Megan Chapman Steven Geiger Kimberly Keating Confirm Customer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

megan chapman
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Megan Chapman Steven Geiger Kimberly Keating Confirm Customer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Heather Beam Thomas Bean Megan Chapman Steven Geiger Kimberly Keating Confirm Customer Needs and Engineering Specifications Review System Decomposition Review Concepts Introduce preliminary calculations and assumptions


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Heather Beam Thomas Bean Megan Chapman Steven Geiger Kimberly Keating

slide-2
SLIDE 2

 Confirm Customer Needs and Engineering

Specifications

 Review System Decomposition  Review Concepts  Introduce preliminary calculations and

assumptions

 Cross-disciplinary review to generate further

ideas

 Receive approval from customer to select and

purchase a stander

slide-3
SLIDE 3

 Work Breakdown Structure (1 min)  Project Background (1 min)  Customer Needs (3 min)  Engineering Specs (3 min)  Needs vs Specs (2 min)  Functional Decomposition (5 min)  Concept Generation (5 min)  Concept Screening Matrices (30 min)  Speed and Tipping Forces (10 min)  System Architecture (13 min)  Risk Assessment (5 min)  Project Schedule(2 min)  Questions (10 min)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

 Megan Chapman-Project Leader

  • Construct schedule, monitor budget, distribute workload
  • Assist Heather with Mechanical Engineer work

 Heather Beam-Lead Mechanical Engineer

  • Design motorized wheel system, mounting mechanisms,

raise/lower system

 Steven Geiger-Lead Controls Engineer

  • Design user interface, control system, and Trainer Mode

 Kimberly Keating-Systems Engineer

  • Develop safety tests, help with budget, conduct safety

tests

 Thomas Bean-Controls Engineer

  • Design sensor integration, assist Steve with control

system programming, design Trainer Mode

slide-5
SLIDE 5

 Mobilize a Pediatric Stander to increase

independence and mobility for user

  • Add ≤ 20 lbs.
  • Incorporate Training Mode
  • SAFETY
  • Versatile Controls

 Risks

  • Components will not be compatible
  • Device will not be stable/safe
  • Sensors will interfere with each other
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9
slide-10
SLIDE 10
slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Accept pt User Input Field Goal Head Array Joystick Push Button Switch Touch Screen (iPad) Tongue Switch Accept pt Trainer ner Overri rride de Bluetooth Wire Connection Wifi Move User Safely ly Motorized Wheels Treads Detect ct Hazard rd Contact Switch Infrared Sensor Laser Rangefinder Thermal Imaging Sensor Ultrasonic Sensor Adjust st Height Hydraulic Adjustable Pneumatic Adjustable Power Adjustable Stande der Rifton Dynamic Stander Snug Seat Gecko Standing Frame Sung Seat Rabbit Mobile Stander

slide-13
SLIDE 13
slide-14
SLIDE 14
slide-15
SLIDE 15
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19
slide-20
SLIDE 20

 We wanted to find a happy medium between

a stopping distance and a stopping time.

 Luckily, we figured out that even at a speed

  • f 6 mph stopping in 250 mm, we were safe

from an acceleration perspective.

 According to the International Association of

Amusement Parks and Attractions, sneezing subjects the body to approx. 2.5g's, or 22.5 m/s^2, noticeably more than our top speed/shortest distance calculation.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

 The spreadsheets on the following slides show

the stopping times that would be associated with speeds from 3-5mph at certain distances.

 These values do not account for user reaction

time as well as hardware reaction times. These times would have to be added to the values calculated.

  • Human reaction time is approximately 250ms. However,

because of the nature of our user, our time will be larger than that.

  • Hardware reaction time should be under 100ms, but this

is highly dependent on the hardware we end up choosing.

slide-22
SLIDE 22
slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26

 There are two options for speed

control

  • Our first option is potentiometers

leading to the motors

  • Our second option is to set software

limits to govern speed.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

A physics analysis was completed to evaluate the tipping force. We assumed that the force was impacting one corner at the top and the center of gravity was on the bottom in the middle of the stander. Stander Center Of Gravity Force

slide-28
SLIDE 28

 Max Speed: 5 mph

𝑤𝑗 = 5𝑛𝑞ℎ 𝑤𝑔 = 0𝑛𝑞ℎ

 Stop in less than one second.  For this calculation, t=0.22

  • This time corresponds to stopping in .25m at 5mph

𝑤𝑔 = 𝑤𝑗 + 𝑏 ∗ 𝑢 0 = 5 + .2 ∗ 𝑏 𝑏 = − 22.73𝑛𝑞ℎ 𝑡𝑓𝑑 = −10.16 𝑛 𝑡2

slide-29
SLIDE 29

 Mass of Stander(Rabbit)=75kg  Mass of User=40kg  Total Mass=75+40=115kg

𝐺 = 𝑛𝑏 115 ∗ 10.16 = 1168.4𝑂 For the stander not to tip, the torque of the weight needs to be greater than or equal to the torque of the applied force.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

𝑈𝑝𝑠𝑟𝑣𝑓 = 𝑔𝑝𝑠𝑑𝑓 ∗ 𝑠𝑏𝑒𝑗𝑣𝑡 𝑈𝑝𝑠𝑟𝑣𝑓 𝑝𝑔 𝑏𝑞𝑞𝑚𝑗𝑓𝑒 𝑔𝑝𝑠𝑑𝑓 = 1168.4𝑂 ∗ .5715𝑛 𝑠𝑏𝑐𝑐𝑗𝑢 = 667.74𝑂𝑛 𝑈𝑝𝑠𝑟𝑣𝑓 𝑝𝑔 𝑋𝑓𝑗𝑕ℎ𝑢 = 115 ∗ 9.81 ∗ .61595 𝑠𝑏𝑐𝑐𝑗𝑢 = 694.88𝑂𝑛 694.8 > 667.74

 This tells us that in a realistic case, our stander

shouldn’t tip.

slide-31
SLIDE 31
slide-32
SLIDE 32
slide-33
SLIDE 33
slide-34
SLIDE 34
slide-35
SLIDE 35
slide-36
SLIDE 36
slide-37
SLIDE 37
slide-38
SLIDE 38
slide-39
SLIDE 39
slide-40
SLIDE 40