affect the project. This method
was used two times, wrongs that can happen within the project and another one
reflecting around the final product. The method provides the opportunity to avoid
making design decisions and mishaps, that can be adverted at the concept phase where
revision is still possible (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010). The possible scenarios to
avoid were generated via discussion within the project team and SITE’s personnel.

This method could deliver detailed information that would otherwise be missed or
neglected. By aiding in creating a defined list of details that could be proven a
requirement, it opened our eyes of everything that needed to be taken in
consideration when further developing concepts. The method didn’t deliver
particular new ideas individually, but these points of information could together
become ideas or be included in future development of concepts. They function as
reminders of early pitfalls which are to be avoided.

Wordplay
A brainstorm-session with wordplay was also performed in order to stimulate
creativity and find new angles of approaching the problem. The method was based
on random words, created by De Bono (1992) which a very simple method to apply
when idea generating. A random word is chosen which then serves as inspiration to
generating an idea.

The Wordplay was another method that focused on stimulating the team’s creativity,
which meant that it did not result in many feasible ideas. Since the words used in the
method was generated randomly, the team had no control of their meaning and if
they would be relevant to the project. Afterwards, it was deemed that the method
could have been even more beneficial if the words had been prepared beforehand to
increase the relevance. However, the completely random words that did not have any
significance was also a welcome change of pace. While it did generate ideas that was
not the most detailed and effective way of solving the chosen category, the results
could still be used. Some of them contained small parts that when implemented could
improve other concepts, and some ideas even required serious consideration.

Morphological Matrix
To prevent similar ideas and getting stuck, the method Morphological Matrix was
used. By approaching and investigating the problems around the project’s parameters
a more focused view on the problem can be created (Wikberg Nilsson, Ericson, &
Törlind, 2015). This gave a broader coverage on how to solve each problem and an
easy route to creating ideas and functions built on already listed solutions. This was
29
done by listing parameters and actions that needed to be fulfilled to accomplish a
certain task. Each task is then brainstormed to find solutions within the origin from
that task. The different solutions can then be combined to create a wholesome
solution in the form of ideas or needed functions.

Lift
Push a plate, by hand, carjack, crane, handle, dumper,
counterweight, elevator, palm, claw, mechanism, ramp, foot peg,
balloon, torque, spring, rope, teeter, lift, drag

Measure
Tape, laser, foot, laser, string, stick, reference, dimensions,
pressure, sound, colour

Read data
Display, projection, marks, scratches, colour scheme, time, excel
doc, USB, Bluetooth, receipt, eye-measurement, display, sound,
touch, smell

Acknowledge safety
Green light, symbols, friendly interface, comfortable, quality,
sacrificial components, safety training, info flyer, checklist,
handguards, safety net, fences, belt cannot be started, cut belt,
measure section

Affords Usability
Detailed manual, light, easy to hold, small, icons, cultural
knowledge, form follows function, affordance, water, dustproof,
shockproof, sturdy, mapping, colouring, haptic feedback

Acknowledge danger
Red light, stickers (danger), harness, safety gear (helmet, gloves...),
thresholds, safety blocks, info-graph, warning icons, manual,
remove faulty usage, indicator

Reach the belt

Stick, tall shoes, jump, wheels, foldable, retractable, elastic, thin,
small, low weight

Ergonomic handling
Hand grip, ergonomic chair, worktable, few repetitions, light
weight, no/low strength requirement, tripod, clamp, automatic
procedure, no effort, low weight, handles, good posture

Morphological Matrix was a great method to find ideas with aspects that required
additional development. It allowed the team to systematically process each idea
separately and consider their pros and cons which could either be improved upon or
implemented into other ideas for improved functionality and usability. The only
aspect of the method that was deemed unsatisfactory was that it in the end is based
on the project team’s subjective thoughts and opinions. While it does provide a

30
ranking system to evaluate the ideas, the ranking is built on what the team considers
to be good or bad design and how well a function would work if implemented. The
method could have benefitted from involving other people in the process, but this
would have drastically increased the required time to process each idea. It would have
added an extra step of having to explain each concept to the people involved and be
certain that they also remained impartial during the whole process. In the end, the
method was very useful, but more people could have validated the results further if
more time had been available.

Gamestorming
Gamestorming is the design of a game space, a place where a specific set of rules and
boundaries apply which has to be followed in order to reach a predefined goal. In
order to design a game, one has to start with the end goal, a tangible result after the
game, the final outcome. The initial state is also important to define; the resources
available, the team members, current knowledge and situation etc. A Gamestorming
session, also called a workshop, is usually in three steps: Opening, Exploring, and
Closing. The first step sets the stage and is about opening people’s minds and to get
the ideas flowing. The opening phase is not for scepticism or critical thinking, but a
time for creativity and divergence. This sets a foundation for the next step, the
Exploration. Here you sort through the ideas and allow concepts and development
to occur. Finally, the Closing phase moves the game towards conclusion and action,
convergence (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010).

Figure 9 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Site Workshop [Photography]

The workshop was conducted at SITE’s office in Luleå with company volunteers (see
Figure 9). The session was initiated with a short introduction where the mission

31
parameters and the current state was described to the participants in order to set the
scene and lay down a few rules to the game. Then followed a 6-3-5 brainstorming
session where the participants were asked to generate three ideas on post-it notes in
five minutes and then place those ideas on an A3 sheet of paper before passing the
paper along to the person sitting next to them. The new ideas in front of them served
as a creative incitement to further development or to draw inspiration from them.
New ideas were then created on three new post-it notes. The session continued until
every participant had seen all the papers. Afterwards the group took a short break
with some Swedish fika and coffee, while the project team, as facilitators, organized
the post-its and encouraged the rest of the group to discuss the ideas and place them
on a 2-axis matrix, according to the Impact/effort matrix (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo,
2010).

Gamestorming allowed us to get inspiration from other engineers with a background

within this area which the project follows. Until this moment we had not included
SITE in the ideation phase as we wanted to keep the creative spectrum as large as
possible to allow ideas to be created without limitations and because they of course
had their own projects to work on. At the same time, we didn’t want to influence
SITE which is way we had closed doors until this method. The result that was given
by SITE were very similar to what we already had generated, but there were a few
ideas that made us rethink alternative methods that could be used to solve the
problem. In the end, SITE and their ideas significantly inspired the team to look at
the problem from a new perspective.

Rapid Prototyping
Rapid prototyping is a method used to quickly visualize early concepts from previous
ideation sessions by using cardboard or other manufacturing techniques. This can be
done by either doing Low-fidelity prototypes which are as simple as possible or High-
fidelity prototypes which are closer do the final product. These are used to decrease
the development time, validate design decisions, test requirements, evaluate function
and get feedback from the clients and customers (Engineering Product Design, 2019).
For this project Low-fidelity prototypes were produced by using carboard to test
different ideas with the similarities to a clamp, see
Figure 100. The cardboard was mainly used to test where the rotation point needed
to be and the positioning of the handles.

32
 Figure 10 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Rapid prototyping [Photography]

Beyond validating the functionality of certain ideas, Rapid prototyping also became
a way for the team to leave the office room where the ideation process had taken
place. By entering a new environment and focusing on other thing, the creativity
could regenerate and allowed us to refocus on the task. Building a rapid prototype
helped to visualize how the idea would be used and gave inspiration and ideas which
has led to the end results of this project. The team came to the realization that it is
very important to be diverse in the ideation process and look at the problem from
new perspective and environments.

33
Concept Development
After the Ideation phase was over all ideas were explored and evaluated against the
requirements from the standard and parameters from LKAB. Some ideas were rejected
from the start on the basis of feasibility, limitations, prerequisites and how realistic
they appeared. This was done to reduce the amount of ideas and make the evaluation
more comprehensible and easier to manage. From the beginning there where a total
of 186 ideas and after the compression a total of 31 remained that could be further
evaluated.

Pugh
Pugh was used in order to evaluate the concepts and identify areas of improvement
which should be focused on and solved in the following concept development phase.
This method was also used during the final selection between the concepts.

It is a simple and fast graphic technique which involves a matrix containing concepts
and decision criteria (Ayağ & Özdemir, 2007). The evaluation method allows for a
good screening of concepts in order to filter out unfeasible ideas and only focus on
the best concepts using a different selection method (Augustine, Yadav, Jain, &
Rathore, 2010) (Ayağ & Özdemir, 2007).

The selection criteria all have equal weight in the screening process, meaning that no
multiplying factor is added to each criterion score which would in turn affect the
result (Augustine, Yadav, Jain, & Rathore, 2010). Ulrich and Eppinger (2000)
suggests including weighted concepts in a second Pugh process to make a final
selection from those who has passed the initial screening.

The initial Pugh matrix used criteria created in the User journey method, which
contained transporting, mounting, lifting, measure & force, reading and dismounting.
Each concept was evaluated on a scale from 0 to 5 depending on the effort the concept
would entail on the user. The result gave an overview of the different concepts, at
the same time disclosing shortcomings that could be found and were further
developed was a necessity.

The results were inserted in a new concept development checklist where each idea’s
score was elaborated by answering three questions What, Why and How to reach a
deeper observational understanding (Doorley, Holcomb, Klebahn, Segovia, & Utley,
2018)(Hassenzahl, 2019). The questions where adjusted to better acuminate to this
method. What is the criteria? Why doesn’t the idea have a higher score? How can
the idea be improved to increase the score?, see Appendix 2 - Concept Development.
The criteria did not have any assigned weights to them, as the concepts were still in
their development phase. Further detail development was deemed necessary before a
final decision and screening could be performed.

This method took a lot of time but in the end, information regarding every concept
could be obtained which was considered worth the effort. It really helped us get a
clear view of what we had and what needed to be done to improve each concept. In
future projects this method could perhaps be used later in the process when there is
not as many concepts, due to the time it takes to evaluate each concept.

34
Ergonomic Evaluation
The next selection was performed using the standard SIS-ISO_TR_12295_2014 to
assess how the concepts adhere to ergonomics and how well their required posture
and applied forces ranks (SIS, 2014). Each concept was evaluated using free body
diagrams, see Figure 11, with forces and axis lengths. 𝐹 represents the force required
to lift the belt 50 mm, 𝐹 is the maximum force allowed in the concept’s required
work position according to SIS-ISO_TR_12295, and the axes 𝐿 and 𝐿 represents
the lever lengths for force generated and force applied, see Appendix 3 - Ergonomic
Evaluation

Figure 11 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Free body diagram [Illustration]

Studying and evaluating ergonomics gave a lot of feedback regarding the feasibility of
the remaining concepts. We could easily identify concepts that didn’t meet the
ergonomic criteria simply by looking at the established calculations. This helped us to
understand more thoroughly what parameters that were needed to do further
evaluations. This was an important step on the process which showed us that more
test also where a necessity.

Idler Dimensions and Tool Functionality

To understand if the concepts could adapt to different scenarios, where the diameter
of the idler could change depending in its location, research regarding the diameter
of the idlers became a requirement. According to the Swedish standard SS 2888
(1980) that was derived from LKAB´s technical assignation, the diameter of the idler
can be between 63,5 - 219,1 mm (SIS, 1980).
The hardest part in this method was to figure out the area which each concept needed
to function as intended. The strategy worked as planned at we could with the new
information provided eliminate more concepts than expected. This meant that by
using this strategy we saved potential evaluation and development time that would
have gone to waste further down the process.

35
Prototyping and Experimentation

Figure 12 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, SSAB force measurement [Photography]

An experiment using several prototypes was conducted to find out the required force
necessary to insert a tool between an idler and belt, a question which emerged from
the Ergonomic evaluation. The experiment was performed on two stationary belt
conveyors at SSAB without any materials loaded, which was deemed to have a high
chance of fulfilling the requirements in SS_EN 620+A1:2010 2010. A series of
wedges of varying shapes and thicknesses were constructed in wood to simulate the
concept’s shapes and functionality. A rig was also built to measure the applied force
using a handheld scale, see figure 13.

Figure 13 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Wedges used during experiment [Photography]

36
Before the testing, the belt conveyor was shut off and blocked from usage with a lock
to prevent any accidents to occur to the team during measurements, see Figure 14.

Figure 14 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Conveyor lock [Photography]

The experiment started with measuring the idler diameter, belt thickness and lifting
the belt using a 50x50 mm contact surface with 150 N. This was done to find variables
regarding the belt and to see if the belt conveyor would fulfil the requirements. After
that, the wedges were placed and inserted between the roller’s outer edge, the middle
point and its inner edge several times to record the force required to insert the wedge.
The force was recorded for each attempt, see Appendix 4 - SSAB Force Test.

On the first belt, only the wedges up to 30 mm were tested as the force required to
insert a 30 mm wedge exceeded 20 kg, approximately 50 N more than the standard
threshold and the force scale’s maximum elongation. The second belt was subjected
to tests with all wedges.

This step in the process was necessary to acquire the missing data which were collected
during the ergonomic evaluation. At the same time gathering important information
we also learned a lot about the environment and necessary steps that needed to be
taken when stopping the belt conveyor. By doing the tests ourselves we also
acknowledge and gained experience regarding the amount of force needed to test the
standard without help.

LKAB Evaluation Meeting

To be able to get feedback from LKAB, and have the opportunity to discuss the
direction of this project, an evaluation meeting regarding the concepts was conducted.
The meeting was constructed so that LKAB would get information about the progress
37
and steps that had been executed during the project time, as well as discoveries and
conclusions that have been drawn for this project. The parameters were outlined prior
to the evaluation to make sure everyone had the same information, and that our
outcome is the result from this information.

By discussing the concepts with LKAB, we could collect information related to each
concept that could be used during further development. This gave us more energy to
continue our work and try to make something that we are proud of at the same time
delivering something to SITE with which their customers can take advantage of. If
we could change something, we would have liked a more continuous update
meetings with LKAB to make sure that our final product could be of use to them.

ASA Risk Assessment Method

In order to correctly assess and identify hazards in the environment where the product
solution will operate, it is important to have a method for correctly discerning and
defining risks. The definitions of risk often used within a risk analysis can be described
using three questions (Osvalder & Ulfvengren, Människa-tekniksystem, 2010).

- What can happen?

- How likely is it to happen?
- What are the consequences of it happening?
Accident happens when interaction and communication between the work sections
does not suffice (Osvalder & Ulfvengren, Människa-tekniksystem, 2010). Accidents
in connection with belt conveyor systems that causes a personal injury occur by
human negligence or lack of training and knowledge about the risks involved.
Conveyor equipment may have a perfect service and safety record for some years
before a new, careless or improperly trained operator will cause, and probably become
involved and injured by, an accident (CEMA, 2002).

Depicted below is a 56-year old superintendent with only four weeks of experience
who was fatally injured when he was caught and drawn into a pinch point on a
conveyor belt when the victim was cleaning mud off a return roller, (MSHA, 2019)

Figure 15 - MSHA, 2019, Metal/Nonmetal Mine Fatality [Illustration]

38
Risk analysis is a method, a planned activity, which determines and identifies
hazardous zones, find unwanted situations and estimate the consequences and the
probability of its occurrences (Osvalder, Rose, & Karlsson, Metoder, 2010).
According to Prevent (2019), a risk assessment evaluation may be divided into four
separate categories: investigate, risk assessment, address and control.
The first phase is all about gathering information and identify risk areas. These risks
are then assessed and evaluated based on their severity and frequency. Then it is time
to address the risks, suggest remedies with theorized effects, create an action plan
based on these remedies and improve the safety. The final step is a control test to
ensure that the remedies are implemented correctly and are affecting the safety as
theorized, i.e. reducing the risks (Prevent, 2019).

Osvalder et al. (2010) uses a method called Arbetssäkerhetsanalys (ASA) which

translates to Work Safety Analysis and is used to identify accidents and the reason
behind it. The method also contains a brainstorming segment which helps to solve
non-acceptable hazard areas. The ASA-method consists of eight steps: object analysis
selection, preparation, object description, risk assessment, risk evaluation, remedy
suggestions, effectiveness assertion and finally insertion (ibid.).

Object analysis selection

The object to be analysed is selected by the operators and workers that have
experience with the hazards that exist in their workplace. The motivation behind a
work safety analysis can be multiple complaints or already happened accidents at a
certain machine or process (Osvalder et al. 2010).

Preparation
Inform the operators about the risk and collect work instructions, machine manuals
and maintenance prescriptions. The reason is to see if the process corresponds with
the instructions given to the operators and the reality. This is to see what changes or
corrections that needs to be addressed. To get the best result from this step the
operators need to be engaged in the solutions, because they contain the best
information regarding the area and the process used (Osvalder et al. 2010).

Object description
Divide the object in smaller parts or work stages and describe them in chronical order
from the start to end in the process. Every step should include a step that has to be
followed. This is done to inform about each moment that can lead to an accident and
how to avoid it. It is important to include side tasks that normally don’t happen
(Osvalder et al. 2010).

Risk assessment
Each moment is evaluated by the operator that worked with this object, notes about
the risks and accidents are gathered. Information such as equipment hazards, lowered
quality and similar technical production problems are also noted. Write down the
reasons behind the accidents, for example low experience, stress, short on staff, etc
(Osvalder et al. 2010).

Risk evaluation
Risks that have been gathered can now be evaluated and sorted into high and low
risk. This will help the process when deciding the priority of each case. Evaluation

39
about the probability and effect if the accident would occur is also in consideration
(Osvalder et al. 2010).

Remedy suggestion
Collect all the ideas and creative solutions that have been gathered until this phase
and direct them towards each problem. Creative solutions can also be created during
this phase. The solutions can be technical, individual or towards the organization. For
example, new equipment education or work method (Osvalder et al. 2010).

Effectiveness assertion
Each solution will ones again be evaluated, and a final assessment will be done. This
is a subjective assessment that is used to get a new point of view of the risks so that
new accident will not evolve (Osvalder et al. 2010).

Insertion
Solutions are compiled and handed over to the person that is responsible for that area.
The actions that should be used are decided and a time plan is created. The most
important part during this phase is to determine what actions that should be
implemented (Osvalder et al. 2010).

To evaluate the risks that could derive from the remaining concepts, the method ASA
were used. This method is often used on already existing products, but the way this
method is constructed allows the method to also be used during concept
development. This is done by looking at the product as if it were going to be used at
this moment and assess it from that perspective (Osvalder et al. 2010).

The method entailed eight steps, object analysis selection, preparation, object
description, risk assessment, risk evaluation, remedy suggestions, effectiveness
assertion and insertion. To accommodate this method for concept development, the
method was modified. The steps object analysis selection and preparation were
excluded because they adhere to experience with the product and hazards that already
exist in the workplace, together with manuals and similar product information that
do not exist. Because the people responsible for this project already have the outcome
from this method, the step insertion could also be excluded (Osvalder et al. 2010).

The Risk assessment was evaluated by looking at the steps identified for the User
journey; Transport, Mounting, Lifting, Reading and Dismounting. The steps were
evaluated using five questions to find where the possibility of risks exists, (Bohgard,
et al., 2010):

1. Can the product be used in a way that isn’t intended?

2. Can the product be used in an intended but unsafe way?
3. Can the product demand physical, perceptual or cognitive ability which
surpasses the user’s abilities?
4. Is the product not consistent with the user’s expectations or intuitions?
5. Can the environment affect the products function in a way that the user
won’t understand?
At this point it was unclear in which direction the project would go. There was
potential in all of the remaining concepts and eliminating one was therefore not going
to be easy. By using a risk assessment method, further selection was kept impartial and
40
the method decided which one had the best opportunity to achieve the projects goals.
It was also essential that we only had three concepts remaining, more than that and
this method would have been too inefficient in handling all the concepts in a
reasonable timeframe.

Final Selection
The final selection was done on the remaining concepts by using a Decision Matrix
method, also called Pugh´s method, which has been used earlier in this phase (Ullman,
2010). The criteria were generated to ensure that the result would contain and fulfil
the requirements that has been set, with help of a value scoring system from one to
three. This was done to find which concept that fulfilled the criteria in the best way,
by not allowing another concept with the same value. During this phase, weightings
were also included by using a method called Pairwise comparison. This method is
used to rank criteria’s according to its relative scale of importance in regard to the
other criteria’s (DesignWIKI, 2015).

The weightings were done to indicate which criteria that where more important and
where the focus was based. To make sure important criteria were not neglected, they
were categorised according to the User journey, General and Practical to make the
overview more comprehensible.

By using Pugh combined with pairwise comparison, the concepts could be evaluated
with a method that not only would decide the final concept, but also identify what
kind of flaws that the concepts had. This provided insight of weaknesses compared to
other solutions which could be taken advantage of. It allowed the team to avoid the
hard challenge of comparing concepts to each other impartially, which is particularly
difficult when their functions differentiate.

41
Final Product Development
Until this stage in the project, the focus has been on developing functional concepts
which satisfies all the set criteria which are described in earlier chapters. The product
stage focuses on realizing the final concept and, while preserving the functionality,
adapting it to a usable and interactive design. It was decided that the tang will consist
of an already existing torque wrench to measure the force, but the design needs to be
customized to accommodate different varieties of torque wrenches within the specific
requirements.

Product development via a master sketch

Commencing the final product development phase, the project team categorized the
Tang and its different components. The concept from the previous phase merely
consisted of a main part including a handle and an arm to rest against the idler, an arm
with a 50x50 mm plate which would lift the belt and an adapter hole to insert a torque
wrench.

Using Autodesk Inventor, a Computer Aided Design (CAD) program (Autodesk,

n.d.), a defined 2D sketch was created with metric measurements which derived from
earlier studies, standards and theories. The goal with this method was to ensure that
all the different sources of parameters and guidelines were included in the final design.
Many of the parameters gathered from standards were metric dimensions, which
allowed the project team to directly insert them into the sketch as part dimensions
and references. From this, it was possible to discover any conflicts that would arouse
with certain designs.

To minimize the time needed making adjustments in the tool’s design during
construction in the 3D environment, the 2D sketch was used as master reference for
all components of the tool meaning that all measurements, lines and shapes derived
from the same origin. This allowed the team to implement changes by simply
changing the master sketch, which in turn updated all other components and ensured
that no errors occurred.

The final product development was, unlike earlier development stages, an ongoing
process of building, designing, changing, redesigning and updating the master sketch
which in turn updated the final concept. The method of using such a master sketch
was very beneficial in many ways for the team, except one major flaw. It did not
allow both members to work on the product at the same time. Or at least, it did not
allow two people to work continuously in Autodesk inventor as the files could not
be opened in two places at once without causing conflict and error in updating all
components. This meant that the team could only use one computer work towards
developing the product further could not be performed in parallel. Independent work
was still possible, but it caused a couple of instances where a part had to be rebuilt
completely to be updated alongside the other components from the master sketch.
Still, the method of using a singular sketch to build all parts was a very advantageous
way to develop the product in high detail. It provided a way to easily make changes
to the product and ensured that no errors and assembly intersections would occur.
The usage of a master sketch turned the process of 3D modelling, which may often
42
be used as a documentational method, to a developing process with a high level of
accuracy and detail.

Concept part development

Each part of the product was designed in turn in the master sketch, using the theory
acquired from standards and other theory described in the Theoretical Framework
chapter.

Figure 16 - Marcus Widstrand, 2020, Rotation point, arms and idler sizes [Illustration]

Idler arm
The idler arm should be designed to fit the smallest idler to the largest that are used
in Sweden, see Figure 16. According to SIS (1980) the diameters can be between
63,5-219,5 mm in diameter (SIS, 1980). The design of the idler arms part which has
contact with the idler should guarantee that the lift is performed within the nip-point
and thereby make the lifting process as efficient as possible. If possible, the aligning of
the arm should be an automatic result when inserting the tool between idler and belt
while also protect the user during insertion and lift to prevent any injuries from
occurring.

Lifting Arm
The lifting arm should mainly be designed with stability in mind, while keeping a
minimal distance to the rotation axis to ensure an advantageous relation between the
input torque and the output force acting on the belt. It has to be fitted very securely

43
to the rotation component and be able to withstand the torque generated from said
component as well as a substantial force at the plate attachment point with minimal
deformation.

Distance indication
The tang, in its current state, does not have a defined way to communicate the height
lifted to the user. The preferable option would be to design a distance gauge which
allows the user to perform the lift and then have the option to check the distance
either during or after it is done. This is due to the poor lighting conditions that may
be underneath the belt, something observed during the SSAB field study, see
Appendix 4 - SSAB Force Test. The distance indicator should also be resistant to dust
and dirt, both in regard to function and its ability to convey the result to the user.

Handles

Figure 17 - Marcus Widstrand, 2020, Handle sketch [Illustration]

The length of the tool’s main handle should be at least 120 mm to allow the user to
have a full grip. The length from the rotation point to the handle should be adapted
to protect the hand from the idler while lowering the required force needed to lift
the belt and finally ensure that the torque wrench aligns with the handle (CCOHS,
2015). The handle shape should have a straight elliptic design with diameters from
30-35 mm to allow a proper grip during handling and increase the overall power grip.
A straight handle which runs parallel to the torque axle enables measuring on both
sides of the belt conveyor without compromising the ergonomics or the power grip
of the handle (Kong & Kim, 2015).

44
An insertion handle will be attached on the tool side opposite from the plate arms. It
was added to ensure that the process of inserting tool safely be performed using both
hands, thus minimizing the strain on the user. The field study at SSAB, see Appendix
4 - SSAB Force Test, showed that the force required from the user is below the
ergonomic threshold, according to SS 2888 (1980), if two hands are used and if the
wedge has a height less than 40 mm. For efficiency, the tool should be pointing to
the front edge of the wedge which the lifting plate and the idler arm will create. The
bar and the attachment point will therefore be aligned with the insertion point
between the plates end points to ensure proper force conversion an minimize effort
required from the user.

Rotation Point

Figure 18 - Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Early rotation mechanism [Illustration]

The tool’s function will heavily depend on the point which the arms and the torque
wrench rotate around, which causes the design of such a component to be very
carefully decided. There should be as little friction as possible between the
components to ensure that the required torque value is not affected. It should also be
very resistant to dust and dirt to avoid such external factors to also affect the measuring
result. The component should also serve as the tool’s fastener, meaning that it will
require to have a locking mechanism which keeps the tool together.

Finally, the component will also serve as the adapter for the torque wrench. This
means that it had to have a square hole which follows the standard SS-ISO 1174-
1:2011 (SIS, 2011).

A torque wrench is a tool that lets the user determine the amount of rotational force
or torque that is given. It is often used to fasten bolts and reduce the risk of
overtightening the bolt which can lead to damage on the bolt or stripping the threads.
There are different kinds of torque wrenches that gives the result in different manners
but the one used in this project uses a Clicker-type. This variation works by a spring-
loaded lever inside of the wrench which is adjusted by twisting the handle, and there
by configuring the wrench to a specific torque. During usage the spring-loaded lever
will snap loose and thus so giving a clicking sound indicating that the desired torque
value is reached (Pick The Tools, 2019).

45
Finite Element Analysis
To assess which design and material that would be suitable for this project, the Finite
Element Method (FEM) was used to provide knowledge of weak points on the basic
frame.

The Finite Element method is based on Finite Element Analyses (FEA), which
simulates and predicts how products react to mechanical stress, mechanical vibrations,
fatigue, heat and other physical impacts. This is used to show when different limits
are achieved and if the product will hold during the implemented forces that can
occur during usage. FEA works by taking the shape that needs to be tested and
breaking it into small sections or pieces. Depending on the accuracy that is needed
the object can be divided in thousands to hundreds of thousands of finite elements in
the form of geometric shapes. These shapes are then calculated with help of
mathematical equations to predict the outcome (SimWiki, n.d.) (Autodesk, 2019).

A FEM was performed on both the Lifting arm and Idler arm to accumulate the stress,
displacement, safety factor and weight. The test where done on three different
materials; steel, stainless steel and aluminium to see the different material properties.
To test the rotational forces; 150 N where placed on the plate, the rotation point was
constrained to a rotation point and the handle was fixed to simulate forces during
usage. A separate study was performed in the same category, only that the rotation
hole was subjected to a torque and the plate was fixed. Tests were also done regarding
diagonal forces which can occur if the user drags the tool out from the belt using the
handle instead of the insertion handle. Forces of 75 N was placed on the handle and
the plate was fixed, a force which originates from the ergonomic studies. This
simulation where chosen to accumulate the worst holding scenarios within the
ergonomic ranges of the user, see Appendix 5 – Shape Builder and FEM analysis.

By using the Finite Element Method to analyse the product and its structural strength,
the team could be assured that the final product would withstand the forces derived
from intended usage. Since the forces used was only the threshold values acquired
from standard documents and ergonomic stress limits, it was very assuring that the
FEM method also resulted in a safety factor.

If the project would have had more time to its disposal, the next step would have
been to build a prototype and test it in an actual environment. The FEM method is
limiting in that regard since it only recognizes and processes the force that have been
manually inserted. Therefor it does not show how unforeseen forces can affect the
tool, which a physical product would.

Shape Builder
Another tool used was the extension tool Shape Generator found in Autodesk
Inventor. The program is used to design lightweight and structurally efficient parts by
performing a series of FEA’s on the model, see Appendix 5 – Shape Builder and FEM
Analysis. It then determines where any excess material can be found which does not
affect the model’s structural integrity. The excess material can then be removed, and
the product’s weight is reduced (Autodesk, 2019).

46
The Shape Builder extension was beneficial as it lowered the product weight
significantly by almost 30 percent. However, it shares the same limitations as the FEM
method as the results is dependent on manual input, not any unforeseen forces that
may occur. Should such forces exist, and if their magnitude were significant, their
effect on the tool could have shown that the excess material which was removed,
actually filled a purpose. This is also something that a physical prototype would show.

Manufacturing
Another vital aspect to consider when designing the final product is its manufacturing
process. The tool’s design should ensure that its components are easy to manufacture
while keeping waste material to a minimum. The number of steps necessary to
produce each component with their required tolerances should also be as few as
possible. They should mainly consist of industrial machines performing the operations
which will ensure satisfactory results each time.

These statements will always be part of the design process and serve as decisive factors
if a choice emerges between two different designs. They will be confirmed by having
continuous communication with SITE’s personnel and learning from their expertise
and how they produce their product solutions based on available manufacturing
methods.

The method of designing each component with their required manufacturing process
in mind was considered to be a good strategy. It caused the product to be simple and
easy to understand while providing functionality and usability of high quality.
Although the approach required the most guidance and advice from SITE, it was not
experienced as superficial or overly complicated and the result further cemented this.

47
Results
This chapter describes the results from the process: Context, Ideation, Concept
development and Final Result.

Context Results
Interviews
Many of the questions that we had in the beginning regarding the standards and its
variables could be answered by the Swedish Institute of Standards and LKAB. The
conversations gave knowledge that the measurements 50 x 50 mm should correspond
to the volume of the hand and that the force 150 N comes from EN 528:2008 section
5.10.4.1. Which involves that a body part can endure that amount of force without
enduring sever injures but can incurred bruises and grazes. According to SIS the force
comes from an ergonomic standard by CEN/TC 122 Ergonomics.

Where the measurements should be performed in correlation to the belt’s width could
not be answered. But confirmation regarding that the belt should be stationery and
empty was verified. The questions that they didn’t have any answers on, meant that
further investigation was needed and that more research within different standards
was a necessity.

User Journey
Because there was an absence of understanding regarding how the end product was
going to be used, as well as the different steps needed to perform the task. The result
from a User journey could be used as a basis for brainstorming, as well as an evaluation
tool for future concepts; the results were superficial with only the basic steps defined,
see figure 19 (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010).

Figure 19 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, User journey [Illustration]

48
Transport
Transport the tool to the location where safety measurements need to be evaluated.

Mounting at carrying-, or return idler

Go through any precaution details that needs to be done before the test. Stop the belt
and make sure that there is no material left on the belt conveyor, (attach the product
to the emergency stop line). Prepare the product for taking measurements.

Lifting
Apply lifting force or other means to enable the user to read data.

Measuring distance & Force

Using the tool to acquire measuring data, the data should be viewable or stored for
later analysing.

Reading/data collecting
Discerning the result of the measurement test and potentially document the outcome,
during the test or afterwards.

Dismount/Removal
Remove the tool from the measuring position

Transport
Transport the tool to the next location where safety measurements need to be
evaluated or back for safe keeping.

Field Study
A couple of observations worth noting, was that all the observed conveyors were
equipped with a dust cover above the belt, which pretty much covers the belt’s edges,
making a lift situated on the edges nearly impossible, see Figure 2020.

Figure 20 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Belt conveyor, dust cover

49
Another subject arose during conversation with an employee at SSAB who expressed
an opinion that the safety of the nip points (a point where two rolling parts converge
where parts of the human body could be trapped and injured, (Nip point, n.d)). Also,
whether the user is able to pull a caught limb free is greatly dependent on which angle
of approach said limb has. If a limb, an arm for example, gets stuck perpendicularly
to the belt, the forces pulling the arm inwards are relatively small as the belt is moving
sideways and friction will be the main factor outside of nip points between idlers and
the belt. Decrease the angle of the arm and the belt however, and the danger of being
pulled along the belt increases significantly. Another danger pointed out from the
SSAB employee was the increased hazard if an arm would get caught in a nip point
and if there would be a vertical metal attachment bar outside the idler. A “safe”
accident where the hand would just roll over the idler would become much more
dangerous as the arm would catch on the metal bar and force the person’s body closer
to the belt, decrease the angle of insertion and increase the risk of being dragged
along. This was very interesting for the project, as it illuminated a hazardous area
which users, working near or alongside belt conveyors, were cautious about. This
validates the need for a solution to the problem as well as providing the team with
valuable data.

Ideation Results
This chapter contains the results given by the ideation methods.

Figure 21 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Small part of the ideation results [Illustration]

The Anti Problem

By using this method in the beginning of the ideation phase, the team became more
creative and obtained inspirational which was needed after reading a lot of
standardization documents. Standards can be very helpful, but they may also
counteract the creativity that is needed to find new solutions. The method generated
23 ideas that served as inspiration to 24 new ideas which actually worked towards
solving the problem. This method also gave inspiration which aided the creative

50
process in the other methods as they stimulated the team member’s brains and allowed
them to view the problem from new angles and explore other approaches.

Brainstorming
Brainstorming was used directly after the Anti-Problem to use the creativity and
inspiration derived from that method. The method was a great way of finding and
creating an amount of ideas that could later be further developed and inspire the team
into new inventions. The method resulted in 29 ideas.

Dark Horse
This method brought new insight and angles to the problems which could later be
translated into realistic solutions and was a great way of finding new outcomes and
solutions to specific problems while providing creativity and energy towards other
ideation methods. The method generated 14 dark horse ideas which were further
developed into 11 feasible ideas.

Braindrawing
By having the opportunity to discuss design decisions from the beginning and draw
from the other team member’s creativity, the ideas could be generated more
efficiently with the intent behind them being mutual. This resulted in more detailed
and realistic ideas closer to early stage concepts. The different views provided aided
support in developing more detailed ideas, although they were kept from being too
defined in order to prevent getting stuck and rather focusing on getting as many
unique and different ideas as possible. In the end, 29 different ideas were generated
where some even had the potential deemed to justify a simple prototype to test the
theoretical functionality.

Pre-Mortem
This method resulted in a better understanding of the problems that could occur
within the project and the result. By knowing what could go wrong, we could analyse
the source of that problem an create a solution. The created solutions could then be
combined into more comprehensive ideas with problem solving at its core. The result
of this was both a better understanding of what may occur but also solutions to future
obstacles.

Wordplay
At this point we needed increased creativity. Wordplay was a great way of attacking
the problem with new perspective and intent, which resulted in ideas from a new
inspiration and angles. Eleven words were generated using a web-based word
randomizer. The words were: Vein, Confident, Pig, Restrain, Put, Prejudice,
Breakdown, Medal, Problem, Liver and Bride. The generated ideas were discussed
after each word. In the end, the method resulted in 22 ideas where elements and parts
could be taken to illuminate certain aspects that the end product could benefit from
if they were implemented.

51
Morphological Matrix
At this point we started to feel like we were getting stuck on the same solution-based
ideas and that we did not have enough realistic ideas. This was the reason behind
using Morphological Matrix, to force us to create ideas around the parameters. This
was a great way of creating ideas that had more details regarding how they were going
to be used.

Gamestorming
It was important in this stage to involve SITE to see how engineers that have worked
with or near a belt conveyor would solve this problem. The reason to involve them
at this point and not earlier, was to reduce the influence that they would have and let
our creativity and way of thinking solve the problem. At this point, ideas created were
not shared for the same reason. This resulted in a new perspective in how they solve
problematic challenges and the way they think. In the end this gave us a total of 29
ideas that both hade similarities to previous ideas but also solutions from a new
perspective.

Rapid Prototyping
The method served as an evaluation for several ideas at the same time giving an insight
in how future concepts could be developed and how the ergonomics could change
depending on the design decisions.

The results from this method was knowledge that certain mechanics and functions in
the ideas were indeed feasible and worth exploring further. Other ideas showed
aspects that had to be adjusted or even removed as the prototypes could not function
as intended due to dimensional and functional restrictions. In the end, the rapid
prototyping session gave the team insight on how ideas and their aspects may behave
if implemented.

52
Concept Development Result
The results from the methods used during the concept development phase are
collected here.

Figure 22 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Concept development [Illustration]

Pugh
This method revealed if the concepts would become feasible and reasonable after
further development. This method also allowed for combination between similar
concepts and discarding concepts that didn’t bring value to the project. This resulted
in a more refined and developed concept list consisting of 32 concepts that could be
taken for additional detail development and evaluation. It provided the project group
with a way to discern feasibility from a large mass of ideas.

Ergonomic Evaluation
The evaluation resulted in a scaling factor between the axes 𝐿 and 𝐿 , a measurement
relation required to fulfil the ergonomic criteria, see Appendix 3 - Ergonomic
Evaluation.

The result also illuminated the need to study the required force necessary to insert a
tool of a certain thickness, between a belt conveyor and an idler as the required force
could not be estimated and certain concepts could not be evaluated fully. These
calculations showed additional deficiencies within concepts which resulted in further
removal of unfeasible and unrealistic concepts. 11 concepts were rejected which left
21 that still needed to be investigated further.

By examining and evaluating the concepts based on the users, we ensure that the
usability is preserved and part of the design process. This could result in a concept and
product tailored to ergonomic and physical limitations.
53
Idler Dimension and Tool Functionality
By obtaining information regarding the possible dimensions of the idlers, the concepts
could be evaluated for their functionality concerning adaptation to these scenarios.
Depending on the idlers diameter the concept tool may become too bulky to
maneuverer and may restrict its movements due to the environment. These
evaluations were combined with the calculations from the Ergonomic Evaluation
method to determine the length of the tool and the forces needed. This resulted in
an additional 10 concepts for elimination which left 11 concepts to the next
evaluation step.

Prototyping and Experimentation

From experiments done at SSAB the results showed that wedges with larger thickness
demanded much larger force to be inserted between the belt and an idler. The
wedge’s shape also impacted the force required. Conclusions from the experiment
were that wedges with a thickness less than 20 mm fulfils ergonomic thresholds from
SS 2888 (1980) regarding force allowed in certain directions. Wedges with a thickness
less than 40 mm may be usable when the user applies force with both hands. One
observation was that the second belt tested on had a 30-degree angle on its rollers
instead of the first belt with its 45 degrees. A result of this was that the first belt was
partly suspended from the idler due to belt stiffness, which made measurements at belt
edges impossible as there was no nip point nor reference point for the wedges placed
at, see figure below.

Figure 23 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, SSAB belt conveyor suspended [Photography]

Another observation was that the main source of friction came from the belt as the
idlers tended to rotate at insertion. A simple test showed that the idler required a very
small force to rotate. The distance from the idler to the 50x50 plate also had a
significant impact on the distance which the belt was lifted. Finally, it was noted from
the results that the force required to lift the belt increased as the measuring point
travelled inwards towards the centre of the belt and the inner edge of the idler.

LKAB Evaluation Meeting

The evaluation meeting with LKAB resulted in new information regarding the
environment that differed from our understanding. The workspace around the idlers
54
appears to be significantly smaller than what we had experienced at SSAB and LKABs
technical instructions. This was due to support beams and modified belt conveyors,
to accommodate the different conditions and environments. Because of the limitation
of access in certain areas, concepts that is built around the translation of the force
using a lever such as an arm or torque wrench to reduce the force by the user could
become problematic.

Other points that were made during the evaluation meeting, was to reduce the risk
for pinching and consider the environment where the measuring is performed. This
was due to dirty environments which could cause tool malfunction. The concept
called The Glider was eliminated because of the uncertainty if it would hold against
the forces. Another input received was that the belt might have multiple loading zones
which would require more on and off installations then was anticipated. This, with a
combination of safety measurements between start-ups that could become a
complication for concepts that attaches to the belt, see concepts in Appendix 2 -
Concept Development.

After evaluating the new information only three concepts remained, the other
concepts will be used for inspiration when further developing. The Claw, The Clamp
and The Tang. Even if The Tang uses momentum in form of arms the principle seems
plausible if the arms are changed to a different angle. It was therefore decided upon
to further evaluate this concept to see if the problems related to the work area could
be solved.

ASA Risk Assessment Method

By following the various steps given by the method, each concept could get equal
amount of focus and evaluation time. This was needed in order to avoid getting stuck
on one concept and allow bias to influence opinions. Every concept had the
opportunity to develop onto something that could fulfil its purpose. By doing two
risk assessments, each concept could once again be evaluated to see if problems were
solved or if new problems had appeared during the implementation of new design
elements.

The concepts remaining are The Claw, The Clamp and The Tang. The risk
assessment steps; Object description, Risk assessment, Risk evaluation, Remedy
suggestions and Effectives assertion, can be found in Appendix 6 - ASA Risk
Assessment Method.

Final Selection
The result from using the Pugh´s method combined with Pairwise comparison which
can be seen in Appendix 7 - Pairwise Comparison. This gave a clear winner while
also revealing areas that could be designed in a different manner to improve the overall
design. The concept with the highest score was The Tang with a score of 57. The
Claw scored 48 points and The Clamp got 33 points. With the weighed
multiplication the score resulted in 146,8 for The Tang, 135,8 for The Claw and 78,8
for The Clamp, which led to the resulting winner being unchanged, see figures
below.

55
 THE CLAW THE CLAMP THE TANG

Figure 24 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Final Selection Concepts [Illustration]

Figure 25 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Final selection criteria evaluation [Illustration]

56
Areas that received the lowest points for The Tang were the ease of reading the force
and workspace required which only got one point each. The reason the force reading
ability only got one point was because there is no way to read the force unless the
torque wrench limit is reached. In the end, this is not a problem due to the
requirements of the task, but it limits the resulting data received from the tool
nonetheless. The way the distance gauge could still be improved to optimize
readabilities for the user.

The Tang received low points on requiring least space, because of the arms and the
insertion handles position. By changing the position of the insertion handle, more
space can be acquired, and the support arm’s length can be reduced due to the
curvature of the idlers. This was something that was not considered during the
development but recognized during the final selection when evaluating the concepts
against each other.

57
Final Results
The result from this project are presented below.

The Product

Figure 26 – Samuel Andersson & Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Final product 1 [Rendering]

58
Figure 27 – Samuel Andersson & Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Final product 2 [Rendering]

59
Figure 28 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, User with tool at belt conveyor [Illustration]

The final result is a tool which uses two plates which are inserted between a conveyor
belt and an idler (see figure 26, 27 and 28). A torque wrench rotates a lifting arm
which raises the belt to a certain height which is communicated with a distance gauge
on the tool and may be read during or after the lift.

Force Measuring
To enable accurate measuring of the force and alert the user when the required force
is obtained, a torque wrench will be attached to the tool. This tool will be used to let
the user know when 150 N of force is surpassed on the lifting plate. This force is not
constant during the lift due to the nature of the tool and how the force applied on
the belt is affected by the lifting angle. It is recommended to calibrate the torque
wrench according to formula (6), see Appendix 8 - Force & Torque Calculations. 𝐹
is the force applied vertically on the belt, ℎ is the height lifted from the idler and 𝑇
is the torque value.

∗ ,
𝑇= , (6)
( ( )
,

Rotation Point & Torque Adapter

To make sure that any wrench can be used the standard mounting point for wrenches
will be adapted for compatibility. According to International standard SS-ISO
3315:2018 the dimensions for torque wrenches are 50 mm maximal width and a
length between 230-300 mm for one handed torque wrenches (SIS, 2018).

The torque adaptor square is standardized by SS-ISO 1174-1:2011 which defines the
width of the hole is nominal 10 mm (9,80-9,58mm) with an average of 9.69 mm
square hole and the diagonal of 12,9 mm minimum. The depth should be at least 11,5
mm with a distance to the groove centre of 5,5 mm (SIS, 2011), see figure below.

60
 Figure 29 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Rotation component [Rendering]

Bearing Dimension
The rotational point is constructed to minimize the number of necessary
manufacturing steps and methods by using the same base material and to enable easy
maintenance by allowing for disassembly.

At the core of the rotation point there is a deep groove ball bearing, which is used to
minimize friction in the rotational point and avoid affecting the measuring result.
The bearing was chosen for its versatility to accommodate radial and axial loads at the
same time requiring low maintenance. The bearing will be capped with a shield which
will protect it from dust and dirt, the inner diameter is 20 mm while the outer is 42
mm (SKF, n.d.).

The inner dimeter will provide enough space hence the torque adapter can fit inside
which will decrease the necessary width of the tool and bring the handles more align
to each other. This will give a more compact design and more stability to the tool
during usage. To make the rotation point more stable and durable the torque wrench
adaptor part will be welded to the lifting arm, the adapter being used are 3/8”. To
make sure that the nut doesn’t come loss during rotation of the torque wrench, it is
designed so that the torque applied during the lift will aid in automatically tightening
the nut. To hold everything in place there is a nut and a spacer.

Figure 30 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Rotation Point, Ball Bearing, Spacer, Nut [Rendering]

61
Fem & Material Analysis
The material that would prove to be most suitable for this project was 5 mm of
stainless steel for the lifting arm. The reason for this is to use the same material for the
arm and the lifting plates in order to minimize the number of different materials and
steel thicknesses needed during manufacturing. FEM analysis results also showed a
significant risk in plastic deformation if the plates should be thinner due to a safety
factor of just above one. This meant that plates of lesser thickness would be able to
support the intended weight, but permanent deformation is a large possibility if the
force values should be exceeded which is a very probable risk.

The idler arm is dimensioned to be 12 mm thick which is mainly due to the ball
bearing’s dimensions and its 12 mm thickness. Idler arm thickness is also a result of
extensive FEM analysis as the handle should be able to withstand forces from all sides
on a horizontal plane and the thickness ensures that no permanent plastic deformation
should occur with a good safety margin.

Idler Arm Shape

The Idler arm has been designed to fit the largest idler to the smallest that are used in
Sweden (SIS, 1980). The shape will allow a minimum of two contact points and a
maximum of three contact points depending on the size if the idler. The Idler arm
will guarantee that the lift is performed within the nip-point and thereby make the
lifting process as efficient as possible. During the insertion, the angled part towards
the idler will hit the idler and indicate that the insertion is complete. Depending on
the idler size, the insertion distance will differ, but it will always indicate completion
when it hits the arm, see figure below.

Figure 31 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Idler arm [Rendering]

To make sure that the hand does not hit the belt during insertion, a protective detail
is placed at the top of the tool. According to CCOHS (2015) the hand needs a

62
clearance of 20 mm which this protection detail provides, see figure 32. This
measurement is also used on the handle to make sure that the fingers does not get
pinched at the idler during lift (CCOHS, 2015).

Figure 32 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Protection Detail [Rendering]

Ergonomic standards decided the maximum force which was allowed to be exerted
by the user to avoid strain and possible injury, which was investigated in an earlier
study (see Appendix 3 - Ergonomic Evaluation). The relationship of the force input
arm to the force output arm was determined to be 2:1, since the force lifting the belt
should be 150 N and the maximum input force is 75 N. Therefore, the team put
significant effort in keeping the distance from the plate to the rotational axis at a
minimal.

Material Reduction
The tools weight was reduced by using Shape generator inside of Autodesk Inventor,
see Appendix 5 - Shape Builder and Fem Analysis. The program extension was run
several times with different goals of material loss percentage. Similarities of these test
results showed the approximate shape and location of excess material on the tool.
Trial and error in removing this material and checking the stability of the tool using
FEM resulted in a tool weight of about 1,5 kilograms instead of a weight of almost 2
kilograms, see figure 33.

63
Figure 33 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Material Reduction on Idler Arm [Rendering]

Lift Arm Shape

The lifting arm follows the shape of the idler arm to reduce the amount of area that
the tool takes up, at the same time achieving stability during lift. On the top of the
lifting, there is a smaller arm alongside the protection detail from the idler arm. During
usage the arm will rotate and push the distance block to visualize the height of the
lift, see figure 34 and 35.

64
 Figure 34 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Lifting arm [Rendering]

Figure 35 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance measuring arm [Rendering]

Plate Shape & Placement

The plate is 50x50x5 mm, and the angle on lifting arm is aligned so that both plates
are in contact in the closed position to disperse the forces they endure during insertion
and removal. When the lift is completed, the belt and the idler plate will be horizontal
to each other at 50 mm of lift. This is to get the most accurate measurement at the
desired distance according to standard SS EN 620+A1:2010 (SIS, 2010). The idler
plate is a little longer than its counterpart to provide support during insertion and
make the insertion process easier by having a rounded tip. This plate is also 50 mm
in width to increase stability during usage and both plates are intended to be
manufactured from the same steel sheet to minimize material loss, see figure 36 and
37.

65
 Figure 36 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Plates insertion position [Rendering]

Figure 37 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Plates at lifting position [Rendering]

Handle Dimensions
The dimensions of the handle are 120 mm in length to allow a full grip. The length
of the axle is adapted to protect the hand from the idler at the same time lowering
the required force needed to lift the belt and to make the torque wrench align with
the handle. The handle has a straight elliptic design with diameters from 30-35 mm
66
to allow a proper grip during handling and increase the overall power grip. The
straight handle enables measuring on both sides of the belt conveyor without
compromising the ergonomics or the power grip of the handle (CCOHS, 2015)
(Kong & Kim, 2015).

Figure 38 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Handle [Rendering]

At the end of handle there is a hole which provides an alternative storage opportunity
by hanging it to a wall. This detail can also be used to anchor the tool to the
emergency stop line by using a carbine hook, this will prevent damage and injury if
the belt would start during the measuring process. The intended usage of the tool is
to always insert the plates after the idler in the belt’s feed direction to avoid the tool
being pulled into the nip point if the conveyor should start. However, this is an extra
safety measure which may prevent accidents due to unforeseen circumstances where
the tool may get caught at which point it will pull the emergency stop line and
hopefully avoid the user being injured.

67
 Figure 39 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Handle Hole [Rendering]

Insertion Handle
The insertion handle is attached on the tool side opposite from the plates and consists
of a stainless-steel bar jointed with the idler arm. The idler arm has a female
attachment point which the bar can be welded to. The bar and the attachment point
are aligned with the insertion point between the plates end points to ensure proper
force conversion an minimize effort required from the user. To make the handle
ergonomically for the user, a handle attachment will be bolted on the bar. The
insertion handle has a width of 88 mm and a thickness of 30 mm. The handle is
designed to hold four fingers where the middle and ring finger has an extended
support to improve the power grip of the tool (Kong & Kim, 2015).

68
 Figure 40 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Insertion handle [Rendering]

Figure 41 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Insertion handle [Rendering]

Figure 42 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Insertion handle parts [Rendering]

69
Distance Gauge
Gauge is located on the back of the tool between the rotational point and the insertion
handle. During the lift, an arm will push the measuring block towards the insertion
handle by a notch. Alongside the notch there are lines on both sides of the tool that
will indicate the lift distance. The placement of the gauge and its alignment to the
lifting arm is designed to allow maximum movement of the gauge, a trait which will
enhance visibility and interpretation of the distance by users.

To prevent the measuring block to slide due to gravity there is a screw located on the
side of the distance block. This screw can be adjusted to find the right amount of
friction needed to stop the block in its place without increasing the amount of torque
needed by the wrench, see figures below.

Figure 43 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance gauge [Rendering]

Figure 44 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance gauge screw hole [Rendering]

To prevent that the block gets clogged up by dirt and thus so increasing the friction
and eventually jamming it, the lower edge on the notch has a smooth curved face

70
which will help to guide the dirt out of the notch during usage. The insertion of the
block is done before the lifting arm, this will prevent the gauge from coming off
unintentionally and reducing the number of components needed.

Figure 45 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Distance gauge edge [Rendering]

Manufacturing
A vital aspect during the development of the final product is the manufacturing
process and how each part can be adapted to ensure efficient usage of materials and
to minimize unnecessary production steps. The usage of ISO-standard parts such as
the 6004 bearing or the M16 washer and nut also contributes to the ease of which
the product’s components can be acquired. The main components are intended to be
cut out from sheets of stainless steel with a thickness of 5 mm and 12 mm using laser
cutting, water cutting or CNC (Computer Numerical Control). Since the only
component aspect which requires a high tolerance is the hole in which the bearing
will be seated, the idler arm will be subjected to two manufacturing steps.

The rotation component which also functions as the attachment point for the torque
wrench will need to be subjected to the highest number of manufacturing steps such
as lathing and threading together with drilling and CNC drilling to produce the square
hole.

The two handles are designed as two components each which are attached to the steel
frame. These handles can be manufactured using moulds for commercial use and using
3D printing for prototyping.

71
Discussion
This chapter discusses the project and evaluates the result accordingly while
also presenting conclusions and recommendations for further development.

The Result
Assessing required safety measures for belt conveyors
Measuring the Force
The tool’s way of measuring force puts low strain on the user while sacrificing a small
part of its versatility, since the tool’s design and the principles of which the force
measurements are derived from causes varying vertical forces to interact with the belt.
The ergonomic advantages which the user benefits from far outweighs these aspects.

However, the tool does not offer a way to enquire when a certain vertical force is
applied on the belt during the lift, but rather if a threshold value is reached at a certain
height, as the project’s mission parameters have been structured for. One could argue
that the tool could be designed to have a more direct connection and relation with
the input force and the force subjected on the belt. Although, that is a question of
defining what the tool’s primary function should be, if it should be focused on finding
a threshold force or for checking whether a threshold force is reached.

The immediate relationship between the force inserted and the force applied on the
belt is not as straightforward as it could have been. The way that the lifting arm’s
angle affects the force generated on the belt may require some explanation and user
understanding of trigonometry and torque. By using the provided formula however,
the tool’s usability is at its highest when the intention is to investigate whether a
certain conveyor belt can be lifted a certain distance and the force that is required. It
provides a binary result in that the belt in question either succeeds or fails in meeting
the pre-established safety standard. This makes the tool valuable to have.

Measuring the Distance at the nip point

The way the tool measures the distance is conveyed to the user in a way that is
recognizable and easy to perceive. It follows the theory of usability and interaction
design. By having a distance gauge which is used universally, an analogue metre, the
result is clearly presented for the user. The analogue distance gauge further removes
the need for batteries, eliminating the need for constant power supply and
maintenance in that regard. The function which allows the measuring component to
stay in position after the lift is completed and the lifting plate is lowered again further
increases usability as it allows the user to read the result away from the presumably
low light environment underneath the belt. The gauge system is something that have
not been tested yet. A problem with the design could be that the arm only pushes the
gauge on one side, which can cause the gauge to rotate and lock itself against the Idler
arm. The screw on the side is there to not only increase the friction so that the gauge
stays in place until the distance have been read, but also holding the gauge in position.

72
The idler arm’s design which is, regardless of the idler’s size, will keep the plate above
the nip point during the lift. This also ensures automatically that the plate will always
be within one idler diameter’s and radius distance from the nip point, as is stated as a
necessity in the project’s parameters.

A point of interest in the tool is the upper plate’s inability to rotate to always be
parallel to the belt. Currently, as this project was conducted, the standard in question
along with further parameters does not emphasize that the plate should be
perpendicular to the belt which means that the standard may technically satisfied as
long as all of the plate has contact with the belt. This means that the tool is very
accurate at 50 mm’s lift, as it is designed to be, and definitely fulfils the standard.
However, other height measurements are dependent on the belt’s flexibility and
whether both plate edges are in contact with the belt which will in turn affect the
torque arm length. This is an area of further development, but as the project was on
a limited time and in an effort to minimize the number of components and their
complexity; such a feature was not included in the first version.

Usage and User safety

The tool is designed to be used in tough industrial environments. This ensures that
actors and stakeholders such as SITE, LKAB and SSAB amongst others may use the
tool in their line of work and benefit from its function. The tool would have to be
built in stainless steel and tested on an actual conveyor belt in order to fully prove its
function, but the project results unanimously indicate that such an implementation
would be successful.

To guarantee that the tool is used in a safe way, the tool requires two hands to lift the
belt which ensures that no limbs will be endangered or be close to the nip point,
minimizing the risk being caught if a sudden start should occur. This function
combines user safety with usability and interaction design since the usage can easily
be interpreted and urges the user to handle to tool in a safe way.

To further remove this risk, the tool’s lower handle features a hole where a carabiner
or other attachments may be placed which may in turn be attached to the safety line
which runs parallel to the belt. Such a feature has not actually been confirmed to
work, but it is none the less a function that should in theory prevent that the tool
from being pulled into the nip point. The hole also allows for attachment on a user’s
belt or harness during transport or hanging it up on a wall for example.

The tool’s weight has been lowered by removing excess material which does not
affect the tool’s mechanical properties in order to minimize strain on the user/tool of
repeated use which enhances the user experience. The forces required by the user to
test whether belt conveyors follow the standard SS EN 620+A1:2010 has also been
evaluated using ergonomic standards and adapted to ensure low strain while
minimizing the working space necessary to operate the tool underneath the belt.

73
Contributing to industrial design engineering
This project has utilized a large amount of theoretical knowledge and built a lot of
the process and choices on the results of already performed studies, not to mention
national and internationally acknowledged standards. The result and the process in
reaching this result shows the benefits of anchoring and basing design choices and
arguments in theory perceived as valid in both design and mechanical engineering.

A design method like this allows for a rapid assessment and decision process where
the project team can learn from other’s results and build on their knowledge to
achieve better results than may have been achieved on its own. The project’s method
of using creative methods without any limitations first before further developing the
results from those methods using strict parameters allows for results which inherit a
large creative background, anchored in valid theory and regulations.

Reflection
Methods
The project used a very large amount of methods throughout its course. The team’s
opinion is that the methods have served their purpose admirably, and that they
caused the project result to have a very extensive foundation which strengthens the
underlying justifications to the design. Their ability to use each other’s results and
produce new and relevant data further accentuates their relevance and value.

Information gathering and user opinions

Contact through mail frequently occurred with people at LKAB to update on progress
as well as asking questions and enquiries of their methods and views regarding the
project and the subject in general. Status meetings were also held with the company
where the projects current materials were discussed and assessed.

Throughout the project, the team were able to rapidly ask the personnel working on
SITE should any question arise. Which led to a lot of unstructured interviews taking
place as well as undocumented evaluation meetings where we asked for opinions and
thoughts of the material developed during that time. This was deemed a good source
of relevant critique and suggestions of improvement. The personnel at SITE were
also able to convey suggestions and wishes from individuals from their other various
projects, mainly from SSAB that they had spoken to.

A very valuable information source that the project team sought to investigate was
the competence and experience of those working at the Swedish Work Environment
Authority. It is their job to assess the level of safety within workplaces, belt conveyors
amongst many others. Their expertise on how the decisions and measurements were
conducted today had been very interesting to know. This were however, very hard
to find as all personnel contacted were busy with a large accident which had recently
occurred and required their full attention. It was very unfortunate, as the workers
there would undoubtedly been able to give us additional insight in both how context
and ideas for concepts. A piece of information that we could not acquire was if a belt
conveyor should have each idler tested or if only a handful of probing tests were

74
enough to determine whether the standard is followed or not. This is one of the many
questions that could have been answered if circumstances were different.

Project Planning
The chosen platform to structure the project and to ensure that deadlines were being
held was with the use of a Gantt schedule. This proved to be a very valuable tool as
the first version was a general overview of how long each phase would take and what
they should contain. Further detailed planning was easy to add to the schedule as the
project progressed, which meant that each phase was structured with micro deadlines
and they could be planned in miniscule detail. The schedule also provided an easy
way of tracking scheduled meetings with our supervisor at both Luleå University of
Technology and SITE.

The Gantt Schedule required some work to keep it updated, but that was rather a
boon than a disadvantage. It allowed the team to remember the planned work which
laid ahead of us and how the process was planned and if said process should require
some redesign due to recent discoveries.

Conclusions
Project Objective and Aims
The objective of the project was to create a detailed concept for a product solution
which addresses safety assessments regarding belt conveyor maintenance and usage.
The solution was to be designed according to international standards and adhere to
user safety. As far as the project team can see, the objective has been fulfilled. The
result of the project is a conceptual product which is tailored towards assessing
whether the criteria of standard 620+A1:2010, is followed or not (SIS, 2010). It is a
tool designed to put minimal strain on the user from transport and storage to active
use. It adheres to several standards to ensure functionality and a foundation which
may be processes into a future CE-branding.

The aim with this project was to increase safe usage and maintenance work regarding
belt conveyors by enabling more accurate assessment of required safety measures, as
well as contribute with new research and insight to Industrial Design Engineering as
a subject. This aim has also been fulfilled according to the project team. The tool
enables workers on various working sites in Sweden, as well as potentially working
on an international scale, to easily check if a certain idler fulfils the criteria from the
standard.

Research Questions
How can we, by using design, correctly assess required safety levels of conveyor belt
usage and maintenance for workers and people in the vicinity?

75
The project’s main focus has been on this question and the resulting product provides
the answer. By designing a tool based on ergonomics and standard documents, we
have created a feasible solution which may be used to assess whether safeguards are
required or not according to standard 620+A1:2010. The tool is also adapted to fulfil
the additional criteria acquired from LKAB.

How can industrial design development benefit from international safety standards?

The inclusion of standardization documents in the design process has been a great
benefit in ensuring that all product aspects agree with international and domestic safety
regulations. By having a database with guidelines and relevant data to adhere to, the
design could include elements such as manufacturing and sustainable recycling and
allowed each avenue of approach to be explored and evaluated. This further cemented
that the final product’s capabilities, attributes and capacity is the best of all the ideas
generated. Documents about standards have aided the project in removing the need
to rediscover and investigate already explored and researched areas.

The Mission Parameters

The project has been tailored towards fulfilling the requirements and parameters
received from the standard 620+A1:2010 (SIS, 2010), and the additional parameters
which may be incorporated in a future edition of said standard. The result is believed
to satisfy all these criteria fully, which in turn turns the whole project in a success.
One could argue however that the project parameters themselves are incorrect. The
main point of discussion would be the decision to keep the belt stationary and without
any load weighing it down. A rather convincing argument could be stated that it
would indicate that the circumstances which is present during the measuring does not
fully reflect the environment in which an accident could occur. The nip points only
exist when the conveyor is operating, and the belt will be weighed down by the
content that is transported. Therefore, the vertical forces which may cause injury to
the user will be significantly different when measuring and during operation. This
means that the measurement done by the tool may not be an accurate way of
determining whether there is a risk of injury if an appendage would get stuck in the
nip point unless further research about the correlation of an active and loaded belt
and an idle unloaded belt is conducted.

A likely conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the standard may be incorrect
in its design. Another conclusion could be that there actually is a viable argument for
its design, but the information made available for the team is insufficient to perceive
and understand said argument. Nonetheless, these arguments indicate that the
standard may require some redesign or some additional information which explains
the reasoning behind its content.

76
References
A.L, S., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., & Sabsin, M. (1964). Phychiatric
Ideologies and Institutions. New York, The Free Press.
Al-Samarraie, H., & Hurmuzan, S. (2018). A review of brainstorming techniques in
higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol 27, 78-91.
Arbetsmiljöverket. (2017). Arbetsmiljöstastistik Arbetsskador 2017 Rapport.
Retrieved from Arbetsmiljöverket (SE): http://www.av.se
Augustine, M., Yadav, O., Jain, R., & Rathore, A. (2010). Concept convergence
process, A framework for improving product concepts. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 59(3), 367-377. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cie.2010.05.009
Aurélie Robert, S. R. (2012). Functional design method for improving safety and
ergonomics of mechanical products. Journal of biomedical science and
engineering, 457-468.
Autodesk. (2019). Autodesk. Hämtat från What is finite element analysis software?:
https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/finite-element-analysis
Autodesk. (2019, 10 25). Knowledge Autodesk. Retrieved from About Shape
Generator: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/inventor/learn-
explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Inventor-
Help/files/GUID-D74F47F3-FE22-44EF-85BE-7C6B1F56DCF9-
htm.html
Autodesk. (n.d.). Autodesk Inventor. Retrieved from Professional-grade 3D CAD
software for product design and engineering:
https://www.autodesk.com/products/inventor/overview
Ayağ, Z., & Özdemir, R. (2007). An analytic network process-based approach to
concept. Journal Of Engineering Design 18, 209-226.
doi:10.1080/09544820600752740
Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1957). Participant Observation and Interviewing: A
Comparison. Human Organization, 28-32.
Bohgard, M., Karlsson, S., Lovén, E., Mikaelsson, L.-Å., Mårtensson, L., Osvalder,
A.-L., . . . Ulfvengren, P. (2010). Arbete och teknik på människans villkor.
Prevent. doi:ISBN: 978-91-7365-110-3
Burgess, R. G. (1986). Field Research: a Sourcebook and Field Manual. Retrieved
from
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tziIAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&p
g=PP1&dq=field+research&ots=xTzC7qDuGG&sig=5I-
J4yGptaQ2bau3Mr4JYzA16dA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=field%20resea
rch&f=false
CCOHS. (2015, October 1). Hand Tool Ergonomics. Retrieved from Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/handtools/tooldesign.html
CEMA. (2002). Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. Conveyor Equipment
Manufacturers Association.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017, 08 11). Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Retrieved from ERGONOMICS AND
MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomics/upperlimb.html

77
Cooper, A., & Reimann, R. (2003). About face 2.0: The Essentials of Interaction
Design. University of Notre Dame Libraries, Indiana: New Wiley
Publication.
Dababneh A, L. B. (2004). A Guide to Selecting Non-Powered Hand Tools.
California Department of Industrial Relations and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health.
Daniyan, I., Adeodu, A., & Dada, O. (2014). JOURNAL OF ADVANCEMENT
IN ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY. Design of a Material
Handling Equipment: Belt Conveyor System for Crushed Limestone Using
3 roll Idlers.
De Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity. New York, N.Y: HarperBusiness.
DesignWIKI. (2015, 12 31). DesignWIKI. Retrieved from Pairwise Comparison:
https://deseng.ryerson.ca/dokuwiki/design:pairwise_comparison
Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Design
Thinking Bootleg. d.school at Stanford University. Retrieved 12 02, 2019
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005).
Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of
Engineering Education, 104-110.
Engineering Product Design. (2019, 10 21). Retrieved from Rapid Prototyping:
https://engineeringproductdesign.com/knowledge-base/rapid-prototyping-
techniques/
Google. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved from Google: www.google.com
Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Game storming. O´Reilly Media.
Harih, G., & Dolsak , B. (2012). Tool-handle design based on a digital human hand
model. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.
Hassenzahl, M. (2019, 9 30). User Experience and Experience Design. Retrieved
from Interaction Design Foundation: https://www.interaction-
design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-
interaction-2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design
Human-centered design for interactive system. (2019). Retrieved from ISO:
https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/80012780/
IDF. (2019, 9 25). What is Usability? Retrieved from Interaction Design
Foundation: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/usability
IDSA. (2019). Retrieved from What Is Industrial Design?:
https://www.idsa.org/events/what-id
IEA. (2000). Ergonomics. Retrieved from International Ergonomics Association:
www.iea.cc
Interaction Design Foundation. (2019, 09 30). Retrieved from Interaction design:
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/interaction-design
ISO. (2016). 9856:2016 Conveyor belts - Determination of elastic and permanent
elongation and calculation of elastic modulus.
ISO. (2017). 5288:2017, Synchronous belt drives - Vocabulary.
ISO. (2018). ISO 9241-11, Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 11:
Usability: Definitions and concepts. (ISO Standard No. 9241-11).
Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-
2:v1:en
Kandamby, G. (2018). Enhancement of learning through field stidy. Jounal of
Technology and Science Education, 408-419.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and
Interaction Design. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

78
Kong, Y.-K., & Kim, D.-M. (2015). The relationship between hand
anthropometrics, total grip strength and individual finger force for various
handle shapes. Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea Dongseo
University, South Korea: International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics. doi:10.1080/10803548.2015.1029726
Lodewijks, G. (2002). Two Decades Dynamics of Belt Conveyor Systems. Delft
University of Technology, The Netherlands.
MSHA. (2019). Metal/Nonmetal Mine Fatality. Hämtat från United States
Department of Labor:
https://arlweb.msha.gov/FATALS/1999/FAB99M12.HTM
Nielsen, J. (2012, January 3). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Nielsen
Norman Group.
Nip point. (n.d). Retrieved 10 19, 2019, from YourDictionary:
https://www.yourdictionary.com/nip-point
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things : Revised and Expanded
Edition. 5-10. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.ltu.se/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=10
e6da76-d76f-4b4d-ab58-
79d1c959a441%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=Jmxhbmc9c3Ymc2l0ZT1lZHM
tbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=658202&db=nlebk
Norman, D. A. (2019). User Experience and Experience Design. Retrieved from
Interaction Design Foundation: https://www.interaction-
design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-
interaction-2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design
OSHA. (2019). United States Department of Lbor. Retrieved from
https://www.osha.gov/
Osvalder, A., & Ulfvengren, P. (2010). Människa-tekniksystem. In M. Bohgard, S.
Karlsson, E. Lovén, L.-Å. Mikaelsson, L. Mårtensson, A.-L. Osvalder, . . .
P. Ulfvengren, Arbete och teknik på människans villkor (pp. 353-476).
Stockholm: Prevent.
Osvalder, A., Rose, L., & Karlsson, S. (2010). Metoder. i M. Bohgard, S. Karlsson,
E. Lovén, L.-Å. Mikaelsson, L. Mårtensson, A.-L. Osvalder, . . . P.
Ulfvengren, Arbete och Teknik på Människans Villkor (ss. 477-624).
Stockholm: Prevent.
Pick The Tools. (2019). Pick The Tools. Retrieved 12 18, 2019, from How Does a
Torque Wrench Work?: https://www.pickthetools.com/torque-wrench-
work/
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgement and decision making. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Prevent. (2019, September 23). Riskbedömning. Retrieved from Prevent,
Arbetsmiljö i samverkan:
https://www.prevent.se/arbetsmiljoarbete/systematiskt-
arbetsmiljoarbete/riskbedomning/
Rossi, J., Goislard De Monsabert, B., Berton, E., & Vigouroux, L. (2014). Handle
Shape Affects the Grip Force Distribution and the Muscle Loadings During
Power Grip tasks. Savoie Mont Blanc University; Oxylande Research, Aix-
Marseille University.
Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. L., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential Ethnographic
Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek,
Calif: AltaMira.

79
SimWiki. (n.d.). simscale. Retrieved from What is FEA, Finite Element Analysis?:
https://www.simscale.com/docs/content/simwiki/fea/whatisfea.html
SIS. (1980). Svensk standard 2888. Swedish institute of standards. Retrieved 11 13,
2019
SIS. (2008). SS-EN 1005-1+A1:2008. Swedish Institute of Standards.
SIS. (2008). SS-EN 1005-3+A1:2008. Swedish Institute of Standards.
SIS. (2009). SS-EN 614-1:2006+A1:2009, section: 4.3.2. Swedish Institute of
Standards.
SIS. (2010). Continuous handling equipment and systems - Safety and EMC
requirements for fixed belt conveyors for bulk materials. SS-EN
620+A1:2010. Retrieved from
https://www.sis.se/en/produkter/maskinsakerhet-357f77b1/conveyor-
belts/ssen620a12010/
SIS. (2011). SS-ISO 1174-1:2011. Retrieved from Assembly tools for screws and
nuts - Driving squares - Part 1: Driving squares for hand socket tools (ISO
1174-1:2011, IDT): https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/81203/
SIS. (2014). SS-ISO/TR 12295:2014. Swedish Institute of Standards.
SIS. (den 29 05 2018). Swedish Standard Institute. Hämtat från Assembly tools for
screws and nuts - Driving parts for hand - operated square drive socket
wrenches - Dimensions and test (ISO 3315:2018, IDT):
https://www.sis.se/api/document/preview/80004335/
SKF. (n.d.). SKF. Retrieved from Deepå groove ball bearing:
https://www.skf.com/group/products/bearings-units-housings/ball-
bearings/deep-groove-ball-bearings/index.html
Smets, G. (1995). Industrial Design Engineering and the Theory of Direct
Perception and Action. 330-340.
Spencer, D. (2008, 10 14). Reverse It. Retrieved from Design Games, Facilitating
Creativity: https://www.designgames.com.au/reverse_it/
Spradley, J. P. (2016). The Ethnographic Interview; Reissue editon. Waveland
Press, Inc; .
Sung H. Han, M. H.-J. (2000). Evaluation of product usability: development and
validation of usability dimensions and design elements based on empirical
models. 477-488.
Ullman, D. G. (2010). The Mechanical Design Process (Vol. Fourth Edition). The
McGraw Hill Companies. Retrieved 12 02, 2019
Vassala, P. (2006). The Field Study as an Educational Technique in Open and
Distance Learning. 7, 10-17. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.ltu.se/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=7b
a6ed66-1dcc-4faa-b840-9298826e6068%40sdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=Jmxhbmc9c3Ymc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1za
XRl#AN=edsdoj.f8207b5884674a839b9c245de032ae03&db=edsdoj
Vere, L., Melles, G., & Kapoor, A. (2010). Product design engineering – a global
education trend in multidisciplinary training for creative product design.
34-35. doi:10.1080/03043790903312154
Wikberg Nilsson, Å., Ericson, Å., & Törlind, P. (2015). Design - Process och
Metod (1:2 uppl.). Studentlitteratur AB, Lund.
Wikberg, Å., Ericson, Å., & Törlind, P. (2013). Snowflake- en bred bok om
design- och utvecklingsprocesser. Luleå: Luleå tekniska universitet.
doi:ISBN: 978-91-7439-701-7 (pdf)

80
 Appendix 1 - 1(2)

Appendix 1 - Project Stakeholders

Who will be impacted by the project?

- SITE - Employees & company. Safer work environment for their

personnel as well as a bargaining tool for their future business
cooperation.
- LKAB and SSAB - Operators and service personnel that works and
maintains the belt conveyors, economy calculations and safety
investors.
- Other companies who uses belt conveyor systems - Operators and
service personnel that works and maintains the belt conveyors.
- LTU - The program that the project is built on, Industrial design
engineers.
- The Swedish Work Environment Authority - Their work in
assessing the risks at industrial sites may be simplified with the result
from this method.

Who will be responsible or accountable for the project?

- LTU - Responsible for the outcome of the project to delivers new

knowledge about Industrial design engineers.
- SITE - The product/method will be SITE’s property and they are
responsible for its validity if it is used.

Who will have decision authority on the project?

- LTU - They will decide if theory needs to be added and if it fulfills

their examination criteria.
- SITE - They have authority in the way of guiding the project
towards a result that they seek.
- The team conducting the project, as they are the main actors that
drive the project forward towards completion.

Who can support the project?

- LTU - Guidance and help with the management of the project, make
sure that we are heading towards a result that fulfills the examination
criteria.
- SITE - Guidance and management during the project.
- LKAB - Field studies, interviews, observations, standardizations.
- SSAB - Field studies, interviews, observations, standardizations.
- International organization of standardization - The committee in
charge of the SS EN 620+A1:2010 standard who can describe and
argue for its content and criteria.
 Appendix 1 - 2(2)

Who can obstruct the project?

- SITE - The company can withdraw its support due to loss of interest
or estimated value from the project result or try to steer the project
in a different direction that the LTU master thesis criteria states.
- Other companies that release similar products which satisfies the user
needs, making the project result obsolete.
- Eventual patents conflicting with the resulting concept, making it
unable for commercial use.

Who has been involved in this type of project in the past?

- Belt conveyor manufacturers

- Belt conveyor users
- International organization of standardization.
 Appendix 2 - 1(14)

Appendix 2 - Concept Development CONCEPT 2 - LASER 2

CONCEPT 1 - LASER 1

Upper
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
5 5 2 2 3 5 Upper
Lower
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
5 5 0 5 4 5
3 3 3 2 5 2

DEVELOPMENT Lower
WHAT WHY HOW MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 0 5 4 4 5
TRANSPORT Light, but lacks attachment to belt or a handle for Add carbine, handle, fold arms for
easy carrying and storing storage in toolbox, make it more
compact
MOUNTING - - DEVELOPMENT
LIFTING Force comes from user, 150 N push with two Attachment in belt, support from body,
hands. less force in arms WHAT WHY HOW
MEASURE DIST & Unreliable measurement with laser, calibration, Laser guidance, reference point,
TRANSPORT Foldable? Belt attachment, toolbox foldability
FORCE distance to idler nip, angle towards belt, handles receiver, change handles,
are in the way in order to get close to the idler MOUNTING - -
READING Display is covered by gloves, hands, reading takes Sound feedback, save data LIFTING Does not lift. -
place during lift MEASURE DIST & FORCE Only measures distance. Tolerance
DISMOUNT - - READING No data communication, no display, Bluetooth, display, sound, memory data,
ERGONOMICS Bad lifting posture, large force on extremities Translate force to bench/body support. usb,
(arms) DISMOUNT - -
ERGONOMICS - -
 Appendix 2 - 2(14)

CONCEPT 3 – LASER 3 CONCEPT 4 – CLAW 1

Upper
Upper MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
4 3 2 5 2 3
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT Lower
5 5 1 2 4 5

Lower MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 3 5 1 3 3
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS DEVELOPMENT
3 1 2 4 5 1

DEVELOPMENT WHAT WHY HOW

TRANSPORT “otymplig”, things stick out, no carry Foldable, retractable, belt carbine,
WHAT WHY HOW handle, pointy disassembly etc.
TRANSPORT Large, might not fit in toolbox, belt Carbine, foldability, retractness, casing MOUNTING Friction between belt and idler, force Push handle, upper claw redesign for easy
the tool in between entry, less contact surface before lift, slim,
MOUNTING - -
LIFTING One handed push on a small surface, Force applied more in line with lifting plate,
LIFTING Too much force on one hand, bad Handle redesign, force distribution, support tool might rotate around idler wider handle, two handed push, support
handle placement, from idler/body/harness, floor/belt frame multiple pushing techniques
MEASURE DIST & Distance to nip point calibration, apply Move laser point, measurement reference point - -
MEASURE DIST & FORCE
FORCE force, perpendicular angle difficulty, on idler, dynamometer on tool,
READING No reference for distance lifted Separate force and measurement result, show
force is on laser head, belt might get in electrical/mechanical coil,
alongside force applied. Gauge result better, thresholds to remove need to
the way
concealed by gloves when pushed read result during lift.
READING None Display, data storage, USB, sounds, display
DISMOUNT Idler and belt friction, transversal pull, less contact surface, slim, latch for
color, haptic feedback
no handle dismounting, handle for pulling, release
DISMOUNT -- -
button
ERGONOMICS Force, posture Support, handle redesign, force redistribution, Posture, force applied, Harness, handle redesign, support from
ERGONOMICS
user instructions frame/idler etc.
 Appendix 2 - 3(14)

CONCEPT 5 – CLAW 3 CONCEPT 6 – CLAW 4

Upper
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
Upper 3 3 3 1 0 4

MEASURE DIST &

Lower
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
3 3 3 5 3 3 MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 3 1 0 4 2
Lower
DEVELOPMENT
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 3 5 2 3 3
WHAT WHY HOW
DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT Angular design, moving parts, no handle, Foldable, redesign shape
non-linear design, hard to store
MOUNTING Belt friction, have to force the tool, no Small contact area, reduce friction, use lever
WHAT WHY HOW handle for support, swing arm might as means to insert tool?
TRANSPORT Parts stick out, takes up space, Foldable, assembly, carbine, tool box redesign touch belt on insertion and increase
MOUNTING Belt friction, have to force the tool, Polished metal clamp, slim design, small friction
small lever for lower clamp contact surface, more robust lever design LIFTING Bad momentum transfer, force arm Second handle, redesign momentum arm,
LIFTING 1 handed lift, no second handle for Handle redesign, force distribution, lever smaller than lift arm, no handle for increase tool stability
stability, mechanism, push  pull counterbalance, might rotate under
MEASURE DIST & FORCE - - pressure
READING Read occurs during lift. Unclear results Display redesign, remove need to read result MEASURE DIST & No force measurement, distance is from Insert force meter (dynamo, spring, sensor).
for force and distance, might be hard to during lift, sound, haptic feedback, thresholds FORCE lift angle, no reference Lock/alert at 50 mm
read due to lift position READING No display, reference or gauge Insert display, reference or gauge, data
DISMOUNT Lever design, pull upper clamp by Redesign lift handle to support insertion and output, signal
force, friction, no support removal as well, lever redesign DISMOUNT Lever design, pull upper clamp by force, Use lever to dismount? Reduce friction,
ERGONOMICS Posture, one handed lift, unaided lift, Force distribution, support, push instead of friction, no support contact area is only 50x50 mm plate
force 150 N pull to use idler as support, ERGONOMICS No handles, bad force momentum, Add handles or intended grip areas, redesign
unclear posture when applying force lever to reduce force required, design for
correct posture.
 Appendix 2 - 4(14)

CONCEPT 7 – CLAW 5 CONCEPT 8 – CLAW 6

Upper
Upper
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT MEASURE DIST &
5 3 4 5 4 3 TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
4 4 5 5 4 4
Lower
Lower
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 4 5 4 3 4 MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
4 4 5 4 3 5
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT No carry handle, grip area, pointy bit Foldable, retractable, handle, carbine hole WHAT WHY HOW
MOUNTING Belt friction, have to force the tool, Small contact area, reduce friction, bearings, TRANSPORT No grip place, carry handle, parts stick Disassembly, foldable
no handle for support, smooth edges on top clamp out
LIFTING No support when turning screw, tool Secondary handle, redesign lower clamp to MOUNTING Extra step when mounting. No handle/ Handle design, grooves in metal, design to
might rotate resist rotation, small “fins” on tool which are in grip area mark, plate may get caught if perform usage in steps
contact with idler screw is tightened and plate is separated
MEASURE DIST & - - from grip clamp
FORCE LIFTING Unclear support handle position. Screw See MOUNTING, insert clearance around
No defined reading Gauge for blue part for force, gauge for lifting might be hard to reach for certain tools screw head for tools
READING
plate for distance. Display, sound, haptic, MEASURE DIST & - -
DISMOUNT Have to unscrew/lower plate before Possible quick release function? User FORCE
removal, friction. Possible for user to instruction, design for safety for unintended READING Display might be obstructed by filth Display/gauge placement, increase usability
remove tool without unscrewing. usage and interaction design
Plate will rocket out full length. DISMOUNT Extra steps, unscrew takes time, Quick release? Step by step solution
ERGONOMICS Mounting procedure, lift force is Insert motor, see MOUNTING. removal with tightened screw is
translated to other axis. possible
ERGONOMICS Handle See MOUNTING
 Appendix 2 - 5(14)

CONCEPT 9 – CLAW 7 CONCEPT 10 – CLAW 8

Upper
MEASURE DIST & Upper
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
4 3 2 5 2 3 MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
Lower 3 3 4 5 3 3

MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS Lower
3 3 5 1 3 3
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
DEVELOPMENT 3 4 5 2 3 4

DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT Parts stick out, no carry handle, takes Foldable, retractable, disassembly, carry
up much space handle, hook, hole for carbine WHAT WHY HOW
MOUNTING Steps without any support handle, Low friction, allow second clamp to contact TRANSPORT Parts stick out in multiple directions, Redesign, disassembly, foldable, carbine hole,
friction on belt, belt at insertion and removal, support handle no handle, no carbine, will not fit in retractable
or grip position tool box
LIFTING One handed push on a small surface, Force applied more in line with lifting plate, MOUNTING Friction, no handle, Handle, no friction
tool might rotate around idler, wider handle, two handed push, support LIFTING Obscure mechanism for transferring Design mechanism
awkward angle, 150 N push multiple pushing techniques lift from rotation. Direct transfer,
MEASURE DIST & FORCE - - maximum 180 degree rotation
READING Gauge concealed by gloves when Separate force and measurement result, show MEASURE DIST & FORCE Torque to lift force is not investigated Calculate necessary torque to lift 50 mm with
pushed. Reading occur during lift result better, thresholds to remove need to 150 N
read result during lift. READING No result for distance. Torque wrench Display, gauge, measurement reference
DISMOUNT Idler and belt friction, extra steps, less contact surface, slim, latch for handles force
transversal pull, no handle dismounting, handle for pulling, release DISMOUNT No handles, extra steps Handle steps
button ERGONOMICS Awkward mounting angle, large See MOUNTING and LIFTING.
ERGONOMICS Posture, force applied, Harness, handle redesign, support from torque required. Conveyor frame
frame/idler etc. might interfere with proper lift
 Appendix 2 - 6(14)

CONCEPT 11 – CLAMP 1 CONCEPT 12 – CLAMP 2

Upper
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNT
4 4 4 3 4 3

Lower
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS Upper
4 3 3 5 3 4
MEASURE DIST &
DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
5 3 2 5 2 4

WHAT WHY HOW Lower

TRANSPORT Arms stick out, handle shape Fold arms inward for linear shape
MOUNTING Idler diameter may cause the arms Adjustable arms, redesign handle angle but MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
to not reach around. Handle angle retain mechanism functionality 3 2 5 2 3 2
makes it hard to rotate fully. Belt
and tool friction may be high.
DEVELOPMENT
Torque lift around idler may be
impossible due to frames WHAT WHY HOW
LIFTING - -
TRANSPORT No hole for carbiner Hole for carbiner and hanging on wall
MEASURE DIST & FORCE Only 50 mm measurement. edges Changeable/adjustable plate / clamp thickness,
MOUNTING Requires significant grip to turn on Locking mechanism, polygrip mechanism
could be pushing belt due to belt measurement notches in clamp which shows
idler and keep clamps together. Clamps
elasticity lift at certain intervals, “vattenpass”, angled
may touch belt when mounting
clamp with increasing thickness per edge.
LIFTING Not applicable Insert other solution
READING Sensor does not have display, hard Display, handle angle signifies lift measurement,
to see which edge is pushing belt sensor signals audio, haptic, wireless when force MEASURE DIST & FORCE No No
due to belt elasticity is reached READING No No
DISMOUNT No smooth dismount due to Clamp release may aid in dismounting tool DISMOUNT Friction is only complicating factor Low friction, belt may aid dismount if upper
possible edge-solution. clamp is wedge-shaped
ERGONOMICS Torque lift may require bad posture Adjustable tool, lever redesign for tightening ERGONOMICS Hand strength, grip strength Keep required grip strength low, polygrip
lift due to conveyor frame and clamps. ergonomics
other installations. Clamp lever is
small and hard to grip with gloves
 Appendix 2 - 7(14)

CONCEPT 13 – CLAMP 3 CONCEPT 14 – GLIDER 1

Upper Upper
MEASURE DIST &
MEASURE DIST & TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
5 2 4 3 4 3
5 4 4 3 4 4

Lower Lower
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
2 4 3 4 3 3
4 4 3 4 4 4

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT

WHAT WHY HOW WHAT WHY HOW

TRANSPORT - -
TRANSPORT - -
MOUNTING Friction is the main factor, poor handle Redesign handle, check friction force
MOUNTING Complicated adjustment for lower Rotate handle, redesign adjustment lock for design for pushing, no guard for hand amplitude
clamp, handle not quite correct for easier handling. Investigate idler diameters when mounting which might result in
torque force application, friction in injury
belt and tool. Clamps may touch the
LIFTING - -
belt when locking
- - MEASURE DIST & 50 mm or nothing Adjustable thickness, removable thickness
LIFTING
FORCE plates
MEASURE DIST & 50 mm or nothing, force measured Changeable/adjustable plate / clamp thickness,
with sensor measurement notches in clamp which shows lift READING No display, secondary product for Define display device
FORCE
at certain intervals, “vattenpass”, angled clamp showing result
with increasing thickness per edge. DISMOUNT Might be a high force required as the
READING Display placement is towards idler, Redesign display placement, eventual display belt is lifted 50 mm at removal.
measurement as well with sensors in edge ERGONOMICS Mounting, dismounting might require a Redesign handle for ergonomic usage.
section. large force and result in bad posture Check force requirements.
DISMOUNT Friction is the only complicating Low friction, belt may aid dismount if upper
factor. clamp is wedge-shaped
ERGONOMICS Handle is not optimal for intended use, Redesign handle, double check torque
friction affects necessary torque needed requirements.
to mount the tool
 Appendix 2 - 8(14)

CONCEPT 15 – GLIDER 2 CONCEPT 16 – GLIDER 3

Upper
Upper
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
4 3 4 4 3 4 MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
Lower 5 5 4 4 5 4

Lower
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 4 4 3 4 4
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
DEVELOPMENT 5 4 4 5 4 5

DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT Scaled carjack, no carry handle or case Design a handle, a case or improve possible WHAT WHY HOW
storage ways
TRANSPORT - -
MOUNTING Friction in belt and idler, no handle to Low friction, adapt for mounting
aid mounting MOUNTING Might require adhesive to belt Flexible areas, vacuum seal
LIFTING Might be hard to reach to bolt with a Allow clearance for the bolt for wrench access, LIFTING Might be destroyed when lifting too Strengthen frame to handle all forces
wrench, the tool might rotate design plates to prevent rotation much force
MEASURE DIST & Force not measured, distance is insert mechanical spring / sensor in blue part or MEASURE DIST & Only force measurements at 50 mm, belt Adjustable height, investigate machine
FORCE connected to blue piece distance plate to measure force from belt. Produce a FORCE is moving speeds and braking power
force table for measurements READING Secondary device, wireless/USB, requires Design for easy data transfer
READING no display or gauge Design a gauge/display/other means to see switches
measurements and force DISMOUNT Adhesive may stick to tightly, large Design for easy removal, air vent for
DISMOUNT No handle, friction, more steps as the Handle, quick release function vacuum from compression between idler vacuum, latch for lifting etc.
bolt has to be unscrewed and belt
ERGONOMICS Insertion posture might be bad Improve posture, manual, instructions maybe ERGONOMICS - -
 Appendix 2 - 9(14)

CONCEPT 17 – TANG 1 CONCEPT 18 – TANG 2

Upper
Upper MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
MEASURE DIST & 5 4 3 1 0 4
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
5 4 3 3 2 4
Lower
Lower MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
4 3 1 0 4 4
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
4 2 3 1 4 3
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT Large, bulky Adjustable, foldable, disassembly
WHAT WHY HOW MOUNTING Friction, tool swing points may divert Better handle position and locking
TRANSPORT - - force, no handle for insertion mechanisms
MOUNTING Friction, handle Low friction, tang design for easy insertion LIFTING No support in lift, flawed mechanism, Reverted “timmersax”, balance the forces
LIFTING Might require a large force to lift Polygrip, adjustable tang length with mechanism to allow insertion and easy
MEASURE DIST & FORCE No force measured Torque wrench on one tang arm, grip angle is lift without any attachment or clamps. Pinch
connected to lift measurement. guard
READING None Design for reading after lift, not during. MEASURE DIST & None Insert measure methods for angles, lift, force,
DISMOUNT Friction, handle positions Design for low friction and tang design FORCE torque etc.
ERGONOMICS Grip strength, holding position Check force requirement and torque READING none Sound, haptic, display, gauge etc.
momentum and redesign for better forces. DISMOUNT Friction Low friction parts
ERGONOMICS Unidentifiable lift cause of mechanism Design mechanism for ergonomic lifting
 Appendix 2 - 10(14)

CONCEPT 19 – TANG 3 CONCEPT 20 – MECHANICAL 1

Upper Upper
MEASURE DIST & MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
5 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 4

Lower
Lower
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 2 4 4 3 2 MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
4 4 3 3 4 4
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT - Locking so the handles can’t part when WHAT WHY HOW
transported TRANSPORT Bulky Detachable/telescopic arm
MOUNTING Friction, handle position and not locked Design handle lock for transport, mounting MOUNTING - -
and dismounting LIFTING Idler diameter may affect ease of Handle should allow torque and force, design
LIFTING Torque grip requirements might be high Design for low torque requirement, pinch insertion, LARGE friction forces and shape for optimal lift and minimal force
guard force needed requirement.
MEASURE DIST & Distance connects to grip See READING MEASURE DIST & 50 mm or nothing Stepwise lift for assessing force on different
FORCE FORCE heights
READING No distance Insert latch/gauge at rotational point where READING No display for forces Display, audio, haptic, secondary device store
angle connects to distance lifted and removes data for transfer etc.
need to read while applying torque DISMOUNT Friction and belt forces affect Plate should have rotation point to ease
DISMOUNT Friction, handles Lock handles, low friction GREATLY removal
ERGONOMICS Torque forces Check force requirement and torque ERGONOMICS Hard to operate with two hands Design handle/handles
momentum and redesign for better forces.
 Appendix 2 - 11(14)

CONCEPT 21 – MECHANICAL 3 CONCEPT 22 – MECHANICAL 4

Upper
Upper
MEASURE DIST &
MEASURE DIST & TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT 3 3 4 3 0 4
4 4 3 3 0 4
Lower
Lower MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
3 5 3 0 4 4
MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
4 4 3 0 4 4
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT Bulky, large parts, parts stick out Adjustable handle length, disassembly,
WHAT WHY HOW foldable
TRANSPORT Not visualized Design components for easy transport MOUNTING Friction, no handle for rotational force Handle, low friction material
MOUNTING - - for mounting
LIFTING Not adjustable for dimension Ball bearings, redesign clamp for different LIFTING Handle position could cause rotation in Design for stability and assess optimal handle
dimensions tool placement
MEASURE DIST & FORCE 50 mm or nothing, no force Insert force sensor or mechanical gauge. MEASURE DIST & Force sensor, no measurement Gauge for displacement on arm or such
READING None Design result interface FORCE
DISMOUNT Belt friction is the main factor Low friction material READING None Display, mechanical representation,
ERGONOMICS Might require large torque Asses torque requirements. “vattenpass” against angle for distance,
rotation angles, force, water levels,
hydraulics,
DISMOUNT Claws might hinder dismounting Lift handle might aid in dismounting due to
rotation in tool
ERGONOMICS Mounting posture, tool size and weight, Low weight material, allow multiple grips for
transport handling and transport.
 Appendix 2 - 12(14)

CONCEPT 23 – VACCUUM CONCEPT 24 – MEASURE

Upper
Upper MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
5 5 0 3 4 5
MEASURE DIST &
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT Lower
5 4 4 4 5 5

Lower MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
5 0 3 4 5 5

MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS DEVELOPMENT
5 5 4 5 5 5

DEVELOPMENT WHAT WHY HOW

TRANSPORT - -
WHAT WHY HOW MOUNTING - -
TRANSPORT - - LIFTING Does not lift Does not lift
MOUNTING Above belt, not below, not in line with Redesign for placement under troughed belt MEASURE DIST & FORCE Might be hard to reach area Design for easy access with angles and such
standard READING Hard to see data Convey result to user, analog saving
LIFTING Affects belt when lifting due to support Design for no impact on belt function, a peg
arms DISMOUNT - -
MEASURE DIST & FORCE Requires additional electronic devices Investigate and research applicable ERGONOMICS - -
and calibration technology
READING Secondary device, wireless might be Wired option, design usable interface
difficult
DISMOUNT No handle Add handle
ERGONOMICS - -
 Appendix 2 - 13(14)

CONCEPT 25 – HYDRAULIC 1 CONCEPT 26 – HYDRAULIC 2

Upper
MEASURE DIST & Upper
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
2 3 4 3 4 4
MEASURE DIST &
Lower TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
2 2 5 1 2 3

MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS Lower
3 4 3 3 4 4

DEVELOPMENT MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS
2 5 1 2 3 3

WHAT WHY HOW DEVELOPMENT

TRANSPORT Clumsy, moving parts, big, lumpy, pinch Adjustable, design for easy transport,
points inspiration for camera stands, foldable WHAT WHY HOW
MOUNTING Requires a lot of space, Design for adaptable angels of approach and TRANSPORT Big, heavy, no handles Handles, lower weight, assembly, adjustable
lift
MOUNTING Heavy, requires lift and placement Design for easy mounting
LIFTING Lever, legs might not support the Design for force requirements
LIFTING Does not follow standard, forces are Calculate forces displaced and use them to
required force
displaced between return and troughed measure both idlers at the same time
MEASURE DIST & Distance is not measured, only force Measurement from lift handle angle, apply
belt
FORCE concept MEASURE
MEASURE DIST & FORCE Affected when measuring upper belt Design for no affection
READING Colour display may be hard to see in Audio signals, haptics, display, gauge at
READING Display for force, no measurement Display both data results, store for data
dirty areas, has to be read during lift handle, save result for inspection after lift
transfer
DISMOUNT SEE TRANSPORT SEE TRANSPORT
DISMOUNT Extra steps, hydraulic jack release, no Handles, adapt release for purpose
ERGONOMICS Non-ergonomic transport and mount, Design for two-handed use and easy carrying handles
force might be only produced by one capabilities ERGONOMICS Heavy load, no wheels or handles SEE TRANSPORT
hand
 Appendix 2 - 14(14)

CONCEPT 27 – HYDRAULIC 3 CONCEPT 28 – HYDRAULIC 4

Upper
MEASURE DIST & Upper
TRANSPORT MOUNTING LIFTING FORCE READING DISMOUNT
1 2 4 2 0 2 MEASURE DIST &
Lower TRANSPORT
3
MOUNTING
3
LIFTING
4
FORCE
2
READING
0
DISMOUNT
4

MOUNTING LIFTING MEASURE DIST & FORCE READING DISMOUNTING ERGONOMICS Lower
0 0 0 0 0 2

DEVELOPMENT MOUNTING
0
LIFTING
0
MEASURE DIST & FORCE
0
READING
0
DISMOUNTING
0
ERGONOMICS
3

DEVELOPMENT
WHAT WHY HOW
TRANSPORT Bulky, large, heavy, moving parts, Handles, lock parts during transport,
pinch points at threads adjustable, foldable etc. WHAT WHY HOW
MOUNTING Heavy, dependent on idler distance, Design after distance requirements, lower TRANSPORT Heavy, bulky, no handles Design for easier transport, wheels, low
difficult to mount weight, design handle for easier turning the weight
screws MOUNTING Requires certain frames to work Design for universal mounting, (RAM
LIFTING Small space between threaded bars and Redesign for fit and allow plate to travel mounts?)
belt, needs redesign to fit, measures between idlers to allow two lifts LIFTING - -
between idlers measurements between mounting MEASURE DIST & None FIX
MEASURE DIST & FORCE none Allow dist and force measurements FORCE
READING None Fix it READING NONE FIX
DISMOUNT Extra steps, bulky construction, heavy See MOUNTING DISMOUNT Extra steps Quick release clamps, low weight for
lifts handling, handles
ERGONOMICS See TRANSPORT See TRANSPORT and MOUNTING ERGONOMICS Weight, mounting is difficult, see Add carrying handles, low weight, carry
TRANSPORT posture, clamp mechanics for easy
mounting
 Appendix 3 - 1(2)

Appendix 3 – Ergonomic Evaluation

Figure 1 - SIS, 2014, Ergonomic force directions [Illustration]

The concept selection uses the ergonomic thresholds stated in SIS/ISO/TR 12295:2014 which assesses
force generated by a user in order to operate without sustaining any physical injuries due to overexertion,
see Figure (SIS, 2014). The forces required were estimated by using the stated force of 150 N from
standard document 620+A1:2010 (SIS, 2010), and using a free body diagram calculation to find the
theoretical force magnitude needed to generate the mentioned amount of Newton on the lifting
component, see Figure . When deemed necessary, the lifting arm’s minimal length was derived from the
idler diameter measurements from SIS Standard 2888:1980 (SIS, 1980), to allow measurements on all
idler sizes.

Figure 2 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Free body diagram [Illustration]

The forces were compiled into a diagram, see table 6. Each calculated force was compared to the
maximum input force and a minimum relationship between the arms for input and output force was
generated, meaning for example that a certain concept may require a handle which has to be thrice the
length of the lifting arm in order to satisfy the ergonomic criteria.
 Appendix 3 - 2(2)

Table 6 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Resulting Matrix [Table]

Note: The grey cells in the matrix represent force measurements which were later inserted from the results of a field test on a belt conveyor at SSAB in Luleå.
 Appendix 4 - 1(7)

Appendix 4 – SSAB Force Test

Figure 1 – Marcus Widstrand, 2019, Belt conveyor force measurement, Photography

The experiment was conducted at SSAB’s industrial facilities in Luleå on two different belt conveyors to
find the force required to insert a tool between a carrying idler and belt. Seven different wedges were
tested with a force gauge five times each at the belt’s outer edge, centre and inner edge to investigate
forces required and how different measurement positions affects the force required.

The resulting data was recorded onto a template sheet and transcribed to the matrixes on the following
pages.
 Appendix 4 - 2(7)

Test 1 – 114
Appendix 4 - 3(7)
 Appendix 4 - 4(7)

Test 2 – MHG 110

Appendix 4 - 5(7)
 Appendix 4 - 6(7)

EXPERIMENTAL PLAN TEMPLATE

EQUIPMENT NEEDED

• Wedges
• Force gauge
• Measuring gauge
• Pencil
• Calliper

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

• Helmets
• Jacket
• Pants
• Steel-tip toed boots
• Gloves
• Eye protection
• Hearing protection
• Flashlight

STEPS:

• Measure force and lift on belt to determine if the belt follows standard. annotate result
• Measure idler size, belt thickness, belt angle from trigonometry
• Fill in form

PRE-MEASUREMENTS

Idler diameter

Belt Thickness

Idler angle ↑

↓
← →
Pre lift of belt

Distance

Force required
 Appendix 4 - 7(7)

Equipment Forces
Wedges Shape Test nr. Roller edge Roller mid Roller inner Return Idler
1
2
1 10x50
3
4
1
2
2 20x50
3
4
1
2
3 30x50
3
4
1
2
4 40x50
3
4
1
2
5 50x50
3
4
1
2
6_angle 30x50
3
4
1
2
7_round 50x50
3
4
 Appendix 5 - 1(18)

Appendix 5 - Shape Builder and FEM Analysis

Shape builder, an extension tool in Autodesk Inventor, was used to find excess material in the tool
which could be removed without sacrificing strength and durability.
Three studies were performed with different percentages of materials removed and the results were
compared to find similar areas of removed material.

Figure 1 – Samuel
Andersson, 2019, 30 %
Shape [Rendering]
 Appendix 5 - 2(18)

Figure 2 – Samuel
Andersson, 2019, 50 %
Shape [Rendering]
 Appendix 5 - 3(18)

Figure 3 – Samuel
Andersson, 2019, 60 %
Shape [Rendering]

A FEM analysis was then performed with the resulting material areas removed to ensure that the
resulting shape still has its properties.
 Appendix 5 - 4(18)

Analyzed File: Idler arm.ipt

Autodesk Inventor Version: 2020 (Build 240168000, 168)
Creation Date:
Study Author:
Summary:

Project Info (iProperties)

Summary

Project
Part Number Idler arm
Designer
Cost 0,00 kr
Date Created

Status
Design Status WorkInProgress

Physical
Material Stainless Steel
Density 8 g/cm^3
Mass 0,758025 kg
Area 36650,7 mm^2
Volume 94753,1 mm^3
x=-5,60185 mm
Center of Gravity y=-54,4522 mm
z=0,0319836 mm
Note: Physical values could be different from Physical values used by FEA reported below.

Side Force
General objective and settings:
Design Objective Single Point
Study Type Static Analysis
Last Modification Date 2020-01-04, 12:46
Detect and Eliminate Rigid Body Modes No
Mesh settings:
Avg. Element Size (fraction of model diameter) 0,1
Min. Element Size (fraction of avg. size) 0,2
Grading Factor 1,5
Max. Turn Angle 60 deg
Create Curved Mesh Elements Yes
 Appendix 5 - 5(18)

Material(s)
Name Stainless Steel
Mass Density 8 g/cm^3
General Yield Strength 250 MPa
Ultimate Tensile Strength 540 MPa
Young's Modulus 193 GPa
Stress Poisson's Ratio 0,3 ul
Shear Modulus 74,2308 GPa
Part Name(s) Idler arm 4.ipt

Operating conditions
Force:1
Load Type Force
Magnitude 75,000 N
Vector X 0,000 N
Vector Y 0,000 N
Vector Z 75,000 N

Selected Face(s)

Pin Constraint:1
Constraint Type Pin Constraint
Fix Radial Direction Yes
Fix Axial Direction Yes
Fix Tangential Direction No

Selected Face(s)
 Appendix 5 - 6(18)

Fixed Constraint:1
Constraint Type Fixed Constraint

Selected Face(s)
 Appendix 5 - 7(18)

Results
Reaction Force and Moment on Constraints
Reaction Force Reaction Moment
Constraint Name
Magnitude Component (X,Y,Z) Magnitude Component (X,Y,Z)
0N 19,1235 N m
Pin Constraint:1 75,1181 N 0N 19,1649 N m -1,25877 N m
-75,1181 N 0Nm
0,00373054 N -0,0027386 N m
Fixed Constraint:1 0,0878344 N 0,00149264 N 0,00394932 N m 0,00284481 N m
0,0877424 N -0,00006519 N m

Result Summary
Name Minimum Maximum
Volume 94753,2 mm^3
Mass 0,758026 kg
Von Mises Stress 0,000000219037 MPa 64,6239 MPa
1st Principal Stress -6,25472 MPa 66,819 MPa
3rd Principal Stress -69,1246 MPa 8,14158 MPa
Displacement 0 mm 0,596932 mm
Safety Factor 3,86854 ul 15 ul

Figures

Von Mises Stress

 Appendix 5 - 8(18)

1st Principal Stress

3rd Principal Stress

Displacement
 Appendix 5 - 9(18)

Safety Factor
 Appendix 5 - 10(18)

Lift Force
General objective and settings:
Design Objective Single Point
Study Type Static Analysis
Last Modification Date 2020-01-04, 12:46
Detect and Eliminate Rigid Body Modes No

Mesh settings:
Avg. Element Size (fraction of model diameter) 0,1
Min. Element Size (fraction of avg. size) 0,2
Grading Factor 1,5
Max. Turn Angle 60 deg
Create Curved Mesh Elements Yes
Material(s)
Name Stainless Steel
Mass Density 8 g/cm^3
General Yield Strength 250 MPa
Ultimate Tensile Strength 540 MPa
Young's Modulus 193 GPa
Stress Poisson's Ratio 0,3 ul
Shear Modulus 74,2308 GPa
Part Name(s) Idler arm 4.ipt

Operating conditions
Force:1
Load Type Force
Magnitude 150,000 N
Vector X -150,000 N
Vector Y 0,000 N
Vector Z 0,000 N

Selected Face(s)
 Appendix 5 - 11(18)

Pin Constraint:1

Constraint Type Pin Constraint

Fix Radial Direction Yes
Fix Axial Direction Yes
Fix Tangential Direction No

Selected Face(s)

Fixed Constraint:1
Constraint Type Fixed Constraint

Selected Face(s)
 Appendix 5 - 12(18)

Results
Reaction Force and Moment on Constraints
Reaction Force Reaction Moment
Constraint Name
Magnitude Component (X,Y,Z) Magnitude Component (X,Y,Z)
479,942 N 0Nm
Pin Constraint:1 583,906 N -332,569 N 0,0254034 N m 0 N m
0N -0,0254034 N m
Fixed Constraint:1 468,898 N -330,316 N 4,28116 N m -0,00631084 N m
332,801 N -0,0149276 N m
0N -4,28113 N m

Result Summary
Name Minimum Maximum
Volume 94753,2 mm^3
Mass 0,758026 kg
Von Mises Stress 0,0000588649 MPa 66,433 MPa
1st Principal Stress -6,54742 MPa 72,6471 MPa
3rd Principal Stress -72,1549 MPa 6,94223 MPa
Displacement 0 mm 0,460146 mm
Safety Factor 3,76319 ul 15 ul

Figures

Von Mises Stress

 Appendix 5 - 13(18)

1st Principal Stress

3rd Principal Stress

Displacement
 Appendix 5 - 14(18)

Safety Factor
 Appendix 5 - 15(18)

Analyzed File: Lift arm .ipt

Autodesk Inventor Version: 2020 (Build 240168000, 168)
Creation Date:
Study Author: Samuel
Summary:

Project Info (iProperties)

Summary

Author

Project
Part Number Lift arm
Designer
Cost 0,00 kr
Date Created

Status
Design Status WorkInProgress

Physical
Material Stainless Steel
Density 8 g/cm^3
Mass 0,15162 kg
Area 9983,68 mm^2
Volume 18952,5 mm^3
x=27,2974 mm
Center of Gravity y=12,5191 mm
z=0 mm
Note: Physical values could be different from Physical values used by FEA reported below.

Static Analysis:2
General objective and settings:
Design Objective Single Point
Study Type Static Analysis
Last Modification Date 2020-01-04, 12:27
Detect and Eliminate Rigid Body Modes No

Mesh settings:
Avg. Element Size (fraction of model diameter) 0,04
Min. Element Size (fraction of avg. size) 0,2
Grading Factor 1,5
Max. Turn Angle 60 deg
Create Curved Mesh Elements Yes
 Appendix 5 - 16(18)

Material(s)
Name Stainless Steel
Mass Density 8 g/cm^3
General Yield Strength 250 MPa
Ultimate Tensile Strength 540 MPa
Young's Modulus 193 GPa
Stress Poisson's Ratio 0,3 ul
Shear Modulus 74,2308 GPa
Part Name(s) Lift arm 4.ipt

Operating conditions
Force:1
Load Type Force
Magnitude 150,000 N
Vector X -52,599 N
Vector Y -140,476 N
Vector Z 0,000 N

Selected Face(s)

Fixed Constraint:1

Constraint Type Fixed Constraint

Selected Face(s)
 Appendix 5 - 17(18)

Results
Reaction Force and Moment on Constraints
Reaction Force Reaction Moment
Constraint Name
Magnitude Component (X,Y,Z) Magnitude Component (X,Y,Z)
52,5985 N 0Nm
Fixed Constraint:1 150 N 140,476 N 11,6573 N m 0 N m
0N 11,6573 N m

Result Summary
Name Minimum Maximum
Volume 18952,5 mm^3
Mass 0,15162 kg
Von Mises Stress 0,000419931 MPa 29,7317 MPa
1st Principal Stress -1,97361 MPa 17,0331 MPa
3rd Principal Stress -32,5591 MPa 1,39345 MPa
Displacement 0 mm 0,0395672 mm
Safety Factor 8,40853 ul 15 ul

Figures

Von Mises Stress

1st Principal Stress

 Appendix 5 - 18(18)

3rd Principal Stress

Displacement

Safety Factor
 Appendix 6 - 1(20)

Appendix 6 - ASA Risk Assessment Method

The Claw

Figure 1 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, The Claw [Illustration]

Object description
The product is meant to be carried by hand to the place where the measuring will occur. It will be
mounted by lifting it to the carrying- or return idler where its wedge is placed at the nip point. The
wedge will then be pushed by hand in between the belt and the idler and a wrench or screwdriver is
placed on the hex head on the tool. The lifting will be done by the user who turns the hex bolt with the
second tool while using his/her other hand to stabilize the tool. The results are displayed to the user by
two gauges, one for the force used and the other shows the distance the belt is lifted. The reading can be
done without applying any force. Dismounting the tool requires the user to unscrew the hex bolt again,
remove the wrench or screwdriver and pull the wedge out from its place between the belt and idler.
 Appendix 6 - 2(20)

Risk assessment, Risk evaluation & Remedy suggestions

Each step in the process is described using the steps Transport (T), Mounting (M), Lifting (L), Reading
(R) and Dismounting (D). These steps were then evaluated using five questions and ranked according to
high and low risk with the span from 1-5 where one is low and five is high risk.
The questions evaluated around are the following:
1. Can the product be used in a way that isn’t intended?
2. Can the product be used in an intended but unsafe way?
3. Can the product demand physical, perceptual or cognitive ability which surpasses the user’s
abilities?
4. Is the product not consistent with the user’s expectations or intuitions?
5. Can the environment affect the products function in a way that the user won’t understand?
Process steps that are required when using the tool are the following:
Tabell 1 Process steps - Risk assessment – The Claw

Transport  Carrying the tool to the location by using the handle

 Lifting the tool to the conveyor roller height
 Placing the wedge at the nip point
Mounting  Pushing the wedge in between the belt and the idler by hand
 Placing a wrench/screwdriver on the hex head
Lifting  Hold the tool steady using one hand
 Turning the bolt using the wrench
 Keep the tool steady
Reading
 Watch a gauge telling the force generated from the spring
 Watch the displacement on the lifting arm
 Unscrew the hex bolt
Dismounting
 Remove wrench
 Pull the arm out from the nip point

The risks during each process steps are then identified and ranked before suggestions for how to remove
the risks are generated.
Finally, the risks and their individual suggestions can be analysed to identify remedy areas on the product
to further develop, see table below.
 Appendix 6 - 3(20)

Table 2 Risk assessment, Risk evaluation & Remedy suggestions – The Claw
 Appendix 6 - 4(20)

Each problem were evaluated, analysed and discussed regarding how the developed concept could
increase its ergonomics and usability, at the same time implement the solutions already gathered. The
dust and dirt problem were solved by opening the sides and creating a skeleton frame, which allows the
user to clean important components.
At the same time allowing the user to easily determining if maintenance is required. Because dust and
dirt can stick to the tool, indicators such as lifting and force index are extruded to allow visibility even if
the gauge is covered in dust.
To minimize the amount of rotation that where necessary to lift the plate and remove the usage of other
tools combined with the concept. The design ended in a new mechanical lift that do not require a separate
wrench. Instead the handle has an integrated trigger which will with the help of momentum lift the
designated spring which allows force indication. After the lift is completed there is a quick release trigger
which will lift the friction stop by using a steel wire trough the handle. This allows the user to determine
the velocity of the plate during descending to its starting position. The friction stop activates automatically
thanks to a spring. To prevent pinching or that the belt hits the user on the hand during the decent, a lip
guard is placed above the handle to absorb the belt if needed. The gauge that provides data regarding the
lift and force are replaced to the side at the same position. This will provide the user to easily see both
values during implementation. The solutions to the problems where then implemented into the concept.
 Appendix 6 - 5(20)

Developed – The Claw

Figure 1 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Developed - The Claw [Illustration]

Effectiveness assertion
During this step the concept will once again be evaluated using the questions from the first risk assessment
step. To make the questions applicable to the developed concepts, a new process step list will be
constructed according the adjustments and changes that the concepts have gone through. The process
steps that are required when using the developed tool is listed in table below.
Table 1 Process steps – Effectiveness assertion Risk assessment – The Claw

Transport  Carrying the tool to the location by using the handle

 Lifting the tool to the conveyor roller height
 Placing the wedge at the nip point
Mounting
 Pushing the wedge in between the belt and the idler by hand
Lifting  Squeeze the handle repeatedly to generate lift between the belt and idler
Reading  Watch a gauge telling the force generated from the spring and the lift
 Squeeze the quick release trigger to lower the belt and returning the plate
Dismounting
to the staring position
 Drag the tool out from between the belt and idler
 Appendix 6 - 6(20)

The new process steps can now be used to make a Risk assessment, Risk evaluation and remedy table on
the developed concept, which can be seen in the table below.
Table 4 Effectiveness assertion The Claw
 Appendix 6 - 7(20)

The Vice Clamp

Figure 2 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, The Claw 2 [Illustration]

Object description
The product is meant to be carried by hand to the place where the measuring will occur. It will be
mounted by lifting it to the carrying- or return idler where its wedge is placed at the nip point. The
wedge will then be pushed by hand in between the belt and the idler. The adjustment button is then
pressed to allow the support arm to grasp the idler from underneath. When the tool is in place and
mounted to the idler, a torque wrench will be calibrated to release when the force of the lifting power
of the plate exceeds 150 N. The torque wrench can then be mounted on the hex head.
The lifting will be done by the user who turns the hex bolt until either the force limit is reached or the
distance at the nip-point is cleared. The result is displayed by a gauge that tells the distance which the
plate has traveled, while the force is only revealed if it exceeds the calibrated value. When dismounting
the tool, the torque wrench is first removed. Then the adjustment button can be pressed to release the
pressure on the idler. This allows the user to drag the tool out from the idler and the belt.

Risk assessment, Risk evaluation & Remedy suggestions

Each step in the process is described using the steps Transport (T), Mounting (M), Lifting (L), Reading
(R) and Dismounting (D). These steps were then evaluated using five questions and ranked according to
high and low risk with the span from 1-5 where one is low and five is high risk.
 Appendix 6 - 8(20)

The questions evaluated around are the following:

1. Can the product be used in a way that isn’t intended?
2. Can the product be used in an intended but unsafe way?
3. Can the product demand physical, perceptual or cognitive ability which surpasses the user’s
abilities?
4. Is the product not consistent with the user’s expectations or intuitions?
5. Can the environment affect the products function in a way that the user won’t understand?
Process steps that are required when using the tool are the following:
Table 5 Process steps - Risk assessment – The Claw 2

Transport  Carrying the tool to the location

 Lifting the tool to the conveyor roller height
 Placing the wedge at the nip point
 Pushing the wedge in between the belt and the idler by hand
 Adjust the support arm until it is in contact with the idler
Mounting
 Calibrate the torque wrench to release when the plate exceeds more than
150 N of pressure.
 Place a torque wrench on the hex head
Lifting  Turning the bolt using the torque wrench
 Keep the tool steady
Reading
 Watch a gauge telling the distance which the plate has travelled or until the
torque wrench has exceeded the calibrated value
 Relieve the torque wrench
Dismounting  Remove wrench
 Adjust the support arm until it is no longer in contact with the idler
 Drag the tool out from the belt and idler

The risks during each process steps are then identified and ranked before suggestions for how to remove
the risks are generated.
Finally, the risks and their individual suggestions can be analysed to identify remedy areas on the product
to further develop, see table below.
 Appendix 6 - 9(20)

Table 6 Risk assessment, Risk evaluation & Remedy Suggestions - The Claw 2
 Appendix 6 - 10(20)

Each problem was evaluated, analysed and discussed regarding how the developed concept could increase
its ergonomics and usability, at the same time implement the solutions already gathered. Regarding dust
and dirt problem, the mechanical parts are now more visible to allow for easier maintenance and
understanding of when maintenance is required. The design also allows for easy disassembly if needed.
To lower the amount of rotation required, both the belt and idler arm will move in opposite direction
during lift. This will reduce the required rotation angle by half. By calculations the concept needed
around 143 degrees rotation which would not be conceivable, instead the new required rotational angle
is 71 degrees. The solutions to the problems where then implemented into the concept.
 Appendix 6 - 11(20)

Developed – The Vice Clamp

Figure 2 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Developed - The Claw 2 [Illustration]

Effectiveness assertion
During this step the concept will once again be evaluated using the questions from the first risk assessment
step. To make the questions applicable to the developed concepts, a new process step list will be
constructed according the adjustments and changes that the concepts have gone through. The process
steps that are required when using the developed tool is listed in table below.
 Appendix 6 - 12(20)

Table 7 Process steps – Effectiveness assertion Risk assessment – The Claw 2

Transport  Carrying the tool to the location

 Calibrate the torque wrench to the specific value so that it releases at 150 N
pressure of the plate
 Lifting the tool to the conveyor roller height
 Placing the wedge at the nip point
Mounting
 Pushing the wedge in between the belt and the idler by hand
 Adjusting the support arm until it’s in contact with the idler
 Mounting the torque wrench with appropriate angle
 Turn the torque wrench downwards to generate lift between the idler and
Lifting
belt
 Keep the tool steady
Reading  If the force exceeds the calibrated value of the torque wrench, then the lift
is read. If the force is not exceeded the lift distance should be 50 mm
 Relieve the torque wrench of any applied force
Dismounting  Remove wrench
 Adjust the support arm until it is no longer in contact with the idler
 Drag the tool out from the belt and idler

The new process steps can now be used to make a Risk assessment, Risk evaluation and remedy table on
the developed concept.
 Appendix 6 - 13(20)

Tabell 8 Effectiveness assertion The Claw 2

 Appendix 6 - 14(20)

The Tang

Figure 3 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, The Tang [Illustration]

Object description
The concept is carried by hand to the measuring location and lifted to the carrying- or return idler. The
lifting- and the idler arm with their plate ends are inserted between the belt and the idler by hand and a
calibrated torque wrench is placed in the attachment square point.
The handle and the torque wrench are moved together and the plate and the idler arm separate, causing
a lift to occur between the belt and the idler. The torque wrench notifies if the force threshold is reached,
and the angle of the plate arms communicate the distance lifted.
The handle and the wrench are moved back to the initial state and the plates move together again. The
wrench is removed from the tool and the handle is used to pull the plates out from the nip point.
 Appendix 6 - 15(20)

Risk assessment, Risk evaluation & Remedy suggestions

Each step in the process is described using the steps Transport (T), Mounting (M), Lifting (L), Reading
(R) and Dismounting (D). These steps were then evaluated using five questions and ranked according to
high and low risk with the span from 1-5 where one is low and five is high risk.
The questions evaluated around are the following:
1. Can the product be used in a way that isn’t intended?
2. Can the product be used in an intended but unsafe way?
3. Can the product demand physical, perceptual or cognitive ability which surpasses the user’s
abilities?
4. Is the product not consistent with the user’s expectations or intuitions?
5. Can the environment affect the products function in a way that the user won’t understand?
Process steps that are required when using the tool are the following:
Table 9 Process steps - Risk assessment – The Tang

Transport  Carrying the tool and torque wrench to the location

 Calibrate the torque wrench
 Mount the torque wrench to the tool
Mounting  Lifting the tool to the conveyor roller height
 Placing the wedge at the nip point
 Pushing the wedge in between the belt and the idler by using the handles
 Grab handle and torque wrench and squeeze them together to generate lift
Lifting  Lift until the distance is cleared or the torque wrench exceeds the calibrated
force
 Read the distance from the gauge
 The force is only noticed if it exceeds the calibrated value of the torque
Reading
wrench, which translates to the amount of force given between the belt and
idler.
 Separate the handles so that the plates are brought together
Dismounting
 Drag the tool out from between the belt and idler

The risks during each process steps are then identified and ranked before suggestions for how to remove
the risks are generated.
Finally, the risks and their individual suggestions can be analysed to identify remedy areas on the product
to further develop, see table below.
 Appendix 6 - 16(20)

Table 10 Risk assessment, Risk evaluation & Remedy suggestions - The Tang
 Appendix 6 - 17(20)

Each problem were evaluated, analysed and discussed regarding how the developed concept could
increase its ergonomics and usability, at the same time implement the solutions already gathered. The
biggest problem that needed to be solved where the work area necessary to perform the lift. By changing
the positions of the torque wrench and the other handle, the work area could be restricted. The handle
became an integrated support against the idler, similar to The Claw there is an angle support which allows
a minimum of two and a maximum of three contact points to the idler during the lift, this also indicates
the right position when inserting the tool in between the belt and idler. To make the insertion easier for
the user a handle is placed in the back end of the tool. This allows a horizontal force towards the insertion
point and a handle during the removal. To decrease the possibility of pinching the support handle hand
with the torque wrench, an extrusion was made to remove the possibility of the handles coming in
contact with each other. The plate is no longer connected by a hinge, and instead integrated in the lifting
arm. This will make the insertion process easier and more stable during lift, but the tool gets restricted to
only measure a distance of 50 millimetres which is the requested value.
 Appendix 6 - 18(20)

Developed – The Tang

Figure 3 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Developed - The Tang [Illustration]

 Appendix 6 - 19(20)

Effectiveness assertion
During this step the concept will once again be evaluated using the questions from the first risk assessment
step. To make the questions applicable to the developed concepts, a new process step list will be
constructed according the adjustments and changes that the concepts have gone through. The process
steps that are required when using the developed tool is listed in table below.
Table 11 Process steps – Effectiveness assertion Risk assessment – The Tang

Transport  Carrying the tool and torque wrench to the location

 Calibrate the torque wrench
 Mount the torque wrench to the tool
Mounting  Lifting the tool to the conveyor roller height
 Placing the wedge at the nip point
 Pushing the wedge in between the belt and the idler by using the handles
 Grab handle and torque wrench and squeeze them together to generate lift
Lifting  Lift until the distance is cleared or the torque wrench exceeds the calibrated
force
 Read the distance from the gauge
 The force is only noticed if it exceeds the calibrated value of the torque
Reading
wrench, which translates to the amount of force given between the belt and
idler.
 Separate the handles so that the plates are brought together
Dismounting
 Drag the tool out from between the belt and idler using the handle

The new process steps can now be used to make a Risk assessment, Risk evaluation and remedy table on
the developed concept.
 Appendix 6 - 20(20)

Tabell 12 Effectiveness assertion The Tang

 Appendix 7 - 1(1)

Appendix 7 – Pairwise Comparison

 Appendix 8 - 1(4)

Appendix 8 - Force and Torque Calculations

A series of calculations were performed in order to correctly determine the force input required to rotate
the square hole and the lifting arm, allowing the plate to exert force on the belt. Since the selection of
belts used by different conveyors is quite large with different methods and internal structure; it is very
hard to determine a unified measurement of a belt’s flexibility, weight and so on (ISO, 2016). This in
turn complicated the force calculations since it was deemed almost impossible and not within the scope
and time limit of the project to determine how the belt would interact with the plate during the lift. The
plate is inserted at an angle and is raised to a state parallel to the floor where it will have contact with the
belt on all of its surface. It is, however, not certain that the belt will be in contact with the plate’s surface
from the beginning but the assumption was made that the belt which has a chance of fulfilling the
620+A1:2010 standard (SIS, 2010), will be flexible enough to have contact with the plate’s front and rear
edges at all times. This places the resulting force point of calculation at the centre of the plate, a point
which remains unchanged as the plate makes full contact with the belt and the force turns into a spread
out force due to the method of calculation torque on spread out forces (Q).

Figure 1 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Free body of lifting arm [Illustration]

To calculate the torque necessary to lift the belt, a free body analysis was made on the lifting arm at 50
mm lifting height at the threshold load of 𝑄 = 150 𝑁, see Figure (SIS, 2010). Torque, 𝑇, is defined as
a force exerting pressure on a point on a rigid object, multiplied with the distance from said point to the
pivot point of said object.

𝑇 =𝐹∗𝐿 (1)

The length 𝐿 between the force point and the pivot axis as well as the angle of the pivot arm at 50 mm
was measured using the CAD drawing in Inventor.

𝐿 = 103,08 𝑚𝑚 (2)

α = 41,07 deg (3)

 Appendix 8 - 2(4)

Figure 2 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Force resultant on torque axis [Illustration]

The force 𝐹 generates and how its resulting force 𝐹 affects the torque required is dependent on the angle
α, see Figure . 𝑄 is converted to the point force 𝐹 which is defined as a vertical force of 150 N. The
required force generated by the lifting arm 𝐹 is defined from trigonometry as:

𝐹 = (4)
( )

The required torque is therefore calculated as:

𝑇 = 𝐹 ∗𝐿 (5)

𝑇= ∗ 𝐿 (6)
( )

𝑇= ∗ 103,08𝑒 − 3 (7)
( , )

𝑇 = 20,51 𝑁𝑚

So, in order to lift the belt with 150 N at 50 mm height, we need to subject the lifting arm to 20,51 Nm
at its pivot point. Should the torque surpass this value, standard 620+A1:2010 is not met and additional
safety measures is required (SIS, 2010).
This result however only describes the required calibration needed to set a torque wrench to in order to
assess if the standard is fulfilled. Since the resulting force 𝐹 is affected by the angle α, and since that
angle increases with the height lifted, the torque threshold caused a different force to be exerted.
By transforming formula (7), it is also possible to calculate the force used to lift the belt on different
heights.
∗ ( , )
𝐹 = (8)
,
 Appendix 8 - 3(4)

From the formula (8) we learn that if the angle increases, the force required to generate 20.51 Nm
decreases. This means that if the torque wrench should reach its threshold during the lift before a height
of 50 mm, the force generated on the belt will be higher than 150 N. This renders any measuring of how
high the belt can be lifted with 150 N very difficult to accomplish. We can calculate the necessary torque
needed to lift the belt with 150 N at different heights by using formula (7) and adjusting the angle α to
change the height and from there visualize the relation between lifting height and force required with a
simple graph, see Figure .

Figure 3 – Samuel Andersson, 2019, Diagram force – Height [Illustration]

From the results we find that a resulting force of 150 Newton aligned perpendicular to the belt is reached
with torque values which varies between approximately 16 – 21 Nm.
By measuring the rotation point’s vertical displacement from the height which the lift is measured from,
we can used formula (7) together with the displacement height, ℎ = 17,72 𝑚𝑚 and trigonnometry to
create a universal formula to discern what the torque setting should be to react to a certain force 𝐹 used
at a certain height, ℎ ,

= sin(𝛼) (9)

ℎ =ℎ +ℎ (10)

𝛼 = arcsin = arcsin ( ) (11)

Insertion of formula into formula (8) with constants gives:

 Appendix 8 - 4(4)

,
∗ ( ( )
,
𝐹 = (12)
,

Which translates to:

∗ ,
𝑇= , (13)
( ( )
,