smart cane – p14043 systems design review
DESCRIPTION
Smart Cane – P14043 Systems Design Review. Lauren Bell, Jessica Davila, Jake Luckman, William McIntyre, Aaron Vogel. Agenda. Project Background Customer Requirements Engineering Requirements Functional Decomposition Concept Generation [Morph chart and Pugh charts] Concept Selection - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Smart Cane – P14043Systems Design Review
Lauren Bell, Jessica Davila, Jake Luckman, William McIntyre, Aaron Vogel
Agenda• Project Background• Customer Requirements• Engineering Requirements
• Functional Decomposition• Concept Generation [Morph chart and Pugh charts]• Concept Selection• Engineering Analysis• Risk Assessment• Test Plan• Project Plan
Why Design a Smart Cane?Conventional White Cane
Advantages Disadvantages
Inexpensive and available Slow navigation – user must guide himself/herself
Little/no training
User can “feel” the environment
Guide AnimalsAdvantages Disadvantages
Takes commands Expensive
Detects overhanging and tricky obstacles Can get sick/hurt
Guides user Training for animal and user
Long waiting lists
Sometimes not allowed (illegally) in some situationsUser cannot “feel” environment
Ultimate Vision of Smart Cane
Smart CaneCombined Advantages
Less expensive than guide animal, available, easily replaceable
Little/no training
User can still “feel” the environment
Guides the user (haptic feedback)
Capable of detecting objects not easily felt through conventional cane
Longer range beyond cane tip
Possibility to integrate with other navigation technologies (GPS, stored paths, maps, etc…)
For Our Project…Our project will focus on these areas:
Future projects will continue towards final Smart Cane vision…
Smart CaneCombined Advantages
Less expensive than guide animal, available, easily replaceable
Little/no training
User can still “feel” the environment
Guides the user (haptic feedback)
Capable of detecting objects not easily felt through conventional cane
Longer range beyond cane tip
Possibility to integrate with other navigation technologies (GPS, stored paths, maps, etc…)
Customer Requirements• Since Problem Definition Review
• Emphasis on the haptic handle
• Less emphasis on detection system• (Make it basic, detect lower-front objects, leave for future projects)
• Future projects:• Detection System• Resembles a conventional cane• Operated like conventional cane• Improving battery life, robustness, use in other environments etc…
Engineering RequirementsRevised, concise specs:
• Cane characteristics• Moment of Inertia• Spring Constant• Handle diameter• Length
Concept Generation
Functional Decomposition
Morph Chart
Cane Structure – Pugh ChartPlastic Wood Aluminum Fiberglass Carbon fiber
Low Density S S - Datum +
Transmits vibrations/sound - + + Datum S
Corrosion Resistant S - S Datum S
Low Cost + + - Datum -
Ease to work with and modify + S S Datum S
Safe for use S - S Datum S
+ 2 2 1 1
- 1 2 2 1
Concept Selection – Handle*
Attractive/Repulsive Magnetism Navigation
Pros• Easier to feel direction• Better directional
feedback• Can be used with gloves
Cons• Possible power limitations• No indication of proximity
(acting alone)
Wire windings with ferrous cores
Microcontroller
Battery housing
Screw-in cap
Piston Navigation
Pros• Easier to feel direction• Better directional feedback• Can be used with gloves
Cons• Heavier• No indication of proximity
(acting alone)• May inhibit index finger
haptic ability
Standard servo
Push piston
Drive shaft
Battery Housing
Microcontroller
Screw-in cap
Scroll Navigation
Pros• Easier to feel direction• Better directional feedback• Can be used with gloves
Cons• May inhibit index finger
haptic ability
Screw-in cap
Battery Housing
Microcontroller
Continuous servo
Scroll Transmission
Track Ball Navigation
Pros• Easier to feel direction• Better directional feedback• Can be used with gloves
Cons• Heavier• Less compact• May inhibit index finger
haptic ability
Screw-in cap
Microcontroller
Battery Housing
Continuous servos & transmission shafts
Track ball
Torque Handle Navigation
Pros• Easier to feel direction• Better directional feedback• Can be used with gloves
Cons• Heavier• Moment of inertia/torque
concern
Screw-in cap
Standard servo
Transmission
Microcontroller
Battery housing
Handle Feedback – Pugh Chart
Vibration Motors
Navigation by Track ball
Handle Expansion by
Push Cylinders
Handle Twist via Torque Motors
Handle Expansion by Electroactive
Polymers
Thermoelectric/Heat in handle
Ring attached to a motors to
move finger/Rotating band that slides
across finger
Electromagnets control finger
direction
Easy to Feel Direction Datum + + + + + + +
Provides Directional Feedback Datum + + + + + + +
Safe to use Datum S S S S - S SCompact Design Datum - S S - - S S
Lightweight Datum - - - - - S S
Affordable within our budget Datum S S S - S S S
Fast Response time Datum S S S - - S S
Easy for users to learn within our time frame Datum S S S - S S S
Able to be used with gloves Datum + + + + - + +
Indicates proximity Datum S - S - - S S+ 3 3 3 3 2 3 3- 2 2 1 6 3 0 0
Detection System – Pugh ChartUltrasonic
SensorUltrasonic Sensor w Accelerometer Infrared sensor Radar System Image
Processing Laser
Light Weight Datum - S S S S
Power Consumption Datum - + S - -
Gives good signal for range Datum S - - S S
Sensitive to Objects close/far away Datum S - - S S
Fast Response time Datum - S S - +
Durable Datum S + - S S
Small in size Datum S + S S -
Able to detect all objects Datum S - - + -
Cost Datum S S S - -
Easily Senses object location Datum + - S S -
+ 1 3 0 1 0
- 3 3 3 3 4
Engineering Analysis• Microcontroller • Power• Operating Conditions• CPU Speed• I/O Characteristics
• Servo Motors• Torque• Weight• Dimensions• RPM• Tolerance/Precision• Power • Continuous/Standard
• Magnets• Forces• Weight• Dimensions• Power
• Batteries• Heat• Battery Life• Power• Rechargeable vs.
Disposable • Size
Risk AssessmentImportance Risk Likelihood Severity
6 Burning out micro controller 3 2
6 Software is ineffective 2 3
6 Haptic handle and detection systems integration issues 2 3
6 Not meeting customer expectations 2 3
4 Not obtaining parts on time 2 2
4 Battery malfunction 2 2
4 Over budget 2 2
3 Cane does not stay together, durability failure 1 3
3 Not completing software component 1 3
3 Haptic forces not being strong enough 1 3
3 Hardware and software integration 1 3
3 Detection is ineffective 1 3
3 Uncoordinated team schedules 3 1
3 Team Member leaves team 1 3
3 Cane gets dropped repeatedly on the ground 1 3
3 Excessive tapping 1 3
1 System is too heavy for desired cane weight 1 1
64 TOTAL 27 43
Test Plan• User Test
• Battery Test
• Physical Characteristics
• Detection System Test
Project Plan
Problem Definition
• Problem Statement
• Customer Requirements
• Engineering Requirements
System Design
• Benchmarking• Functional
Decomposition• Concept
Generation• Risk Assessment• Test Plan• Engineering
Analysis • Concept
Selection
Subsystem Design
• Proof of Concept
• Subsystem Decompositions
• Subsystem Design and Analysis
• Updated Test Plan
• Updated Risk Assessment
Detailed Design
• Hardware and Software Design
• Updated Risk Assessment
• Updated Test Plan
Completed Design
• Completed Design
• Assembly Process
• BOM• Budget POs• Test Plan
Three Week PlanSunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
9/29 9/30 10/1 10/2 10/3 10/4 10/5
10/6 10/7 10/8 10/9 10/10 10/11 10/12
10/13 10/14 10/15 10/16 10/17 10/18 10/19
10/20 10/21 10/22 10/23 10/24 10/25 10/26
Select Concept
Proof of Concept
Engineering Analysis
Engineering AnalysisSubsystem Decomposition/Analysis
Subsystem Decomposition/ Analysis
Subsystem Design
Update Test Plan and Risk Assessment
Update Test Plan and Risk Assessment
Systems Design Review
Sub Systems Design Review
Questions?
Project Plan