ergonomic housing improvements to personal smoke monitoring device
DESCRIPTION
Multidisciplinary Senior Design Systems Level Design Review. Team: Evan Wozniak Sarah Kostuk Christina Smith Aaron Prahst. Ergonomic Housing improvements to Personal Smoke Monitoring Device. Mid Quarter Systems Update. Update on: Hand piece Selection Orifice Plate Chest Belt. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Ergonomic Housing improvements to Personal Smoke Monitoring Device
Team:
Evan WozniakSarah KostukChristina SmithAaron Prahst
Multidisciplinary Senior DesignSystems Level Design Review
Mid Quarter Systems Update
• Update on:– Hand piece Selection– Orifice Plate– Chest Belt
MouthPiece Selection
• Prototyped 18 designs • The designs were separated into 5 groups
depending on their type of grip• Participants were asked to score groups on 3
questions with a likert scale of 1-5 (1= strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree) • Questions asked about the comfort, ease of
use, and the ability to be used in any environment
Results• 48 students participated• In order to score the mouthpiece the mean survey response
must be proven the be < or > the neutral response of 3 • This can be proven statistically using an hypothesis test ( 1
sample Z test)• The original hypothesis is that the mean (µ) of the survey
response of the design concept is “=“ 3• The alternative hypothesis (what we want to prove) is that
the mean (µ) of the survey response of the design concept is “>” or “<“3 (this will be 2 separate tests)
H0: µ0= 3 HA: µa > 3 or µa < 3 α= 0.05
Scoring Guidelines• The results from the survey were used to score each of the individual designs, to
reduce the 18 designs to 5 designs to move forward in the design process. • Designs were also scored on key engineering specs that the team made decisions
on. Criteria 1 3 5
Survey Question 1 µ<3 µ= 3 µ >3
Survey Question 2 µ<3 µ= 3 µ >3
Survey Question 3 µ<3 µ= 3 µ >3
Favorite in Group n/a n/a YES
Difference in prototype size and needed size Much larger size needed
Slightly more room needed
No additional room needed
Device hold was consistent person to person Not consistent Somewhat consistent
consistent
Device allows vent holes to be covered n/a YES n/a
Adding Space will change perceived ergonomics
Large Change Mild Change Slight- no change
Matrix Weighting• Weights were given to each of the criteria to show relative importance to the
success of the project.• The total group score from the questions was weighted x3, as the usability of the
device is a main customer need.• Favorite of the group as given a weight of x2 for the same reason of needing user
buy-in• All other criteria had a weight of x1• When choosing the hand pieces two ties came into play.
– The first tie was between IDs 12 and 14, due to extreme similarities only 1 was chosen to move on, referring back to the favorite option for the group 14 received more points and therefore was chosen to move forward of the two options.
– The second tie as a tree-way tie between 4, 7, and 15. Due to extreme similarities between 7 and another current device, cress; 7 was eliminated. Hand piece ID 15 was eliminated due to large confusion by participants using the device which lead to frustration. For this reason ID 4 was moved forward in the design development.
Moving Forward• The Five hand pieces moving into further
development are; 13, 1, 14, 11, and 4Hand Piece ID Total Survey
ScoreFavorite in Group Difference in
prototype size and needed size
Device hold was consistent person to person
Device allows vent holes to be covered
Adding space will change perceived ergonomics
Total
1 9 5 5 5 0 5 522 9 0 5 3 0 5 403 9 0 5 1 3 5 414 9 0 3 5 3 5 435 3 0 3 3 0 1 166 3 0 3 3 0 1 167 9 5 1 1 3 1 438 9 0 1 3 3 3 379 7 0 1 5 0 1 28
10 3 5 1 5 0 1 2611 7 5 3 5 0 5 4412 13 0 1 3 0 3 4613 13 5 1 3 0 5 5814 13 0 1 3 0 3 4615 9 5 1 1 3 1 4316 9 0 3 1 3 5 3917 7 0 1 5 0 5 32
Pressure Sensor Selection
Preliminary Orifice Plate Concepts
Chest Belt Concepts
Questions
• Is there any way that the space claim for the electrical components in the mouthpiece can be made smaller?