1 / 11

Ergonomic Housing improvements to Personal Smoke Monitoring Device

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.

anana
Download Presentation

Ergonomic Housing improvements to Personal Smoke Monitoring Device

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. Multidisciplinary Senior Design Systems Level Design Review Team: Evan Wozniak Sarah Kostuk Christina Smith Aaron Prahst Ergonomic Housing improvements to Personal Smoke Monitoring Device

  2. Mid Quarter Systems Update • Update on: • Hand piece Selection • Orifice Plate • Chest Belt

  3. 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

  4. Results • 48 students participated • In order to score the mouthpiecethe 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Moving Forward • The Five hand pieces moving into further development are; 13, 1, 14, 11, and 4

  8. Pressure Sensor Selection

  9. Preliminary Orifice Plate Concepts

  10. Chest Belt Concepts

  11. Questions • Is there any way that the space claim for the electrical components in the mouthpiece can be made smaller?

More Related