Project Introduction and Overview

P-06025 Standing Table

Matthew Bell Craig Hudson Jeffery Matusik Kahamala Morgan Maria Spagnola Aditya Srinvas Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Table of Contents 1 Project Introduction and Overview...... 5 1.1 Project Initiation...... 5 1.2 Project Beneficiary, the ARC...... 5 1.3 Definition of a Standing Table...... 6 1.4 Health Benefits of Standing...... 6 1.5 Project Projections...... 7 2 Team Mission Statements...... 9 2.1 Primary Goals...... 9 2.2 Primary Stakeholders...... 9 2.3 Key Business Goals...... 10 2.4 Primary and Secondary Markets...... 10 2.5 Success Winners and Qualifiers...... 11 3 Individual Roles and Responsibilities...... 13 3.1: Team Roles Tree...... 13 3.2 Project Manager, Craig A. Hudson...... 13 3.3 Report Organizer, Matthew Bell...... 13 3.4 Meeting Minutes, Jeff Matusik...... 14 3.5 Co-Lead Engineer, Maria Spagnola & Aditya Srinivas...... 14 3.6 Budget & Purchasing, Kahamala T. Morgan...... 14 4.1 Team Structure Tree...... 15 4.2 Power Team...... 16 4.3 Biomechanics & Ergonomics Team...... 16 4.4 Frame Design Team...... 17 5 Team Timeline...... 18 5.1 Winter Quarter...... 18 5.1.1 Needs Facet...... 18 5.1.2 Specifications Facet...... 18 5.1.3 Feasibility Assessment...... 19 5.1.4 Team Design...... 19 5.2 Spring Quarter, Future Plans...... 20 6 Ergonomics...... 21 6.1 Introduction to Ergonomics...... 21 6.2 Standing Risks and Benefits...... 22 6.3 Ergonomic Design Parameters...... 22 6.3.1 Height Thresholds...... 22 6.3.2 Weight Thresholds...... 24 6.3.3 Pad and Footplate Placement...... 24 6.3.4 Harness Design...... 25 6.3.5 Chest Pad and Table Parameters...... 25 7 Customer Needs and Specifications...... 27 7.1 Needs and Specifications Overview...... 27 7.2 Formal Needs Statements...... 27 8 Concept Development...... 32 8.1 General Concept Development...... 32 8.2 Detailed Concept Development...... 33 9 Project Feasibility...... 35 9.1 Feasibility overview...... 35 Page 2 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006

9.2 Non-weighted Pugh Analysis...... 35 9.3 Determination of Assessment Weights...... 36 9.4 Weighted Pugh Analysis...... 37 10 Base Design and Analysis...... 38 10.1 General Base Design...... 38 10.2 Fluid Drive System...... 39 11 Design of the Lifting Mechanism...... 41 11.1 Design Challenges...... 41 11.2 Solution Methods...... 42 12 Circuit Design and Analysis...... 44 12.1 Necessary Circuit Requirements...... 44 12.2 Circuit Components and Layout...... 44 13 Leg Design and Analysis...... 46 13.1 Free Body Diagram and Solutions...... 46 14 Table Top and Support Design and Analysis...... 48 14.1 Free Body Diagrams and Solutions...... 48 15 Product Strengths and Weaknesses...... 50 16 Method of Operation...... 52 16.1 Operating Instructions...... 52 16.2 Safeguards and Warnings...... 53

Appendices: Table of Contents...... 55 Appendix A – Project Proposal...... 57 Appendix A – Project Proposal...... 57 Appendix B – Mission Statement...... 60 Appendix C – Team Values and Norms...... 63 Appendix D – Gantt Chart...... 64 Appendix E – Feasibility...... 65 Section 1 – Pugh Analysis...... 65 Section 2 - QFD...... 66 Section 3 – Determination of Weights...... 68 Section 4 – Determination of Weights Results...... 69 Section 5 – Weighted Pugh Analysis...... 70 Appendix F – Ergonomics...... 71 Section 1 – Anthropometric Data Table (Height)...... 71 Section 2 – Relative Body Dimensions...... 71 Section 3 – Generic Body Weights...... 72 Section 4 – Segment Weights of 300lbs. Person...... 72 Section 5 – FEA Analysis of Footplate...... 73 Appendix G – The Five Whys...... 74 Appendix H – Concept Generation...... 78 Section 1 - Brainstorming...... 85 Section 2 – Requirements, Needs, and Guidelines...... 85 Section 3 – Design Parameters...... 86 Section 4 – Objective Trees...... 87 Section 5 – Morphological Charts...... 91 Section 6 – Individual Concepts...... 93 Section 7 – Team Preliminary Concepts...... 94

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006

Section 8 – Final Morphological Chart...... 95 Section 9 – Final Concepts...... 96 Appendix I – Pneumatic Fluid Drives...... 97 Section 1 – Solid Model: “Extend” Drive Cylinder...... 97 Section 2 – Solid Model: Fluid Drive/Leg Interface...... 98 Section 3 – Fluid Drive Ratio Formulas...... 100 Section 4 – Force and Travel Ratios for Cylinder Bore...... 101 Section 5 – Fluid Drive Schematic...... 102 Section 6 – FEA Analysis of Drive Cylinder Assembly...... 103 Section 7 – Stress Lift Curves of Base Assembly...... 104 Appendix J – Force Determination for Lifting...... 105 Section 1 – Body Segment Weights...... 105 Section 2 – Strap Forces...... 105 Section 3 – Angle and Force Determination...... 106 Section 4 – Torque Equation...... 107 Section 5 – Force and Torque Summary...... 107 Section 6 – Forces and Torques Graph...... 108 Section 7 – Torques Generated by Individuals...... 109 Section 8 – Force Required to Lift Individuals...... 110 Section 9 – Actuator Duty Cycles...... 111 Section 10 – Free Body Diagram of Lift Arms...... 111 Section 11 – FEA Analysis of Lifting Arm...... 112 Section 12 – Pin Shear Calculations...... 113 Section 13 – Stress Life Curves for Lifting Assembly...... 114 Appendix K – Table Electronic Systems...... 115 Section 1 – Circuit Schematic...... 115 Section 2 – Battery & Charger...... 116 Section 3 – Wiring Diagram for Circuit...... 120 Appendix M – Force in Main & Secondary Support...... 125 Appendix N – Stress in Table & Bolt...... 128 Appendix O – Bill of Materials (BOM)...... 129 Appendix P – Assembly Plans...... 131 Appendix Q – Business Plan Outline: Standing Table...... 134 Appendix R – Engineering Drawings...... 147

1 Project Introduction and Overview

1.1 Project Initiation Senior Design Project #P06205 was officially commissioned during the time that RIT received a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and began to compile a list of projects that would meet the needs of the community, satisfy the objectives of

Rochester Institute of Technology’s (RIT) Senior Design program, and qualify for funding via the NSF grant. The grant was provided to RIT for the purpose of furthering the design and development of devices to improve the quality of life of disabled individuals. Work on the project first began during the fall quarter of 2005 during which,

Craig A. Hudson, the future project manager, began to compile preliminary documents detailing the needs, objectives, and design parameters that would need to be addressed by the team. The purpose of the project was to design, build, and test a standing table, also known as a powered standing lift, for use by the ARC of Monroe County in its residential program. A copy of the original project proposal, as presented to seniors entering the

Senior Design program in the Fall of 2005 can be found in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Beneficiary, the ARC The Arc of Monroe County is a non-profit (NP) foundation dedicated to providing services to individuals with physical or mental disabilities. The organization provides a warm enriching environment encouraging its members with physical or mental disabilities to celebrate their unique talents through recreation, community involvement and volunteerism. It provides a number a day, residential and vocational services which

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 aim to meet the different variety of care types, length, and scope that are needed by different individuals. More information can be found at the foundation’s website located at www.arcmonroe.org.

The standing table project is an attempt to provide help to this noble cause in the form of

Senior Design project (project #P06205) at RIT. As the ARC is an NP company, they do posses the necessary finances to purchase and use a commercially available standing table. The Standing Table Project is being designed by a team of six Rochester Institute of Technology students currently in their senior year.

1.3 Definition of a Standing Table A standing table is a device that allows individuals, unable to stand on their own, maintain a vertical standing position with either partial or full weight support. A table also allows the users to transfer from a seated position in a wheelchair or bed to another seating location, or to a standing position with some aid. A more detailed analysis and description of the method of operation can be found in the discussion of the methods of operation found in section 16.

1.4 Health Benefits of Standing Standing, in general, has a number of health benefits as it has been proven over the years by a number physicians and therapists. Standing facilitates the improvement of balance and strength of the upper body, as well as improving the range of motion of the spine, hips, knees, and ankles. Additionally, standing aids in good blood circulation throughout the body. Standing is also able to reduce pressure issues through changing positions,

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 improves systemic functions (digestive, bladder, respiratory, etc.). Standing also prevents the loss of bone density, alleviates pain caused by inappropriate positions and standing by itself also develops tolerance and endurance in the body. Another extremely important advantage of standing is the psychological benefits it provides to a person, as being reduced to spending your entire life from a seated position can be damaging to an individual’s self esteem. The standing table would provide its users a sense of independence and thus increase their self esteem. It can enhance social development and also interaction with peers. Thus, the standing table project is of immense importance for the ARC, and is a privilege for the team to design it. A more detailed analysis and description of the health benefits can be found in the discussion of the ergonomic factors found in section 6.

1.5 Project Projections As written above, a standing table provides a number of advantages that the ARC is currently unable to make use of. By designing a standing table that is able to support

95% of the entire population, the ARC will be able to utilize this device for the enjoyment, benefit, and health of its residents. While the table is currently planned to be left in a single residential home that provides service for only a handful of individuals, the design of the table is such that transporting it is a fairly easy process.

As stated previously, the project commenced at the beginning of the winter quarter of the

2005-2006 school year at RIT, and is currently scheduled to finish at the end of the spring quarter in May of 2006. The team involved in this project has been able to expand their knowledge on the biomechanics of people with different physical disabilities, and have

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 been able to gain experience in applying various engineering and design concepts in a multidisciplinary design environment. It is the team’s sincere desire that this project is going to be of great use to the ARC once it is finished, and would help to improve the quality living of all its members. Additionally, the team hopes that its final prototype is of a caliber that displays the quality of their hard work over the past five years, and would be able to compete in the market place if it was to be commercially produced.

2 Team Mission Statements

After defining a project, it is important for any group to formally state their mission. The intent of the team, within the next few pages, is to provide a brief overview of the team’s goals, priorities, and the limitations inherent to the project. For a comprehensive layout of the group’s mission statement, please see Appendix B.

2.1 Primary Goals The primary goal of the team, as defined by the customer, was to provide the ARC of

Monroe County with a complete working prototype of a standing table. The table is to be used on a daily, or near daily basis, so it is imperative that they are presented with a functioning, low maintenance design.

2.2 Primary Stakeholders The primary stakeholders for the standing table project are the team members, the ARC of Monroe county therapists and residents, and Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo, the team mentor.

The stakeholders with the most vested into the project are the team members, and their mentor. For reasons that should be apparent for the interests of the team, successful completion of the Senior Design curriculum is a factor involved in determining their ability to graduate at the end of the current school year, and hence places the team as a primary stakeholder. However, the reasons for the team mentor’s stake in the project may not be quite as obvious. Due to the fact that funding for the project was provided by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Dr. Debartolo has been charged with being a good steward of a large sum of grant money. In order to ensure future funding of projects, it is important that currently funded teams utilize the available funds to the best Page 9 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 of the school’s ability. The ARC affiliates themselves have the most potential to gain from this project, as they will be able to acquire a fully working, customized standing table, at no cost to them.

2.3 Key Business Goals Although Senior Design teams rarely evolve into anything more than a student led team, it is still important to conduct the team as though it is, or at the least has the potential, to be a business. Hence, the business goals of the team reflect a broad collection of ideals held by most of the business community. First and foremost, the design team is striving to build a better product, or minimally, a better valued product than currently exists on the commercial market. During the attempt to reach the first goal, there shouldn’t be any excessive, or undue, liability placed upon any of the stakeholders in any form. Please refer to Appendix B for a more in depth view of these liabilities, and how they are to be minimized.

2.4 Primary and Secondary Markets Again following the premise that a Senior Design project has the potential to be a working business prototype, a set of detailed primary and secondary markets were laid out. Listed as the primary market targets were the ARC residents and therapists, the engineering faculty at RIT, parents of students on the design team, and the students who could have been potential team members.

As the ARC is the main material beneficiary of the project, it is important that they are satisfied with the features of the design, and the overall build quality. In order to develop

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 a product it is a bare necessity to have students that are not only well qualified, but also interested in the project. Thus, the engineering students of RIT also become a market as it is imperative to attract a broad knowledge base along with top notch skills. If the project does not appeal to students as much as other projects do, there is a risk of acquiring students that are here to pass the course, and are not interested in performing at the levels required.

The engineering faculty at RIT, and the parents of students at RIT, make up a primary market in that they have a vested interest in the success of their students and children. As is true of any investment, individuals desire to see their work and money used to its greatest potential. Thus, parents have invested a large amount of time and money in raising, teaching, and supporting current students, while the engineering faculty has invested a large amount of time in teaching and training their students. Therefore, it is not much to ask that the final capstone project would be able to showcase, to its utmost, the extent to which students have grown and acquired knowledge of engineering practices.

2.5 Success Winners and Qualifiers While the formal mission statement details the success qualifiers and winners, only a very brief overview will be given here. Essentially, the qualifiers are a list of the needs and goals that must be met in order for the team to reach minimal success. Success winners, on the other hand, are a list of what the team can do to meet and exceed any expectations placed upon the team and the design of the standing table. Again, as these qualifiers and winners are practically a formal written statement of customer needs, and a modified

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 formation of team goals, they will not be discussed here further. Please refer to

Appendix B, Sections 8 & 9 if more information is desired.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 3 Individual Roles and Responsibilities

3.1: Team Roles Tree

Craig Hudson (Team Manager) ME

Maria Matthew Bell Jeff Matusik Kahamala Spagnola Aditya Srinivas (Report (Meeting Morgan (Co-Lead (Co-Lead Organizer) Minutes) (Budget) Engineer) Engineer) ME IE ME ME EE

Figure 1 Individual Jobs

3.2 Project Manager, Craig A. Hudson At the start of the first group meeting, the roles and responsibilities of the group members were assigned. The group leader, Craig Hudson, a mechanical engineer, was responsible for keeping the group on target and meeting the deliverables schedule as established by our customer and the RIT Senior Design Program. Craig facilitated the communication between the many disciplines involved and also served as a point of reference for the entire group.

3.3 Report Organizer, Matthew Bell Matthew Bell, a mechanical engineer, was designated as the main contact person for gathering together the pieces of the report. All individual work was to be given to him so

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 that he could provide some cohesion between the different written portions that were to be combined for the final report.

3.4 Meeting Minutes, Jeff Matusik Jeff Matusik, an industrial engineer, was responsible for recording any important information that was given or developed during the group meetings and distributed it to the team members via email. Jeff served as the reference point for our previous concepts and ideas throughout the project so that a linear timeline could easily be looked back upon.

3.5 Co-Lead Engineer, Maria Spagnola & Aditya Srinivas Maria Spagnola, a mechanical engineer, and Aditya Srinivas, an electrical engineer volunteered to both become Co-Lead Engineers. They were both responsible for proofreading and validating any paper work that was put into the group binder and report.

Maria and Aditya also served as secondary checks for any of the calculations that were performed.

3.6 Budget & Purchasing, Kahamala T. Morgan Kahamala Morgan was responsible for the team budget. Kahamala was not only in charge of putting together the final Bill of Materials, but also kept the group members aware of team spending in order to prevent the project from becoming over budget.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 4 Team Structure

Due to the fairly large size of the team, and the many disciplines involved, it was determined that it would be best to divide the team into three subgroups. Each subgroup would be responsible for one of the three major components of the standing table:

Biomechanics/ergonomics, frame, and power/force generation. A copy of the “Team

Values and Norms”, a written contractual agreement of teamwork, can be found in

Appendix C.

4.1 Team Structure Tree

STANDING TABLE

BIOMECHANICS/ ERGONOMICS FRAME POWER Jeff and Maria Kahamala and Matt Aditya and Craig

ELECTRICAL Aditya

ACTUATOR & CYLINDERS Craig

Figure 2 Team Organizational Chart

4.2 Power Team Because of the somewhat wider scope of involved in powering the standing table, the

Power subgroup was divided into an electrical and actuators/cylinders subset. Aditya was responsible for the battery selection, designing a remote that would be used to operate the device, and for interfacing the electrical components with the mechanical components. Craig was responsible for selection of the actuators that would be used to lift the patients using the standing table. This was a challenging, yet exciting, responsibility because the actuators needed to be able to produce enough force to safely lift an individual, while at the same time fitting the limited space design of a standing table. A second important issue was also the development of expanding legs for the base of the frame. The legs had to be designed such that they were expandable to accommodate different chair styles, but at the same time must still be able to fit into the compact footprint area of the design.

4.3 Biomechanics & Ergonomics Team The Biomechanics/Ergonomics team was responsible for determining the relationship between the interaction of the human subject and the lifting mechanism, table surface, and pads/supports. Other responsibilities included determining the forces acting on the body, the range of comfort of the average adult, as well as the height and weight requirements necessary to ensure a safe and working design. The information provided by this team was invaluable in determining not only the position of the pads and supports which they designed, but also for generating the dimensions our overall design in order to provide a safe, stable, and comfortable environment for the user when using our product.

4.4 Frame Design Team Finally, the responsibilities of the Frame team were to design and analyze the primary and secondary supports of the system, determine the load requirements and forces acting on the system, and also identify the possible areas of maximum stress and fatigue. The frame team was also responsible for designing a table top that was not only height adjustable, but able to pivot to a location that was comfortable for the user.

While each of the three subgroups had specific assigned responsibilities, it was a group effort to ensure that all the different components interfaced well with each other.

Additionally, as needed, different teams would provide some concept development as well as technical support to other groups. The subgroups were, in no way, forced to adhere only to their assigned work, but were encouraged to network with, and work with, other groups on a weekly basis.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 5 Team Timeline

5.1 Winter Quarter A complete Gantt chart detailing the proposed project schedule for the team can be found in Appendix D.

5.1.1 Needs Facet A majority of the preliminary information necessary for this project was completed prior to the start of Senior Design due to the project leader’s completion of Design Project

Management during the fall quarter. However, a group review and revision of these documents was performed after meeting with the Arc Representative to determine their customer needs. The initial documents had been created only with the input from a single individual. By reviewing all of the preliminary documents as a team, the unique input, as well as combined team input, was added to ensure much broader coverage and analysis of the project. The next task was to complete a needs assessment analysis. Extensive research was performed to ascertain any standards that pertained to the construction of a standing table and to also compare current models in the market. Simultaneously,

Functional and Why analyses were performed to determine which design functions and parameters would determine the success, or failure of a design, what environment the standing table would be used in, and the underlying reasons why the consumer needed this product. The needs assessment enabled the team to identify the customer’s needs and develop a plan of action that would satisfy those needs.

5.1.2 Specifications Facet The next phase in the product development was the specifications facet. During this phase, a requirements document was finalized, a verification and validation plan was Page 18 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 created, and the QFD was reviewed and revised. The general dimensions and other specifications of the standing table were determined in order to begin the concept process. During the concept development period, there was a group brainstorming session in which a morphological chart was created. From these ideas, the six group members developed two individual concept ideas to present to the group. Through a non- weighted Pugh analysis, the best of these twelve ideas were decided upon and presented at the concept peer review. After this review, more concept research and development was performed and finally, the group decided upon a final concept. The results of this

Pugh analysis can be found in Appendix E, Section 1.

5.1.3 Feasibility Assessment As this section is oriented towards giving a general overview of the project schedule and series of events, no in depth look will be given here. For more information, please refer to the Feasibility Analysis, Section 9.

5.1.4 Team Design During the latter half of the quarter the following goals were accomplished: development of component models and drawings, identification of suppliers and vendors, creation of assembly and production drawings, and a final cost analysis and Bill of Materials. The final phase was to review the QFD and needs assessment to ensure that we had met and exceeded the customer’s requirements. The remainder of the quarter was spent preparing for the PDR and preparing for senior design II.

5.2 Spring Quarter, Future Plans During the second ten weeks of the project, the group will continue to implement the ideas and concepts from Senior Design I into a working model. It is expected that most of the parts necessary will be delivered within the first or second week of spring quarter.

The primary focus of the quarter will be to finalize a build plan and create a finished prototype. Machining tasks will be assigned and executed based on skill level. If time permits, the prototype will be thoroughly tested, and preparation for the final design review will be completed.

The group will also decide upon an instruction manual for the utilization of the standing table, in order to ensure that any sources of failure and misuse are minimized. The manual will contain information about inspecting for structural damage, but it will also provide information about replacing batteries and other high wear parts, if necessary.

The manual will also be used as a safety manual; what to do in the case of the device getting stuck while in operation and explain the emergency override features.

Finally, the team will once again put together a detailed report based on our analysis from winter quarter and from our work and findings from spring quarter into a comprehensive report that will cover the conception of the design to its implementation as a working prototype.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 6 Ergonomics

6.1 Introduction to Ergonomics Before any real design work or even any useful brainstorming could begin, it was vitally important for the team to research and understand the basic ergonomic factors relating to a standing table. Ergonomics is the science of designing a job or task to fit a worker, rather than the worker trying to adapt to the job. Modifying tasks, tools, and work stations can help reduce physical stress on a person’s body and eliminate potential musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). Musculoskeletal disorders are injuries to the soft tissues of the body (muscles, ligaments, tendons, etc.) and the nervous system. When equipment is designed without considering ergonomic principles, there is an increased risk of exposure to physical stress, strain, awkward postures, forceful exertion, repetitive motion, and heavy lifting. Health care facilities have been identified by OSHA as an environment where ergonomic stressors exist.

There are many residents/patients at care facilities that are wholly dependent on staff members for daily activities. Each activity involves an interaction with handling or transferring the resident which could result in employee injuries. Injuries to workers can increase costs to the employer and cause staffing shortages. To minimize injuries, OSHA recommends that “employers identify and address ergonomic stressors in their facility’s safety and health plan”. Six of the top 10 professions at greatest risk for back injury are: nurse’s aides, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, health aides, radiology technicians and physical therapists (Nash, 2003).

6.2 Standing Risks and Benefits A patient or resident, who is dependent upon others, cannot be left sitting down for prolonged periods of time. Sitting is a static posture that increases stress in the neck, shoulders, back, arms, and legs. In particular, it can add large amounts of pressure to spinal disks and back muscles. In order to help alleviate these stressors, the resident should be allowed to stand up periodically. Standing helps increase blood flow and reduces fatigue.

A resident who is dependent upon others to transfer from a sitting to standing position would need the assistance of a staff member. The staff member, however, should not try to lift the patient themselves as it increases the risk of injury to themselves. Even if the injury is not acute, the repetition of such actions can lead to an MSD. Therefore, it is necessary to have a lifting device such as a standing table to help a staff member assist a resident or patient.

When lifting a person from a sitting position, it is important for the patient to feel secure and comfortable. An efficient and simple design will help make the device easy to use for the assisting staff member. Any part of the lifting device which the patient may come into contact with should be comfortable and safe.

6.3 Ergonomic Design Parameters

6.3.1 Height Thresholds To design a lifting device, one must consider the variable sizes of a potential user. In order to help determine the relative size of the device, anthropometric data is used to estimate the measurements of the user. When considering a mixed population (50% Page 22 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 male, 50% female), the 95th percentile male and 5th percentile female are used as upper and lower limits. Using these percentiles, 95% of all users will be covered (because of the overlap between male and female body dimensions).

Research done by Drillis and Contini has suggested that the body is made up of mechanical links which are proportional to our total body height. The link-length diagram in Figure 3 shows the length of body segments as proportions to body height.

The height of a 95th percentile male is 73.6” and the stature of a 5th percentile female is

59.8” (see Appendix F, Section 1). Multiplying these heights by the ratios will give you the approximate length of the body segment (see Appendix F, Section 2).

Figure 3

6.3.2 Weight Thresholds The design parameters for this device require it to be able to lift a maximum of 300lbs.

To determine the relative weights of body segments, ratios of the total body weight can be calculated based on data from Drillis and Contini (see Appendix F, Section 3). For example, the relative weight of a 300lbs person’s thigh would be calculated by first determining the weight of the total leg (300lbs. X .157 = 47.1lbs.) and then taking 63.7% of the total leg (30.0lbs.). For the rest of the relevant body segment weights see

Appendix F, Section 4.

6.3.3 Pad and Footplate Placement In order to lift someone from a seated position, a moment is created about the knees. For this reason, it is important to keep the knees stationary, and in order to do so, a knee pad is required. Using the link-length diagram, the distance between a 95th percentile males’ knees can be calculated. This will help determine the maximum width of the knee pads.

The height of the knee pad is found using the link-length diagram as well, taking the ratio of the bottom of the foot to the knee for both the 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male. Making the pad large enough will allow the majority of the population to be able to use it, without having to adjust the kneepad.

To prevent the user’s feet from slipping while they are using the standing table, a foot plate is used. The surface of the plate is an anti-fatigue mat, which are designed to reduce fatigue from standing for long periods on hard surfaces. The mat also serves as traction for the user, to prevent them from slipping. A back stop is also used on the foot plate to prevent slipping, with a foam pad used for comfort and protection against the hard surface. Page 24 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006

6.3.4 Harness Design Lifting a patient from a seated position requires supporting the lower back/hip region. To do this safely, a padded harness is used which can slip under and behind the user before they are ready to be lifted. There are different settings of hoops along the straps of the harness which can be placed on the pegs of the lifting arms, which will allow users of different body types to be securely strapped in.

With the knees and feet set in place, and a harness lifting the user from the hips, a moment is created about the knees. This will not only lift the patient upwards, but also force them into the knee pads. Foam with an Indentation Load Deflection (ILD) of 80lbs. is used to help reduce the force placed upon the user’s knees. Calculating the moment created about the knees will determine what the maximum force will be on the system.

The harness used to lift the patient was designed to fit around a 95th percentile male, providing back and side support. Attached to the ends of the harness are straps with rings connected to them. The user can connect the rings to different pegs on the lifting arm

(depending on their size), which will then securely hold the patient before standing.

Within the harness is a back support, which is flexible but firm enough to provide support for the lower back of the user.

6.3.5 Chest Pad and Table Parameters When the user is lifted into a standing position, they will be brought into a chest pad.

This pad will provide support for the patient, to keep them in an upright position. The size and location of this pad can be determined by once again using the link-length Page 25 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 diagram. The chest pad should be no higher than shoulders of a 5th percentile female, while at the same time, provide enough support for a 95th percentile male. The foam used is dense enough to provide firm support for the user, while also compressing to make it comfortable to use.

The height of the table top is adjustable on two supporting arms. The table should be located just below the elbows of the user, which would allow them to reach across the table without over extending their shoulders. The chest pad is attached to the edge of the table which will allow users to lean forward without creating a pressure point against the edge of the table.

This standing table is designed to fit 95% of the population, with a maximum weight limit of 300lbs. The proposed design will allow the nurse or aid to make minimal adjustments for specific residents, providing comfort and support for all users. Not only will the patient benefit from being able to stand periodically, but the employees will also reduce their risk of injury.

7 Customer Needs and Specifications

7.1 Needs and Specifications Overview As is true of any problem, it is imperative that the team or individual assigned to the task is able to fully comprehend the nature of the issue. Secondly, it is of equal importance that the task force is able to ascertain whether or not the problem, as defined by the customer, is truly the problem that needs to be solved, and not simply the customer’s solution to their real problem.

During the meeting with the customer, it was necessary to clarify that the initial needs presented to the project manager during the fall quarter of 2005 were actually the basic needs of the client which need to be met, and not customer solutions. For a more detailed description of the meeting with the ARC, please refer to “The Five Whys” in

Appendix G. Following the meeting with the customer, the team met to write down and quantify the actual customer needs.

7.2 Formal Needs Statements The following is a list of these needs along with a brief description.

 Adjustable Knee Pads: The knee pads for the table are used to support the knees

during the operation of the table. These knee pads should be made adjustable or

sized such that they accommodate 95% of the population variances.

 Universal Design: The standing table needs to be universally adaptable in nature,

and should follow the general ADA regulations. Universality is, however, limited

to adult use.

 Adult Use: The standing table is to be used only by adults and, thus, it does not

need to cover the heights and weights of children in its range of adjustability.

 Lifting: The standing table is to aid in lifting the customer from their wheel chair

and then putting them back into the wheel chair as required.

 Aided Use: Use of the standing table should not be a completely independent

operation as the individual using the table may only use it with the help of an

aide. Hence, functional use by a single individual should be impeded as this

would prevent misuse, or improper use, of the standing table.

 Work Surface: The standing table should contain a table top or other equivalent

large, flat, work surface. The customer can use this table for basic activities such

as writing, arts, and crafts. Food use is to be prohibited while in the standing

table. The table surface should be made clear, if possible, to allow the user a

broader view of their surroundings. The table should be able tilt to an angle of 20

to 30 degrees, with respect to the ground, towards the user.

 Trunk Support: Lateral supports of some type should be a part of the design.

This is necessary to prevent the user from falling sideways or backwards while in

a standing position.

 Lower Body Support: The standing table design should have lower body support

for the individual using it.

 Table Interface: The standing table should be operated by a remote control,

preferably corded to prevent loss of the remote.

 Noise Generation: The standing table to should be reasonably quiet. Low motor

sounds or hummings are acceptable, but excessive noise and vibration should be

avoided.

 Cycle Time: The time for one lifting cycle of the standing table should be

approximately 45 seconds.

 Safety/Secure Access: The controls and buttons of the standing table should be

out of reach of the individual being lifted. This is a measure of safety to prevent

misuse of the standing table or unwanted motion by users fiddling with buttons.

 Power: The table should be self powered with no need to plug the unit into the

wall during use. The power source which the standing table uses should be

renewable, easy to obtain, and inexpensive.

 Human Interfacing: The table should use a sling to support the customer in the

hip area to facilitate lifting of the patient. The straps or the belt used in the

standing table should be made adjustable to fit everyone falling within the weight

and height ranges of the standing table.

 Transport/Stability: The standing table should be able to move easily across

residential floors, carpets, and other surfaces. The table should also include a

locking mechanism so that when the table is not being transported, it can easily,

and quickly, be put into a stable, stationary state.

 Force Generation: The standing table must be able to support the loads induced

while lifting and holding an individual. The table should cater to individual

weights between 115 lbs and 280 lbs. 280 Pounds is the official standing table

limit.

 Height Ranges: The standing table should adjust to user heights between four feet

and eight inches, and six feet three inches.

 Skin Contact: For safety, as well as legal purposes, skin contact must be

minimized (ideally zero) to reduce the risk of, and occurrence of, bruises, marks,

or discolorations that may occur from long term pressure points.

 Foot Stand: The standing table should contain a place to support the feet of the

individual using it. The foot platform will also serve as a measure for safety due

to the fact that there is no possibility for relative motion between the table and the

 Design Dimensions: The standing table should be minimized in all of its height

dimensions. The legs should, ideally, be able to fit underneath larger furniture

that it can’t fully encompass within its legs. The maximum height of the table

should not exceed 6 feet, while the maximum width should be less than 36 inches

(width of a standard residential doorway).

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 8 Concept Development

One of the longest segments of the design process was the brainstorming and concept selection time frame. As could be expected, a written account of the entire process would be incredibly long. Even an abridged version of the proceedings of this section would take up several pages (as indeed it has) and is not monumentally essential to educating the reader about the final design that was chosen and developed. For this reason, only an excerpt from the complete “concept selection methods” write up is included here. For an in depth explanation of the actual feasibility methods employed, please see Project

Feasibility, Section 9. Additionally, a more concise version of the concept selection information is contained in a collection of easy to read charts are included in

Appendix H.

8.1 General Concept Development During the second week of the quarter, the team continued to discuss the general idea of what a standing table is, and began to form a list of questions for the meeting with the customer. The questions generally focused on the areas of how a standing table is supposed to work, and other basic requirements needed to successfully build and design a table. At this point, the team had not yet met with the ARC representative, so brainstorming was limited to general ideas for the project (see list in Appendix H,

Section 1). It was noted early on that one fundamental criteria for the design was that the weak link in the completed standing table should be a bit of a failsafe, in and of itself, which would not harm the resident, cause gross rupture, or fail abruptly in the event of a failure. In other words, the weak link should be purposefully designed to fail under certain conditions in order to prevent critical safety components from failing.

8.2 Detailed Concept Development By the middle of the following week, the team had spoken with the ARC representative,

Kristin Quinlan, on the phone and also met in person at an ARC residential house to clarify the ARC’s needs. While at the house, it was possible to analyze a Hoyer lift, which would later be compared against the initial concepts to determine which design would be better for our application. A list of our requirements and guidelines is included in Appendix H, Section 2. Based on the customer’s needs, design parameters began to be set which could be used to create some concepts based on different features.

Appendix H, Section 3 shows the initial list of design parameters generated by the team.

The design parameters and customer requirements were then combined to create an objective tree in order to organize different thought process during the initial stages of development. A copy of the objective tree is located in Appendix H, Section 4.

Below is a chart detailing the final concepts chosen for each design feature.

Feature Final Concept Power Batteries Force Generation Electromechanical Actuator Compact/Foldability Fluid Drive (cylinders) Main Frame Material Steel Main Frame Geometry Two Main Posts Ergonomics Lower Body Lifting Adaptable Multi-positional & Sliding supports Safety Use of Machine only by Aide Interface Remote Control (corded) Mobility Casters w/ brake Table Top Tilting Tabletop

Figure 4: Final Concept Design Features

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 9 Project Feasibility

9.1 Feasibility overview After the brainstorming and “weeding out” sessions, an in depth project feasibility analysis was completed to lend some methodical credibility to the concept selection process. One of the first analyses completed was a Quality Function Deployment, or

QFD, exercise. The QFD allowed the team to compare customer needs and their relations to actual design parameters or metrics that can be physically measured. As customer needs can often be lofty ideals or goals, it is important to have some method that allows a team to provide a concrete system of measuring. The completed QFD exercise is located in Appendix E, section 2.

In order to asses the feasibility of the various design created during the brainstorm sessions, two variations of the Pugh method were utilized, including a weighted and non weighted analysis. The first analysis conducted used a simple non-weighted Pugh chart that consisted of five separate concepts along the columns, and the features to be measured, or problems that needed to be solved, (customer needs) listed down the left hand side of the chart. Each customer need could also be grouped into one of four categories: Performance, Cost, Safety, and Aesthetics/Comfort.

9.2 Non-weighted Pugh Analysis As a team, each concept’s solution to a problem or method of implementing a certain feature was judged against a baseline. For the first analysis, the rating system was kept to a simple, yet effective, set of plus, minus, or zero. Coinciding with the plus, minus, zero scale, visual markers of green, red, and yellow, respectively, were used to facilitate quick Page 35 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 comprehension of the chart. The baseline used as a standard was an overhead transfer lift currently in use by the ARC of Monroe County. While its operation, and the function, of the lift is fairly different than that of a standing table, it was the closest tool currently in use by the ARC that partially satisfies their needs.

After the first ranking of the initial concepts, the inferior design aspects of the concepts were rejected in favor of those that performed on a higher level. Using the colored chart, it was quite easy to understand which designs to insert into a second Pugh chart for further analysis. Before a second analysis was done, a pair wise comparison of the customer needs was done in order to provide better resolution to the second analysis. The results from this first Pugh analysis can be found in Appendix E, Section 1.

9.3 Determination of Assessment Weights By listing the customer needs on the ordinate and abscissa of a chart with all of the needs being repeated along the top and side of the chart, relative weights were determined. As a team, each need was rated as more important, equal to, or less important than the second need it was currently being measured against. Similar to the color scheme used for the Pugh analysis, a simple green, blue, and purple arrangement was selected in order to smooth the tallying process. Upon completion of the “Determination of Weights” exercise, the second Pugh analysis was performed in order to finalize a single concept. A chart detailing the process used to determine weights, as well as the results of the weight determination exercise can be found in Appendix E, Sections 3 and 4, respectively.

9.4 Weighted Pugh Analysis As with the first the Pugh analysis, five new concepts, different from the initial concepts used to weed out the various design features, were all measured against a baseline.

Instead of a simple plus, minus, zero scale, a more defined method consisting of rankings from one to five was employed. The scale had even divisions starting at the bottom with one for “much worse” up to five for “much better”. Three was the equivalent of a zero score with a rank of “equal”.

Unlike the first analysis that clearly differentiated between the brainstormed concepts, the second Pugh analysis simply revealed that the remaining two or three concepts developed were simply a matter of personal preference. The differences between the normalized weighted Pugh scores for all five concepts were only .04 from the best to worst concept.

After this point, concepts and designs were chosen purely upon team likes and preferences as all of the choices left equally satisfied the customer needs. Appendix E,

Section 5, details the final Pugh Assessment.

10 Base Design and Analysis

As one could surmise simply from the definition of the name of the part involved in the section, the base is the backbone of the standing table. Every part involved in the design of this senior design project either directly, or indirectly, interfaced with, or relied upon, the base for some means of positioning and support.

10.1 General Base Design As has been mentioned previously, the team had decided, upon review of the customer needs and the Pugh assessments that were completed, that an expandable base was needed. Borrowing from the linear bearing concept developed by 8020 inc., the expandable base consists of a square tube inside of which are mounted two different profile linear bearings. The bearings on the left and right faces of the base are simple rectangular cross sections, while the bearings on the top and bottom of the tube have a T profile. Both bearings are made from ultra high molecular weight polyethylene

(UHMWPE). UHMWPE is the same material used by 8020 for their bearing slides due to its low coefficient of friction, impact resistance, and high fatigue life. A standard 8020

1515-LITE slotted aluminum extrusion was chosen to ride on the bearing surfaces. The top and bottom T bearings would help maintain alignment of the 8020 extrusion as it moved in and out of the base. Appendix I, Sections 1 and 2 show the completed base design as well as a detail of the slide-bearing mechanism.

10.2 Fluid Drive System Now that a design for the actual legs themselves had been chosen and refined, a method of actually expanding the legs had to be devised. Again, borrowing concepts from previous group’s work, a modified pneumatic “fluid drive” was designed. For the 2004-

2005 moonbuggy, the human powered vehicle team has used a set of pneumatic cylinders filled with water to control the steering. By pushing on one cylinder, the driver was able to push water to two separate cylinders and control the rate and rotation of the front and back wheels simultaneously. Matthew Bell (Frame Design Team) was a member of the team that built the 2004-2005 moonbuggy.

As proof-of-concept was already readily available, and indeed field proven, all that remained was to derive a set of equations relating travel and force inputs to their respective outputs. Appendix I, Sections 3 and 4 detail the equations used to derive the ratios, and the travel and force ratios as a function of input to output cylinder bore ratios.

Ideally, a short stroke input coupled with a low force input is desired. However, as can be seen in charts, the travel and force ratios are inversely related. Thus, the travel ratio was constrained, and the resulting force ratio was checked for feasibility. A ratio of 3.54 was chosen in order to limit the input stroke to six inches, yet achieve an output of 10 inches of travel on the legs.

The two input cylinders (one to expand, one to retract) are mounted on the back of the main supports. The drive cylinders are mounted on the back side of the base.

Information detailing the cylinder drive schematic can be found in Appendix I, Section 5.

Assuming an input force of 50 lbs, the legs will extend outwards with a force of 14 pounds. If more output force is needed, the brackets holding the cylinders are designed

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 to completely support a 200 lb individual standing on the cylinder. This will give a maximum output force of 56 pounds. Appendix I, Section 6 details different input forces and the correlating output forces and accelerations.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 11 Design of the Lifting Mechanism

The most important features of any device to interact with humans are the interfaces between man and machine. On top of that, components that will forcibly move or transport individuals are of utmost importance. For the standing table, the design, dimension, and loading of the lifting mechanism were the determining factors for the sizes and locations of all of the other subsystems.

11.1 Design Challenges The biggest challenge in creating the lifting mechanism was staying under budget, yet finding an electrically powered device (as chosen from the Pugh analyses) that was strong enough to lift and support a 300 pound individual. To further constrain the project, the mechanism had to comfortable attach to an individual while seated, support them through the entire length of the lift phase, and provide enough support while the user is standing. Additionally, it was desired to keep the mechanisms completely underneath the lower surface of the table throughout its travel.

The different variables that could be constrained, or determined through their association with other parts, included:

 Actuator stroke  Actuator force  Mounting point for actuator on frame (X and Y position)  Lift Arm dimensions o Overall length o Length of perpendicular arm “nub” o Mounting location of actuator (arm length ratios) o Mounting point for actuator on arm (X and Y position)  Harness strap length  Harness mounting point

11.2 Solution Methods

Originally, a mathematical modeling relating the torques, forces, lever arms, and leg angles was generated, but proved to be ineffective. Because only a limited number of equations could be developed, it would have been necessary to constrain several variables in order to determine the ones that remained. However, if the wrong constants were chosen, a solution could be derived mathematically, but it would not have physically satisfied all of the desired constraints. Due to the large number of variables involved, a simple two dimensional 4:1 scale paper model was developed to allow for quicker changing of variable dimensions. Using this method it was possible to, rather quickly and efficiently, determine the necessary dimensions for all of the variables. Only the force of the actuators was set as a constant prior to deriving the additional values needed.

Next, a simple link model was created in Solidworks to ensure that the measurements taken from the paper model were accurate. Indeed they were, with only the final model needing only one dimension to be shifted a half an inch upwards and to the right

Running parallel to the Solidworks and paper models was an Excel spreadsheet used to quickly and easily determine the induced strap tensions, torques on the moment arms, and the required arm dimensions needed, assuming the use of 2, 500 pound actuators.

Appendix J, Sections 1-4 provide details of the equations used to determine the strap forces and torques created. Sections 5-8 show example calculations for a 300 pound user, the corresponding Mechanism Mechanics chart, as well as the overall torque and force charts covering the entire weight range.

Finally, the flat mechanical models were transformed into a three dimensional model to which the free body diagram forces could be applied, and stresses and factors of safety

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 determined. Due to the fact that most of the components involved in the final lifting mechanism were fairly complex, no hand calculations were done, with the exception of the shoulder bolts, which were loaded in double shear. The rest of the components were tested using the Cosmoworks FEA program, embedded in Solidworks. Details of these analyses can be found in Appendix J, Sections 9-12 including insight into the duty cycle achieved, relevant free body diagrams for FEA analysis, as well as the FEA analyses themselves and hand calculations for pin shear.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 12 Circuit Design and Analysis

12.1 Necessary Circuit Requirements As is true of any electromechanical system, the mechanics are left dead and lifeless without the addition of electrical power. As decided upon during the team concept selection deliberations, a rechargeable battery was chosen as the power source of choice.

The battery has a capacity of 12 volts and 26 amp hours. The actuators require a maximum input of 20amps at 12 volts DC. One important aspect of the actuator operation is simultaneous operation of both actuator DC motors. In light of this fact, the motors of the actuators are also going to be connected in parallel to maintain balance in the lifting mechanism. The circuit schematic for this system is given below in figure #, as well as Appendix K, Section 1. A brief description of the batteries and a data sheet may be found in Appendix K, Section 2.

12.2 Circuit Components and Layout The main components used in the circuit are two double pole double throw (DPDT) relays, a single pole single throw (SPST) lighted switch, two momentary SPST switches, a double pole single throw (DPST) switch, an ABS project box, and of course, black and red 18 gauge wires. The main purpose of the circuit is to provide 20 amps of power to the actuators through a corded remote control. The use of the two relays allows the user to switch power to the actuators, using the momentary SPST switches, without passing 20 amps through the hand piece. The lighted SPST switch is a safety device that allows the user to lock out the remote when not in use, or for emergency purposes, kill power to the remote during operation, if needed. The DPST switch is used to disconnect both the hot

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 and ground wires attached to the battery to effectively disconnect the batteries from everything when not in use.

As per regulations regarding the design of a powered standing lift, an emergency switch has been inserted which is separate from the emergency button on the remote. This switch has the capacity to handle 20 amperes of current and will be used to disconnect the batteries from all connections in a hurry.

The surge currents of the actuator motors were taken into account as there is the possibility of a power spike during the initial start up of the system. Thus batteries were chosen to be able provide a maximum capacity of 24 amp hours rather than the specified

20 amp hours.

A wiring schematic for these parts can be found in Appendix K, Section 3.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 13 Leg Design and Analysis

In order to translate the conceptual standing table model into a working model, a design analysis was completed. These analyses would either add credibility to the design or negate it in the case of failure. A force analysis was performed in order to determine the dimension of the main and secondary frame support, the legs and the casters.

13.1 Free Body Diagram and Solutions To determine the size of the front and rear casters needed to support the standing table, the following beam was analyzed.

R1 M3 R2

The force applied is equal to the weight of the standing table and the force exerted by a

300 pound person. The moment is generated as the individual leans against the chest pad support (assumed leaning angle of 5 degrees). From this, the reactions (R1 and R2) were found to be 184.741b and 15.28lb respectively. Casters were sized at 3” diameters in order to support these forces, as listed by the manufacturer's specifications.

The dimension of the legs the casters would be attached to was determined mainly by the size of the interface to the leg attachment for the legs inside the base. Because the design would implement a T-slotted aluminum extrusion expandable leg, the caster legs would need to connect to this leg. Therefore, the outer dimensions of the legs were chosen to be equal to those of the T-slotted leg (1.5inx1.5in). The thickness of the cross section was chosen by investigating what standard profiles were commercially available. A stress analysis was completed to verify if a leg of this dimension would actually sustain the loading applied to it, and was determined to be safe.

The complete analysis, including moment and shear diagrams can be found in

Appendix L.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 14 Table Top and Support Design and Analysis

14.1 Free Body Diagrams and Solutions The main and secondary supports were designed to be space efficient, yet also be able to support the loading from the actuator and the loads applied to the pads. The following loading scenario was analyzed (assumes a 300 pound individual and worse case loading).

40lb 228 lb R1 10 lb 5472 lb-in 3725 lb-in A

500 lb 383 lb R2 478.75lb-in M1

From this it was determined that the moment and reactions( R1 and R2) were –8718.25lb- in and 278lb and –117lb respectively. The total stress is –10,281 psi. The part will not fail under this loading as the yield stress of the steel being used is 39,000 psi.

The main support and secondary support were designed to be telescoping and interface through a set of pins. To test the stability of this arrangement, it was necessary to determine the shear stress in the pins which are in single shear. The shear stress on the pins is 407.4psi. This value is less than the manufacturer specified maximum of 42,600 psi. The complete FBD, as well as the solutions can be found in Appendix M.

Finally, it was important to determine the stress on the tabletop support to ensure that the loads induced would not cause failure. The main force exerted on the tabletop comes from the chest pad mounted to the front of the quarter-round 8020 extrusion surrounding the Lexan table top. The stress generated is approximately 3.3 psi, which is considerably less than the maximum stress of 35, 000psi that the table material is capable of withstanding. For more detailed information and FEA analysis results, please see

Appendix N.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 15 Product Strengths and Weaknesses

As is true with any product, choices must be made due to time, group abilities, the current state of technology, and of course, cost. Senior design teams are certainly not exempt from any of the above. Therefore, the following will provide the reader with a sense of where the standing table excels, and where it may not be as notable as other commercial designs, or even other aspects of the team’s own design.

Product Strengths:

 Semi-Automatic Operation (minimal user input required)

 Renewable Power Source

 Ability to expand legs from 30” to 50” to encompass chairs

 “One Step” leg expansion

 Clear impact, scratch, and UV resistant table top

 Smooth table top protective frame

 Quick Adjust table height and tilt angle

 Easy setup and teardown for travel

 Lifting capacity up to 300 pound individual

 Accommodates users from 59.8” to 73.6”

 Quick locking casters

 High factor of safety on all parts

 Ergonomic pad and sling system

 Intuitive design and user interface

Product Weaknesses:

 Cannot support bariatric patients

 Won’t fit around or underneath large, low slung couches (competitor’s designs

can not fit around small couches either)

 Not appropriate for child/junior patients

 Limited, large-scale upper body support

 Battery is reasonably heavy (18 lbs)

 Doesn’t completely fold up (problem affects competitor’s designs as well)

 Limited chest pad adjustability

 Actuator DC motor surfaces may become hot if overused (operator instructions

discourage use exceeding a 15% duty cycle)

 Risk of electric shock if table is misused (operator instructions detail correct and

proper usage and charging procedures)

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 16 Method of Operation

16.1 Operating Instructions As is true with any device, a machine will only function as well as the user knows how to operate it. No matter how well conceived, designed, and manufactured a product might be, customer education is the key to successful use, and a satisfied customer. Below is a linear list of the steps that should be enacted in order to obtain the best results from the standing table.

 First, make sure the battery has been fully charged. The battery can then be

inserted into the designated holder in the standing table if it was removed for

charging.

 Manually move the table to where the patient is sitting.

 Press the cylinder that is currently in the up position (the cylinder marked extend)

downward in order to extend the legs such that it can fit around the patients

current chair.

 Wheel the table closer to the patient until their knees are touching the knee pad

and their feet can be firmly planted on the footrest.

 Lock the two back wheels to ensure the standing table is steady for lifting.

 Slide the lifting harness behind and underneath the patient. Make sure that the

patient is comfortable and aware of the actions that occur during the lift phase.

 Attach each strap of the harness to the lifting arms by placing a ring on the

harness onto a peg on the lifting arm. The size of the patient will determine

which ring and peg should be used, to ensure a secure harness fit.

 Flip the main power cutoff switch, if it has not already been, to the one position to

connect the battery to the circuit.

 Using the red button on the side of the remote, power up the remote and prepare

for use.

 Using the switches on the remote, red for up and black for down, activate the

actuator arms to lift the patient into a standing position. Pressing down at any

time will lower the patient, and releasing the button will leave the patient in their

current position.

 Once the patient is standing, adjust the height of the table, using the quick release

pins, so that it best suits the patient (table should be between elbow and waist

height). If the patient would prefer to use a titled table, the aid can adjust the

angle of the table by loosening both locking handles.

 Then tighten both handles to secure table at desired angle.

 To reseat the patient, follow the same procedure of ensuring a tight harness fit,

power up the system, and using the same remote, lower the patient into a chair.

 Unhook and remove the harness.

16.2 Safeguards and Warnings CAUTION! For safety purposes, both the battery disconnect switch and the remote power switch should be left in the OFF position while not in use. Failure to adhere to this safety procedure could result in undesired lift operation or battery discharge. Always disconnect power before attempting to clean or service the standing table. Battery is capable of delivering more than 20 amps of power during operation. Under no circumstances, should anyone attempt to alter or modify the existing circuit layout as

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 improper modification may result in compromising of built in safety features or electrical shock. Actuator DC motor surfaces may become hot during extended or repeated use. A built in thermal trip sensor will shut off the actuators for 15 minutes during an overheat to prevent damage to the system. Actuator should not be run continuously, but should be restricted to complete up and down cycles when needed.

Any injuries resulting from negligent use or failure to adhere to the above listed procedures and cautions are not the liability of the design team. The user is responsible for making themselves familiar with all procedures and cautions. Any questions may be directed to the design team through the Mechanical Engineering Department at Rochester

Institute of Technology.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendices: Table of Contents

Appendices: Table of Contents...... 55 Appendix A – Project Proposal...... 57 Appendix B – Mission Statement...... 60 Appendix C – Team Values and Norms...... 63 Appendix D – Gantt Chart...... 64 Appendix E – Feasibility...... 65 Section 1 – Pugh Analysis...... 65 Section 2 - QFD...... 66 Section 3 – Determination of Weights...... 68 Section 4 – Determination of Weights Results...... 69 Section 5 – Weighted Pugh Analysis...... 70 Appendix F – Ergonomics...... 71 Section 1 – Anthropometric Data Table (Height)...... 71 Section 2 – Relative Body Dimensions...... 71 Section 3 – Generic Body Weights...... 72 Section 4 – Segment Weights of 300lbs. Person...... 72 Section 5 – FEA Analysis of Footplate...... 73 Appendix G – The Five Whys...... 74 Appendix H – Concept Generation...... 78 Section 1 - Brainstorming...... 85 Section 2 – Requirements, Needs, and Guidelines...... 85 Section 3 – Design Parameters...... 86 Section 4 – Objective Trees...... 87 Section 5 – Morphological Charts...... 91 Section 6 – Individual Concepts...... 93 Section 7 – Team Preliminary Concepts...... 94 Section 8 – Final Morphological Chart...... 95 Section 9 – Final Concepts...... 96 Appendix I – Pneumatic Fluid Drives...... 97 Section 1 – Solid Model: “Extend” Drive Cylinder...... 97 Section 2 – Solid Model: Fluid Drive/Leg Interface...... 98 Section 3 – Fluid Drive Ratio Formulas...... 100 Section 4 – Force and Travel Ratios for Cylinder Bore...... 101 Section 5 – Fluid Drive Schematic...... 102 Section 6 – FEA Analysis of Drive Cylinder Assembly...... 103 Section 7 – Stress Lift Curves of Base Assembly...... 104 Appendix J – Force Determination for Lifting...... 105 Section 1 – Body Segment Weights...... 105 Section 2 – Strap Forces...... 105 Section 3 – Angle and Force Determination...... 106 Section 4 – Torque Equation...... 107 Section 5 – Force and Torque Summary...... 107 Section 6 – Forces and Torques Graph...... 108 Section 7 – Torques Generated by Individuals...... 109 Section 8 – Force Required to Lift Individuals...... 110

Section 9 – Actuator Duty Cycles...... 111 Section 10 – Free Body Diagram of Lift Arms...... 111 Section 11 – FEA Analysis of Lifting Arm...... 112 Section 12 – Pin Shear Calculations...... 113 Section 13 – Stress Life Curves for Lifting Assembly...... 114 Appendix K – Table Electronic Systems...... 115 Section 1 – Circuit Schematic...... 115 Section 2 – Battery & Charger...... 116 Section 3 – Wiring Diagram for Circuit...... 120 Appendix M – Force in Main & Secondary Support...... 125 Appendix N – Stress in Table & Bolt...... 128 Appendix O – Bill of Materials (BOM)...... 129 Appendix P – Assembly Plans...... 131 Appendix Q – Business Plan Outline: Standing Table...... 134 Appendix R – Engineering Drawings...... 147

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix A – Project Proposal

2005/2006 RIT Multidisciplinary Senior Design Project Proposal Project Name and Number Updated 06205 Standing Table 12-15-05 Sponsor Arc of Monroe County Sponsor Contact Phone Email

RIT Contact Phone Email DeBartolo 475-2152 [email protected] Project Start Quarter 052 (Winter 05-06) Finish Quarter 053 (Spring 06)

Project Overview (please provide a brief background and description of the project)

A standing table is a device that allows individuals unable to bear weight alone to stand with partial or full weight support. A standing table also allows users to independently transfer from a seated position in a wheelchair or bed to transfer to another seating location, or a standing position. Such a device would greatly improve the self esteem and independence level of these consumers as they are no longer fully reliant on others to stand up or move about. Additionally, a standing table is able to improve poor muscle tone and increase the range of motion of certain joints that are not normally used. A table that is capable of folding or collapsing would be innovative as existing standing tables are quite large, require a great deal of space, and are more suited to commercial living centers rather than standard homes. Some existing designs for standing tables are as simple as a sturdy walker with a wide base and gripping handles, while other more flexible designs utilize actuators to assist the individual who is not capable of pulling themselves out of a chair. The senior design team will meet with the members of the ARC home and the ARC physical therapist. The team will also customize the design of the standing table to the specific needs and sizes of the individuals currently living in the home. As part of the learning process, students will expand their knowledge of the biomechanics of people with different physical disabilities and apply basic manufacturing procedures.

Project Success Factor Checklist

(x) The project is important to the sponsor, but is Comments not on the critical path. The standing table would lessen the strain on ARC workers and improve the condition of ARC community members.

(x) There is an advocate in the sponsor’s Advocate Contact Information organization committed to the project success. Kristen Quinlan, ARC Representative 585-747-7509 (Cell) (x) There are no intellectual property or other legal IP Status concerns that will interfere with the student’s ( ) a non-disclosure agreement will be required course commitments (reports, presentations, web ( ) a provisional patent application has been files site, poster) ( ) a full patent application has been filed ( ) a patent has been issues

(X) students may retain their IP rights as individuals ( ) students will be required to assign IP rights to sponsor (x) The success of the project requires the skills of Estimated Number of Students Needed at least two engineering disciplines Computer Engineering ______Electrical Engineering___1____ Mechanical Engineering__4___ Industrial & Systems Engineering ___1____ Industrial Design ______Business ______Other ______

Proposed Team Members Major Email Has this individual agreed to join the team? 1. Craig A. Hudson (Manager) ME [email protected] Y 2. Matthew Bell ME [email protected] Y 3. Jeff Matusik ISE [email protected] Y 4. Kahamala Morgan ME [email protected] Y 5. Maria Spagnola ME [email protected] Y 6. Aditya Srinivas EE [email protected] Y

The improvement team will be provided with the following :

(x) Background Information: Comments ( ) data, Team will meet personally with the ARC physical ( ) drawings, therapist to go over critical design factors and ( ) reports, patient needs. Team will be supplied with Project (x) other: See comments Readiness Package from Design Project Management. ( ) Requirements Document, including Comments qualitative performance goals Specific requirements will be determined by the quantitative performance goals Project Manager during scheduled meetings with operating environment the ARC therapist. human interfaces interfaces with other systems physical & aesthetic requirements design constraints

(x) Security Clearance: See comments Comments Team must complete IRB form to receive institute permission to work with human subjects

( ) Lab or Office Space: Comments

( ) Computers & Software: Comments

( ) Equipment: Comments

( ) Other Essentials: Comments

Desired Outcomes:

( ) concept sketches Comments ( ) prototype drawings Purpose of project is to provide the ARC with a ( ) production grade drawings usable product after 20 weeks ( ) prototype (x) fully functional, ready to use model

Funding Considerations & Budget (note: Sponsors are responsible for purchasing, and out-of-pocket expenses, such as project materials, equipment, and external fabrication costs.)

The standing table project is part of the “Design Projects to Aid People with Disabilities” program. These projects are sponsored by an umbrella grant from the National Science Foundation. Design teams are required to track their individual expenses as the NSF grant is being managed under a single account.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix B – Mission Statement

P06205 - Standing Table

1.0 Product The goal of Senior Design Team with project #P06205 is to design and build (Project) a standing table to assist disabled people living in the Monroe County area Description ARC homes. A standing table is a device used to help patients, incapable of standing on their own, lift themselves from a seated position to a standing position. 2.0 Scope 2.1 Product will be defined and limited by the Preliminary Product Limitations Specifications to be determined and provided by the team. 2.2 Funds for all supplies and labor should not exceed a budget of $1,500. 2.3 Product shall utilize available OEM subsystems and assemblies where applicable. 2.4 Product shall work safely within a disabled person’s home. 2.5 Product size and weight shall be minimized to increase mobility and usefulness. 2.6 Design shall assume low volume manufacturing cost considerations. 2.7 Design team should use a Solidworks as their main CAD package.

3.0 Stakeholders 3.1 Senior Design team members of project P06205. 3.2 Dr. Elizabeth Debartolo, Ph.D. 3.3 ARC community members 3.4 ARC therapist 4.0 Key Business 4.1 Product should be cheaper than existing commercially available models. Goals 4.2 Product shall not increase liability of stakeholders 4.2.1 No financial costs shall be placed upon the stakeholders, all monetary needs shall be covered by supplied funding 4.2.2 Product shall not noticeably increase therapist’s workload in the form of preventative maintenance of which neglect of said maintenance, may cause product failure and patient injury 4.2.3 Potential for and the number of ways in which a patient could possibly be injured will be minimized via adherence to common sense and industrial safety practices. 4.3 Product maintenance costs should not exceed cost of the product over the useful life of the product 4.4 Operation of product shall not measurably increase operating costs of the ARC. 4.5 Product value should exceed initial investment. 4.5.1 Final product value shall be determined based upon cost of materials, amount of time spent designing, and the amount of time spent fabricating. 4.5.2 Time spent fabricating prototype shall be considered an upper limit for theoretical production times of additional units 5.0 Financial See attached Bill of Materials Analysis 6.0 Primary Market 6.1 Product design and operation shall appeal to primary disabled users. 6.1.1 Appeal shall be based upon ease of use of unit, noise output of unit (minimize), bulkiness (minimize) and ability to easily move/transport 6.2 Product operation shall decrease workload of ARC social workers. 6.2.1 Patients shall be able to, with the help of the product, lift themselves from a seated position to a standing position with minimal aide from therapist (patients will not use machine unsupervised).

6.3 Product shall showcase student ability and gained knowledge to the RIT ME faculty. 6.3.1 Product will require significant application of topics learned including Statics, Dynamics, Design of Machine Elements, Mechanics, ergonomics, human factors, and design of circuits and electrical systems. 6.3.2 Prototype fabrication shall demonstrate student’s proficiency with modern production machines and processes. 6.4 Project will appeal to senior engineering students as exciting and challenging. 6.4.1 Students will be able to apply their academic experience in a team setting 6.4.2 A working prototype will increase a student’s confidence level in apply academic knowledge 6.4.3 Product design will be such that it is not easily designed by a single student in a short amount of time but rather, requires due diligence to accomplish while allowing students a chance to push their individual limits. 6.5 Project will satisfy parental desire for student success. 6.5.1 Final design shall be such that, prior to their schooling, students would not have been able to as effectively and efficiently designed such a product. 6.5.2 Project shall be such that students are able to achieve grades that directly reflect their abilities and mastery of academic application 7.0 Secondary 7.1 Product may be adapted to high volume commercial production for sale Markets to disabled persons homes and suppliers of medical equipment. 7.2 Product may be adapted for use in recreational pools where pool transfer equipment is needed. 7.3 Limits placed upon secondary market possibilities 7.3.1 Product is not designed for use by young persons 7.3.2 Product is not designed, nor should be adapted, to lift and support patients in excess of 300 pounds. 7.3.3 Product is not designed for use outside of a group home or therapy center where immediate help is available in case of an emergency.

8.0 Success 8.1 Technological Attributes Qualifiers 8.1.1 Product shall be able to lift larger patients up to, and including 300 pounds. 8.1.2 Product shall be automated to ease patient transition 8.1.2.1 Different type of transitions will include a seated to standing transition as well as a seated to seated transfer, such as from a wheelchair to a bed or toilet. 8.1.3 Design shall be manufacturable in-house at RIT by student team members. 8.1.3.1 Manufacturing facilities in building 9 (mills, lathes, drills) as well as the Brinkmann lab in the CIMS building (CNC, EDM) may be used for manufacturing of necessary parts.

8.2 Budget and Economic Attributes 8.2.1 Product shall be affordable for low budget operations (namely the ARC) 8.2.2 Raw materials shall remain within budget 8.2.2.1 Materials used in design shall be chosen such that they are easily obtained and are not excessive in cost (choosing lower grade alloys where expensive high grade alloys are not necessary, etc) 8.2.2.2 Materials shall be chosen such that machining of said materials does not require special tooling or processes Page 61 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006

or require the manufacturer to provide additional services necessary to supply the desired materials. 8.2.2.3 Material scrap shall be minimized. When possible, like material types and sizes will be used in design to minimize the total number of different stock pieces that must be purchased. 8.2.3 Product manufacturing should utilize existing shop equipment and minimize necessary tooling and fixturing.

8.3 Performance Attributes 8.3.1 Operation shall be manageable by a single person. 8.3.2 Product shall decrease patient transfer times from standing to sitting and vice versa. 8.3.3 Product shall support a patient for extended periods of time comfortably

8.4 Scheduling Attributes 8.4.1 Design team shall meet with ARC therapist and ARC home members to tailor the end product to their personal needs. 8.4.2 Product shall be designed within 10 weeks. 8.4.3 Product shall be manufacturable within an additional 10 weeks. 8.4.4 Product shall be tested and shown to be safe within the 10 weeks of manufacturing. 9.0 Success 9.1 Technological Attributes Winners 9.1.1Product should meet or exceed current weight limits of like existing competitor products (not to include extra-heavy duty machines designed specifically to lift patients in excess of 400 pounds) 9.1.2 Product should meet or exceed safe transfer rate of patient from a seated to a standing position that existing products currently have (approximately 45 seconds per transfer, not including harnessing operations).

9.2. Budget and Economic Attributes 9.2.1 Product should be cheaper than similar existing competitor products. 9.2.2 Product should use proven technology to reduce manufacturing and maintenance costs.

9.3 Performance Attributes 9.3.1 Operation should be intuitive and easier than existing designs. 9.3.2 Product should have a fatigue life sufficient to exceed the life of existing competitor products.

9.4 Time Attributes 9.4.1 Lead time for additional units should be half the lead time for the original unit 9.4.2 Modification of units should be able to be completed with a 10 week period to allow for additional work to be completed by other senior design teams. 10.0 Innovation 10.1 Product design should be such that patentable ideas can be utilized to Opportunities form a business or sold to an existing medical supplier. 10.2 Product shall allow students insight into the design process of a product from conceptualization to manufacture. 10.3 Project shall give students insight into the design and use of simple assistive medical devices. 10.4 Project experience should prepare students for a career in the medical devices field.

Appendix C – Team Values and Norms

P06205 – ARC Standing Table

1. Each team member agrees to attend all regularly scheduled meetings, show up on time and stay for the duration of the meeting unless prior arrangements have been made.

2. If a member is unable to attend a meeting, all work that was due to be completed for that meeting will be delivered to a second team member or their mail folder.

3. All members of the team agree to be prepared to the best of their ability to share their completed work and learn during group meetings.

4. Team members agree to respond to emails promptly, within 24 hours during the week or, within 48 hours on weekends.

5. Each group member agrees to be respectful of others ideas, property, and each other.

6. Members of the group agree to work hard and do their best, but to take on a feasible work load that they can complete well within the allotted time.

7. Team members agree to complete work on time.

8. Team members agree to keep organized individual notebooks as well as contribute to the team binder.

Team Signatures:

______Craig A. Hudson (Team Manager, ME) Date

______Maria Spagnola (Co-Lead Engineer, ME) Date

______Aditya Srinivas (Co-Lead Engineer, EE) Date

______Matthew Bell (Mechanical Engineer) Date

______Jeff Matusik (Industrial Engineer) Date

______Kahamala Morgan (Mechanical Engineer) Date Page 63 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix D – Gantt Chart

Standing Table Schedule

WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Research Function Analysis Why Analysis Requirements Doc. QFD V & V Plan Morph Analysis Concept Selection Pugh Analysis Concept Feasibility Failure Analysis Detailed Concept Group Sketch Component Sketch BOM Cost Analysis Review QFD Drawings Fabrication Plan ID Vendors Assembly Draw Final BOM Final Cost Purchase Assign Machining Build Plan Prepare PDR

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix E – Feasibility

Section 1 – Pugh Analysis

Feature Prelim 1 Prelim 2 Prelim 3 Prelim 4 Universal Design + + + + Adult Use 0 0 0 0 Lift Heavy 0 0 0 0 Patients Work Surface + + + + Trunk Support + + - - Lower Body 0 0 - - Support Remote Access 0 - 0 - Quiet 0 0 - - Quick Transfer + + + + Secure Access + 0 + 0 Stable Platform 0 0 0 0 Accommodate Average 0 0 0 0 Individuals No Skin Contact + + + + Back Support + + + + Adjustable Table + + + 0 Must be Safe 0 0 - - Stand Alone 0 0 0 0 System Efficient 0 0 0 0 + 8 7 7 5 0 10 10 7 8 - 0 1 4 5 Total Score 8 6 3 0

Section 2 - QFD

, d o t d y i t n e i t n e g t d o r r r a i e i t a y e i m t e r e i c r t u a s y a o n L o w e t a q f l i e c e w U l ( o n e t ) ( P i

c o m r l e A h e P R r b r e a ( s o e g s f t e o a G e i s c i n l r d y c s t t t f e u w s d r ) o d a e g b u a s n ) i s e a s s r f c o e e i e s i P t n i i a r t o s u s S P u / n l a ) r s W i j e i p P h t D i t v , e r

t e r p a u f u r t ) d o a U g a a c k e r f f j e d a i u

r u g r o e n D s r t v s t o o n A s N T I B n A D e w i s e t e o

/ c e l w a e / r d f n t t u t A s t f f o h e o e g p a o e d W a a a o n n o n s n W S t i o o p f i T / g s s n r p

e t u t u u e u i O r P P S r , P , a e e e e e s , a o s o o n o k t o a 5 C f t f f e f e l l r p p 0 u e c o a e 4 m m o a o o p o z R o m m o a m m l r i i y y 0 a s i o ~ C y A V T T ( A # 3 A c M ( C T u H # A # # T s A C B t L

Universal Design 9 3 7 4 8 9 7 8 9 9 7 9 3 3 1 2 8 1 Adult Use 9 7 1 7 Lift Heavy 8 7 9 9 3 9 8 7 2 6 Patients 3 Work Surface 3 6 2 7 5 3 2 9 9 7 Trunk Support 9 7 8 8 8 7 5 8 8 2 9 6 Lower Body 5 8 6 8 8 7 9 2 8 3 4 7 Support 9 Remote Access 5 7 2 5 1 3 4 5 9 Quiet 6 5 4 9 9 Quick Transfer 7 6 7 9 6 9 9 8 6 5 1 3 Secure Access 8 9 9 Stable Platform 9 8 6 7 9 2 8 8 7 9 5 9 8 5 No Skin Contact 5 9 9 9 9 7 Must be Safe 9 7 8 5 9 9 7 9 2 6 8 9 2 2 9 6 5 9 Stand Alone 9 9 7 4 System 7 Efficient 9 9 8 9 9 9 8 4 5 2 7 7 Absolute Importance 245 409 466 274 461 477 360 393 0 339 489 306 470 243 319 169 54 45 270 531 126 191 Relative Importance 0.46 0.77 0.88 0.52 0.87 0.90 0.68 0.74 0.00 0.64 0.92 0.58 0.89 0.46 0.60 0.32 0.10 0.08 0.51 1.00 0.24 0.36

Location of Pads 1.00 Most Important Harness Design 0.92 300 Pound Weight Limit 0.90 Amount Adjustability 0.89

Time to Transfer Patient (~45 secs) 0.88 # of Operations Required 0.87 Time Setup/Put Away 0.77

Materials Used (Cost/Weight) 0.74 Amount of Discomfort caused/injuries 0.68 Type of Actuator (energy use, power, noise) 0.64 # of Safeguards 0.60 # of Parts 0.58 Amount of Power Used 0.52 Braking Device (location, type, power) 0.51 Voltage/Battery Power 0.46

# of Pads 0.46 Number of Exposed Parts 0.36

Type of Interface (location, size, features) 0.32

Table Tilts 20-30 Degrees 0.24 Amount Noise Generated 0.10 Clear Work Surface 0.08 Colors Available 0.00 Least Important

Section 3 – Determination of Weights

Universal Adult Lift Heavy Work Trunk Lower Body Remote Quick Secure Stable No Skin Must be Quiet Efficient Design Use Patients Surface Support Support Access Transfer Access Platform Contact Safe Universal Design ← ← ← ↑ ↑ ← ← ← ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ←

Adult Use = ← ↑ ↑ = ← ← ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ←

Lift Heavy Patients ← ↑ ↑ ← ← ← ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ←

Work Surface ↑ ↑ = ← = ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ←

Trunk Support = ← ← ← = = = = ← ←

Lower Body Support ← ← ← = = = = ← ←

Remote Access ← = ↑ = ↑ ↑ ↑ =

Quiet = ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ =

Quick Transfer ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ = =

Secure Access ↑ = = ← ←

Stable Platform ↑ = ← ←

No Skin Contact ↑ ← ← Must be Safe ← ← Stand Alone System ← Efficient

Column Total 0 0 0.5 0 4 4.5 1 0 1.5 8 8.5 9.5 10 6.5 1.5

Section 4 – Determination of Weights Results

Row Colum R+C Relative Total Total Total Weights 7 0 7 0.5833 5 0 5 0.4167 5 0.5 5.5 0.4583 3 0 3 0.25 7.5 4 11.5 0.9583 7 4.5 11.5 0.9583 2.5 1 3.5 0.2917 1 0 1 0.0833 1 1.5 2.5 0.2083

3 8 11 0.9167

2.5 8.5 11 0.9167 2 9.5 11.5 0.9583 2 10 12 1 1 6.5 7.5 0.625 0 1.5 1.5 0.125 Total 105

Must be Safe 1 Most Important Trunk Support 0.958 Lower Body Support 0.958 No Skin Contact 0.958 Secure Access 0.917 Stable Platform 0.917 Stand Alone System 0.625 Universal Design 0.583 Lift Heavy Patients 0.458 Adult Use 0.417 Remote Access 0.292 Work Surface 0.250 Quick Transfer 0.208 Efficient 0.125 Quiet 0.083 Least Important

Section 5 – Weighted Pugh Analysis

Relative Feature Final 1 Final 2 Final 3 Final 4 Weights Universal 0.583 4 4 4 4 Design Adult Use 0.417 3 3 3 3 Lift Heavy 0.458 4 3 4 3 Patients Work 0.250 5 5 5 5 Surface Trunk 0.958 5 5 4 4 Support Lower Body 0.958 5 5 4 4 Support Remote 0.292 3 3 3 3 Access Quiet 0.083 3 3 3 3 Quick 0.208 4 4 3 3 Transfer Secure 0.917 4 4 4 4 Access Stable 0.917 4 4 5 5 Platform No Skin 0.958 4 4 4 4 Contact Must be 1.000 3 3 3 3 Safe Stand Alone 0.625 3 3 3 3 System Efficient 0.125 4 4 5 5 Total 34.75 34.2917 33.6667 33.2083 Score Normalize 1 0.99 0.97 0.96 d Score

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix F – Ergonomics

Section 1 – Anthropometric Data Table (Height)

Anthropometric data tables for a standing and sitting posture based on the work of Pleasant

Section 2 – Relative Body Dimensions Relative Dimensions of Avg Human Body (in inches) Ratio 5th female 95th male Avg Std Dev ground to knee 0.285 17.04 20.98 19.01 1.97 ground to hips 0.53 31.69 39.01 35.35 3.66 ground to elbow 0.63 37.67 46.37 42.02 4.35 ground to chest 0.72 43.06 52.99 48.02 4.97 ground to shoulder 0.818 48.92 60.20 54.56 5.64 width of hips 0.191 11.42 14.06 12.74 1.32 chest to grip reach 17.5 21.9 19.70 2.20

Section 3 – Generic Body Weights Breakdown of Generic Body Weights

% of Total Body % of Grouped Grouped Segment Individual Segment Weight Segment head 73.8% head and neck 8.4% neck 26.2% thorax 43.8% torso 50.0% lumbar 29.4% pelvis 26.8% upper 54.9% total arm 5.1% forearm 33.3% hand 11.8% thigh 63.7% total leg 15.7% shank 27.4% foot 8.9%

Section 4 – Segment Weights of 300lbs. Person Breakdown of 300 lb Individual

% of Total Weight Segment Body Weight (lbs.) Head and neck 8.40% 25.20 Torso 50% 150.00 Total Arm 5.10% 15.30 Upper Leg (Thigh) 10% 30.00 *Total Body Weight = 300lbs.

References: http://www.occupationalhazards.com/safety_zones/35/article.php?id=7314 http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/hospital/hazards/ergo/ergo.html http://www.fop.org/downloads/OSHA%20Ergonomics.pdf http://www.spine-health.com/topics/cd/ergo/ergo05.html http://www.mech.utah.edu/ergo/educate/safety_modules/ctd-anthropometry/

Rudolfs Drillis and Renato Contini. Body segment parameters. Technical Report 1166- 03, New York University, School of Engineering and Science, Research Division, New York under contract with Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, September 1966.

Section 5 – FEA Analysis of Footplate

FEA Analysis of Footplate While Lifting 300lbs. Person

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix G – The Five Whys Copy of the “Five Whys” paper, as Presented in Senior Design 1 The Five Whys:

The Why:

Whenever a firm or individual sets out to design something, either for themselves or for someone else, it is important to find out exactly what is needed or wanted. While the customer usually knows what they want, they often have a hard time conveying their actual wants to the designers. In order to effectively design a device or system that will satisfy the customer with minimal frustration and setbacks to the design group, it is paramount that the actual customers needs be separated from the customer’s preconceived notions of how to solve the problem. The best way to form this separation is to ask the “5 Whys”.

For our design team, the ARC of Monroe County approached us and requested that we design a standing table. A lot of their patients are wheelchair bound and are unable to stand up by themselves. Sometimes being blatantly obvious is the best way to get some information and, hence, our first why was the most simple, “Why do you need a standing table”. The ARC stated that it is important to have a standing table so that patients are able to stand by themselves unaided and unattended. Logically, this incited the question of “Why is standing good for the patients”. Humans, by nature, are upright beings and standing is an important part of maintaining a healthy body. Standing, even with partial or full weight bearing by a machine, helps to increase the patients muscle tone as well as increase circulation. Also, by nature of extended their body, their joints are flexed and used while their cardiovascular system is given a slightly heavier load. While it does not

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 compare much to traditional exercise of non-disabled persons, for a wheelchair bound patient, it is the equivalent to them.

Now that the actual need for a standing table had been solidified, we were curious to know why they approached us to design a standing table, as several commercial designs already exist. Currently, the ARC has one powered lift, which is similar in nature to a standing table but is used only for transfers, not for standing. When questioned about the need for a table versus the lift, it was stated, as before, that it is important for the patients to remain standing for a certain amount of time, and that the current design of the powered lift had several defaults. Mainly, there were some adjustability and maintenance issues that had become a bit of a nuisance when using the device.

Two of the main needs that the ARC had for a new standing table is that it also must be smaller, and must be customized for their patients. Of course, these were responded to with a polite “why?”. Their current lift, manufactured by Arjo, does have a few size imposed limitations inherent to the design. First, it often has trouble fitting around, or under in the case of the legs, couches in such a way that allows them to access patients sitting on a couch. Additionally, the overhead lift design often limits the height to which they can place a patient as it sometimes hits the ceiling. Finally, the ARC needs a custom table because, quite simply, they are a not-for-profit company that does not have the necessary funds to appropriate such a standing table, or hire an independent firm to design one. By allowing RIT to use NSF designated funds, they can not only obtain a product especially customized, and therefore useful, to them, but they can obtain it free of charge.

By asking five whys, in five different ways, it was determined that the ARC does, in fact, require RIT to design a standing table. Rather than a standing table being a preconceived solution to their problem, it is simply a need. Given the state of the ARC patients, there really is no other way to encourage them to stand that does not put both the patient and therapist at risk.

The How:

A difficult task, as discussed before, is understanding the needs and requirements of our customer. The expectations for the designers always tend to be a little confusing. To reduce this gap to the minimum, we basically brainstormed with the customer by asking as many questions as possible that came into our mind. The first few questions covered a big picture and a sort of debate was created out of it.

For example, the first few questions and discussions we had with our customer was who they are, what they do, why did they choose us, why do they need a standing table, do they currently have a standing table, if yes, what is the problem with its design, what more are you looking out for etc. As and when the questions were being answered, we kept getting more and more specific giving us a much better picture of what our customer’s expectations are. We took advantage of the opportunity to sit on the machines they are currently using to aid the people at the ARC like a Tempo Combi.

The Tempo Combi is a machine used to lift the patient from the wheel chair by shifting weights and to transport them to a different location. The levers involved in it, its

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 working mechanism, the power used by it, etc. were analyzed by us, which gave us a clearer picture of what needs to be done, and how it has been done in the past.

The basic mode of asking questions was in one word – brainstorming. We tried to squeeze as much information out of the ARC as possible by asking simple yes and no and then getting further into details, and getting demonstrations until we had nothing more to ask. Following this, we met a couple of residents of ARC which gave us a basic understanding of what kind of people are going to be using our design we are in the process of creating. More meetings shall be held in the future with ARC representative to get more information.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix H – Concept Generation

Detailed Account of Concept Generation and Selection Process

During the second week of the quarter, the team continued to discuss the general idea of what a standing table is, and began to form a list of questions for the meeting with the customer. The questions generally focused on the areas of how a standing table is supposed to work, and other basic requirements needed to successfully build and design a table. At this point, the team had not yet met with the ARC representative, so brainstorming was limited to general ideas for the project (see list in Appendix H,

Section 1). It was noted early on that one fundamental criteria for the design was that the weak link in the completed standing table should be a bit of a failsafe, in and of itself, which would not harm the resident, cause gross rupture, or fail abruptly in the event of a failure. In other words, the weak link should be purposefully designed to fail under certain conditions, and should not be a component critical to safety.

By the middle of the following week, the team had spoken with the ARC representative,

Kristin Quinlan, on the phone and also met in person at an ARC residential house to clarify the ARC’s needs. While at the house, it was possible to analyze a Hoyer lift, which would later be compared against the initial concepts to determine which design would be better for our application. A list of our requirements and guidelines is included in Appendix H, Section 2. Based on the customer’s needs, design parameters began to be set which could be used to create some concepts based on different features. Appendix H

Section 3 shows the initial list of design parameters generated by the team.

The design parameters and customer requirements were then combined to create an objective tree in order to organize different thought process during the initial stages of development. A copy of the objective tree is located in Appendix H, Section 4.

In order to begin choosing which concept would best satisfy the customer requirements, the team listed important features and all of the possible combinations of features from the morphological chart from prior brainstorming and requirements lists. Features were divided up into exclusive and non-exclusive concepts, showing that some features would work well together and there could be a few different features within the same design feature category. These non-exclusive concepts could all be incorporated together on a standing table, while for other categories, the concept that we decided to go with would have to be the only one utilized for that feature. Appendix H, Section 5 contains our tables of the exclusive and non-exclusive features developed by the team.

In order to continue to work towards selecting a final concept, each member of the senior design group created two concepts that were a combination of what each member thought would be the best features for a standing table. Appendix H, Section 6 contains individual concept ideas.

Following this, the team went through a series of discussions and modeled different tables in order to further break down our list so that it would be possible narrow down the available concepts into a final design. Through team discussions, and through individual concept ideas, exclusive ideas that were deemed to not be feasible for our project were

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 eliminated. With the pared down morphological chart, the team made four preliminary concepts (see Appendix H, Section 7).

From these concepts, it was decided to further reduce the exclusive concepts table from

Appendix H, Section 5, and create a newly revised exclusive concept table with three possible concepts. At this point, the number of possibilities for each feature was reduced to a single design for all of the categories except for compact, main frame material, main frame geometry, and adaptable methods. These remaining categories were reduced to two or three potential possibilities. The revised exclusive concepts table can be found in

Appendix H, Section 8.

As is evident from the revised exclusive concept table, the team decided to use rechargeable batteries as the power source. These seemed to be the most portable and reusable option for power that the team came up with. Two batteries can be supplied so that one can charge for backup service while the other is in use.

Electromechanical actuators were chosen for force generation due to their uncomplicated and economical nature for lifting heavy loads. Upon further discussion of the winch idea it was found that it could be obtrusive to the person in the standing table.

For the compact category, two options were still being decided between after the initial weeding out of ideas: manually collapsing or hand pump (fluid drive) collapsing. If the device were to fold and collapse manually, there would need to be a certain defined method to do so, and an explanation in an instruction manual of how to physically

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 collapse or fold the standing table such that an aide or staff member of the ARC would be able to learn the process. If we were to use a fluid drive with cylinders to collapse or extend the standing table, this would make putting the standing table away or out of the way less labor intensive. By simply stepping on the end of one fluid cylinder, the ARC aide could easily extend or collapse the entire device.

At this point, it was decided that the main frame of the standing table could be made up of aluminum, 80/20 extrusion, or Cro-Moly steel. The decision of which material would be better to use would depend on strength, weight, and how each could be uniquely used for this application. The decision would have to be made once other decisions, such as desired frame setup, geometry, and features could be decided. After creating initial layouts for the frame, strength and weight needs could be taken into consideration.

The main frame geometry could have been either a space frame with two posts, or a single main post. This decision would depend highly on other options chosen in order to see how the standing table could best be laid out. A space frame with two supports would seem more stable in spreading out the weight of the standing table. A single main post would require less material and everything could be attached in one place, which has the ability to simplify the design and reduce the overall number of parts.

As far as the ergonomics related to lifting a person in the standing table, it was decided that lower body lifting would be the most comfortable, and safest, method of lifting for the given application. Lower body lifting would provide more overall support while allowing for more freedom of movement when a person is being held for an extended

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 period of time. Overhead lifting would be limiting for people of different sizes due to the fact that their whole body would be enveloped by the harness or sling lifting them. From the observations of a Hoyer lift where this type of lifting was utilized, it would be difficult to reach forward and be supported in a way where they would still be able to use the table top effectively. Underarm or torso lifting would support the upper body, but the lower body would be free to move about, which did not appear to be very safe or comfortable. Having lower body support through the lifting motion seemed to be the safest method and would provide the most support, giving the person in the harness confidence in the standing table’s ability to hold them.

The safest and most useful method for making the standing table adaptable was a toss up between using sliding supports or multi-positional supports. Chest and knee pads could be designed in a way that they would be able to move up and down, or in and out, to be comfortable for people of all sizes. In order to do this, the supports for these pads would need to be moveable. If these supports were sliding, a clamp would be used that would allow the pads to be positioned at any place along the pad rails or main beam. Sliding supports would be more adaptable in that it is possible to make smaller adjustments and the user is not limited to pre-positioned points equally spaced apart. As mentioned just before, multi-positional pads would, by design, have a limited number of slots or holes along the pad rail or main beam. A pin system would be utilized in which a pin would be inserted into the slots in order to hold the pads in place. In this case, there would be fewer options as far as where the pads could potentially be located, but it would be safer due to the fact that there would be no way for the pads to slip down while someone was leaning against them, unlike a clamp that may come loose.

For safety, it was decided that the machine would only be operated by an aide or staff member of the ARC house. The aide would be able to use the remote to lift a person from sitting to standing and then, through the series of pads and harnesses involved, the resident would be secure enough such that the aide would be able to leave the side of the resident to attend to other needs within the same room. This way, the resident would not be lifting or lowering themselves and, a qualified individual would help to ensure proper use of the table.

For the interface that would control the lifting or lowering of an individual, it was decided to use a remote control. The remote would have a cord attached to the standing table so that it could be held by the aide if they were to stand next to the resident as they were being lifted, but also ensure that the remote would not be misplaced. This design is similar to the remote used on the Hoyer lift that was observed.

For mobility, the standing table would be on caster wheels. A resident would then be able to be lifted up into a standing position and moved to a location to do an activity, or moved closer to a table to join in with a group. The caster wheels would have a brake integrated into their design so that when the table is in place, it may be held there for safety purposes.

The table top itself should be able to tilt 20 or 30º from horizontal as it is more comfortable to write or do an activity with a small degree of upward tilt while standing.

Because of this tilt, it will be necessary for the table top to have a ridge of some sort so that anything placed on the table will not roll and fall off.

In order to reduce the design concepts further, four final team concepts were created that incorporated all of our exclusive concepts listed in the revised concepts table referenced above, and created the table shown in Appendix H, Section 9. This helped to further illustrate the possibilities that were being debated, and helped the team to arrive at a final decision for the feature categories that were still not finalized. The final team concept incorporates the features that best apply to our application, the requirements initially stated, and is also based on the feasibility of each part of the design. This final design concept that we continued to work with is shown below:

Feature Final Concept Power Batteries Force Generation Electromechanical Actuator Compact/Foldability Fluid Drive (cylinders) Main Frame Material Steel Main Frame Geometry Two Main Posts Ergonomics Lower Body Lifting Adaptable Multi-positional & Sliding supports Safety Use of Machine only by Aide Interface Remote Control (corded) Mobility Casters w/ brake Table Top Tilting Tabletop

Section 1 - Brainstorming

- lift – lever, fork lift, parallel beam - power – rechargeable battery, AC interface, DC, pump, compressor - force generation – screw actuator, hydraulic system, winch, human power, pneumatics - fold and compact – aluminum, hydraulic assist folding, able to be broken down for storage - ergonomics – bone adaptation to mechanical loading, leg and shin support system, sling, padding, strap system – minimize sharp edges, pinch points – overhead harness or lower body – foot plate - how adaptable – sliding components, multi-positional pieces - stand alone – no cords or need to bolt into place, able to move about - type of interface – remote, console, trigger locks wheels into place, stickers about how to use, standardized colors - safety – emergency shut off button, emergency lowering device, travel sensor, in use sensor - extras – instruction book, cup holder, personalization, safety grips with covers, drawer, automatic shut down if not used for awhile to save battery, radio

Section 2 – Requirements, Needs, and Guidelines

- universal (able to be adjusted for different sizes of people) - adults only (no children would use our standing table, and no geriatric people) - 115 – 280 pounds (weight range) - 4’8” – 6’3” (height range) – average height is about 5’4” - resident would be coming out of a wheelchair (lifted from sitting position) - resident would not necessarily have a lot of function with their hands - staff would be present at a minimum of when the resident is in motion on the standing table – resident would be secure enough that aide could walk away to help someone else once the resident is securely standing - security and stability very important (for safety). - residents could have seizures (allow for safety under these circumstances) - resident would stand on a platform (off the ground) – this would allow the standing table to be moved with the resident in it (caster wheels) - make sure to support the entire body - have a knob that allows the standing table to move up and down - eliminate aide’s need to have their hands on the resident (no skin contact), hand over hand assistance - sling – harness (supports lower body) – adjustable straps - knees might not totally straighten (need to be supported so the resident would be comfortable in this case) - legs of standing table could be made closer to the ground (than that of Hoyer lift) – this would allow the standing table to pull up close enough to an easy chair that it would be able to fit underneath the chair and the standing table would be able to be used for chairs other than the resident’s wheelchair – low clearance Page 85 of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006

- caster wheels under the standing table would be able to be locked into place so that the standing table is secure when in use - table top must be clear so the resident would be able to see their feet and the ground in front of them, should the standing table be moved - table top should be able to be tilted to 20 - 30º tilt from horizontal - table top should have guard around bottom (especially if table tilt is involved) so that nothing falls off the table top and should be weight bearing and be used for table top activites - resident should be able to go from sitting to standing in 45 – 60 seconds - this standing table will be used in a residential atmosphere that doesn’t currently have standing tables (not in that house, but some do have them) - there should be a remote to activate the actuators – this remote should be out of the range of motion of the resident - rechargeable battery would be used so that the Arc wouldn’t have to keep buying batteries – the battery should be out of sight - the maximum height of the standing table itself should be around 6 feet, but ideally it would be more in the range of 4 to 5 feet – the standing table should also be able to move through doorways, so should be less than 3 feet in width

Section 3 – Design Parameters

- voltage and battery capabilities - time to set up the standing table and put it away - time to transfer the resident - amount of power used - number of operations required - weight limit of the standing table and overall size - amount of discomfort caused and injuries resulting from use of this standing table – this would be minimized - colors available - materials used - type of actuator - harness system - number of parts - adjustability - number of pads - number of safety precautions

Section 4 – Objective Trees

Objective Trees, Organized by Performance, Cost, Safety, and Comfort

Design Standing Table for ARC Monroe County

Comfort/ Performance Cost Safety Aesthetics

Performance

Adaptable for Lift Large Compact different Efficient people Patients Easy to Use Design

Sturdy and Low profile Low drain Adjustable Automated stable

Minimized Powered Intuitive user Stand alone number of actuator interface steps required

One person Foldable/ use Collapsible

Cost Low Maintenance Cost Cheaper than Low existing designs Operating Costs

Minimal power Low cost parts Durable consumption

Replacement parts Avoid non-renewable Remanufacture easy to obtain and power sources install

Powered systems Minimal preventative Donations/ price red scaled to use to avoid maintenance required over design

Samples

OEM subsystems

Standards

Readily available Materials and processes

Safety

Minimal Automatic Stable during maintenance safety stops/kill No sharp edges operation design switch

Retractable Utilize chamfers Easy to maintain Measure activity platform support and breaks

Pad contact Eliminate service Switches for Minimize profile surfaces, frame induced damage emergency corners, and failures protrusions

Minimize 90o Lower center of bends near gravity patients

Aesthetics/ Comfort

Ergonomic Design Visually Appealing

Pads Different color schemes available

Supports Soothing colors (Lateral, trunk, lower body)

Enclose mechanical parts

Organic design Minimize square edges

Section 5 – Morphological Charts Morphological ChartsAppendix Detailing # (5 for my section): Exclusive Exclusive and Non-exclusive and conceptsNon-Exclusive Concepts Exclusive Concepts (Pick One) Feature Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 Concept 7 Concept 8 Hand Pump Compressed Power Batteries AC AC/DC (car jack Fluid style) Hydraulics Force Ball Screw Hydraulics Human (motorized Pneumatics Winch Generation Actuator (Hand Pump) Powered pump) Cylinder Dampener Modular One Step Drive/ball Compact Hydraulic Assist Spring Loaded Collapsible Foldable Assisted Design Expandability screw driven Main Frame Aluminum Plain Steel Cro-Moly Steel 80/20 Material Overhead Lower Body Underarm/Torso Ergonomics Lifting Lifting Lifting Multi- Sliding Interchangeable Adaptable Positional Supports Supports Supports Self Limited Use of Machine Safety Machine only by Aide (patient use) Remote Spring Remote Control Interface Controll Menu/Console Loaded (wireless) (corded) Button Casters Mobility Sliding Frame w/external Casters w/ brake brake Folding Drop Down Tilting Table Top Fixed Tabletop Tabletop Tabletop Tabletop

Non Exclusive Concepts Feature Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept E Concept D Concept F Concept G Power Force Generation Compact Main Frame Round Square Material Tubing Tubing Minimize Knee Back Lateral Ergonomics Chest Support Grips Foot Plate Sharp Edges Supports Support Supports Adaptable Brake Nurse Travel Emergency Emergency Overload Safety In Use Sensor On/Off Station Sensor Shutoff Lowering Sensor Sensor Light Standardized Interface Colors (red=go, etc) Mobility

Antitheft Integrated Personalized Radio/CD Foot Low Battery Extras Cup Holder Measures Exerciser Cover Player Rollers Power Light

Section 6 – Individual Concepts Chart Detailing a Selection of Individual Concepts Appendix # (6 for my section): Individual concepts

Group member: Matt Matt Kahamala Kahamala Craig Craig

Feature Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4 Design 5 Design 6 Power Batteries Batteries Batteries Batteries 12 VDC Battery 12 VDC Battery Force Ball Screw Ball Screw Actuator Ball Screw Actuator Winch Hydraulics Hydraulics Generation Actuator (rear mount) (Side Mount) Ball Screw Ball Screw Expandable Expandable Compact Activated Activated Foldable Foldable (Cylinder Drive) (manual) Folding Folding Main Frame Cro-Moly 80/20 Al Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Material Main Frame 80/20 T-Slot Space Space Single Large Cross- Dual Small cross- Space Frame Geometry Frame Frame Frame section Member section members Lower Underarm/ Lower Body Underarm/Tors Ergonomics Body Torso Lower Body Lifting Lower Body Lifting Lifting o Lifting Lifting Lifting Sliding Multi-Postional Sliding Sliding Adaptable Sliding Support Sliding Supports Supports Supports Supports Supports Self Limited Self Limited Aide use Aide use Safety Aided Use Only Aided Use Only Machine Machine only only Remote Remote Interface Menu/Console Menu/Console Remote Control Remote Control Control Control Casters Casters Casters Casters Mobility Casters w/ Brake Casters w/Brake w/Brake w/Brake w/Brake w/Brake Fixed Drop Down Table Top Tilting Table Tilting Table Rotating Table Top Rotating Table Top Table Table

Section 7 – Team Preliminary Concepts Appendix # (7 for my section): Preliminary team design concepts

Feature Prelim 1 Prelim 2 Prelim 3 Prelim 4 Power Batteries Batteries Batteries Batteries Force Ball Screw Ball Screw Winch Winch Generation Actuator Actuator Hand Hand Pumps Manual Manual Pumps Compact (Fluid Collapse Collapse (Fluid Cylinders) Cylinders) Main Frame 80/20 Al Aluminum Cro-Moly Aluminum Material Main Frame Space Frame Single Main Space Single Geometry (T-Slot) Post Frame Main Post Lower Lower Body Lower Body Lower Body Ergonomics Body Lifting Lifting Lifting Lifting Multi- Multi-Postional Sliding Sliding Adaptable Postional Supports Supports Supports Supports Aide use Aide use Safety Aide use only Aide use only only only Remote Remote Menu/Cons Interface Menu/Console Control Control ole Casters Casters Casters Casters Mobility w/external w/external w/Brake w/Brake Brake Brake Drop Down Split/Folding Table Top Tilting Table Fixed Table Table

Section 8 – Final Morphological Chart Appendix # (8 for my section): Revised table of exclusive concepts

Feature Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Power Batteries Force Ball Screw Generation Actuator Manually Hand Pump Compact Collapsing Collapsing Main Frame Cro-Moly Aluminum 80/20 Material Steel Main Frame Space Frame Single Main Post Geometry Ergonomics Lower Body Lifting Multi-Positional Adaptable Sliding Supports Supports Use of Machine Safety only by Aide Remote Control Interface (corded) Mobility Casters w/ brake Table Top Tilting Tabletop

Section 9 – Final Concepts

Chart Detailing Final ConceptsAppendix #for (9 for the my section): Weighted Final four Pugh team concepts Analysis

Feature Final 1 Final 2 Final 3 Final 4 Power Batteries Batteries Batteries Batteries Force Ball Screw Ball Screw Ball Screw Actuator Ball Screw Actuator Generation Actuator Actuator Manual Manual Hand Pumps Hand Pumps Compact Folding/Collapsing Folding/Collapsing (Fluid Cylinders) (Fluid Cylinders) Main Frame Cro-Moly Aluminum Cro-Moly Aluminum Material Main Frame Space Frame Space Frame Single Main Post Single Main Post Geometry Lower Body Lower Body Ergonomics Lower Body Lifting Lower Body Lifting Lifting Lifting Multi-Postional Multi-Postional Adaptable Sliding Supports Sliding Supports Supports Supports Use of Machine Use of Machine Use of Machine Use of Machine Safety only by Aide only by Aide only by Aide only by Aide Remote Controll Remote Controll Remote Controll Remote Controll Interface (corded) (corded) (corded) (corded) Mobility Casters w/ brake Casters w/ brake Casters w/ brake Casters w/ brake Table Top Tilting Tabletop Tilting Tabletop Tilting Tabletop Tilting Tabletop

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix I – Pneumatic Fluid Drives

Section 1 – Solid Model: “Extend” Drive Cylinder

Solid Model Detail of “Extend” Drive Cylinder

Section 2 – Solid Model: Fluid Drive/Leg Interface

Solid Model Detail of Fluid Drive/Leg Interface

FEA Analysis of Leg

Front View of Base Deflection While Lifting a 300lb Person

Section 3 – Fluid Drive Ratio Formulas

Determination of Fluid Drive Ratio Formulas

Output Use of liquid  No compression of fluid  Maximum rate Input

Input :

Output:

r2 F2 dy P2 F P   F  P * A A F 2 1 Areas:(1)  r1 Pressure @1= 2  pressure@2  *r1 2  F   r   2 1 2 2 (2) r2 Force @2=  2   *r2  (F1 )    *r1   r1  Note: If output is larger less force is needed.

2 Volume: (1)  *r1 (dx) 2 2 V1  V2   *r1 dx   *r2 dy (2)  *r 2 (dy) 2 2  2  dy  *r1  r1   2  dy  dx  dx  *r2  r2  Note: If input is larger, output distance is decreased.

2  r  Force@2: 2 F2 = F1    r1  2  r1  Travel@2: dy = dx   r2 

Section 4 – Force and Travel Ratios for Cylinder Bore

Force and Travel Ratios for Given Cylinder Bore Ratios

Travel and Force Ratios for a Pneumatic Cylinder "Fluid Drive"

10.00 ) t u p

n 8.00 I

y t i Ratio of Force Output n U

( Ratio of Travel Output

p 6.00 t u O

0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Cylinder Bore Ratio (Input/Output)

Section 5 – Fluid Drive Schematic Fluid Drive Schematic showing input cylinders at left, leg cylinders at right

Section 6 – FEA Analysis of Drive Cylinder Assembly

FEA Analysis of Drive Cylinder Assembly, 200 lb load

Section 7 – Stress Lift Curves of Base Assembly

Equiv 0 Max Stress Min Mean Stress Sut FS Part Name mean Material Sy Se (ksi) Stress Stress Amplitude (kpsi) (infinite) Stress Base 2.8 0 1.4 1.4 1.4 A500 45 39 22.5 15.6 Cylinder Bracket 17 0 8.5 8.5 10.3 1018 49.5 32 24.75 2.4 8020 19.32 0 9.66 9.66 13.5 6105-T5 34 32 14 1.0

Stress Life Curves for Base Assembly

50 A500 )

i 40 1018 s k (

s 30 s Cylinder Bracket e r t

S 20 8020 Leg 6105-T5 (appx) 10

0 Note: Se for 6105 1 100 10000 1000000 provided at 10^8 cycles Life (Cycles)

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix J – Force Determination for Lifting

Section 1 – Body Segment Weights

Total Body Weight Body Segment Percentages 300 250 200 150 Head & Neck 8.4 25 21 17 13 Torso 50.0 150 125 100 75 Total Arm (x2) 5.1 15 13 10 8 Thigh (x2) 10.0 30 25 20 15 Total Leg (X2) 15.7 47 39 31 24 Total Weight 100.0 266 250 200 150

Mb Total 206 172 137 103 Ml Total 60 50 40 30 Amount Ignored 34 29 23 17 (lower leg) Total Weight (consistency 300 250 200 150 check) Determination of Body Segment Weights

Section 2 – Strap Forces Model Used to Determine Strap Forces:

Mb 

   M L L 1

( M )L *cos  ( M )(L )cos F  b L 1 L *sin

Section 3 – Angle and Force Determination

2D Solidworks Model used to Determine Angles and Forces

Section 4 – Torque Equation

Torque Equation and Sample Values Req'd act Body Leg Act 206 16.3 1000 arm 3.66 A length 3.75 Weight Length Force length Leg Leg Lift Arm 60 Weight 10.2 15.5 B length 2.5 Weight Length Length Torque Equation:

F *sin( ) * ArmLength  Torque exerted on Arm

(Act.Force) *(cos( )A  sin( )B)  Torque generated by Actuator

Section 5 – Force and Torque Summary

Alpha Theta Gamma Beta Forces and Torques Force Max Max Torq. Needed Strap Torque on Actuator Degrees Radians Degrees Radians Degrees Radians Degrees Radians Gen. by Per Tension Arm Force Act. Actuator Allowable (Real) 0 0.00 28 0.49 27 0.48 0 0.00 513 3660 3750 488 500 10 0.17 39 0.67 38 0.67 12 0.21 384 3694 4187 441 500 20 0.35 49 0.85 49 0.85 23 0.41 305 3559 4432 402 500 30 0.52 58 1.02 59 1.03 34 0.59 247 3292 4507 365 500 40 0.70 68 1.19 69 1.21 44 0.77 201 2912 4435 328 500 50 0.87 78 1.36 79 1.39 54 0.94 160 2438 4235 288 500 60 1.05 87 1.52 89 1.56 63 1.10 122 1888 3926 240 500 70 1.22 83 1.46 81 1.41 72 1.26 84 1282 3520 182 500 80 1.40 74 1.30 71 1.24 81 1.42 44 643 3033 106 500 90 1.57 65 1.14 61 1.07 90 1.57 0 0 2518 0 500 Sample Spreadsheet used to Calculate Forces and Torques for a 300 lb Person

Section 6 – Forces and Torques Graph

Mechanism Mechanics

5000 Strap Tension

) 4500 s b

l 4000 -

n Torque on Lift Arms i

/ 3500 s b

l 3000 ( Torque Generated by e 2500 u Actuator q

r 2000 o Max Allowable T / 1500 e Actuator Force c

r 1000 o Actual Actuator F 500 Force Needed 0 0 50 100 Angle of Leg Measured at the Ground

Example of Forces and Torques While Lifting a 300lb Individual

Section 7 – Torques Generated by Individuals

Torques Generated by Individuals in Relation to the Max Torque generated by the Actuators

5000 4500 ) s 4000 Max Torque Generated by b l - 3500 Actuator n i / 3000 s Torque on Lift Arms (300 lb b

l 2500 ( person)

e 2000

u Torque on Lift Arms (250 lb q

r 1500 person) o

T 1000 Torque on Lift Arms (200 lb 500 person) 0 Torque on Lift Arms (150 lb 0 20 40 60 80 100 person) Angle of Leg Measured at the Ground (Degrees)

Torques Generated for Specified User Weights

Section 8 – Force Required to Lift Individuals

Comparison of Needed force and Max Allowable Actuator Force

600 Max Allowable Force 500 Generated by Actuator Max Force Needed (300

s lb person) b l (

Max Force Needed (250

c lb person) r o

F 200 Max Force Needed (200 lb person) 100 Max Force Needed (150 lb person) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle of Leg Measured at the Ground (Degrees)

Forces Required to Lift Specified User Weights

Section 9 – Actuator Duty Cycles Determination of Actuator Duty Cycles

Actuator Speed 27 in/min Total Travel 8 in Needed Travel 6.5 in Time To Travel 14 secs

Duty Cycle Curve Over Operating Range

16.00 14.00

) 12.00 % (

e 10.00 l

c Duff Norton TA500

y 8.00 C

Maximum Allowable y

t 6.00 u

D 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 Time Spent in Table (Minutes)

Section 10 – Free Body Diagram of Lift Arms

Ry 383 lb

Rx 28o 228 lb

535 lb 500lb

Section 11 – FEA Analysis of Lifting Arm

Front View of Lift Arm Deflection While Lifting a 300lb Person

Side View of Lift Arm Deflection While Lifting a 300lb Person

Section 12 – Pin Shear Calculations

228lb D 383 500 lb lb C A

B A=1.25" B=24" C=7.45" D=5.43"

Actuator pins:

There are two pins with a force of 500 lb each which will be used to connect the actuator to the frame and the other connecting the actuator to the lift arm. The pins are in double shear.

2F 2*500lb     1273.2 psi d 2  *(.5) 2

The total force for both pins is 2546.4 psi.

There is also a pin located on the actuator arm. This pin is also in double shear. There is a 445 lb force acting on that pin.

2F 2* 445lb     1133.2 psi d 2  *(.5) 2 There will never be more than a 500lb force on the actuator.

Both of these values are below the manufacturer recommend of 84,000 psi

Section 13 – Stress Life Curves for Lifting Assembly

Equiv 0 Max Stress Min Mean Stress Sut FS Part Name mean Material Sy Se (ksi) Stress Stress Amplitude (kpsi) (infinite) Stress Lift Arm 29.75 0 14.875 14.875 17.6 4130 97 75 48.5 2.8 Arm Bracket 19.32 0 9.66 9.66 12.0 1018 49.5 32 24.75 2.1 Actuator Bracket 17 0 8.5 8.5 10.3 1018 49.5 32 24.75 2.4 Arm Nub 10.3 0 5.15 5.15 5.4 4140 95 61 47.5 8.7

Stress Life Curves for Arm Assembly

100 4130 Steel 1018 Steel )

s 4140 Steel k (

s 60 Arms s e

r Arm Nub t

S 40 Arm Bracket 20 Actuator Bracket

0 1 100 10000 1000000

Life (Cycles)

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix K – Table Electronic Systems

Section 1 – Circuit Schematic

REMOTE CONTROL

12V 2 ENABLE SWITCH Diode WITH LED R1 1 1k UP LED 0 DOWN

SW PUSHBUTTON-SPST SW PUSHBUTTON-SPST + SAFETY SWITCH

V1 12Vdc

- SW DPST ACTUATOR MOTORS

2 NO A UP SW DPDT/SM NO 2 + - DOWN UP NC COM COM NC DOWN NO + B - NO Remote Control Area NC COM COM NC 1 1 Actuator Motor Area SW DPDT/SM SW1

Section 2 – Battery & Charger

System Batteries

The battery chosen to provide power to the system is the UB12260 as supplied by the

Apex Battery superstore. This is a state of the art valve-regulated, lead-acid battery, also known as sealed battery. This design allows for a maintenance free battery.

As defined by the concept selection process, the chosen battery is rechargeable and offers a number of advantages over other batteries with comparable outputs. These batteries use the sealed absorbent glass mat (AGM) and gel technology which provide the following benefits:

 Maintenance free, except for recharging.

 Operation in any orientation

 Sealed and does not leak.

 Provides comparatively higher cranking amperes with respect to MX12260.

 Low self-discharge.

 Very high vibration resistance capability.

 Corrosion resistant terminals.

The battery weight, 18.05 pounds, is reasonable for the amount of power that it can provide, and would not be a hindrance to the overall functionality of the device.

The UB12260 battery is a replacement for the traditional MX12260 lead acid battery which includes the addition of the features listed above.

The specifications for the battery are as given below:

Voltage 12 Amp Hour 26 CCA* --- Length 6.5" Width 6.86" Height 4.94" Weight 18.05 lbs

Battery Charger

The charger for the battery being used is a 71708 battery charger and is commonly used for sealed lead-acid batteries, which is being used for the system. The features of the charger are as follows:

 3-Stage Switch Mode

 Maintains 12 V lead-acid batteries

 Fast charge, topping charge and float charge states

 Short circuit protection system protects the battery from short circuit damage

 Over-voltage protection protects the battery being charged from damage

 Charger offers reverse polarity protection capability, rendering the charger and

battery safe against any incorrectly connected cables

 Multi-color LED display to indicate the charging status

 Engineered for safe automatic charging

 Maintains a full charge

 Built to last

 Compact, very light and extremely powerful

The specifications of the battery are as follows:

 Input Voltage: 100-120 Vac

 Input Frequency: 47-63Hz

 Output Voltage Fast Charge (Bulk): DC14.4V

 Float DC: 13.6V

 Output Current Fast Charge (Bulk): DC 2,000mA

 Battery Capacity: 5-100Ahr (Suggested)

 Operation Temperature: +32°F/0°C to +104°F/40°C

 Storage Temperature: -4°/-20°C to +140°F 60°C

Source: www.apexbattery.com

Thus, with this charger, the battery used in our project would take about 6 hours to charge as our battery is of 26 Amp capacities. Therefore, 26A-h/4A = 6.2 hours. Thus, the recharging capacity of this battery is 4 times faster than the charger currently used at the

Arc. That battery takes approximately 24 hours as it was discovered during the meeting with our client. Thus, this charger is in every way superior to one currently used at the

Section 3 – Wiring Diagram for Circuit

Remote control box

Up Down

1 2 1 2 Gnd

3 4 3 4

5 6 5 6 Up D o 7 8 7 8 w n 12V bat Gnd

Safety Switch Up A

DC Up B

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix L – Force Determination for Caster (Beam)

R1 M3 R2

F = 200lb L=35.5 in a=30.5 in b=5 in

 1.5 915 M  F *d  20*  45     457.5lb  in 3  2  2

(1) Fy :R1  F  R2  0  R1  F  R2 F(a)  M (2)  CCW M : F(a)  M  R (L)  0  R  3  A 3 2 2 L 200(30.5)  457.5 R   184.72lb 2 35.5

R1  15.28lb

Max. Stress and Moment:

V(x) y lbf

-170.45

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 462.5 M(x) lbf-in

These figures indicate that the max stress and max moment occur in the beam at the point of application of the force.

Caster Plate While Lifting a 300lbs. Person

Caster Legs While Lifting a 300lbs. Person

Strain Life Curves

A500 and A653 Steel )

i 40 1018 and A513 Steel s k (

Caster Legs s s

e Main support r t 30 S Secondary support Caster Plates

0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Life (cycles)

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix M – Force in Main & Secondary Support

228lb D 383 500 lb lb C A

B A=1.25" B=24" C=7.45" D=5.43"

40lb 228 lb R1 10 lb 5472 lb-in 3725 lb-in A

500 lb 383 lb R2 478.75lb-in M1

   Fy : R1  40lb  228lb 10  0

R1  278lb

   Fx  R2  500lb  383lb  0

R2  117lb

 CCW  M A  M 1  500(7.45)  383(1.25)  228(24)  0

M 1  3725  478.75  5472  0

M 1  8718.25lb  in

The total stress on the beam:

F   A x  sectionalArea: A  BH  bh A  (2.5x2.5)  (2.38x2.38) A  0.5856in2

F Mc 117lb  8718.251.25       10281psi A I .5856in 2 1.081

Main Support While Lifting a 300lbs. Person

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix N – Stress in Table & Bolt

Stress on Table and Bolt

The stress on the table when the user is leaning against the chest pad (assuming the user is leaning forward 5 degrees, and weighs 300 pounds).

F 20lb 20lb      3.3psi A 1 6in2 (24 * ) 4

Pins in shear:

The pins that are used to interface the main and secondary support are in shear. 4F 4 *45   2  2  407.4 psi  *d  3  *    8 The shear on the pins is less than the manufacture specified maximum of 42,600 psi.

of 150 Senior Design Team P06205 Winter 2005-2006 Appendix O – Bill of Materials (BOM)

BILL OF MATERIALS Product Total Part Vendor Material Dimensions (in) Cost Quantity No. Cost BIOMECHANICS/ERGONOMICS Harness www.americanhomeandhabitat.com WND075 Nylon Heavy Webbing 3/4" width $0.67 15(ft) $10.05 Harness www.mcmaster.com 8657K112 rubber backing material 12" x 12" $2.61 1 $2.61 Harness Jo Ann Fabrics - batting 1 yd2 $2.50 1 $2.50 Harness Lowe's - Quick Link rings 1/4", WLL=880lbs $2.27 6 $13.62 Harness Craig Industries - Kevlar thread - $0.00 0 $0.00 Harness Jo Ann Fabrics - fleece material 1yd2 $7.99 2 $15.98 Chest pad Lowe's 9392 poplar board 1"x8"x2' $4.98 1 $4.98 Knee pad www.fabricsbyous.com 60021 high density foam 1"x24"x82" $17.50 1 $17.50 Chest pad Jo Ann Fabrics - high density foam 3"x8"x24" $6.21 1 $6.21 Knee pad(corner brace) Lowe's MPB121BC zinc plated finish 2-1/2"x1-1/2" $3.57 8 $28.56 Chest pad Lowe's 64772 zinc plated finish 1"x5"x5" $2.47 2 $4.94 Chest pad and knee pad Jo Ann Fabrics - grey vinyl 1 yd2 $3.96 2 $7.92 Foot plate and knee pad Lowe's 6208 wooden plate(birch) 3/4"x2'x2' $11.73 1 $11.73 Foot plate www.mcmaster.com 77935T74 anti-fatigue material 24" wide $6.15 2 $12.30 Foot plate www.mcmaster.com 24215T44 caster wheel 2-1/4" wheel height $1.04 2 $2.08 Foot plate-wheel & brackets www.mcmaster.com 90275A835 bolts #10-32, 1-1/4" long $0.05 12 $0.60 Foot plate-brackets www.mcmaster.com 90275A587 bolts 5/16"-18x1-1/2" $0.14 3 $0.41 Knee pad www.mcmaster.com 90275A582 bolts 5/16"-18x7/8" $0.13 4 $0.54 Knee pad-frame www.mcmaster.com 91247A227 bolts 3/8"-24x2-1/2" $0.26 2 $0.51 Chest pad www.mcmaster.com 91247A221 bolts 3/8"-24x1-3/4" $0.19 6 $1.17 Chest pad-brackets www.mcmaster.com 92865A535 bolts 1/4"-20x3/8" $0.06 2 $0.13 Foot plate-caster wheel www.mcmaster.com 90480A195 hex nuts #10-32, 1/8" height $0.01 8 $0.10 Foot plate- brackets & knee pad www.mcmaster.com 90473A030 hex nuts 5/16"-18x1/2"x17/64" $0.02 7 $0.17 Knee pad-frame www.mcmaster.com 90490A215 hex nuts 3/8"-24x9/16"x21/64" $0.03 8 $0.23 Chest pad-brackets www.8020.net 3382 T-slot nut 1/4"-20x1" $0.20 2 $0.40 Foot plate- brackets & knee pad www.mcmaster.com 90108A415 washers 3/8" ID, 7/8" OD $0.03 7 $0.22 Knee pad-frame www.mcmaster.com 91083A032 washers 15/32" ID, 59/64" OD $0.03 8 $0.25

Part Vendor Product No. Material Dimensions (in) Cost Quantity Total Cost ACTUATOR/LIFTING ARMS Sliding Legs 8020 1515-LITE Aluminum 1.5"x1.5"x40" $0.42 34 $13.57 Arms Mcmaster 6566K14 4130 Steel 1"x1.5"x72"x .065" wall $66.32 1 $66.32 Arm & Actuator Hinge Metals Depot F3181 1018 Steel .125"x1"x72" $7.14 1 $7.14 Arm Nub Mcmaster 6554K151 4140 Steel .25"x3"x12" $14.45 2 $28.90 Bushings Mcmaster 6338K417 Bronze 1/2" ID, 5/8" OD $0.55 16 $8.80 TAC05- Actuator Duff Norton 8 inch travel $330.00 2 $660.00 1D20 Tslot Bearing McMaster 8702K84 UHMWPE .5" x 1.5" x 5' $2.86 5 $14.30 Plain Linear Bearing McMaster 8702K75 UHMWPE .375" x 2" x 5' $2.65 5 $13.25 Bearing Screws McMaster 92220A182 SS 1/4 -20 x .375" 100 (1 box) $14.58 Drive Cylinder Bimba BR316-D SS 2" bore, 6" travel $64.50 2 $129.00 Push Cylinder Bimba BR0910-DX SS 1- 1/16" bore, 10" travel $39.40 2 $78.80 2" Cylinder Mount Metals Depot F318212 1018 .125" x 2.5" x 2' $7.62 1 $7.62 Clyinder Mounting Nut Bimba D-508 Steel 1.88" hex, 1.25-12 thread $4.60 2 $9.20 Push Cylinder Fitting Allied Elec 499-0040 Plastic 1/8" NPT $4.77 4 $19.09 Drive Cylinder Fitting SMC KQT11-35 Plastic 1/4" NPT $5.00 2 $10.00 Shoulder Bolt 1 Mcmaster 91259A716 Steel .5" x 1.5" x 3/8-16 $2.51 4 $10.04 Shoulder Bolt 2 Mcmaster 91259A718 Steel .5" x 1.75" x 3/8-16 $2.63 2 $5.26 Lock Nuts Mcmaster 90640A131 Steel 3/8"-16 Nylock $4.73 100(1 box) $4.73 See Primary Base Metals Depot T121211 Steel 2.5"x2.5"x12'x.12" wall $0.00 $0.00 Frame ELECTRICAL 6.5"x6.86"x4.94"(12V, Universal Battery Apex Battery Superstore UB12260 Battery $56.30 1 $56.30 26AH) Push Button Switch RadioShack 2750644 Plastic - $2.39 1 $2.39 DPDT 12VDC Relay RadioShack 2750218 Relay - $8.39 2 $16.78 SPST Red Switch RadioShack 2750646 Plastic - $2.29 1 $2.29 SPST Neon Rock Switch RadioShack 2750692 Plastic - $3.99 1 $3.99 Project Box 3XCX! RadioShack 27501801 Plastic - $2.29 1 $2.29 MECHANICAL Casters (front) Mcmaster 2426T52 Polyurethane 3" dia. $12.45 2 $24.90 Casters (rear) Mcmaster 2426T62 Polyurethane 3" dia. $19.48 2 $38.96 Lexan Table - - - 23- 1/4" x 18" - 1 free Pins Mcmaster 90222A112 Steel weld-in 3/8" dia. $9.75 1 $9.75 Quick Release Pin Mcmaster 92490A656 Steel Quick Release Pin $7.18 1 $7.18 Primary Frame Metals Depot T121211 A500 2.5"x2.5"x12'x.12" wall $69.84 1 $69.84 Secondary Frame Allied Tube - A653-Steel 2.25"x2.25"x48"x.105"wall $25.40 1 $25.40 Legs Metals Depot T111211 A513 1.5"x1.5"x72"x.120" wall $20.40 1 $20.40 Rounded Tri Corner 8020 4041 6105-T5 Aluminum - $19.00 4 $76.00 Quarter Round T-Slot 8020 1012 6105-T5 Aluminum - $0.19 84 $15.96 180 Pivot bracket & handle 8020 4051 6105-T5 Aluminum - $25.00 2 $50.00 Bhshcs & T-nuts 8020 3393 Steel 1/4-20-1/2" $0.38 10 $3.80 SHCS & T-nuts 8020 3305 Steel 1/4-20-7/8" $0.40 6 $2.40 LHSCS 8020 3017 Steel 1/4-20-1" $0.50 8 $4.00 Plates Metals Depot F3143 1018 Steel 24" $14.52 1 $14.52 Angle Brackets 8020 4302 Aluminum - $2.80 4 $11.20 5/16"-18x5/8" BHSCS 8020 3320 Steel - $0.57 8 $4.56 L Brackets Lowes - Steel - $2.20 2 $4.40 Caster screw + nuts Lowes - Steel 5/16"-18 thread, 5/8" $0.25 16 $4.00

ACTUAL TOTAL = $1,717.60 ADJUSTED TOTAL = $1,453.50

of 150 Appendix P – Assembly Plans

The basic manufacturing of the parts is going to be done using a TIG weld. It provides superior quality welds and can be made with or without filler material. Parts are going to be manufactured in the Mechanical Engineering Machine shop in the engineering building at RIT. Extensive use of milling and lathing of parts is going to be done to obtain the design.

For the electrical part of the project, the circuits and connections are to be made using thru-hole technologies in which the pins designed are inserted into holes and soldered to pads on boards. This would be done in the electrical engineering laboratories and the

Mechanical Engineering Machines shop as done for welding. Once the actuators reach, the batteries would be connected to it to the working of the actuators.

Ergonomics parts assembly

The wooden board for the foot plate will be cut across the length of the board so that there will be one larger length piece and two smaller ones. Smaller holes will be drilled closer to one end of the wooden board in order to allow for securing of caster wheels for support, as seen in the drawing. There will also be some larger holes on the other end of the wooden board to allow for brackets to be connected in order to attach the entire foot plate assembly to the main frame of the standing table itself. The two smaller pieces will then be positioned on top of one another at one end of the larger board, and nails will be used to hold them together. A series of bolts and nuts will then be used to line up and attach the two caster wheels underneath the wooden board. Brackets will then be Senior Design Team 06205 Winter 2005-2006 attached to each other and welded to the main frame, and the wooden board will be attached to these brackets. Anti-fatigue material will be attached to the wooden board after everything else is put together to cover the heads of the bolts used for securing the wooden board, and this will also provide comfort and a non-slip surface for people using the standing table.

The knee pad will be created by cutting two small pieces of metal extrusion to spec and welding them directly to the main two posts of the standing table, with a longer piece connecting the smaller two pieces. The wooden board will be cut and drilled as called for in the drawing and high density foam will be attached to the wooden board using glue specially made for this type of application. These materials will then be covered with the soft vinyl material and stapled to the back of the wooden board. This board will then be connected to the metal frame, which will provide a great deal of comfort and support for the person being lifted in the standing table, which is of particular importance, given that the main pivot point of the person will be about their knees in the knee pad as they are being lifted.

The chest pad will consist of a wooden board for support that will be attached with brackets to the T-slot material that will form a frame to hold the table top material in place. The wooden board for this pad will be shorter than the length of the foam connected to it, which will be used in the knee pad, because with the tilting table top, the chest pad will be leaned towards the individual using the standing table. This is the reason for the curved design of the foam, which allows for more contact once the table is

of 150 Senior Design Team 06205 Winter 2005-2006 tilted. The high density foam for this part will be cut and formed in a way to provide extra support. This part will also be covered in the soft vinyl material.

The harness will be made up of nylon webbing sewn together as shown in the drawing with Kevlar thread. Thick batting will be attached for added cushion, along with the low- density polyethylene material for back support. More pieces of the nylon webbing will be attached at each end of the harness and sewn together with metal rings at different lengths. These rings will be attached to the lifting arm, and the different lengths between the rings will allow for different amounts of tension in the harness, depending on the size of the person and how they are positioned. Finally, the harness materials will be covered with a soft fabric for comfort.

of 150 Senior Design Team 06205 Winter 2005-2006

Appendix Q – Business Plan Outline: Standing Table

“It is the ability, not the disability of the person that counts.” - Unknown

It is rarely thought of how the ability to stand affects people and their lives. Standing gives a greater access to various social, vocational and recreational activities. There are many people in the world who are unable to stand by themselves or need aid to do so.

Thus there are many devices which act as standing aids, and the standing table is one such device.

The main plan, or goal, of Senior Design Team P06205 is to design a standing table for the Arc of Monroe County. The project is to be finished by the end of spring quarter of

2005-2006 at RIT. After building the standing table, the team will test it thoroughly.

Consideration is being made that the final product may be copyrighted and sold by the team or an organization with authorization from the team.

Thus, the team has decided to make a business marketing plan for the standing table which can be used after the standing table is built so that it can be marketed and sold. The design which has been decided upon for the standing table is a state of the art design, appears to be comparably priced as compared with other standing tables offered now in the market. Additionally, it abides with all rules and regulations and contains all the required safety features.

Presently, the standing table is in the design phase. The complete business plan is to be made in the second half of the senior design course, but a basic overview of the standing table market is going to be discussed now.

OVERALL MARKET

During research, it has been found that approximately 20 million Americans, approximately 10% of the population of the United States, has some disability related to legs and thus, become our target market. This group has about $80 billion in discretionary income.

This is a very vast number and is approximately equal to the spending power of

American teenagers and several times (about 8) the spending power of the American

“tweens” market. Thus, the market is huge and there is a lot of profit potentially involved in it. However, this market has not yet been fully tapped into.

The options and advantages of accessibility attract not only those people with disabilities, but also their family and friends. Disabled people often visit stores, go to restaurants and movie theaters accompanied by their family and friends. This desire for travel expands the market by a great amount.

The market is certainly growing at a high rate. By 2030, 71.5 million Baby Boomers would be over the age of 65, out of which it can be predicted that about 30 million would be demanding products and services which address their age related physical changes.

A point to be thought of before making any business plan, is that everyone benefits when businesses give customers with disability an equal opportunity to obtain their goods and services. By considering this, businesses can make it easier for people with disabilities, as well as other customers, to access and purchase the services or products they have to offer. Accessibility pays dividends and makes good business sense.

OUR BUSINESS PLAN: OUTLINE

The team will create a marketing plan for the standing table targeting both general and internet aspects of the market. The plan will include a budget proposal as well as a number of strategies to make this product in the evoked set of consumers, and therefore sell. The online website development for the team is currently in stage 0 meaning that the team does not have a website domain name, and is not on the internet. The internet offers a huge opportunity for business which can be exploited. One marketing objective is to reach stage 2 of business online development, meaning that a website will be created along with slight developments including information and pictures. Additionally, there will be content with a basic e-commerce facility for online transactions.

To determine the best course of action, the team is considering the four Ps of its marketing mix: Product, Price, Placement and Promotion to understand the strengths and weakness of the team. Due to limitations of resources and time, the marketing plan for the product would focus primarily on the aspect of promotion and its online functionality

– that is, the team desires create an online presence for the product being marketed.

However, if time permits, the marketing plan can also focus on various integrated marketing communication strategies.

The basic resources and opportunities which the team can take advantage of after reaching stage 1 of online business development include portal usage, online transactions, partnerships, improved trust measures, metrics gathering, legal considerations, advertising strategy, and search engine strategy to name a few. Regardless of the team’s success, capital is always a limiting constraint on growth, and Senior

Design Team 6205 is absolutely no exception.

The team management would make informed decisions about which strategy would work best for immediate and long term implementation for the team’s marketing activities based on the costs. For each option presented, there will be methods of measuring usefulness included. Overall, significant developments have been made by the team in designing the product and thus the team is taking a different viewpoint with the project by giving it a business perspective. This could not only help the team, but also, RIT and the Arc.

MARKETING MANAGEMENT PROCESS

There are five questions which correspond with the analysis, planning, implementation and control of the process of marketing management. These questions form a logical framework for potential development into distinct and easily identifiable portions based upon levels of implementation.

The questions are as follows:

Where are we now?

Currently, the team is in the design stage of the product and the project will finish at the end of the spring quarter 2005-2006 at RIT. Currently, there is no marketing structure, as the product is in the design phase, and finishing the product has been given top priority.

The team currently has a basic idea of how they are going to go about production, and has an outline of the business plan.

Where do we want to be?

The main project objective is to have a thoroughly tested standing table along with a website in the stage 2 process of online business development. Although starting a formal business is not an objective of the team, this gives them the advantage of understanding how business operations run, and can be extremely useful if they wish to pursue it in the future. Thus, a platform to reach stage 3 of online business development is another objective for the team. Stage 3 means that the website would have significant developments in it. There is a high degree of interactivity and features like e-commerce are present. The website has an active online presence.

How do we get there?

An appropriate use of the marketing mix consisting of 4 P’s is the answer to this question. The 4 P’s of marketing are product, price, placement and promotion. Analysis of each will give the team a background of the marketing infrastructure to be built.

How to ensure safe arrival?

For each marketing strategy which is presented, there will be a number of ways to measure usefulness such that, with these measures in place, the team can discontinue those strategies or services which appear to be unprofitable.

E-STRATEGY

The basic online strategy is to take a completely offline presence online, and then from a passive to an active online presence. The goals of the e-strategy are to achieve the following:

 Make the design a clear option for our target market and the product in their

evoked set.

 Make consistent use of online technology and e-commerce.

 Become a preferred destination for information regarding standing table and news

regarding standing table builds, and maintain a decent public relations standing.

 Progress is making it well established through knowledge that our clientele can

expect superior services from the team.

 Provide online and offline services to customers before, during and after the

transactions have been completed.

BASIC MARKETING MODELS

Porter’s five forces is a marketing model which is used by various businesses to understand their core competencies and competition, and to aid them in understanding the industry in which they operate. The five forces are supplier power, barriers to entry, threat of substitutes, buying capacity and degree of rivalry. These are also known as potential entrants, buyers, industry competitors, suppliers and substitutes.

Source: www.brs-inc.com

Suppliers

The product will be fairly dependent upon suppliers. Presently, there is no need for any personnel but, depending on the team’s progress, there may be in the future. Some of the supplies needed are actuators, batteries, switches, metals, foam, and casters. A list of the project’s supplies is given in Appendix O. The suppliers are present in abundance on the

of 150 Senior Design Team 06205 Winter 2005-2006 internet, and it is certainly not hard to find parts. Once, a relationship with the supplier is established, it is possible to get reduced prices which can considerably decrease overall costs. Since, the product is in the design stage, the overall cost of the product can only be estimated but seems fairly reasonable.

Barriers to Entry

There are a number of other companies and organizations offering standing tables, but many of them are expensive with a lack of features and automation. The team’s design appears to be simple, powerful and comparatively inexpensive for the capabilities of the table. The risk of having new competitors in this region is not very high.

Threat of Substitutes

A substitute product in the market can always pose a threat. Although competitors cannot fully replicate the design, it is possible for them to get very close. It is necessary to research competitors and understand their designs to create product differentiation and a distinct market positioning.

Buyer Power

Buyers and consumers have the ability to go anywhere on the internet and the market

Thus, it is important to make sure that online business development is growing at an efficient rate and that the team is always available to our potential customers.

Degree of Rivalry

There are a number of competitors, but as discussed earlier, the key is in product differentiation, image differentiation and market positioning. Public relations strategies can be adopted to maintain competence in the market. Once the product is in the building process, during the second phase of this project, discussions of strengths and weaknesses with respect to our competitors will be done – an analysis of this immediately opens doors to a number of marketing strategies.

Another marketing model which is going to be used is the Mckinsey 7-S framework. This framework is a heuristic which determines the internal workings of an organization.

Organizational culture is formed of seven interacting variables: systems, style, structure, shared values, skills and strategy.

Source: www.buildingbrands.com

A brief description of these terms is given in the following page.

The 3Ss across the top of the model are described as 'Hard Ss':

Strategy: This direction and scope of the company over a certain decided period of time.

The current business strategy for the company does not exist because the product is in its design stage.

Structure: The basic organization of the company, its departments, reporting lines, areas of expertise, and responsibility (and how they inter-relate).

This is a student managed team, the organizational structure of which is given in Section

4 of the report.

Systems: Formal and informal procedures that govern everyday activity, covering everything from management information systems, through to the systems at the point of contact with the customer.

The team does not have a comprehensive understanding of the clientele’s buying behavior in marketing terms, but the product attributes are specific to the ARC’s specifications. Thus, the product is being designed according to the client’s specific requirements which gives the team a great opportunity to market on the basis of product differentiation. This also promotes the thought of creating direct marketing strategies.

The 4Ss across the bottom of the model are less tangible, more cultural in nature, and were termed 'Soft Ss' by McKinsey:

Skills: The capabilities and competencies that exist within the company, or what it does best.

Since the team is a student design team, the learning curve is high and the product can be constantly improved. The present team has core competency in engineering and thus, the skills of the team can be considered to be high.

Shared values: The values and beliefs of the company. They ultimately guide employees toward 'valued' behavior.

All of the product standards are maintained, and the ADA regulations have been met. The assumption is that once the business is started, quality of service and customer satisfaction would be given a very high priority just as the client’s requirements have been given right now.

Staff: The company's people and resources, and how they are developed, trained, and motivated. Currently the staff includes only the team.

Style: The leadership approach of top management and the company's overall operating approach. The organizational structure is minimal, but there is a fair amount of cooperation within the team making it easy to get work done.

SUMMARY

If implemented after the end of this business proposal, many organizations can take advantage of the team’s marketing strategy. The team, RIT and the ARC of Monroe

County are all potential benefidiaries. A small non-profit enterprise could be created which can be used extensively for fund raising activities, etc. This busniness could also become a professional enterprise with some more managing capabilities. This would be a small-scale industry, and would definitely be for a good cause as described in the beginning of this section. The previous proposal is just an outline, with the main objective for the inclusion of this section to analyze the marketing environment the team operates in. The complete recommendations in the areas of strategic planning, strategy formulation, and strategic evaluation will be given following the completion of the product.

An overview of the business plan for Senior Design II deals with the discussion of a number of business aspects. Some of them include redefining the target market, competitor analysis, integrated marketing communication strategies, advertising, online trust, implementation strategies, etc.

References:

The Americans with Disability Acts Publication.

Fact Sheet on Standing aids by www.abledata.com

US Department of Labor: www.dol.gov

Appendix R – Engineering Drawings

Drawing No. Part Name

1 ¼-20 x .5” BHCS 2 ¼-20x1”LHSHCS 3 .3125-18 Bolt 4 .3125-18x.625 BHSC 5 Quick Release Pin 6 Weld Pin 7 Lock Caster 8 2426T52 Caster 9 8020-4302 10 8020-4024 11 Caster/Leg Assembly 12 8020 Table 13 Cap for Pivot Point 14 8020 Leg Adapter 15 Caster Mounting Table 16 Caster Leg 2 17 Caster Legs 18 Main Support Leg 19 Secondary Support 20 Lexan table top 21 .3125x.25 Shoulder bolt 22 Universal Power Battery 23 Battery Tray 24 Actuator Bushing 25 Bottom Bracket Drive Cyl 26 Foot Plate-Wooden Base 27 Duff Norton Actuator 28 Bearing Bolt 29 Chest Pad-Corner Brace 30 Tslot Bearing 31 Push Cylinder Bracket 32 Chest Pad- HD Foam 33 Chest Pad-Wooden Base 34 Nylon Inset Lock Nut 35 Cylinder Mounting Nut 36 Knee Pad-Frame Arm 37 1.5” Shoulder Bolt 38 Base 39 Knee Pad-Frame Main Beam 40 1.75” Shoulder Bolt 41 Actuator Bracket

42 Knee Pad-HD Foam 43 Knee Pad-Wooden Base 44 2” Bore Bimba Cylinder 45 1-1/6” Bore Bimba Cyl 46 Quick Connect Fitting 3/8” 47 Quick Connect Fitting 3/8” 48 Arm Bracket 49 Knee Pad-Corner Brace 50 Harness-LDPE Backing 51 Foot plate: anti-fatigue mtrl 52 Final Assembly 53 Foot plate-caster 54 Foot Plate-Corner Brace 55 #10-32 1-1/4” Bolt 56 5/16”-18 x 1-1/2” Bolt 57 5/16”-18 x 7/8” Bolt 58 3/8”-24 x 2-1/2” Bolt 59 3/8”-24 x 1-3/4” Bolt 60 ¼”-20 x 3/8” Bolt 61 #10-32 x 1/8” nut 62 5/16”-18x½”x17/64” Hex Nut 63 3/8”-24 x 9/16” x 21/64” Hex Nut 64 3/8” ID, 7/8” OD washer 65 15/32” ID, 59/64” OD washers 66 Arm Bushing 67 Lift Arm 68 Fluid Drive Tube

of 150