innovation portal complete (1)

PROTECTIVE BASEBALL CAPPORTFOLIO SUMMARY

Senior Capstone Project PortfolioFall Semester 2015

Andrew WilmerContact: [email protected]

Michael Ros Contact: [email protected]

Brendon BlackistonContact: [email protected]

http://www.innovationportal.org/file/download/205409

PORTFOLIO ELEMENT APRESENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM

Problem Statement:

An NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) study of MLB injuries from 2002-2008 found that pitchers had a much greater proportion of injuries to their upper extremities or head (67%). Pitchers also had a greater proportion of day on DL, accounting for 62% of all days on the disabled list from 2002-2008 (Source 2). A similar study on NCAA athletes for men’s baseball found that 10% of all injures at the collegiate level were the result of a batted ball and 25% of injuries resulted in a 10+ day removal from play (Source 1). A study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that in 2009, 38,394 cases were treated in hospitals in relation to baseball/softball head injuries which increased from 26,964 in 2008. Among ages 14 and under baseball and softball accounted for 18,246 head injuries in 2009 (Source 3). Head injuries and concussions are a growing issue in baseball and adaptive equipment must be considered.

Decision Matrix: Problem



Academic Justification"A total of 10% of all game injuries occurred from impact with a batted ball"

1. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate men's baseball injuries: National Collegiate Athletic

Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2003-2004. (2007, April 1). Retrieved

October 7, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17710166

This source gave a more extensive background on injuries specific to the collegiate level and allowed

us to create a fuller perspective on the issue we are trying to address. This source is highly reliable

because it was a professional study done by the National Center for Biotechnology Institute.

"Pitchers experienced 34% higher incidence rates for injury compared with fielders during the study

period (IRR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.25, 1.44). Among all player injuries, upper extremity injuries accounted

for 51.4% "

2. Epidemiology of Major League Baseball injuries. (2011, August 1). Retrieved October 7, 2015, from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21709023

This source contained statistics that showed a direct relation to the position played and the number of

upper extremity or head injuries suffered. This proved that pitchers are often in a more dangerous

position, and experience more traumatic injuries/lengthened time on the disabled list.

"The top 10 sports-related head-injury categories among children ages 14 and younger:"

Cycling: 40,272

Football: 21,878

Baseball and Softball: 18,246

Basketball: 14,952

Skateboards/Scooters: 14,783

Water Sports: 12,843

Soccer: 8,392

Powered Recreational Vehicles: 6,818

Winter Sports: 6,750

Trampolines: 5,025

3. Sports Related Head Injuries. (2014, August 1). Retrieved October 7, 2015, from

http://www.aans.org/patient information/conditions and treatments/sports-related head injury.aspx

This source provided abundant information on the growth of head injuries in baseball/softball over a

specific time span, and allowed us to prove that the issue of batted balls leading to head injuries is a

growing issue. This specific survey did not include patients treated by family doctors or cases that

weren't reported, causing the overall number to suffer from under-reporting. However, even

though numbers may be significantly lower due to under-reporting, the survey by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons does demonstrate a severe need for a protective cap in baseball.

Market Survey Results






Survey Results.docx







PORTFOLIO ELEMENT BDOCUMENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF PRIOR SOLUTIONAT TEMPTS

Existing Patents and Designs

Head injuries and concussions in baseball are a growing issue that needs to be addressed. Head injuries and concussions occur in baseball largely due to batted balls and the extreme amount of force they can exude. Many products have been developed in order to address this problem, like cap inserts or bulky padding added to the outside of the cap, but none have yet to combine protective stopping power with comfort and style suitable for athletes.

Introduction

Source (APA format): U.S. Design Patent-Lewondowski. (2014, May 29). Retrieved October 13, 2015, from http://patft.uspto.gov/

Patent Number: USD703,875 S

Patent Summary:This Patent is a design patent owned by the EvoShield company. The design is meant to protect the head and includes a curved patter covering the front of the head and sides with an additional section to cover the top of the head.

Patent Critique:This design is smart because it minimizes material by only covering the most endangered part of the head (front, sides, top). However, the design doesn’t seem as though it would contour well to the player’s head, and it obviously doesn’t fully protect the head. This design is very hard and not flexible it is also made of a heavy material.

Images/sketches:

Patents








Name of Product:

Crasche: Impact-Resistant Protective Hat

Manufacturer of Product:

CRASCHE® New York LLC

Commercial Product Summary:The Crasche hat is ideal for children and adults who should wear a helmet or hard hat, but don’t. It is not designed to replace a helmet, but it

is certainly a whole lot better than nothing on your head.

It can be used while skiing, snowboarding, ice skating, biking, hiking, skateboarding, rollerblading and for other sports where players don’t

currently wear helmets, such as girls lacrosse, girls field hockey and touch football. It can also be used in a non-sports environment,

where protective headgear is important, but a helmet is not suitable, such as in law enforcement or by the military.

It’s washable, and the protective inserts are designed to be easily removed and re-inserted. It’s a cool hat to wear, with or without the

protective inserts.

Existing Products

Source (APA format): Patent US20090222975 - Protective head guard. (2009, September 10). Retrieved October 20, 2015, from http://www.google.com/patents/US20090222975

Patent Number: US 20090222975 A1 Inventors: Michael Green, Cliff Zatz

Patent Summary:This design is currently under assessment by the MLB and appeals to many major league players simply due to the fact that it is less restricting and practically unnoticeable. The design itself includes concussion resistant material inserted into the cap’s interior in a cone shape. This design also maintain the ventilating properties and stability of a standard baseball cap, which makes it able to be worn for an extended period of time, this attribute appeals to fielders as well as pitchers.

Patent Critique:Pros ConsLightweight Lower Impact ResistanceComfortable DiscreteFlexible

Images/sketches:











protective inserts.

Commercial Product Critique:

- It solves a similar problem in the fact of reducing impact from an outside source.

Good: Very Durable, Machine Washable, Breathable, Stylish, Many Different Designs & Colors

Poor: Inserts make the beanie a little more rigid.

What unique aspect does the patent add to your overall research?

Durability, Functionality

Name of Product: Guardian CapManufacturer of Product: Guardian

Commercial Product Summary:

The Guardian Cap is a product of a company that has long been in the business of innovation and has been working to create impact reduction technologies. The Guardian is a giant step forward in innovation of sports equipment. The Guardian brings a soft-shell layer to the outside of the decades old hard-shell football helmets and reduces the impact the head takes in a hit up to 33%.The Guardian Cap is a product on the forefront of helmet technology.

Commercial Product Critique:

The objective is similar to our project goal in that it attempts to diminish the impact of exterior sources.The design isn’t very aesthetically pleasing, however, it provides an outer protection design aspect to our research.

Images:


PORTFOLIO ELEMENT CPRESENTATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF SOLUTIONDESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Design Criteria and Constraints

Constraints

CriteriaAll justifications from prior solution research and market analysis/survey***

1. Functionality: Major League Baseball states that any hat design must be able to withstand the pressure of an 85 mph baseball, for the hat to be allowed use in MLB. MLB requires the covering of the front of head with sides optional.

2. Weight: Design must be lightweight so as to not hinder motion, slow reaction time, or generally obstruct the player.

3. Mobility: Design must be small and mobile. Stability is a large factor, a bulky or otherwise unstable design would hinder motion and lessen a fielder's capability.

4. Aesthetics: The design must be appealing to all players. The design cannot sacrifice the general style associated with baseball, and it must be discrete enough to not invite ridicule.

5. Sizing: The design must have the capability of being adapted to all ages of head sizes through either a sizing range or personal customization. This is in order to create a safer product with higher comfort that can be marketed to a larger audience.

6. Ventilation: Design must allow airflow that will keep the head cool, keeping the player from sweating during performance.

7. Universal: The cap must be able to be worn by all fielders regardless of position and the duties that are associated with that position, this once again refers to the mobility and stability aspect

8. Additional Protection: A design must provide adequate protection to the front of the head. However, the temples and sides of the head are also critical impact zones and optional protection needs to be offered.

1. Time- A prototype must not only be constructed but tested for functionality, and a presentation/analysis completed by January 14th, 2016

2. Money- A $50 budget is our only financial resource to purchase materials for testing and design of the prototype

3. Manufacturing processes- Manufacturing processes are limited to those allowed by Tech Center resources. This means our capability to adequately mold plastics or other synthetic materials may be limited.

PORTFOLIO ELEMENT DDESIGN CONCEPT GENERATION, ANALYSIS, ANDSELECTION

Product Concept number: 1

Designer(s): Andrew Wilmer Product Description: Concept number 1 is a base design of the separate hat option. It consists of a knit hat, sorbothane, polycarbonate shields and neoprene. The knit hat would be the aesthetics view and underneath would be where the protective material would be located. First would be a layer of highly absorbent sorbothane, then would be between 4-6 polycarbonate triangles placed around the hat to keep the circular shape. The number of triangles would increase or decrease because of the size of the hat ordered. The last layer would consist of a neoprene layer that would keep the triangles in place as long as being a comfortable layer of material if it was to come in contact with the skin. These three layers would then be sewn shot in to the hat material, closing off the material.

Operation:The combination of the three materials provides an excellent absorbent to an impact force. Sorbothane is a rubber like substance that when impacted takes the impact and then conforms back to its original state after impact. The polycarbonate shields are the hard material that would take most of the impact force away before it makes contact to the head. Neoprene the final material will create a soft cushion to the head. The knit hat separate design allows the product to be marketed in many other sports besides baseball/softball.

Introduction:

After identifying key concepts, design constraints, and conducting research pertaining to similar designs and theories; we must now come up with designs that would best fit our criteria. With the help from previous brainstorming, we have devised a design matrix that will inevitably help us narrow down ideas for a final product, but for now provides several combinations of designs. These would be

characteristics such as style, size, weight, comfort, and cost. With a combination of multiple designs

from our group of three, we must brainstorm ideas that would provide the most protection/safety, however still catch the appeal of the consumer. These ideas may be original ideas or ideas inspired from other patented products. Each student is to brainstorm three ideas of their own in order to collaborate ideas and move on in the design process to narrow down a sketch or sketches for a final product. These design are to include a simple product description, an operation that the design primarily meets, and a justification to present both pros and cons of the design. After the completion of this task, our designs/sketches were posted for peer review so that other group members could give tips for other or current ideas.



Designer(s): Andrew Wilmer Product Description: Concept number 2 is a product of the temple protection design. Its materials consist of a ball cap, cloth material (temple covers), sorbothane neoprene, and polycarbonate. The ball cap would be the aesthetics view and then the protective material to be found underneath. First there would be a layer of sorbothane an operational rubber like substance that when impacted takes the impact and then conforms back to its original state after impact. This would stop the blow of the impact. Then there would be a layer of neoprene, a conforming material that would be a gentle cushion that would safely come in contact with the head. The temple protection would be two polycarbonate half circles that would be sewn into a material and then connected to the ball cap. The polycarbonate would protect the temples from an impact.

Operation:The combination of the two materials provides an excellent absorbent to an impact force. Sorbothane is a rubber like substance that when impacted takes the impact and then conforms back to its original state after impact. Neoprene will create a soft cushion to the head. The polycarbonate shields are the hard material that would take the impact force away before it makes contact to the temples.

Justification:The product would come in many different sizes so it would work with all ages. It would come in the same sizes as what ball caps come in. It would be cost efficient having to only buy one hat instead of a separate design. Major positive would be the temple protection that comes with this design. This design, because it is made from a normal ball cap allows the head to breath. However this design has a few negatives. The temple design will add weight to the hat and could also lower peripheral vision. The temple protection would cause more work to create thus increasing final price of the product. Although this look adds protection it is not appealing to consumers.

Justification:The product would come in many different sizes so it would work with all ages. It could also be used in many sports since its appealing look also provides protection for any sport or activity where your head is in danger. The knit hat design keeps the heat in when it is cold out but is also flexible so it allows the head to move. However the knit hat design adds great thickness underneath the baseball hat. This design could be uncomfortable underneath a hat as long as being bulky and adding more weight. The look is not appealing to players and it would not allow the head to breath during hot seasons.


Product Concept number 3

Designer(s) Andrew Wilmer Product Description: Concept number 3 is a product of the normal hat design. Its materials consist of a ball cap, sorbothane, and neoprene. The ball cap would be the aesthetics view and then the protective material to be found underneath. First there would be a layer of sorbothane an operational rubber like substance that when impacted takes the impact and then conforms back to its original state after impact. This would stop the blow of the impact. Then there would be a layer of neoprene, a conforming material that would be a gentle cushion that would safely come in contact with the head. These two materials would be able to stop enormous amounts of force before coming in contact with the head. There would be no change in look from a regular baseball hat to this one.

Operation:The combination of the two materials provides an excellent absorbent to an impact force. Sorbothane is a rubber like substance that when impacted takes the impact and then conforms back to its original state after impact. Neoprene will create a soft cushion to the head. This material will serve as a cushion yet also as a contact to the skin. Neoprene causes no irritation or any negative affects to any skin contact.

Justification:The product would come in many different sizes so it would work with all ages. It would come in the same sizes as what ball caps come in. It would be cost efficient having to only buy one hat instead of a separate design. This design, because it is made from a normal ball cap allows the head to breath. This design is very comfortable and flexible; it is also the most appealing to potential customers out of all our designs. This design has no crazy change to a normal baseball hat and this is why this design is most appealing. The only negative to this design is it could only be used in baseball/softball since it is a ball hat, it would most likely not be used in other activities.



Designer(s): Brendon Blackiston

Product Description:

This is your average baseball cap with a temple protection integrated design.

Operation:

This design includes a pad with small flaps connected that are small but large enough to cover the whole temple area. This further strengthens a very sensitive area. Justification:

The design provides a high comfortability level compared to the classic baseball cap. Not only does this strengthen a sensitive area, but the design is small and seemingly weightless. However, this only covers a small area and isn’t very pleasing through the eyes of a baseball player.




This is your average baseball cap with an outside cap design with a large pad covering the front of the hat.

Operation:

This is designed to provide a large amount of protection to the forehead region from a high impact level from an outside source. Justification:

There is a large area of protection as well as a high comfort level, however, this design is bulky and much heavier than a normal baseball cap and may throw off a player. Due to the bulk, the pad is also not very aesthetically pleasing.






This is your average baseball cap with an inside protection design.

Operation:

Medium sized pads will line the inside of the baseball cap in order to protect the skull from any direction in any situation. Justification:

The design looks great as the pads are not seen from the outside. This design is very functional and can be integrated into the cap or a two piece construction. However, the comfortability may decrease and size and weight may increase as the pads may make the cap rigid rather than a slim comfortable fit.



PORTFOLIO ELEMENT EAPPLICATION OF STEM PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

Gantt Chart and Work Breakdown Structure

Date: 10/7/15



Force Calculations and Data

Calculations: The potential impact force of an object can be roughly calculated by finding the kinetic energy the

object has prior to the collision, and identifying the distance of displacement over which the impact occurs. The

kinetic energy calculations are fairly simple, using the formula of KE=.5(M)V*V. Therefore, the only

changing variable in this equations for the issue of a batted ball is the velocity of a batted ball. The MLB

requires protective headgear to be certified to resist an 85 mph impact, so we'll use this as our example. 85

mph converts to approximately 38 m/s. The mass of a standard professional baseball is set at exactly .145 kg,

and therefore we can calculate the kinetic energy of the baseball prior to the impact. So, KE= .5*.145*38*38=

105 J. All that is left in this calculation is to calculate the force impacted upon the player by dividing this kinetic

energy value by the distance of the impact. For our calculations we used a value of .02m or 2 cm, this is the

approximate deformation of the ball and/or the retraction of the player themselves. Therefore, KE/.02= 5234 N

of force. By comparison, professional boxer Canelo Alvarez has a maximum potential punch power of 4400

Newtons which has the capability of breaking solid concrete. (Source: Sports Science Part V: Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs.

Canelo Alvarez - SiOWfa13: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy).

Note: Calculations of impact force were made assuming air

resistance is negligible and that any forward motion of

pitcher/fielder is also negligible.

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/how-do-you-estimate-impact-

force/





Durometers

Sorbothane: Specifications/Benefits

Durometers are both tools and a standard for the measurement of the hardness of plastics, based on the indentation value that results after a specific force is applied to the material. Materials are separated by durometer and given labels based off of their main materials properties and applications. The shore durometer test originated in the 1920s and results in a numerical value for 0-100 for each separate durometer scale. The higher the value the more resistant to indentation, therefore when choosing our materials for our protective hat we chose to order the sorbothane with the highest durometer value (70). Normally in impact resistance, hardness would cause higher rigidity that that could cause shattering. However, Sorbothane is a visco-elastic material that falls under the OO grouping of durometer which includes materials like foams, gels, and sponge rubber. Therefore, a higher durometer would allow us to combine the hardness of protective casing, with the cushioning capabilities of a foam.





PORTFOLIO ELEMENT FCONSIDERATION OF DESIGN VIABILIT Y

Introduction: Now that we have established a specific design or concept that we wish to push forward with, we must asses the viability of the design. Are materials suitable for their intended function, can the product be reasonably manufactured, is it ethical to manufacture and market this product? All of these questions must be assessed.

Market Viability:

With over 11.5 million people participating in baseball worldwide, and public awareness of concussions at an all-time high, there is a significant market for a protective cap. Following the recent discovery linking repeated concussions to the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, professional and recreational sports leagues have been under increased scrutiny to tighten concussion protocol and protect players. Therefore, a protective baseball cap would be a sought after commodity. Additionally, our market research/ survey showed that about half of the individuals had experienced an impact to the head while playing baseball and a large portion of them either loss of consciousness or other concussion like symptoms, making this product desirable to satisfy an evident growing safety concern.

Design Viability

Our team has conducted research to develop a solution to our problem. We have contacted baseball organizations on whether this is an actual problem. Wealso contacted Sorbothane Inc., Shocktec, and Poron XD on products that we could possibly use; we were sent two free samples of sorbathane and poron for samples for testing and we have remained in constant contact with these companies to gain knowledge of their material. We have done calculations on the force of a baseball to the skull and what force our design must be able to protect the athlete. We also contacted Major League Baseball to determine that our product must protect an athlete from an 85 mph ball to be considered viable by MLB. We also have been testing the force of baseball on our sample materials through the use of a force plate. We have also been looking at the length of time that the materials would last before they became useless and were no longer protecting the athlete to full standards. Our materials all can take repeated hits and then return to the same state of protection through elasticity. Our main problem that we had to overcome was the look of the hat, a problem stated by MLB players with past designs. Our materials are lightweight and airy adding nothing new to the design. The overall design would only add about ½ inch of thickness to the front of the hat. The new materials would still allow for the hat to breath and it would not cause any discomfort to the head. The good part of this design is it does not require any mechanical power or energy. The design would be placed into a normal hat design and would be always ready to stop any impact. The different parts would all be sewn into the undercover of the hat so the materials would not be seen and stationary and they would never move around why the athlete is in motion. When the hat comes in contact with a baseball, the energy from the baseball is dispersed through the material and then stops before the energy comes in contact with the head. All of our materials used in our product would ccome already as they are, minus cutting and trimming to size. We would then assemble the pieces into the hat using our design. The materials would be bought through Sorbothane Inc., Poron XD, and Polycarb. Our product does not involve electrical components at all.

Physical CapabilitiesLoads -The protective hat and padded material must be able to withstand the impact force of an 85mph batted ball in order to pass MLB standard tests. The impact strength/ resistance of the material may not need to be as high in lower levels of the game and younger age groups. The load in this situation would be dynamic and changing, depending on impact point, time of impact, and other factors. In order to withstand impact the materials we choose must be somewhat viscous or shock absorbent in order to transfer the energy from the impact across the surface area of the hat. These forces and loads will most likely be calculated using general force equations as well as impulse formulas.

Materials - We have conducted materials research on shock absorbing technology. Materials we have tested include sorbothane, shock-Tec air to gel, neoprene, and polycarbonate. Currently, we are considering Sorbothane and neoprene to be the two main shock absorbing materials. Sorbothane is widely renowned as the most shock absorbent material on the market, and is a semi-viscous solid that is capable of taking on liquid properties on impact in order to transfer energy and then solidify to prevent any serious injury. Sorbothane has been tested to be capable of performing at temperatures as low as 22 degrees Celsius. Neoprene is also capable of dampening shock, and is desirable in this product because of its wide use in textiles as well as its use as a lining in clothing or other protective gear. Neoprene is a comfortable material that contours well to a desired shape. Polycarbonate is the material of choice for the main structure of the padding. Polycarbonate is regarded as one of the strongest plastics around and is regularly used in bulletproof glass. The polycarbonate will not only be capable of withstanding serious impact, but once it is shaped to fit the contour of the head, it will provide structure to the padding itself.

Mechanical Engineering- No mechanical aspects will be utilized in this design, all objects are stationary and motion is not transferred in between parts.- No energy input is required in order for this product to function, the only energy that would be related to this design is that used in the manufacturing processes.

Chemical/ Bio-Engineering- Each of our specific protective materials are creates through chemical processes. Neoprene is produced through the polymerization of chloroprene and once it’s produced can be stitched or glued. Sorbothane is produced through the combination of isocyanates and polyols in order to create a viscoelastic material. Polycarbonate is produced when sodium from bisphenol A is reacted with phosgene. The baseball hat itself is created out of wool or polyester.

Laws and Codes- There are very few rules and regulations regarding baseball caps for major league pitchers. However, due to an increasing amount of injuries to the head by line drives in games, the MLB, as well as multiple other sources, have collaborated on safety conditions that a new cap would need to obtain. One of such is the ability to stop an 85 mph fastball. Rule 1.11 letter E states that, “No part of the uniform shall include a pattern that imitates or suggests the shape of a baseball”. Rule 1.11 letter F states that, “Glass buttons and polished metal shall not be used on a uniform”. These two dress regulations are needed to be taken into effect while designing our hat. Luckily with our topic, it is very easy to stay within the ethical responsibilities as there are very few, if any at all

Conclusion1.What are some potential ways in which your product could fail? What design features have you included to minimize the chance of failure?

Potential ways of failure for our product are that it isn’t capable of protecting a player from a batted ball, the product is too unstable to be a viable option for athletes to wear in games, the product is too bulky or aesthetically unpleasing. Additionally, if the materials fail after a certain amount of use and we are not aware, or do not alert the consumer to the danger.

2. Is development of a product that knowingly causes harm to people ever ethically justifiable? Why or why not? Give examples to support your position.

The development of a product that knowingly causes harm to people would be ethically justifiable if it is used in weaponry or other similar pieces. The ethical/ moral stance on war has often gone back and forth however, but the general consensus is that these violent means are justifiable when used to protect people. No everyday product should ever be created if it knowingly causes harm to people, however in the case of weaponry and other products associated, the product must be capable of causing harm.

Potential Negatives:Some people are allergic to neoprene while others can get dermatitis from thiourearesidues left from its production.

Bisphenol A (BPA) has been used safely as an industrial chemical for over 40 years. Importantly, none of the validated research suggests that BPA would cause adverse effects from exposure through consumer products or normal industrial production and use. Environmental and product-related exposure levels are anticipated to be well below any anticipated effect level.

None of these products prove to be very harmful to anyone in a normal circumstance where chemical levels and residues are low. Chemical levels would have to be at an extreme for serious complications to occur.

Ethical JustificationAs far as the potential risks or negative impact that this product poses, the only negative factors with its manufacture could be the environmental impact of the manufacturing process, however this is present in nearly all types of products. The potential benefit however is the ensured safety of a large demographic of athletes as well as their piece of mind. This product has the potential to minimize injuries, lower possible medical costs, or lawsuits that are filed through injuries. Thousands of athletes have suffered concussions and potentially lost their mental edge, we simply want to give them a sense of safety and peace of mind.

PORTFOLIO ELEMENT GCONSTRUCTION OF A TESTABLE PROTOT YPE

Construction of Prototype

Materials List

Baseball Hat Poron XD SorbothanePoly-carbonate Sewing Machine Seam RipperTape measure Gorilla Glue Force PlateLoggerPro Software Scissors PolyesterPitching Machine Mannequin Head

Build Procedure• Measure the size of hat and amount of protective material needed to cover front of head.

•Measure out pattern onto piece of Poron XD. 9 ¼ inches length, 3 ½ inches height, ¼ inch width, 25 degree curve to

top and bottom of piece.

•Cut out piece of Poron XD and place inside hat, adjust sizing if needed,

•Use Poron XD piece already cut and lay it on top of sorbothane piece.

•Trace piece of Poron XD onto the piece of Sorbothane.

• Using a knife cut the sorbothane where marked. 9 ¼ inches length, 3 ½ inches height, ¼ inch width, 25 degree curve

to top and bottom of piece.

• Place sorbothane in front and the Poron XD. (Materials should already stick together).

• Place the two protective materials in the front of the hat just behind the inner lining sweat guard and slide it down

into the pocket.

• Then measure piece of cloth (same color as hat) that will cover the protective material. 5 ½ inches height, 10 inches

length,

•Then attach a Velcro strip to the top edge of the cloth material. 10-11 inches length, ¼ to ½ inch width

- Attach the opposite side of Velcro to the hat material right near the end of the protective material.

•Sew the cloth material on the inside of the sweat guard out of view to the user.

•Sew each side of the cloth to the hat material but leave the top end open, closest to the top end of the protective

material.

•Slide protective materials into the sleeve created, and then use the Velcro to close the pocket keeping the material

tightly in place.

��


We measured the area of the hat that we wanted our padding to cover to develop dimensions for our padding

With these dimensions we created a preliminary outline using test pieces of Poron

Upon completion of the outline, the template was used to create the first layer of padding, and from that, we drew an outline for our Sorbothane

A box-cutter is then used to cut out the Sorbothane Layer and the two pieces of padding are attached

Once the two pieces are attached the padding is placed in the sweat guard and ready for testing








PORTFOLIO ELEMENT HPROTOT YPE TESTING AND DATA COLLECTION PL AN

Prototype Testing

We completed incremental testing during the design process as used a force plate to measure the dampening properties of various materials when a baseball was dropped onto them from a st height. Our final testing with use a similar setup, where our products dampening properties are measured by analyzing the experienced impact force in a collision with and without the padding

Initial Conditions:

Materials:

Baseball Hat Prototype Pitching Machine Jolt Sensors

Mannequin Head Stabilizing device (mat) Extension cord Smartphone

Pass/Fail Criteria:The MLB requires any protective gear to be able to withstand an 85 mph impact. Therefore, our goal is to achieve a level of dampening that can lower the experienced force to a non-injury, or completely safe level. This would require about 60-70% reduction in impact force. Additionally, if it is found that our prototype isn't up to MLB standards we can still attempt to prove that it is suitable for lower age groups that play at a slower pace, and don't have the potential for as traumatic impacts. We will know if this occurs during testing based on the data recorded by our Jolt sensor.

The prototype will be completed and placed on top of a mannequin head, with a Jolt impact sensor placed on the inside of the hat in order to record the impact force of various collisions.

Incremental Testing:


Testing Procedures:

Next, once the pitching machine is set up at the correct distance on an uninterrupted path, the mannequin head and prototype must be placed in a stable position in the path of the pitching machine. In order to ensure the stability of the mannequin head it was placed on a pole that was anchored into a heavy mat. The mat was then placed against a wall to ensure that the prototype didn't move prior to impact or recoil on impact.

First, we must establish a safe area to conduct the testing in, the area we had in mind was the North Carroll Auxiliary Gym. Once we acquire time in this area to test we must set up a direct path for the pitching machine to send the baseball at the prototype, due to the lack of space in the auxiliary gym, the pitching machine must be placed 40 feet away from the prototype rather than the desired 60 ft. Therefore, due to the difference in distance, the impact speeds will vary. The initial set up in the North Carroll Gym, and calculations for the new speeds are shown below






In order for data to be recorded, the Jolt impact sensor must be placed inside the hat, in the same location that a pitcher's head would be. Therefore, the sensor was placed inside the sweat guard directly in line with the desired point of impact.

Finally, we are ready to test. We collected data for impacts at speeds between 50 mph and 65 mph increasing at 5 mph increments. This was tested at a distance of 40 feet. These speeds on the pitching machine correlate to approximately 76 mph-98 mph at a MLB pitching mound distance of 60 feet 6 inches. At each speed we had three trials with and without the padding in order to establish a trustworthy average value that can be used to evaluate the functionality of our product.



PORTFOLIO ELEMENT ITESTING, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Testing Data and Analysis

Testing:Location: North Carroll High School, Upper Gym

We began our testing in the upstairs gym of North Carroll High school. We pulled out the pitching

machine that the baseball team uses and set up the machine 40 feet away from the brick wall opposite

of the machine. We then ran an extension cord and plugged the pitching machine in. We set the

mannequin head up on the pole against the brick wall behind a mat so it would hold. We then turned

the machine on and begin firing baseballs at the mannequin head. We first had to adjust the height of

the machine so it would make a direct impact to the hat where the sensor was placed behind the hat.

We placed the jolt sensor behind the sweat guard in the baseball hat. We then placed the baseballs in

the pitching machine and began the speed at 50mph. We threw it at with no material inside the hat,

and monitored until the ball made direct contact with the sensor 5 times. This way we knew we had an

accurate number on the sensor. We then placed the material into the hat and moved the jolt sensor so

it was behind the material but at the same point. We then threw at it again until it hit the sensor five

times directly. We repeated this process over at the speeds of 50, 55, 60, and 65 mph. Each time we

had to alter the machine slightly so it would continue to make a direct impact to the sensor point on the

hat. We did this until we had all times and speeds of impacts recorded. After this we cleaned up the

gym and then emailed the CEO of Jolt sensor about a data dump of all the data we had recorded on the

sensor for that day. He then the next day proceeded to send us all the information and data from the

sensor we had used. We then went into the data and created the two graphs below.



PORTFOLIO ELEMENT JDOCUMENTATION OF EXTERNAL EVALUATION

External Evaluation and Feedback

On January 14th, we held our annual Trade Show at the Career and Technology Center in Westminster, Maryland. This event is where we open up our classroom to current and former engineers, professionals in related fields, or any other interested parties in order to allow them to view and critique our projects. The reviewers included Northrop Grumman employees, STEM facilitators, and Carroll County Board of Education members.

We were tasked with presenting our project to the reviewers in a manner that would show exactly how we worked through the engineering process from problem identification to the creation of a functional prototype. We were reviewed on two separate occasions by 4 different reviewers and presented our testing, material data, product functionality, marketing, problem justification, and other key factors of the design process. One of the reviewers notes are shown below...





The general consensus by our reviewers was that we had addressed a significant and growing issue and had succeeding in creating a functional and aesthetically pleasing product. However, their main criticism of our presentation was that we didn't talk enough about different solutions, designs, or materials that we had considered. Rather, we seemed to focus more on the description of what materials we used and their positive effects, instead of the negative characteristics of the unused designs/materials. We learned that the reviewers abide by the philosophy that if we didn't present it, then it didn't happen during the design process, therefore since we didn't show them our separate concept sketches that we ruled out, it seemed we were focused only on one solution path. On the positive side, the reviewers were impressed with the way we considered the marketability of our product as well as our depth of research into the problem, and our successful results for our prototype.


PORTFOLIO ELEMENT KREFLECTION ON THE DESIGN PROJECT

Design Project Reflection

Existing Products:

We found two existing patents and also we found two existing designs similar to our idea that is already on the market. Our first patent was a patent owned by EvoShield, a highly touted company in the baseball industry. This patent was a very good patent choice for us because it is a design that we ended up being similar to but also making some very important improvements that made our product different and exceptionally better. The second patent, an idea owned by Michael Green is one that is under assessment from the MLB. This patent benefited us in a great way as we got to see an idea that was already proposed to the MLB and an idea that had some major cons when the idea approached players. This patent helped us to see what the MLB was interested in and some of their major requirements for them to even look at the product. Then we had some existing products that we found that had relation to our idea. The first product was a Crasche Hat which was an ordinary knit hat that had neoprene and polycarbonate inside of it. This product introduced us to the idea of using those two materials which was very beneficial to the completion of our final product. The second product was the guardian Cap, which was mostly built around football use. This product showed us that we needed to make our product aesthetically pleasing since this was not and it was not selling based on its reviews. These two patents and two existing products greatly benefited us so that we knew what to do and what not to do in our own product. A thing that I would change would be just to add one or two more existing patents and products. This would help us get a better understanding of the overall products on the market. The Existing product stage was very beneficial and thought out for our use in our product.

Criteria/Constraints:

Our criteria consisted of eight points and our constraints consisted of three points. The criteria points included additional protection, universal, ventilation, sizing, aesthetics, mobility, weight, and functionality. The constraints consisted of, time, money and manufacturing processes. These points all gave us a starting area and limit of what we had to do and the resources we were given. Under each point there is a sentence or two to explain the main point. A thing that we could do that would make this element on the portal, better, would be to create a longer explanation. A longer explanation for each point would help to describe exactly what each point means. For example in the criteria under aesthetics, there is only one sentence, to change this I would add more information. I would add more information on what the actual players have said about the looks. I would also include quotes from players on the topic and the review sent out by the MLB asking that same question. This would show a more in depth part to the constraint. If this was added to each point in both the criteria and constraint portion it would greatly expand the element.

Concept Designs:

In this section each group member was given the task to design three concepts that could be possible solutions. Each person drew there designs and then each person wrote an explanation of their concepts with both the pros and cons of each. Each concept had a small explanation and this is the one thing that we would change for the better. Each paragraph now just has a short description. The next time to make this better we would add more information into this paragraph. This paragraph should include a full list of the materials involved into the concept. It should also include a design of exactly where all the material would be placed. Also in this paragraph we believe it should include the predicted cost of the materials, that way the decision chart can see that. This paragraph is very beneficial in deciding the final solution; therefore it needs to have the most information possible. These few additions to each concept would make this element much better in the future.

Testable Prototype:

�Given more time we concluded that we would try and make our final product look a neater/more attractive and we would shape the material in the hat so that the material would follow the sweat guard when wrapping around the head. The cloth we used to enclose and keep the inside materials from shifting was sew to the sweat guard however the top was free and open. Our main focus was to use Velcro so that we could still access the contents inside the hat, however, due to the time constraint we were unable to finish by presentation day. In addition to this, we would also conduct more testing to our prototype. We were in contact with the Ben Harvatine (CEO of Jolt Athletics) to pull raw data from our sensors however there was minimal data he was able to pull. Given more time would conduct more testing with different sized materials to really create the perfect, all around product as well as provide a more in depth justification to how and why our product was successful. All groups were given a maximum fifty dollar budget to plan, construct, test, and whatever else would be needed in our projected path. We were fortunate enough to get large samples and donations, however one of our key materials were very expensive, prohibiting us from purchasing much else. The sorbothane we purchased came to a total of $38.42. This prevented us from purchasing a concussion sensor for testing. This then came down to getting samples from separate companies which we were fortunate to obtain considering these products are not cheap. In addition, we would've bought more material for the sake of the freedom to construct new designs both more protective and more aesthetically pleasing.

Testing and Data Collection:

We began our testing in the upstairs gym of North Carroll High school. We pulled out the pitching machine that the baseball team uses and set up the machine 40 feet away from the brick wall opposite of the machine. We then ran an extension cord and plugged the pitching machine in. We set the mannequin head up on the pole against the brick wall behind a mat so it would hold. We then turned the machine on and begin firing baseballs at the mannequin head. We first had to adjust the height of the machine so it would make a direct impact to the hat where the sensor was placed behind the hat. We placed the jolt sensor behind the sweat guard in the baseball hat. We then placed the baseballs in the pitching machine and began the speed at 50 mph. We threw it at with no material inside the hat, and monitored until the ball made direct contact with the sensor 5 times. This way we knew we had an accurate number on the sensor. We then placed the material into the hat and moved the jolt sensor so it was behind the material but at the same point. We then threw at it again until it hit the sensor five times directly. We repeated this process over at the speeds of 50, 55, 60, and 65 mph. Each time we had to alter the machine slightly so it would continue to make a direct impact to the sensor point on the hat. We did this until we had all times and speeds of impacts recorded. After this we cleaned up the gym and then emailed the CEO of Jolt sensor about a data dump of all the data we had recorded on the sensor for that day. He then the next day proceeded to send us all the information and data from the sensor we had used. We then went into the data and created the two graphs below. Something that I would change to our collection would be to add more time. We would also like to get a sensor or some way to show the exact location of the impact. From the naked eye it is difficult to locate the precise location of the impact, so if we had something to locate this impact it would better the testing data. The only thing we would change about the testing data would be to just be able to do more testing with the sensors on more materials.

STEM Concepts:

Throughout the duration of this project we used a range of STEM principles in order to calculate impact force, select materials, and test our prototype. During the research process and material testing process we attempted to make decisions based on durometers of the materials. Durometers are a measure of a materials resistance to impact or pressure, the higher the durometer the greater their resistance to indentation. Additionally, we also did incremental testing during this phase in order to see whether a higher durometer yielded a greater dampening effect. As we began to focus more on impact force, and the overall force that would be experienced, we used kinetic energy calculations and divided the kinetic energy by the estimated stopping distance of the ball to calculate the force behind each impact. Once we established what materials had the greatest dampening effect we went into testing of our prototype. This phase was heavy on calculations and conversions. For example, our set-up wasn’t the standard MLB distance from our prototype so we had to extrapolate the sped to convert them to the speed they would be at a standard distance of 60ft 6 inches. Analyzing the data from the impact sensor also was a large part of our project, we had to convert the raw data from the sensor into charts and graphs that showed the dampening effect of our prototype, as well as finding the average values at certain data points. Overall, STEM concepts were critical in allowing us to decide what materials to use, calculating the impact force, and the percentage drop of impact force/probability of head injury from impact.

PORTFOLIO ELEMENT LPRESENTATION OF DESIGNER'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Changes To Prototype

There are many positives and negatives that go into the production of a prototype in just about any circumstance. Everything from time, to budget, to the availability of materials can make or break a project. During our protective baseball cap presentation, we were asked a number of times by our visiting engineers and fellow peers what we would've done differently if presented with different constraints, such as more time or a larger budget. We discussed this as a group and this is what we concluded:

Larger Budget:All groups were given a maximum fifty dollar budget to plan, construct, test, and whatever else would be needed in our projected path. We were fortunate enough to get large samples and donations, however one of our key materials were very expensive, prohibiting us from purchasing much else. The sorbothane we purchased came to a total of $38.42. This prevented us from purchasing a concussion sensor for testing. This then came down to getting samples from separate companies which we were fortunate to obtain considering these products are not cheap. In addition, we would've bought more material for the sake of the freedom to construct new designs both more protective and more aesthetically pleasing.

More Time:Given more time we concluded that we would try and make our final product look a neater/more attractive and we would shape the material in the hat so that the material would follow the sweat guard when wrapping around the head. The cloth we used to enclose and keep the inside materials from shifting was sew to the sweat guard however the top was free and open. Our main focus was to use Velcro so that we could still access the contents inside the hat, however, due to the time constraint we were unable to finish by presentation day. In addition to this, we would also conduct more testing to our prototype. We were in contact with the Ben Harvatine (CEO of Jolt Athletics) to pull raw data from our sensors however there was minimal data he was able to pull. Given more time would conduct more testing with different sized materials to really create the perfect, all around product as well as provide a more in depth justification to how and why our product was successful.

innovation portal complete (1)

Documents