Experimental Investigations on the Effect of Wheel Size on an Industrial Trolley

  • Wilson Kumar MasepoguEmail author
  • Mona Sahu
  • Santhiyagu Joseph Vijay
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Manual material handling using push–pull trolleys in small- and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs) has become an inevitable activity. A study was carried out to find the best wheel size in pushing a newly developed industrial trolley. Three various wheels of sizes 100, 125 and 150 mm diameters were used in this study. The results present the best wheel size and comfortable handle height of the trolley for five subjects of different stature at five varying loads. Experiments were conducted in a laboratory for a selected population of five subjects with a varying stature 1650, 1740, 1780, 1790 and 1820 mm, with five different loads 75, 156, 188, 219 and 250 kg and with five different handle heights 900, 950, 1000, 1100 and 1150 mm. Handle height of 1100 mm and a 150 mm diameter wheel size was found to be better in reducing the effort required in pushing the trolley and in reducing the discomfort experienced by the subjects.


Manual material handling Wheel size Heart rate (HR) EMG Industrial trolley 


  1. 1.
    Kumar, P., Maiti, J.: Ergonomic design of products and work systems. 21st Century perspectives of Asia, Springer ISBN 978-981-10-5457-0 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argubi-Wollesen, A., Wollesen, B., Leitner, M., Mattes, K.: Human body mechanics of pushing and pulling: analyzing the factors of the task-related strain on the Musculoskeletal system. Saf. Health Work. 8, 11–18 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chow, A.Y., Dickerson, C.R.: Determinants and magnitudes of manual force strengths and joint moments during two-handed standing maximal horizontal pushing and pulling. Ergonomics 59(4), 534–544 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halloran, R.O., Tedja, I.: Reducing manual handling injury risk through trolley design in anatomy teaching laboratory. Australian Universities Safety Association Conference, Queenstown (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Somnath, G., Dev, S.: Design and evaluation of ergonomic interventions for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders in India. Ann. Occup. Environ. Medicine 26, 18., 2014
  6. 6.
    Lin, C.L., Chen, M.S., Wei, Y.L., Wang, M.J.J.: The evaluation of force exertions and muscle activities when operating a manual-guided vehicle. Appl. Ergon. 41, 313–318 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douglas, C.: Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th Edn. Wiley Inc., ISBN 978-1-118-14692-7 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jansen, J.P., Hoozemans, M.J., van der Beek, A.J., Frings-Dresen, M.H.: Evaluation of ergonomic adjustments of catering carts to reduce external pushing forces. Appl. Ergon. 33, 117–127 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bedny, Gregory Z., Karwowski, Waldemar, Seglin, Mark H.: A heart rate evaluation approach to determine the cost-effectiveness of an ergonomics intervention. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 7(2), 121–133 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balogh, I., Ohlsson, K., Nordander, C., Skerfving, S., Hansson, G.A.: Precision of measurements of physical workload during standardized manual handling Part III: goniometry of wrists. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 19(5), 1005–1012 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilson Kumar Masepogu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mona Sahu
    • 1
  • Santhiyagu Joseph Vijay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKarunya Institute of Technology and ScienceCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations