1 / 21

Concept Generation & Selection Team # 17 Michael Bunne , John Jagusztyn , and Jonathan Lenoff

Concept Generation & Selection Team # 17 Michael Bunne , John Jagusztyn , and Jonathan Lenoff Department of Mechanical Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Project Sponsor:. Project Advisors: Dr. Emmanuel G. Collins, Ph.D Department of Mechanical Engineering

mimir
Download Presentation

Concept Generation & Selection Team # 17 Michael Bunne , John Jagusztyn , and Jonathan Lenoff

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. Concept Generation & Selection Team # 17 Michael Bunne, John Jagusztyn, and Jonathan Lenoff Department of Mechanical Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Project Sponsor: Project Advisors: Dr. Emmanuel G. Collins, Ph.D Department of Mechanical Engineering Dr. Oscar Chuy, Ph.D Department of Mechanical Engineering

  2. Introduction • Problem Statement • The current generation of assistive walking devices is limited in their traversable terrain and functionality. • Indoor operation only • Only perform basic functions • Scooters / electric wheelchairs unnecessary or expensive • Proposed Solution • Develop a walking assistive device designed to actively assist the user in both indoor and outdoor maneuverability. • Further empower the disabled and elderly community • Offer wide-range of assistive functions • Maintain ease of use and intuitiveness integral to current generation walkers 1 of 19

  3. Designed to offer walking assistance outdoors • Provides stability and fall prevention • Limited indoor and moderate outdoor operation • Not semi-omni-directional • Designed to assist in post-surgery rehabilitation • Provides stability, walking gait suggestions, fall prevention • Indoor operation only • Not for day-to-day use • Not semi-omni-directional Existing Devices National Taiwan University: Advanced Control Lab “Assisted walker robot” Korean Center for Intelligent Robotics outdoor assistive walking system 2 of 19

  4. Criteria • Versatility • Robustness • User-friendliness • Indoor operation • Outdoor operation • Cost • Weight Specifications • Frame • Resemble current generation walker in aesthetics and standards • 1 inch diameter aluminum piping • Supports up to 300 pounds • Adjustable heights between 32 and 39 inches • Adjustable handle width between 11 and 24 inches • Propulsion • Minimum 11 inch diameter wheels or tracks • Travel over all indoor surfaces, grass, gravel, sand… • Travel up or down slopes up to 10 ° • Move transversely 45° from the center axis • Maximum operating speed of 5 mph • Control & Function • Intuitive user input • Force-based drive control • Fall Prevention • Sit-Down/Stand-Up Assistance • Object Detection/Avoidance • Localization & Navigation 3 of 19

  5. Driving Wheel Driving Motor Encoder Elbow Couple Adjustable Spring Damper Spring Housing Elbow Couple Ackerman Steering Driving Wheel Driving Motor Motor Encoder Spring & Damper Ackerman Steering Steering Motor Caster Wheel Caster Suspension &Swivel Basket / Electronics Force Plate Camera Concept 1Design 4 of 19

  6. Concept 1Design 5 of 19

  7. Pros: Sturdy, well balanced and robust Ample electronics space Common implementation of steering and driving motors Good outdoor operation and traversibility Cons: Limited steering capabilities Fragile Tires Large/Heavy Structure Foreign walker design Expensive Concept 1Pros/Cons 6 of 19

  8. Honeycomb Wheel Elbow Gearbox Driving Motor Encoder Rotary Connection Steering Motor Spring Damper Controls Base Spring Driven Controls Basket / Electronics Camera Swivel and Suspension Caster Wheel Honeycomb Wheel Elbow Gearbox Driving Motor Encoder Rotary Connection Steering Motor Spring Damper Spring Housing Concept 2Design 7 of 19

  9. Grip Damper Spring Depth Adjustment Shaft Adjustment Shell Mount / Width Adjustment Shaft Spring Driven Controls 8 of 19

  10. Pros: Familiar walker design True omni-directional movement Cheap, sturdy controls Puncture-less tires Excellent versatility Extremely user-friendly Cons: Single tire failure could render walker useless Less backwards stability Limited space for electronics Limited payload capacity Additional motor and electronics required Expensive Concept 2Pros/Cons 9 of 19

  11. Caster Wheel Caster Suspension / Shaft Swivel Motor Encoder Driving Motor Spring Elbow Couple Spring Spring Housing Ackerman Steering Basket / Electronics Steering Motor Spring Driven Handle Laser Sensor Spring Dampers Frame Concept 3Design 10 of 19

  12. Pros: • Maximum payload • Durable, solid frame with added supports • Good Outdoor Use • Active Suspension • Cons: • Bulky Frame • Fragile Components • Heavy Structure • High Cost • Foreign to User Concept 3Pros/Cons 11 of 19

  13. Caster Wheel • Driving Motor • Rotary Connections • Steering Motor • Spring • Damper • Spring Housing • Laser Sensors • Force Plate Driven Handle • Driving Wheel • Caster Suspension • Motor Encoders • Basket / Electronics • Laser Sensor Concept 4 Design 12 of 19

  14. Pros: Fast Lightweight High Indoor Use Navigation System Cons: Minimal Payload Capacity Fragile Components Limited Outdoor Use Low Demand Expensive Concept 4 Pros/Cons 13 of 19

  15. Driving Wheel Driving Motor Track Suspension and Tension Wheel All-terrain tracks Suspension Front storage Basket / Electronics Spring Input Foldable Seat 6 7 8 9 Concept 5 Design 1 2 3 4 5 14 of 19

  16. Concept 5 Design 15 of 19

  17. Pros: Great Outdoor Operation Active Suspension Riding Capability Large Payload Cons: Minimal Indoor Operation Passive Dimension Adjustments Expensive Heavy 6 7 8 9 Concept 5 Pros/Cons 1 2 3 4 5 16 of 19

  18. Criteria • Versatility • Robustness • User-friendliness • Indoor operation • Outdoor operation • Cost • Weight 17 of 19

  19. Concept 5: • Versatility – 3 • Robustness – 4 • User-friendliness – 3 • Cost – 1 • Indoor Operation – 1 • Outdoor Operation – 5 • Weight – 1 • Concept 4: • Versatility – 3 • Robustness – 3 • User-friendliness – 5 • Cost – 1 • Indoor Operation – 3 • Outdoor Operation – 2 • Weight – 4 • Concept 3: • Versatility – 3 • Robustness – 5 • User-friendliness – 2 • Cost – 1 • Indoor Operation – 2 • Outdoor Operation – 3 • Weight – 1 • Concept 2: • Versatility – 5 • Robustness – 3 • User-friendliness – 4 • Cost – 2 • Indoor Operation – 3 • Outdoor Operation – 3 • Weight – 3 • Concept 1: • Versatility – 3 • Robustness – 4 • User-friendliness – 3 • Cost – 2 • Indoor Operation – 3 • Outdoor Operation – 4 • Weight – 2 Decision Matrix 18 of 19

  20. Conclusions 6 7 8 9 • Based on preliminary investigation, further detailed analysis will be applied for: • -Concept 1 • -Concept 2 • -Concept 5 • Concepts 1 and 2 are considered moderate to good across all selection criteria • Concept 5 optimizes the highest ranked criterion (outdoor operation) 1 2 3 4 5 19 of 19

  21. Questions?

More Related