1 / 37

Smart Cane IEEE Design Presentation

Smart Cane IEEE Design Presentation. Lauren Bell, Jessica Davila, Jake Luckman, William McIntyre, Aaron Vogel. Introductions. Lauren Bell – Mechanical Engineer Jessica Davila – Industrial Engineer Jake Luckman – Mechanical Engineer

ziya
Télécharger la présentation

Smart Cane IEEE Design Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart CaneIEEE Design Presentation Lauren Bell, Jessica Davila, Jake Luckman, William McIntyre, Aaron Vogel

  2. Introductions • Lauren Bell – Mechanical Engineer • Jessica Davila – Industrial Engineer • Jake Luckman – Mechanical Engineer • William McIntyre – Electrical Engineer • Aaron Vogel – Mechanical Engineer

  3. Agenda • Problem Description • Design Challenge • Potential Concepts • Critical Design Decisions • Final Concept • System Operation • Testing and Traceability • Project Management • Conclusion • Acknowledgements

  4. Problem Description Safe and easy navigation in the world is difficult for the blind and deaf/blind Project Goal Expensive Training Required Inexpensive Intuitive Limited Situation Feedback Excellent Situation Feedback COMMON SOLUTIONS

  5. Design Challenge… …To design, fabricate, assemble and validate a ‘haptic handle’ • To be attached to a traditional cane • Provide directional feedback to blind and deaf/blind users

  6. Process Overview

  7. Potential Concepts Brainstorming and benchmarking yielded the following likely candidates… • Track Ball • Piston Push Feedback • Torque ‘Jerk’ • Scroll Navigation • Magnetic Force Feedback

  8. Narrowing Our Selection

  9. Scroll Navigation Pros • Easier to feel direction • Better directional feedback • Can be used with gloves Cons • May inhibit index finger haptic ability Screw-in cap Battery Housing Microcontroller Continuous servo Scroll Transmission

  10. Mock Ups • Final Concept Ideas • Finger Bump Scroll • Palm Bump Roller • Final Concept Selection • Palm Roller

  11. Design Considerations Customer desires needed to be transformed into technical requirements…

  12. Design Considerations • Pressure on System • Bump Characteristics • Stress • Motor • Power Management • Microcontroller

  13. Design Grip Pressure Spec • Ensure handle functions under excessive grip • Measure pressure of displaced air for rough idea • Median pressure ~3 psi • Compare to Grip Pressure Study* • FSR sensors on glove • “Crush grip” measured on 50mm diameter handle • 5 male and 5 female adults • Maximum pressure ~3.1 psi Design made to withstand at least 3 psi. Tao Guo qiang; Li Jun yuan; Jiang Xian feng, "Research on virtual testing of hand pressure distribution for handle grasp," Mechatronic Science, Electric Engineering and Computer (MEC), 2011 International Conference on, pp.1610,1613, 19-22 Aug. 201

  14. Bump Characteristics Analysis Sensitivity Comfort Through testing, effective bump height and speed was determined.

  15. Motor Requirements • Maximum moment occurs when: • Grip reaches maximum design pressure • Pressure force is perpendicular to contact point • Palm contact area is maximum on roller • Two rollers contact the palm • Maximum moment caused by worst case scenario design pressure • 50.1 oz-in Selected motor met all design requirements.

  16. Roller Analysis • Bumps per rotation • Servo to Roller Spacing • Effectiveness of our model – Audience?

  17. Roller and Pins Force/Stress Analysis Rollers and pins withstand force and stress under worst case scenarios.

  18. Signal Flow Diagram

  19. Micro Family Selection

  20. Simulation and Detection System

  21. Final Concept

  22. System Operation

  23. Testing and Traceability System has passed all tests

  24. Testing and Traceability Prototype meets all non-technical requirements

  25. Risk Assessment

  26. Risk Curve All risks were tracked and managed.

  27. ProjectPlan/Work Dispersion Project plan was tracked and work was properly distributed .

  28. Conclusion • Desired cane handle objective was met

  29. Recommendations • Complete cane with integration to sensors • Improve handle to provide feedback on changes in elevation and proximity of obstacles.

  30. Acknowledgements • Guides • Gary Werth • Gerry Garavuso • Customers • Dr. Patricia Iglesias • Gary Behm • Tom Oh • Professor Mark Indovina • Jeff Lonneville

  31. Attractive/Repulsive Magnetism Navigation Pros • Easier to feel direction • Better directional feedback • Can be used with gloves Cons • Possible power limitations • No indication of proximity (acting alone) Screw-in cap Battery housing Microcontroller Wire windings with ferrous cores

  32. Piston Navigation Screw-in cap Pros • Easier to feel direction • Better directional feedback • Can be used with gloves Cons • Heavier • No indication of proximity (acting alone) • May inhibit index finger haptic ability Standard servo Battery Housing Push piston Drive shaft Microcontroller

  33. Track Ball Navigation Screw-in cap Pros • Easier to feel direction • Better directional feedback • Can be used with gloves Cons • Heavier • Less compact • May inhibit index finger haptic ability Microcontroller Battery Housing Continuous servos & transmission shafts Track ball

  34. Torque Handle Navigation Screw-in cap Pros • Easier to feel direction • Better directional feedback • Can be used with gloves Cons • Heavier • Moment of inertia/torque concern Transmission Standard servo Microcontroller Battery housing

  35. Roller Force/Stress Analysis

  36. Force/Stress Cont’d

More Related