p14043-smart cane senior design final presentation
DESCRIPTION
P14043-Smart Cane Senior Design Final Presentation. Introductions. Lauren Bell – Mechanical Engineer Jessica Davila – Industrial Engineer Jake Luckman – Mechanical Engineer William McIntyre – Electrical Engineer - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
P14043-Smart CaneSenior Design
Final Presentation
Introductions
• Lauren Bell – Mechanical Engineer• Jessica Davila – Industrial Engineer• Jake Luckman – Mechanical Engineer• William McIntyre – Electrical Engineer• Aaron Vogel – Mechanical Engineer
Agenda• Problem Description• Design Challenge• System Design and Operation• Testing and Traceability• Project Process• Conclusion• Recommendations• Lessons Learned• Acknowledgements
Problem DescriptionSafe and easy navigation in the world is difficult for the blind and
deaf/blind
InexpensiveIntuitive
ExpensiveTraining Required
Limited Situation Feedback
Excellent Situation Feedback
COMMON SOLUTIONS
Project Goal
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
MSD Process Overview
Concept Selection
• Many ideas to one
Design Consideration
s
• Defining the engineering requirements & constraints
Generation of Design
• Drawings, Documentation
Fabrication and Assembly
Testing of Prototype
• Proof that prototype meets eng. requirements
MSD I
MSD II
Design Considerations
Customer Desire Technical Requirement
Light weight < 1 lbs.
Small Grip Diameter < 1.5 inches
Quick Signal to User < 500 milliseconds
User Can Detect Direction *Will Elaborate Later
Battery Life > 4 hours
Customer desires needed to be transformed into technical requirements…
Learned – Fully understand the customer needs ASAP…otherwise time will be wasted
Potential Concepts
• Track Ball• Piston Push Feedback• Torque ‘Jerk’• Magnetic Force Feedback• Scroll Navigation
Brainstorming and benchmarking yielded the following likely candidates…
Learned – Prototyping accelerates the concept selection process
Optimizing Roller Design
• Roller Speed
• Roller Shape
• Bump Height
Learned – Quick and simple tests/prototypes will quickly narrow the design. Don’t overanalyze!
Electrical Design
Electrical design driven by mechanical design and
Engineering requirements
Mechanical Design
Design provides effective directional feedback
• ‘Bump’ Roller Sub-assembly• DC gear motor• Roller arms• Dowel pins• Press fit ball bearings
Final Design
Documentation of everything is crucial for future project iterations
Fabrication and Assembly• ~25 manufactured parts• Material Changes• Part Modifications• Time management
Learned – Fabrication and assembly will expose necessary
changes in the design
Final tests were within predicted values
Testing and Traceability
Prototype meets all non-technical requirements
Testing and Traceability
Problem Tracking System
1. Identifying & Selecting
Problem
2. Analyzing Problem
3. Generating Potential Solutions
4. Selecting and
Planning Solution
5. Implementing
Solution
6. Evaluating Solution
Learned – Once problems started to arise and stack up, Problem Tracking significantly helped us manage the problems
Risk Curve
Useful tool to track actual status against planned
20-Aug 9-Sep 29-Sep 19-Oct 8-Nov 28-Nov 18-Dec 7-Jan 27-Jan 16-Feb 8-Mar 28-Mar 17-Apr 7-May0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Actual Planned
Sum
of R
isks'
Impo
rtan
ceIm
port
ance
= L
ikel
ihoo
d x
Seve
rity
Reduction of risks due to analysis (heat, stress, weight)
RISKS: Machining issues with thin ABS covers, ABS back cover breaks during testing phase, PCB not arriving on time
PCB working, assembly between handle & cane holds together, wires fit into handle design
Project Plan and Efficiency
TaskPlanned Duration
Actual Duration Difference Efficiency
Order Electrical Parts 14 21 7 67%Fabrication of Parts 18 34 16 53%Order PCB 5 30 25 17%Testing 5 18 13 28%Assembly of Handle 5 15 10 33%Technical Paper 14 27 13 52%Total MSDII Tasks 83 108 25 77%
Item Item Description Date Due Owner Date Complete Status1 Complete editing paper 30-Apr Jess 30-Apr Complete2 Add electrical section into paper 30-Apr BJ 30-Apr Complete4 Turn in Poster 28-Apr Lauren 28-Apr Complete5 IEEE Design Presentation Submit to Prof. Slack 29-Apr Team 30-Apr Complete6 Complete user manual 30-Apr Aaron 30-Apr Complete7 Edit paper based on Gary's revisions 6-May Jess 6-May Complete8 Complete final report for customer 12-May Team 12-May Complete9 Turn in Paper 8-May Jess 8-May Complete
10 Final Presentation 13-May Team 13-May Complete
Final Deliverables
Imagine RIT
• 200+ “Users”
• ~100% Positive Feedback
• University News Interview
Users at Imagine RIT demonstrated our project met its objectives and was a success.
Lessons Learned
Project Management
Customer Interaction
Creating a good team dynamic
“What’s the best thing I can be doing right now?”
Recommendations• Complete cane with integration to sensors
• Improve handle to provide feedback on changes in elevation and proximity of obstacles.
• Redesign handle with fewer parts and simple assembly
• Attempt to redesign with smaller batteries
• Strengthen the outer structure of handle
• Water/weather proof
Recommendations for MSD→Shorter presentations in MSD I
→Teach project management skills in other courses
→Evenly distribute the team resources
→Use guides from industry
Acknowledgements• Guides• Gary Werth• Gerry Garavuso
• Customers• Dr. Patricia Iglesias• Gary Behm• Tom Oh
• Professor Mark Indovina• Jeff Lonneville
Motor Analysis• Torque/speed• Power consumption
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
• Our measurements matched the study, therefore:• Marginal Grip Pressure: 3 psi• Maximum (Design) Pressure: 5 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
Required Motor Torque• Maximum moment could happen when:• Grip reaches design pressure• Pressure force is perpendicular to contact point• Palm contact area is maximum on roller• Two rollers are contacted
• Maximum moment caused by design pressure• 50.1 oz-in
• Motor selection will not be heavily constrained• Variety of motors that meet torque, size and rotation requirements
Bump Rotation/Roller Analysis• Bumps per rotation• Servo to Roller Spacing• Effectiveness of our
model – Audience?
Roller Force/Stress Analysis
Force/Stress Cont’d