14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander

1. 14045: Mobile Pediatric Stander System Design Review

2. Agenda • 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

3. Who’s who? Greg Roeth: Project Manager/Mechanical Engineer Alex Hebert: Lead Mechanical Engineer Emily Courtney: Mechanical Engineer Martha Vargas: Lead Electrical Engineer John Daley: Electrical Engineer

4. Project Background Who will use our mobilized standers? • Predominantly pre-school kids with Cerebral Palsy (CP) • CP is a “non progressive brain disorder” caused by damage to a developing brain • disconnection between muscles and the brain • wide range of motor skills/control • condition typically doesn’t worsen or improve over time • Some users are on the Autism spectrum as well *taken from cprochester.org *taken from familymedicinehelp.com

5. Project Background What is a mobile pediatric stander? • Teaching Style: - Push In vs. Pull Out • Happier Kids • Physiological and psychological benefits to standing vs. sitting Snug Seat Product Guide 2013

6. 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.

7. Customer Requirements

9. Benchmarking Old Systems

11. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

12. http://images.worldofapple.com/ https://www.ssidisplays.com/ http://www.etac.com/

13. Control System Mounting

14. Gooseneck Arm Pros: • Avoids sharp corners adjustable • Multi Size Cons: • potential break down • weight restrictions http://www.1800wheelchair.com/

15. Swivel Arm Pros: • Fully Adjustable Cons: • Limited Orientation • iPad only http://www.rehabmart.com/

16. Snug Seat Tray Pro: • wide workspace Cons: • Fixed • Doesn’t move out of the way • toucan only

17. Concept Selection Process

18. Final Concept • Magnetic tray • Swappable Touchpad/iPad • Collapsible

19. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

20. Electronics Housing - Current Design Pros: 1) Battery is secure Cons: 1) Components and wires are exposed 2) Battery tray is rusty and sharp 3)Battery tray in way of stander angle adjustment

21. Electronics Housing - Option 1 Pros: 1) Battery is secure, yet accessible 2) One box, One location 3) Baffles allow airflow and provide spill protection Cons: 1) Need to create mounting area 2) May interfere with folding control mount

22. Electronics Housing - Option 2 Pros: 1) All components contained and separate 2) Utilizes available mounting space 3) Utilizes current battery tray mounting *taken from123rf.com Cons: 1) Multiple parts, multiple locations (3) *taken from tadpoleadaptive.com *taken from ozprodrivers.com.au

23. Electronics Housing - Option 3 a. b. Pros: 1) Battery is secure, yet accessible and separate 2) One location - utilizes current tray mounting + Cons: 1) Cumbersome - may interfere with angle adjust

24. Electronics Housing - Concept selection vs. vs. vs. vs. +

25. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

26. Wheel System 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.

27. New Wheel Mount Concepts Concept 1: New Bracket Pros: • More easily attaches to stander • Doesn’t require modification to stander parts Cons • Potentially difficult to manufacture

28. New Wheel Mount Concepts 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.

29. New Wheel Mount Concepts

30. New Wheel Mount Concepts • 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.

31. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

32. Microprocessor 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) Contenders Launchpad - 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 *image from mouser.com

33. Microprocessor *images from wiki.ti.com, en.wikipedia.org, jaunty-electronics.com, bit-tech.net

34. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

35. Bluetooth Module Images from robotshop.com,, processors.wiki.ti.com/, bluegiga.com,, and sparkfun.com,

36. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

37. 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.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 http://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

38. Remote Control • Custom design based on P13045. • Reduce size and adapt ergonomically to user. • Use same uController as main system. Last year’s model consisted on a TI Stellaris Launchpad controller encased in a box with 5 buttons and two switches.

39. Concept Selection • Control System Mounting • Electronics housing • Wheel System • Microprocessor • Bluetooth Module • Control Scheme

41. System architecture: Level 1

43. Risk Assessment

44. Risk Assessment (Cont.)

45. Risk Assessment (Cont.)

46. Engineering Analysis

47. Test Plan Outline

48. Test Plan Outline

49. Project Schedule

50. Agenda • 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