Dianne Goodwin, MEBME President/Rehab Engineer Nicholas Lee, BSME Partner/Design Engineer

1. design and development process accessible, affordable, and modular robotics Dianne Goodwin, MEBME President/Rehab Engineer Nicholas Lee, BSME Partner/Design Engineer Minneapolis, MN RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

2. Design and Development Process • Need: Problem needs solving • Identify the Need • Involve real people and end users • Design and Development Process • Design Goals and Specifications • Prototype Development (electronics/mechanical) • Design for Manufacturing (DFM) • Best materials and methods of Manufacture • Cost of Production (NRE and Piece parts) RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

3. The 3 areas impact each other RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

4. RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

5. Need: Independent access and positioning • People with significant disabilities (no UE) • reliant on others • Independent access • devices, electronics, speech, water, controls • AND to move/position things independently • move it where they need it • when they want it • easily, safely and efficiently • Across environments—bed, w/c, table RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

6. Review Existing Technology • Static mounts • Daessy, Rehadapt, CJT • Movable with some extremity use • Mount’n Mover • DaessySwingAway • Wheelchair-mounted Robotic Arms • Focus on reaching and grasping • Move by alternate means (ie, joystick, switch) • Load capacity is <3.5 pounds RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

7. Wheelchair-mounted Robotic Arm • JACO • Holds 1 kg (2.2 pounds ) • Reach 70 cm (27.5 in) • Speed: 20 cm/s (8 in/s) • Weight: 5 Kg (6 pounds) • $38-50,000 RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

8. iArm (formerly Manus) • iArm • Holds 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs) • Reach 90 cm (35.4 in) • Speed: 15 cm/s (6 in/s) • Weight: 9 Kg (20 lbs) • $34,000-?? RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

9. Product concept: Modular Power Mount Power mount Support and reposition devices NOT grasping and reaching Accessible controls Single or Multi-joints Simple and functional RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

10. Design goals: Accessible, Modular, Affordable and Safe • Supportup to 15 lbs, extended 15 inches • Accessibleand easy to operate • A wide range of control options • Memory positions (easy to program) • Fine adjustments also accessible • Modular (hybrid/system/build your own) • Single Joint—Tilt or Rotation • Multi-jointed • Height Adjustment module RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

11. Sometimes Less is More SMART joint • Single Joint/Actuator • Tilt (Hybrid) • SMART Joint • Rotation • Lift • Operated by • Single switch • Two switches • Joystick (via ECU) RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

12. Sometimes More is More Multi-joint Systems • Programmable • Up to 12 Sweet Spots • Levels (devices, environments, people) • Individual joint adjustments • Many input options • Joystick, switches, smart devices RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

13. Original concept: one arm length Big new idea: SMART Joint • SMART Joint = Building block • Joint + Extrusion opens up options • Single Joint version to create hybrids • Joint in different orientations • Horizontal, creates Rotation • On its side, creates a Tilt • Joint + Extrusions (of different lengths) = different arm lengths RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

14. Lego-land: so many options… RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

15. So many details to decideImplications: Design, Usability, Manufacturing • Worm Gear • Locks w/o power • How it Works • Programming • Feedback • Control • Input options • Display • Graphics • Length of arm • How many options? • Joint Housing • Joint Cap • Joint Release • Connections • Inputs • Wiring harnesses • Power and data RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

16. Dizzy Di and the Wonder Guy How will it attach to a wheelchair? I wonder how long the arm should be? How fast should it move? How will people control it? How should it work? I wonder What kind of people will use it? I wonder what forces it needs to withstand? What material should we use? RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

17. Usability considerationsUser Interfaces, Input and feedback Pow!r Mount 1 2 3 4 • End Cap • Input jack(s) • Touch control • Control Pad/Display • Touch, input jacks, wireless • Feedback • Movement • Visual (joints glow) • Auditory RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

18. What it Does and How it’s DoneEnd Cap and Control/Display Pow!r Mount 1 2 3 4 RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

19. Development Methods • Mechanical and Electronics vary • 3D CAD and Printing • Simulation Software to demo • Cannot look at things in isolation • Concurrent focus on: • Technical design and feasibility • Accessibility and Usability • Manufacturability • Areas overlap and influence one another RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

20. End User and their Team Needs End User preferences Ease of Use Accessibility Product Cost Compatibility with other equipment Look and feel Safety RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

21. Questions we’re asking • What controls do they want to use? • What kind of user interface makes sense? • How will the UI operate? • How big can it be? • How long is the “arm”? • Do they want a Single joint, or Multiple joints? What will they use this for? Who might use it? How would they access it? What are they doing now? How do they want it to work? How much would they pay? Who (person, voc rehab, insurance) would pay? RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

22. Product design considerations • Tech support • Assembly • Electronics • Loads • Impact • Failure modes • Environments • Manufacturability Functionality Utility Ease of Use Durability Safety Aesthetics Size and weight Compatibility RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

23. Simplify • Product • Limit choices • Interface • Easy to use • Intuitive (relate to familiar products) • Manufacturing • Reduce parts (Unibody and worm carriage) • Easier to assemble • Use one part in multiple ways RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

24. One part, Multi-purpose • Extrusion • Arms • Battery pack • Plate • Mounting Plate • Bottom Plate • Hole pattern • Existing MM parts • Extrusion • Compatibility increases flexibility RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

25. Manufacturing influences Design • Ex: Joint Housing • Idea: from tour of an Investment Cast facility • Clam shell (2 part) evolved into UniBody • Part reduction 2>1; no screws needed • Fewer seams for water • Minimize part count • Combine parts • Less assembly • Have each part “do more” RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

26. Worm’s turn: Investment Casting • Carriage: 6 parts to 1 • No assembly required • Easy assembly of motor/worm • More rigid • Multi-functional • Motor attachment • Release feature/gear mesh adjustment • Investment casting • Tooling cost <die cast • 0 degree Draft • 2nd Ops: Machine for precision RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

27. Joint Release Mechanism RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

28. Iterative Design Process RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

29. Joint Release—Multi-functional • Release for • Safely and easily move the mount • Without power • Release for • Ease of programming • Perhaps for • Training the arm to follow a path RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

30. Ideal Design Evolution • Key features—design and evaluate for: • Usability • Manufacturability • Manufacturing/design • Consider alternatives • Cost implications (tooling/parts) • End result • Affordable product • That meets their needs • People can do what they want—independently! RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN

31. Questions? • Thank YOU! To NIH/NICHD!!! • Research supported by NIH/NICHHD • SBIR Award Number R44HD072469 • Thank you! • Your opinions and ideas are Welcome • Keep in touch • dianne@blueskydesigns.us • nick@blueskydesigns.us • http://blueskydesigns.us/projects/powered-mount/ RESNA 2014 Indianapolis, IN