92% of the total population use the hoe in various types of agricultural activities.Bending with twisting while doing the task, is more hazardous to human health and cause of the musculoskeletal disorder, injuries, and back related problems. The NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) reports ‘Back’ related injuries frequently happen while using these types of equipment.To minimize these injuries there is a need to develop a protocol for the design and development of traditional aids like a hoe, sickle, and spade, etc.

1. Design Protocol for Redesign the Traditional
Weeding Hoe
Prepared
by
Aman Kumar
Student of NIT Rourkela
Presentation
on

2. CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Motivation
• Objective
• Literature Review
• Methodology
• Work Done
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusion
• Reference

3. INTRODUCTION
• The Indian farming employs 225 million workforce to cover 140 million hectares of total
cultivated land.
• In spite of rapid farm mechanization e.g., 149 million farm machinery, the vast resource-poor
family farming has primary dependence on traditional methods e.g., 520 million hand tools and
37 million animal-drawn implements [1].
• In a general concern, a sequential hierarchy of the hand tools from most frequent to least
frequent used in farming was sickles (100 %), hoes (92 %), big knifes (69.3%), Shovels
(23.5%), sprayers (19 %) and harrows (17 %) and these are made most common farming tools
for the sharecroppers or landless farmers [2].
• Most of the traditional hoes are not designed ergonomically and adhere awkward posture during
various agricultural activities. It born postural stress due to back bending with twisting, wrist
bending and neck bending, etc. and these stresses are the cause of many unexpected injuries,
such as musculoskeletal disorder, carpal tunnel syndrome and back injuries [3].

4. Cont.
• Farmers feel discomfort in their different body parts while using these types of agricultural
tools. They complained that fatigue is observed by them in their lower back (92%), mid back
(94%) and upper back (93%) [2].
Fig. 1. Bending of body parts occurred during the weeding with a
Traditional Hoe.

5. MOTIVATION
• 92% of total population use hoe in various types of agricultural activities.
• In this concern, it is stated that ergonomic principles are generally omitted in design of hand
tools because of the hypothesis and belief that inbuilt into users about the tools is a long span of
practice by these aids have produced an optimal compatibility for human use [4].
• Bending with twisting while doing the task, is more hazardous for human health and cause of
musculoskeletal disorder, injuries and back related problems. The NIOSH (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health) reports ‘Back’ related injuries frequently happen while using
these types of equipment [3].
• Newsweek reports that the treatment of back and neck pain consumes annual cost $85.9 billion
in 2005 [5].
• To minimize these injuries there is a need to develop a protocol for the design and development
of traditional aids like hoe, sickle and spade, etc.

6. OBJECTIVE
• The objective of this project is to reduce back bending and wrist bending by redesigning the hoe
in an ergonomic perspective. In order to achieve the objective, ergonomics and human factors
concepts are applied in the design.

7. LITERATURE
S. No. Author/s Year of
Publication
Important Finding
1. Jiang, Y. C. 2011 This study gives an excellent statistical analysis of how
differences in different populations need to be
considered for tool design and how important it is [3].
2. Chang et al. 1999 Hollow fiberglass handle is12% more efficient than
either the wood handle or the solid fiberglass handle [6].
3. Sanders, M. S., &
McCormick, E. J.
1987 The handle should be bent, and the wrist should not be
bent [7]. This can directly reduce the number of injuries
to the hands.
4. Kong, Y. K., &
Lowe, B. D.
2005 The study of cylindrical handle diameter illustrates that
a 40 millimeter diameter handle is the most comfortable
for males and a 35 millimeter diameter handle is the
most comfortable for females [8].

8. LITERATURE
S. No. Author/s Year of
Publication
Important Finding
5. Vanderwal
et al.
2011 The hoe length is one of the most important factors of the
design. Appropriate length would minimize stress and
fatigue. The result shows a longer hoe with 141 centimeters
requires much less time to complete the same task than the
shorter hoe with 49 centimeters [9].
6. Bhattachary
a, A., &
McGlothlin,
J. D.
2012 Material selection is very important. The occupational
ergonomic guideline suggests the weight of the shovel should
be below 1.5 kg [10].
7. Sen, R. N.,
& Sahu, S.
1996 An ergonomic evaluation demonstrates that multi-purpose
tool is capable to perform the same task as hoe and shovel
[11].

9. LITERATURE
S. No. Author/s Year of
Publication
Important Finding
8. Nwuba, E. I.
U., & Kaul,
R. N.
1986 The formulae is given for calculating the spinal extensor
muscle force and the lumbosacral joint reaction for trunk
flexing at angle Ѳ with the horizontal while lifting a load L
[12].

10. METHODOLOGY
Survey: Use of
Hoe
Problems
Identifications
Establishment of
Design Protocol
Collect the Responses of
Farmers: Prototype
Testing
Investigate the
Anthropometric Data
Drawing for the New
Design
Preparation for CAD
model
Prototype
Manufacturing

11. WORK DONE
1. User Research
• In this research, a group of 10 farmers is convinced to provide their responses.
• Responses of all farmers are collected after using the traditional hoe in weeding operation.
2. Problems Identification
• It is identified that all the farmers have pain in their wrist, back, and neck.
Fig. 2. A farmer using traditional hoe in weeding the grass in his field.

12. Cont.
3. Establishment of Design Protocol
3.1. Problem Statement
3.2. Investigation of Anthropometric Data
• Anthropometric data is very important and
useful to identify the desired appropriate
dimensions.
• These data are carried out form the book “Indian
Anthropometric Dimensions: For Ergonomic
Design Practice” [13].
1038 mm
104 mm
245 mm
50 mm
514 mm
• The purpose of this project is to create an
ergonomic solution to the existing hoe.
• It should be beneficial to the users and should
reduce wrist, back and neck bending.
Fig. 3. Anthropometric Data Measurement

13. Cont.
S. No. Part Name Figure
1. Blade
adjustment
strap
2. Handle
support strap
3. Handle and
Extension
4. Wheel to
Blade support
5. Round strap
S. No. Part Name Figure
6. Blade
7. Wheel
8. Axle
9. Blade support
Fig. 4. CAD model of the New
Designed Hoe.
3.3. Design of Hoe in CAD

14. Cont.
3.4. Prototype Manufacturing of Hoe
• After designing all the parts of Hoe in Catia, these
are provided to the manufacturer with all the
specification and dimensions.
• Most of the parts are made of cast iron due to its
easy availability and cost effectively.
• Complete cost of the manufacturing is Rs.1500 in
which material cost is Rs.500 and Labor and
Assembly cost is Rs.1000.
Fig.5. Manufactured Prototype of the New Designed
Hoe.

15. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Prototype Testing
• A prototype was used to take the farmers’ responses. After giving the instructions of use,
responses of farmers were collected.
• Each response was collected in a comparative manner with new designed hoe and traditional
one, to provide it to weight from 1 to 10 (minimum to maximum) to measure the level of
usability, satisfaction, and pain/discomfort.
7
8
7
9
8
9
8
6
8
6 6
8
9
8
7
5
6 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a b c d e f g h i
Weightage
Sujects
usability of new design usability of traditional design
Fig. 6. Response to Usability
8 8
7
9
8 8 8
6
9
5
4
5
3
6
4
6
5
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
a b c d e f g h i
Weightage
Sujects
satisfaction to new design satisfaction to traditional design
Fig. 7. Response to Satisfaction

16. Cont.
3
2 2 2
3 3
2
3
2
8
9 9 9
8 8
9
8
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
a b c d e f g h i
Weightage
subjects
pain with new design pain with traditional design
Fig. 8. Response to Pain
• The efficiency of the new design was measured in such a way that how much work was done in
20 minutes as compared to traditional hoe.
• A sugarcane crop field was taken for the weeding operation. Sugarcane is planted into the lanes
of approximate 30 cm wide to each other.
• Each lane of the chosen field was 30m long. So it can be determined that each gap area is
approximate 9 m2.
• Response to efficiency is measured in such a way that how much area is weeded by the farmers
with new designed hoe and traditional hoe.
27
31.5
24.75
29.25
27
29.25
31.5
22.5
27.9
18
20.25
15.75
18
20.25 20.25
22.5
18
15.75
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
a b c d e f g h i
Areainsquaremeter
Subjects
Area weeded by new designed hoe in 20 minutes
Area weeded by traditional hoe in 20 minutes
Fig. 9. Area weeded by New Designed Hoe and Traditional Hoe.

17. Cont.
7
6.1
7.1
4.1
2.2
7.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Weightage
Usability level Satisfaction Level Pain or Discomfort level
Average of responses
New Design
Hoe
Traditional
Hoe
Fig. 10. Comparative analysis of New design Hoe and Traditional Hoe.

18. CONCLUSION
• On the basis of this study it can be concluded that most of the sharecroppers and tenants
usually do their work by using traditional methods of farming.
• Although 92% farmers used Hoe of weeding, soil removing, spading, etc.
• These old techniques of farming are the causes of musculoskeletal disorder and some of the
chronic and acute injuries.
• The design is created after evaluating the existing hoe, and then a prototype is built to take the
response of the users.
• New designed Hoe is about 50 % more effective to complete the weeding process as compared
to Traditional Hoe.

19. REFERENCES
1. Nag, P. K., & Nag, A. (2004). Drudgery, accidents and injuries in Indian agriculture. Industrial Health, 42(2), 149-162.
2. Wibowo, R. K. K., & Soni, P. (2016). Farmers’ Injuries, Discomfort and Its Use in Design of Agricultural Hand Tools: A Case Study from East Java,
Indonesia. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 9, 323-327.
3. Jiang, Y. C. (2011). Ergonomic Improvement on the Farm/Garden Hoe.
4. Freivalds, A. (1986). The ergonomics of shovelling and shovel design—a review of the literature. Ergonomics, 29(1), 3-18.
5. Springen, K. (2008). The Price of Pain. Newsweek Web Exclusive.
6. Chang, S. R., Park, S., & Freivalds, A. (1999). Ergonomic evaluation of the effects of handle types on garden tools. International journal of industrial
ergonomics, 24(1), 99-105.
7. Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1987). Human factors in engineering and design. McGRAW-HILL book company.
8. Kong, Y. K., Lowe, B. D., Lee, S. J., & Krieg, E. F. (2007). Evaluation of handle design characteristics in a maximum screwdriving torque task. Ergonomics, 50(9),
1404-1418.
9. Vanderwal, L., Rautiainen, R., Kuye, R., Peek-Asa, C., Cook, T., Ramirez, M., ... & Donham, K. (2011). Evaluation of long-and short-handled hand hoes for land
preparation, developed in a participatory manner among women vegetable farmers in The Gambia. Applied ergonomics, 42(5), 749-756.
10. Bhattacharya, A., & McGlothlin, J. D. (2012). Occupational ergonomics: theory and applications. CRC Press.
11. Sen, R. N., & Sahu, S. (1996). Ergonomic evaluation of a multipurpose shovel-cum-hoe for manual material handling. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 17(1), 53-58.
12. Nwuba, E. I. U., & Kaul, R. N. (1986). The effect of working posture on the Nigerian hoe farmer. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 33(3), 179-185.
13. Chakrabarti, D. (1997). Indian anthropometric dimensions for ergonomic design practice. National institute of design.