MSD-II Final Project Presentation

1. MSD-II Final Project Presentation P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

2. Agenda • Project Status • Individual Team Member vs. Norms and Values • Deliverables Checklist • EDGE Review • Rubric Review P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

3. Project Status • Sensors: • With additional filtering and signal processing overall accuracy could be much improved. • Overall, phase I complete • Test fixtures are designed and built • MCU: • Can now record data to microSD card • Data can be transferred to PC • All sensors were connected and tested for compatibility and function. P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

4. Individual Team Members Status • What were your personal responsibilities and where are you against your plan (compare to your original plan)? • Have you utilized your plan effectively in MSD II and is your current assessment of status realistic? • Have you documented all related work and data? • What would you have done differently during the quarter (as an individual) knowing what you know now? P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

5. Member vs. Norms • Punctual • Thorough • Accurate • Professional and Ethical • Demonstrates the core RIT values of SPIRIT • Committed P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

6. David Monahan, ME • Overall Responsibilities • Project Manager • Assemble & execute weekly meeting agendas • Keep track of what team needs to do on a week-to-week basis • Ensure major deliverable compliance- all bases covered? • Expected MSD2 Responsibilities (from MSD1 Project Review) • Start Building Test Fixtures • Verify Accuracy of test fixtures with multiple tests • Facilitate merging of P10010/P10011 testing efforts • Concept Generation: Shock and Impact testing P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

7. David Monahan, ME • Status • Continued project manager role • First 5 weeks: mostly individual testing/construction • Final 5 weeks: much heavier schedule & management • Brainstormed alternative fixtures during weeks 1-3 • Goniometer & Flex Fixture delivered Week 5/6 • Led Technical Paper efforts • Performed Flex Fixture & Shock Testing • Developed Pendulum model & MATLAB code • Ultimately did much more data manipulation than expected during final two weeks • Mostly due to late introduction of Pendulum fixture • Documentation • Fixture Manufacturing Plans • Fixture Procedures • MATLAB Code & Figures P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

8. David Monahan, ME • Recommendations • Future leaders: • Tighter management during first 5 weeks • Ensure all deadlines are met! • Ripple effects undesirable • Test Fixture: Controllable input • Labview? • GUI: both actual model and measured sensor data tracked & analyzed simultaneously • Provides variety of scenarios • Take advantage of Sara’s spine fixture if possible! • MATLAB • Better way of integration for non harmonic data • Trapz function? Simulink model? • Consult with resident MATLAB experts (Crassidis)? • Utilize alternative programming methods- C? P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

9. James Stern, ME • Responsibilities • Sensor Interface Lead: Limb Kinematics, Sensor Placement, Sensor Configuration. • Liaison with Human Interface Team. • Sensor Technology Assistant. • Enclosure Assistant. P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

10. James Stern, ME • MSD2 Plan • Order parts for Test methods • Start Building Test Fixtures • Verify Accuracy of test fixtures. • Help with testing sensors • Integrate sensors and microcontroller and repeat tests. • Include Human Interfaces enclosures with sensors testing • Test sensors for durability with cycle testing and shock tests. • Status • Parts were received and tests fixtures were built (modifications needed to be mad to original plans) • Test fixtures were verified • Flex sensors were tested, and data was analyzed to correlate voltage to angles using Trendline in excel • Flex sensor was tested using p10011 under-armor sleeve. • Flex sensors went through cycle analysis (1000 cycles) • Ordered 2 * DE-ACCM3D2 to complete shock testing. Could withstand of 500G’s of shock (Test included p10011 enclosure). P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

11. James Stern, ME • Recommendations • Start building of test fixture in MSD1, would have given more time for testing. • Implement rotational servo motors on fixture so the tester can rotate sensors at a set rotational speed. • Make fixture out of non metallic material, or at least cover it with a rubber. • Design a easier and more universal way of attaching sensors to test fixture. • Should have thought about acceleration test methods in MSD1 • Impact Test, Not Shock test to see if enclosure could withstand an impact and keep sensor safe. P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

12. Cory Laudenslager , EE • Responsibilities • MCU/Sensor Interface Lead: Ensure Sensor Technologies can Interface to MCU • Sensor Selection Assistant • MCU Selection Assistant • Battery Analysis • BOM Creation / Ordering Parts • Sensor Testing / Test Plan P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

13. Cory Laudenslager, EE • MSDII Plan • BOM Creation / Select Vendors / Order Parts • Soldering of Headers on Sensors • DE-ACCM2G2 Test / Test Procedure / Data Analysis / Future Recommendations • Ultra-Thin IMU Test / Test Procedure / Data Analysis / Future Recommendations • Status • All Parts Ordered and Received on Time • All Sensors Soldered and Powered Up • DE-ACCM2G2- Steady State/Position Analysis Completed and Sensor Document Created • Ultra-Thin IMU- Steady State/Rotation/Position Analysis Completed and Sensor Document Created P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

14. Cory Laudenslager, EE • Recommendations • Future Data Analysis is Required -Point by Point Integration for Both Rotation and Position • A More Efficient Means to Display Data for the User • Kalman Filtering to Account for Drift in Gyroscopes P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

15. JanviGauthaman, EE(Biomed) • Responsibilities • Sensor Technology Lead • Sensor research, Sensor selection, Sensor Evaluation, Sensor review (with Dr. Phillips), Final Sensor Selection • Test plan (MSDI) sensors (on a component level) • Execution (MSDII) of testing for sensors (on the sub-system level- integrating with the MCU) • Testing the Atomic 6DoF IMU, and the Flex Sensor. • Documentation Lead • Ensuring that all documents are on EDGE • Taking minutes during meetings, updating agenda (MSDI) P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

16. JanviGauthaman, EE • MSDII Plan • Test the Atomic sensor for basic functionality • Check the Atomic sensor for Accuracy • Test the Atomic with the MCU for integration. • Test the Flex sensor for basic functionality • Check the Flex sensor for Accuracy • Test the Flex sensor with the MCU for integration. • Test the Flex sensor for accuracy at different bend positions. P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

17. JanviGauthaman, EE • Status • MSDI: Extensive research on market solutions and technology solutions, Final sensors were chosen bought, Sensor Feasibility for every sensor was done, risks were updated consistently. Feedback from previous presentations were considered and action items were added as needed • MSDII: • All documentation of knowledge, data, results, write-ups are thoroughly uploaded to EDGE. • Atomic IMU was tested for its basic functionality on three fixtures. • All data was analyzed –pendulum, was most useful. • Flex sensor was tested for • accuracy • bend position • life cycle • With P10011 interface • MCU interface (possibly adding noise) P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

18. JanviGauthaman, EE • Recommendations • Test the Atomic with a constant acceleration, velocity, position fixture/ motor – so as to lessen some of the variables. • Build fixtures beforehand. • Find more applications of, and documents, go through source codes of the Atomic to better understand it. (Lot of functions, poor marketing/documentation). • Flex sensor- better interface. • Try the more expensive flex sensor for highly accurate applications. P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

19. Brian Glod, CE • Responsibilities • Data Lead • Interpret and filter sensor data • Convert data to desired format for storage • Design PC user interface • Analyze sensor data (degrees, angles, etc) • Sensor Interface Assistant • Assist EE’s with sensor/MCU interface circuitry • Communication Assistant • Assist with storage of sensor data • Assist with PC/MCU communication • EDGE/SVN janitor • Assist David with organization • Fix it when it’s broken P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

20. Brian Glod, CE • MSD2 Plan • Order MCU components (before break) • MCU, cables, power supplies, etc (see Electrical BOM) • Become familiar with the Arduino IDE • Write small programs for testing interrupts, ADC and DIO operations, microSD card read/write operations • Work closely with Assis in designing the MCU software • Break down the programming into small blocks • Assign programming tasks to Assis and myself • Maintain communication with EE’s for sensor integration • Assist in testing and sensor data analysis • Continue to keep the Risk Assessment document up-to-date P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

21. Brian Glod, CE • Status • MCU logs data to microSD card • Selectable inputs from 0 to all 16 analog channels • Worst-case sample rate of 240 Hz for all 16 channels • Comma separated values (CSV) format • Contains raw acceleration data, may be converted to other formats as necessary (ie: C3D) • Developed PC / host software that reads the sensor data file and converts the digital values back into analog voltages • Helps tremendously in data analysis – using these values, angles may be calculated (Cory / discrete integration) • Assisted with sensor data acquisition • Debugging of circuitry and code P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

22. Brian Glod, CE • Recommendations • Use interrupts for sampling ADC channels • Allows for other operations while waiting for a sample • Write to micro-SD, on-chip data analysis, etc • May be able to use a plane old data logger • Much smaller; but…ADC inputs? Speed? • Filter the digitized ADC values through a calibration curve to improve accuracy • Currently off by as much as 50 mV – tens of degrees • Full curve (1024 values?); or subset, say 512 values? • Smaller MCU with more ADC inputs (if possible) • External / more accurate ADCs • May have to deal with custom PCB layout and high-frequency considerations P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

23. Assis Ngolo, CE • Responsibilities • Communications Lead • Develop storage solution • Interface SD card to MCU • Design file format for storage for PC accessibility • Capture and Coordinate Data • Analyze collected sensor data • Microcontroller Assistant • Assist EE’s with interfacing MCU to Sensos • Assist EE’s in running sensor tests on MCU • Data Assistant • Assist with general MCU programming • Project Plan Manager • Keep tasks on schedule • Fix it when it’s broken P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

24. Assis Ngolo, CE • MSD2 Plan • Perform research on storage interfacing methods • Look for an appropriate C/C++ libraries to use with micro SD card • Modify selected library for use with the ATmega1280 • Create a CSV file format that make sit easy to identify data from each sensor along with a timestamp • Perform analysis on acquired data, to obtain velocity and displacement from acceleration P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

25. Assis Ngolo, CE • Status • Micro SD card interfacing successful • Data logging successful • CSV file can be written and read from with ease • FAT16 formatted SD card can be plugged into PC easily • Matlab and MS Excel can access the CSV files easily • Data analysis successful • Matlab analysis with double integration successful • Velocity determined from acceleration • Displacement determined from velocity P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

26. Assis Ngolo, CE • Interrupts • Avoid polling • Improve performance • Dedicated data logging MCU • Have more analog channels • More precise • Calibration curves to ADC values to increase accuracy P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

27. EDGE Review as a team: https://edge.rit.edu/content/P10010/public/Home P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

28. Deliverables Checklist & Online Status • Customer Needs- Done • Engineering Specifications- Done • Risk Assessment- Done • Test Plan- Done • Previous Presentation Documents- Posted • Project Plan- Done • Other Deliverables?? P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

29. Conclusions • DE Sensor • Good for linear movements in determining position from acceleration • Atomic • Moderately accurate in finding position from acceleration. (<DE sensor, >Razor) • Has internal processor- not documented well • Does not meet portability requirement • Razor • Least accurate in determining position from acceleration. • Very accurate in determining rotational angles. • Flex • Accurate in lab, but in reality best for repeated motions where accuracy is not main function • Cheap, durable, easy to use, portable-satisfies all major customer needs (at least JJ) P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation

30. Rubric Review • Go over rubric elements as a group • Questions? • Concerns? P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation