P14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander

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


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


Customer Requirements


Benchmarking Old Systems


● Control System Mounting● Electronics housing● Wheel System● Microprocessor● Bluetooth Module● Control Scheme

Concept Selection


http://images.worldofapple.com/

https://www.ssidisplays.com/

http://www.etac.com/


Control System Mounting


Pros:● Avoids sharp corners adjustable● Multi Size

Cons:● potential break down● weight restrictions

Gooseneck Arm

http://www.1800wheelchair.com/


Pros:● Fully Adjustable

Cons:● Limited Orientation● iPad only

Swivel Arm

http://www.rehabmart.com/


Pro:● wide workspace

Cons:● Fixed ● Doesn’t move out of the way● toucan only

Snug Seat Tray


Concept Selection Process


● Magnetic tray● Swappable

Touchpad/iPad● Collapsible

Final Concept



Concept Selection


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


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


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.


Electronics Housing - Concept selection

vs.vs.

+

vs. vs.



Concept Selection


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


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


Concept 2: New Adapter


Pros:● More easily attaches to

stander● Doesn’t require

modification to stander parts

● Utilizes existing adapter block

Cons:● Potential difficulty of

assembly.


● 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.




Concept Selection


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


Microprocessor

*images from wiki.ti.com, en.wikipedia.org, jaunty-electronics.com, bit-tech.net 3314045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13


Concept Selection


Bluetooth Module

Images from robotshop.com,, processors.wiki.ti.com/, bluegiga.com,, and sparkfun.com, 3514045 Week 6 Project Presentation - 10/1/13


Concept Selection


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


http://www.etac.com/upload/NL-Etac/E800/Wheelchair-accessories-R-NET-Controller-Joystick-36-0.jpg




http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/1460607/22277139/0/1309847401/Programmable_Control_System_Wireless_Touch_Screen.jpg




https://www.ssidisplays.com/sites/default/files/img_2352.jpg

https://www.ssidisplays.com/sites/default/files/img_2352.jpg

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




● 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.



Concept Selection


System architecture: Level 1


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


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


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


Engineering Analysis


Test Plan Outline


Project Schedule


● 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


Questions?


P14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander

Documents

Transcript of P14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander