P13045 System Design Review Agenda

KGCOE MSD Page 1 of 2 System Design Review Agenda

Meeting Purpose:

1. Overview of the project

2. Confirm Customer Needs and Engineering Specifications

3. Review System Decomposition

4. Review Concepts

5. Introduce preliminary calculations and assumptions

6. Cross-disciplinary review to generate further ideas

7. Receive approval from customer to select and purchase a stander

Materials to be Reviewed:

1. Project Description (R2)

2. Work Breakdown Structure (R1)

3. Customer Needs (R3)

4. Engineering Specifications (R3)

5. Functional Decomposition (R3)

6. Concept Screening Forms (R3)

7. System Architecture (R2)

8. Project Plan (R2)

9. Risk Assessment (R2)

Meeting Date: January 11, 2013

Meeting Location: Kate Gleason Hall Room 2139

Meeting time: 2:30 pm - 4:00 pm

KGCOE MSD Page 2 of 2 System Design Review Agenda

Timeline:

Meeting Timeline

Start

time Topic of Review Required Attendees

2:30 Work Breakdown Structure

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

2:31 Project Background

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

2:32 Customer Needs and Engineering Specifications

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

2:40 Functional Decomposition

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

Dr. Mark Kempski

2:45 Concept Generation

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

Dr. Mark Kempski

2:50 Concept Screening

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

Dr. Mark Kempski

3:20 Speed and Tipping Forces

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

Dr. Mark Kempski

3:30 System Architecture

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

Dr. Mark Kempski

3:43 Risk Assessment

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

3:48 Project Schedule

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

3:50 Questions

Ed Hanzlik

Dr. Steven Day

Linda Brown

Senior Design Project Data Sheet

Project Description

Project Background: Mobile assist devices are designed to give someone with a disability some independence and feeling of inclusion. In the case of this project, we are trying to mobilize a pediatric standing device so that a disabled child can stand on the same level as their peers and move at the same pace. This project has never been attempted as a senior design project in the past and as out benchmarking has shown, there is no similar device on the market currently. A device that most closely related to this device would be the wheelchair that stands up vertically and turns into a mobile stander.

Problem Statement: The objective of this project is to mobilize a pediatric stander to increase independence and mobility for a child with a disability.

Objectives/Scope: 1. Mobilize a pediatric stander 2. Add no more than 20 pounds to the existing device 3. Incorporate a collision avoidance sensor system 4. Be able to control the device with multiple types of

inputs (joystick, touch screen, etc) 5. Develop a “training” mode for the device 6. Have the ability to remotely control the device

Deliverables: Mobilized Pediatric Stander

System Design

Detailed Design

Expected Project Benefits: Improved mobility and independence of user

Training mode to train the new user on the device

Safe, user friendly controls

Versatile controls to fit various users

Core Team Members: Heather Beam

Thomas Bean

Megan Chapman

Steven Geiger

Kimberly Keating

Strategy & Approach

Assumptions & Constraints: The team will spend a good amount of time studying the mechanics of the existing device and then decide exactly how to mobilize it. This will involve adding a rechargeable power system, motorized wheels, and a control system. The proposed budget is $6000 which was obtained through a grant which seems very reasonable at this point.

Issues & Risks: Components of the device will not be

compatible with each other

Device will not be stable or safe enough for use

Sensors for collision detection will interfere with each other

Project does not get finished on time

Unable to create versatility for use with multiple children

Project goes over budget

Power supply will not be sufficient enough for all components

Unable to incorporate raise/lower feature

Project # Project Name Project Track Project Family

P13045 Mobile Pediatric

Stander

Biomedical Systems

and Technologies

Medical Mobility

Device Engineering Start Term Team Guide Project Sponsor Doc. Revision

2012-W Ed Hanzlik Linda Brown 2

P13045 Work Breakdown Structure 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

Design mounting mechanisms

Design raise/lower system

Steven Geiger-Lead Controls Engineer

Design user interface and control system

Design Trainer mode

Work with Tom to design Trainer Mode

Kimberly Keating-Systems Engineer Develop safety tests

Help monitor budget

Conduct safety tests

Thomas Bean-Controls Engineer

Design sensor integration

Assist Steve with control system programming

Work with Steve to design Trainer Mode

Customer Need # Importance Description Comments/Status

CN1 5 Mobilize existing stander PRP

CN2 5 Reliable/Chargeable Power Source PRP

CN3 3 Ability to adjust the height of the stander Customer Request

CN4 5 Training Mode/Controller for Trainer PRP

CN5 5 Move at a brisk walking pace PRP

CN6 3 Removable tray/as much as possible behind child Customer Request

CN7 5 Add no more than 20lb to device PRP

CN8 5 Able to be used left handed or right handed Site Visit

CN9 5 Able to function with a range of children with different abilities Customer Request

CN10 5 Be able to function in a school environment Customer Request

CN11 3 Stander should be made in the USA and use standard parts Site Visit

CN12 5 Must provide as much stability as off the shelf stander PRP

CN13 5 Electrical Components must be protected Site Visit

CN14 5 Restraints/Straps must remain in current arrangement PRP

CN15 3 Collision Detection Customer RequestCost CN16 5 Proposed budget of $6000 PRP

Customer Needs--P13045

Safety

Importance: Sample scale (5=must have, 3=nice to have, 1=preference only).

Functionality

Eng. Spec # Importance Source Description Units Ideal Value Comments/Results

1 5 CN1,CN5 Motor Power Torque Be determined through research

2 5 CN7 Additional Weight lbs < 20 PRP

3 5 CN3 Height of Stander in 34-40 Based on stander research

4 5 CN1,CN5,CN10 Speed mph 3-5 Based on wheelchair research

5 5 CN1,CN2 Battery Voltage Volts 12V Based on wheelchair research

6 5 CN2 Battery Duration Hours 8 Length of School Day

7 3 CN9 Options for Controls Count 2-4 Joystick, goal post, buttons, etc

8 5 CN4,CN10 Max Distance that the Training Mode would be Functional in 6

9 1 CN6,CN9 Minimum distance between object and user in 4

10 3 CN6,CN10 Time it takes to Put Away/Put Up Table secs 30

11 5 CN15 Stopping Distance when obstacle detected meters <1 Calculated/Based on Eng Spec #4

12 3 CN11 Where the stander is made country USA If metric, make tools avaliable

13 5 CN8 Placement Options for Controls Count 2 (R/L) Used with various children

14 5 CN13 Cable management system Method

Routed through

stander

15 5 CN14 Percent Change in Straps/Restraints from Original Stander % 0%16 5 CN12 Percent Change in Stability from Original Stander % 0%

17 5 CN16 Cost $ 6000 Budget

Engineering Specifications

Mo

tor

Po

wer

Ad

dit

ion

al W

eigh

t

Hei

ght

of

Stan

der

Spee

d

Bat

tery

Vo

ltag

e

Bat

tery

Du

rati

on

Op

tio

ns

for

Co

ntr

ols

Max

Dis

tan

ce t

hat

th

e Tr

ain

ing

Mo

de

wo

uld

be

Fun

ctio

nal

Dis

tan

ce o

f Ta

ble

Aw

ay f

rom

Ch

ild

Tim

e it

tak

es t

o P

ut

Aw

ay/P

ut

Up

Tab

le

Sto

pp

ing

Dis

tan

ce w

hen

ob

stac

le d

etec

ted

Wh

ere

the

stan

der

is m

ade

Am

bid

extr

ou

s

Pro

tect

ed e

lect

rica

l co

mp

on

ents

fro

m w

ater

an

d e

xter

nal

fac

tors

Per

cen

t C

han

ge in

Str

aps/

Res

trai

nts

fro

m O

rigi

nal

Sta

nd

er

Per

cen

t C

han

ge in

Sta

bili

ty f

rom

Ori

gin

al S

tan

der

Co

st

Needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Mobilize existing stander 1 X X X

Reliable/Chargeable Power Source 2 X X

Ability to adjust the height of the stander 3 X

Training Mode/Controller for Trainer 4 X

Move at a brisk walking pace 5 X X X X

Removable tray/as much as possible behind child 6

Add no more than 20lb to device 7 X

Able to be used left handed or right handed 8 X

Able to function with a range of children with different abilities 9 X X

Be able to function in a school environment 10 X X X

Stander should be made in the USA and use standard parts 11 X

Must provide as much stability as off the shelf stander 12 X

Electrical Components must be protected 13 X

Restraints/Straps must remain in current arrangement 14 X

Collision Detection 15 X

Proposed budget of $6000 16 X

Specifications

Motorize Current Stander

Accept User Input

Move User Safely

Prevent Collisions

Allow Interchangeable Human Interface

Devices

Normalized Input

Move User in Multiple

Directions

Maintain Constant

Speed

Adjust Height

Raise Platform

Lower Platform

Detect Hazard

React to Obstacles

Left/Right

Forward/Backward

Stop Stander

Slow Stander Down

Accept Trainer Override

Avoid TippingDecelerate

Safely

Detect Collision

Detect Drop-off

Maintain Current Stander Features

Improve User Experience

Secure User Safely

Maintain Stander Straps

Maintain Factory Stability

Concept Generation

Accept User Input

Field Goal

Head Array

Joystick

Push Button Switch

Touch Screen (iPad)

Tongue Switch

Accept Trainer Override

Bluetooth

Wire Connection

Wifi

Move User Safely Motorized Wheels

Treads

Detect Hazard

Infrared Sensor

Cliff Sensor

Laser Rangefinder

Thermal Imaging Sensor

Ultrasonic Sensor

Contact Switch

Adjust Height

Hydraulic Adjustable

Pneumatic Adjustable

Power Adjustable

Stander

Rifton Dynamic Stander

Snug Seat Gecko Standing Frame

Sung Seat Rabbit Mobile Stander

Concepts

A B C

Rabbit Gecko Rifton

Selection Criteria Website Website Website

Modifiability + - +

Equipment Bulk + - -

Overall Size + - 0

Majority of Equipment Behind User + - -

Ability to order in 22 weeks + + +

Price 0 + -

Sum + 's 5 2 2

Sum 0's 1 0 1

Sum -'s 0 4 3

Rank 1 3 2

Continue? Yes No No

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

Move Options

A B C

(Reference)

Selection Criteria Self Propelled Treads

Reliability + 0 0

Safety 0 0 0

Minimal Stress on User - + +

Speed - + 0

Turning Radius 0 + +

Minimal Height from Ground - + +

Manueverability 0 + +

Weight + 0 -

Cost + 0 -

Ability to Implement in 22 weeks + + -

Sum +'s 4 6 4

Sum 0's 3 4 3

Sum -'s 3 0 3

Rank 3 1 2

Continue? No Yes No

2 Motorized Wheels;

Differential Steering

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

Wheel Placement Options

A B C

(Reference)

Selection Criteria Center Placement Front Placement Rear Placement

Stability 0 0 +

Speed 0 0 0

Turning Radius + 0 -

Obstacle Handling - + 0

Smoothness of Ride 0 + +

Cost 0 0 0

Ability to Implement in 22 weeks + + +

Sum +'s 2 3 3

Sum 0's 4 4 3

Sum -'s 1 0 1

Rank 3 1 2

Continue? No Yes Yes

Source

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

Human Interface Device

A B C D E F

(Reference)

Selection Criteria Joystick Head Array Tongue Switch

Off-The-Shelf Availability + + + - - +

Cost + + + 0 0 +

Usability + + 0 0 - -

Interchangeability + + 0 - - +

Customer Desire 0 + 0 - - 0

Ability to Implement in 22 weeks + + + - - -

Sum +'s 5 6 3 0 0 3

Sum 0's 1 0 3 2 1 1

Sum -'s 0 0 0 4 5 2

Source Source Source EnableMart Unable to locate Unable to Locate Enablemart

Rank 2 1 4 5 6 3

Continue? Yes Yes No No No No

Point & Click

Device

Push Button

Switch

Field-

Goal

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

Raise/Lower System

A B C D

(Reference)

Selection Criteria Manual Hydraulic Pneumatic Motor Driven

Safety + 0 0 0

Easily Adjustable - + + +

Reliability + 0 0 0

Cost + - + +

Time to Adjust - + + +

Wide Height Range 0 + + +

Ability to Implement in 22 weeks + 0 + +

Sum +'s 4 3 5 5

Sum 0's 1 3 2 2

Sum -'s 2 1 0 0

Rank 3 4 1 1

Continue? No No Yes Yes

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

Trainer Mode System

A B C

(Reference)

Selection Criteria Wired Bluetooth Wifi

Portability - + +

Connection Reliability + 0 -

Range - 0 +

Cost + 0 0

Ability to Implement in 22 weeks + + 0

Sum +'s 3 2 2

Sum 0's 0 3 2

Sum -'s 2 0 1

Rank 1 2 3

Continue? Yes Yes No

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

Hazard Detection System

A B C D E F

(Reference)

Selection Criteria

Ultrasonic

Sensor

Laser

Rangefinder

Infrared

Sensor

Thermal Imaging

Sensor

Contact

Switch

Cliff

Sensor

Off-The-Shelf Availability 0 0 0 - 0 +

Cost 0 - - - + +

Minimum Range 0 + - - + 0

Maximum Range 0 + - + - 0

Ease of Interpreting Output 0 0 0 - + +

Ability to Implement in 22 weeks 0 0 0 - 0 +

Sum +'s 0 2 0 1 3 4

Sum 0's 6 3 3 0 2 2

Sum -'s 0 1 3 5 1 0

Rank 2 3 4 6 5 1

Continue? Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

General System Architecture

Proposed System Design

P13045--Mobile Pediatric Stander

System Proposals

A B C D E

(Reference)

Selection Criteria Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4 Proposal 5

Hazard Detection (Long) - 0 - 0 +

Hazard Detection (Short) - + + 0 +

Input - - 0 - +

Movement Method 0 0 + + +

Raise/Lower Method + 0 + + +

Trainer Mode 0 + 0 0 +

Sum +'s 1 2 3 2 6

Sum 0's 2 3 2 3 0

Sum -'s 3 1 1 1 0

Rank 4 3 2 3 1

Continue? No No No No Yes

Number Risk Item Cause Effect Like

liho

od

Seve

rity

Imp

ort

ance

Action to Minimize Risk Owner

Briefly describe the risk

What are the possible

cause(s) of this risk?

What Is the effect on any or

all of the project deliverables

if the cause actually

happens? L*S

What action(s) will you take (and

by when) to prevent, reduce the

impact of, or transfer the risk of

this occurring?

Who is

responsible for

following

through on

mitigation?

1

Components of device will

not be compatible with

each other

Poor planning and

research of parts

Spend more money to order

replacement parts 2 3 6

Communicate with team

members to perform analysis and

research Tom

2

Device is not stable/safe

enough to use

Poor design/engineerng

analysis Unusable device 2 3 6

Conduct multiple trials

throughout the process and

conduct safety tests Kim

3

Sensors will interfere with

each other

Poor design and

implementation of

collision avoidance

system

Device will not move properly

and will have

jerky/inconsistent

movements 2 3 6

Design sensor system and conduct

various tests Tom

4

Customer needs exceed our

engineering abilities

Requested device is too

complex for our abilities

Device will not perform all

desired functions 2 2 4

Communicate with customer and

guide to insure customer needs

are sufficiently met Heather

5

Weight constraints are not

achievable

Poor planning and

execution of design

Device will not meet

customer specifications 2 2 4

Keep track of weight of all

components Steve

6

Project does not get done

on time Poor time management

Poor grade in MSD, unhappy

customer 1 3 3 Create a schedule and stick to it Megan

7

Unable to create versatility

for use with multiple

children

Incompatibility of

components Personalized device 3 1 3

Research a wide variety of

controls Steve

8 Project goes overbudget

Mismanagement of the

budget

The project may not be

completed 1 2 2

Keep track of cost of all

components in a spreadsheet Megan

9

The power supply will not

be sufficient

Poor design/engineerng

analysis

Device will be too heavy to

handle or power output will

not be powerful enough 1 2 2

Perform power analysis when

components are added to ensure

enough power is available Tom

10

Unable to incorporate

raise/lower feature

Too much added weight,

unsafe addition All customer needs not met 2 1 2

Research hydraulics and other

possibilities for customer need Heather

1=low likelihood/severity/importance, 6=high likelihood/severity/importance