1 of 10

PORTABLE EMERGENCY VENTILATOR

TEAM P13026

2

TEAM

Team Members:

Dan Fenton (CE) – Team Lead

Ryan Muckel (ME) Christopher Freeman (ME) Derek Zielinski (EE) Eric Welch (EE) Kennedy Kong (CE) Melissa Harrison (ME) Marie Revekant (IE) David Engell (ID)

Sponsors:Jeff Gutterman P.EDr. Roman Press

Guide:Edward Hanzlik

3

AGENDA Project Description Customer Needs Engineering Specifications Concept Summary System Architecture Design Summary Testing Results Budget Project Evaluation Acknowledgements Questions

4

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONObjective:Update a early 1990s Portable Emergency Ventilator design to be geared to the needs of an EMT. Also begin the benchmarking process to pave the way for future manufacturing and commercialization.

Goals:• Maintain FDA approval • Reduce total devices weight and overall dimensions• Update control system technology• Develop unique features to give the new design a competitive edge in the market• Create a model to fit the needs of EMTs• Develop a more intuitive Human Interface• Create a design that can be competitively priced

5

CUSTOMER NEEDS

6

ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS

7

CONCEPT SUMMARYPortable Design – By reducing the devices weight and modifying its dimensions the PEV became more portable. We learned that having protruding knobs pose a hazard for “catch” points and for further refinement inlaid switches or buttons could be used.Human Interface – One screen was used to display system settings and system values, this allowed for a single location of information. Also an intuitive layout of knobs and switches was used to improve usability.Control Technology - A microcontroller was used in place of the original digital and analog logic. This upgrade increases modularity of the design allows for integration of new features.Marketability – Two key features set this device apart from other in the market today. Based on research done for this project, no other devices offer a CPR mode nor do they include a Pulse Oximeter as a peripheral device.

8

DESIGN SUMMARYUnderstanding- In MSD1, benchmarking was done to understand what products are currently in the market similar to the PEV presented to us.

Concepts- Based on the research done, a design was proposed which contained all of the features of the original design but had technological and visual updates and new features. Also the end-user for the new design was intended for EMT’s rather than a universal PEV solution.

Testing- Once a design was accepted, components and parts were ordered and testing began. The individual functionality of the components was determined before integrating them into the system.

Integration- After verifying the components, construction of the system began. This include the formation of the housing, placement of knobs, switches, and screen, and mounting of interior components (e.g. MCU, pump, sensor, etc.).

9

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

10

COMPONENT TESTING RESULTS

11

COST SHEET

12

PROJECT EVALUATION - SUCCESSES Maintained same functionality as original

device All four modes work High pressure feedback alerts the user Controls for mode, LPB, BPM, and pressure Two hours of battery powered run-time

Decreased weight and overall volume of unit More ergonomic and physically appealing

design

13

PROJECT EVALUATION - SHORTFALLS Unable to combine code for pulse

oximeter, LCD screen, and controls into a uniform project

Insufficient experience to program a display for a larger LCD screen

Unable to integrate the mass flow sensor to provide closed loop system feedback

Could not program flash (permanent) memory of MCU

14

FUTURE PLANS Integrate a larger screen Merge Pulse Oximeter code with control code Execute durability testing Complete software testing Reduce weight and overall size Research valuable and desired functions and features Implement self-system calibration Transfer of system data via wireless

telecommunication Internal and removable memory

15

WHAT WE’VE LEARNED Unexpected risks can appear at

anytime Beginning work early can allow time to

discover and resolve problems Have a backup plan for all components

in case of problems or failure Don’t let Dan touch anything that is

critical to the system

16

SPECIAL THANKS Professor Edward Hanzlik Dr. Roman Press Jeff Gutterman P.E Dr. Becker-Gomez Mark Smith MSD Department Dr. Kenneth Hsu

17

QUESTIONS…