p14045: mobile pediatric stander
DESCRIPTION
P14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander. System Design Review. Agenda. I ntroduction Background/Problem statement Customer Requirements Engineering Requirements Benchmarking Specs Functional Decomposition Concept Generation/Selection System Architecture Risk Assessment Engineering Analysis - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
P14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander
System Design Review
● Introduction● Background/Problem statement● Customer Requirements● Engineering Requirements● Benchmarking Specs● Functional Decomposition● Concept Generation/Selection● System Architecture● Risk Assessment● Engineering Analysis● Test Plan Outline● Project Schedule
Agenda
14045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13 2
Greg Roeth: Project Manager/Mechanical Engineer
Alex Hebert: Lead Mechanical Engineer
Emily Courtney: Mechanical Engineer
Martha Vargas: Lead Electrical Engineer
John Daley: Electrical Engineer
Who’s who?
314045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Predominantly pre-school kids with Cerebral Palsy (CP)
• CP is a “non progressive brain disorder” caused by damage to a developing braino disconnection between muscles and the brain
wide range of motor skills/controlo condition typically doesn’t worsen or improve over
time• Some users are on the Autism spectrum as well
Project Background
*taken from familymedicinehelp.com
Who will use our mobilized standers?
*taken from cprochester.org 414045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
• Teaching Style:- Push In vs. Pull Out
• Happier Kids• Physiological and
psychological benefits to standing vs. sitting
Snug Seat Product Guide 2013
What is a mobile pediatric stander?Project Background
514045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Problem Statement:
● A motorized pediatric stander is a device similar to a wheelchair, meant to assist a disabled child to move around their environment in an upright position. The device should be able to provide safe, comfortable, and smooth transportation of the passenger, with the ability to be controlled by a third party. A previous prototype used buttons to control its movement, but the start/stop was found to be very jerky and the stander did not track straight. The remote control functionality was attempted, but was not fully implemented. Safety features were not fully developed.
● The goals for this project are to modify the existing prototype to include better safety features such as collision detection and a remote control for a third party. Since there are no standing patents on automated standers key constraints are cost and weight of the components we add.
Project Background
614045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Customer Requirements
714045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
814045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Benchmarking Old Systems
914045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
1014045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
1114045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
http://images.worldofapple.com/
https://www.ssidisplays.com/
http://www.etac.com/
1214045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Control System Mounting
1314045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Pros:● Avoids sharp corners adjustable● Multi Size
Cons:● potential break down● weight restrictions
Gooseneck Arm
http://www.1800wheelchair.com/
1414045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Pros:● Fully Adjustable
Cons:● Limited Orientation● iPad only
Swivel Arm
http://www.rehabmart.com/
1514045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Pro:● wide workspace
Cons:● Fixed ● Doesn’t move out of the way● toucan only
Snug Seat Tray
1614045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Concept Selection Process
1714045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Magnetic tray● Swappable
Touchpad/iPad● Collapsible
Final Concept
1814045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
1914045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Electronics Housing - Current Design Pros:
1) Battery is secure
Cons:1) Components and wires
are exposed2) Battery tray is rusty
and sharp3)Battery tray in way of
stander angle adjustment 2014045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Electronics Housing - Option 1Pros:
1) Battery is secure, yet accessible2) One box, One location3) Baffles allow airflow and provide spill
protectionCons:1) Need to create mounting area2) May interfere with folding control mount
2114045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Pros:1) All components
contained and separate
2) Utilizes available mounting space
3) Utilizes current battery tray mounting
Electronics Housing - Option 2
*taken from tadpoleadaptive.com
Cons:1) Multiple parts, multiple locations (3)
*taken from ozprodrivers.com.au
*tak
en fr
om12
3rf.c
om
2214045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Electronics Housing - Option 3
Pros:1) Battery is secure,
yet accessible and separate
2) One location - utilizes current tray mounting
Cons:1) Cumbersome - may interfere with angle adjust
+
a.b.
2314045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Electronics Housing - Concept selection
vs.vs.
+
vs. vs.
2414045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
2514045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Current Design:Pros:● Already implemented on
stander.● Integrates well with parallax
motor bearing block.Cons:● Stander had to be roughly
modified for assembly.● Assembly and stander
adaptation is difficult.
We would like to implement a solution that integrates with the stander and the motor mounts in an easier way.
Wheel System
2614045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Concept 1: New Bracket
New Wheel Mount Concepts
Pros:● More easily attaches to
stander● Doesn’t require
modification to stander parts
Cons● Potentially difficult to
manufacture
2714045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Concept 2: New Adapter
New Wheel Mount Concepts
Pros:● More easily attaches to
stander● Doesn’t require
modification to stander parts
● Utilizes existing adapter block
Cons:● Potential difficulty of
assembly.
2814045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
New Wheel Mount Concepts
2914045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● From the preliminary Pugh charts, it seems like the new adapter is the way to go.
● Still to-do○ Measure existing stander mounts○ Perform preliminary engineering
analysis on current designs.
New Wheel Mount Concepts
3014045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
3114045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Last Year’s Group: Stellaris● Fully developed Board, lots of unnecessary additions● Used Ti’s Code Composer● Expensive, mitigated by the MCU contest (now finished)
ContendersLaunchpad - Stellaris or MSP430
● TI products - similar to last years group● Cheap● Lots of add-ons, lots of support
Arduino● Lots of add-ons● Extensive libraries, easy to use
Raspberry Pi● single board computer (overkill)● Linux environment
STM32 F3● ARM processor similar to last years
Microprocessor
*image from mouser.com
3214045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Microprocessor
*images from wiki.ti.com, en.wikipedia.org, jaunty-electronics.com, bit-tech.net 3314045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
3414045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Bluetooth Module
Images from robotshop.com,, processors.wiki.ti.com/, bluegiga.com,, and sparkfun.com, 3514045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
3614045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Control Scheme - Pugh Concept Selection Decision Matrix
Cited Sources: Imageshttp://www.etac.com/upload/NL-Etac/E800/Wheelchair-accessories-R-NET-Controller-Joystick-36-0.jpghttp://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/1460607/22277139/0/1309847401/Programmable_Control_System_Wireless_Touch_Screen.jpghttps://www.ssidisplays.com/sites/default/files/img_2352.jpghttp://images.worldofapple.com/http://i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/1246873025_1/6-pcs-of-60mm-lighted-font-b-button-b-font-font-b-Illuminated-b-font-round.jpg
3714045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Custom design based on P13045.● Reduce size and adapt
ergonomically to user.● Use same uController as main system.
Remote Control
Last year’s model consisted on a TI Stellaris Launchpad controller encased in a box with 5
buttons and two switches.
3814045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme
Concept Selection
3914045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
4014045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
System architecture: Level 1
4114045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
4214045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Risk AssessmentID Risk Item Effect Cause L S I Action to Minimize Risk Owner
1 Damage to electronics Loss of injured component, increase in cost to replace items
Overloads, water, blunt force trauma, gunshots, angry group members
3 2 6 Work on electronics in a lab and use proper ESD protection, design protective casing, Perform weather test very carefully and without electronics.
Group split
2 Motors don’t drive straight
User had to compensate, or device is unusable
Poor software development
1 3 3 Proper testing EEs
3 Damage to stander Increased cost/time Crashing, improper operation, ill considered modifications
1 3 3 Proper planning and testing only in controlled environment, design reviews before proposed modifications,
Group split
4 Injuring user
Loss of test subject, possible end of project, lawsuit
Improper operation, improper design
1 3 3 Design correct specs, tests of modifications, tested by dummy before patient
Group split
5 Injuring bystander Possible end of project, lawsuit
Improper operation, improper design
1 3 3 Design correct specs, test in controlled environment
Group split
6 Software is buggy Device could not function, could just have quirks
little experience in programming
2 2 4 Have expert review over software, pull in extra resources around RIT
EEs
4314045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Risk Assessment (Cont.)ID Risk Item Effect Cause L S I Action to Minimize Risk Owner
7 Work not completed on time
Loss of time and goodwill in group, failure to complete project fully
Poor planning and time management
2 3 6 In depth project plan that is FOLLOWED Everyone
8 Lack of funds Can’t buy components
overspending, lack of support from sponsor
1 2 2 Good project plan, very awesome faculty guide
Leads
9 Inconsistent team priorities
Wasted time and money, interpersonal tension
Lack of team values, poor communications, poor management/planning
1 2 2 Weekly meetings Leads and Guides
10 Customer changes mind in focuses
Wasted time, product does not satisfy customer
Poor communication with Linda/Steve, bad problem statement
1 3 3 Meet with Linda and Email her on major project updates and major branches of development
11 Conflicting customer ideas
Compromises that leave everyone dissatisfied
Poor communication between Linda and Steve
3 1 3 Include Dr. Day and Linda on meetings and design reviews, encourage dialogue in email
4414045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Risk Assessment (Cont.)ID Risk Item Effect Cause L S I Action to Minimize Risk Owner
12 Processor Change Loss of time due to changed code, more money and development costs
Choice made too quickly and too early in development
1 2 2 Make code in higher level language, such as C instead of assembly
13 Tipping Injuring user, damage to stander, especially upper portions
Poorly thought out modifications, too much acceleration
1 3 3 Do better testing and survey the usage site. Make sure deceleration is not very large, govern the speed.
14 Battery Overheating Damage to Electronics
Poor Airflow, too much insulation and overuse
1 3 3 Monitor temperature, thermal shut offs, good enclosure design, don’t use a li-po
15 Dangerous Stander Design
Injuring user Sharp edges and loose connection (electrical and mechanical)
2 2 4 No sharp edges, check all electrical connections that no powered surface is accessible
16 Long lead time on parts
Delay of project due to lack of parts so no testing, design, building
Long lead time from manufacturers, parts out of stock
2 2 4 Order early, order often, have alternatives for things to work on, do fab. work in house
4514045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Engineering Analysis
4614045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Test Plan Outline
4714045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Test Plan Outline
4814045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Project Schedule
4914045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
● Introduction● Background/Problem statement● Customer Requirements● Engineering Requirements● Benchmarking Specs● Functional Decomposition● Concept Generation/Selection● System Architecture● Risk Assessment● Engineering Analysis● Test Plan Outline● Project Schedule
Agenda
5014045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13
Questions?
5114045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13