MSD I Smart cane integration system Systems Design Phase Review **Clarify when we will answer audience questions** -Emphasize our lessons learned as we proceed to talk about the various design analysis tools P15043 October 2, 2014

Agenda Problem Statement Background Team Update Updated Customer Requirements Updated House of Quality (HOQ) System Analysis Concept Selection Proposed Concept Risk Assessment Patents Lessons Learned Next Steps -Note changes to our cust. And Eng. Req’ts P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Problem Statement Current State: The blind face navigational and safety challenges Current audio feedback solutions have several shortcomings P14043: Prototype not fully functional; extremely fragile Our Mission: Design an assistive device for use by the blind and deaf Integrate existing concepts from P14043 Improve on P14043’s design Assembly process to be performed by blind workers P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Background P14043: Smart Cane Rotating handle section to provide haptic feedback Pros: Proof of concept Effective haptic feedback Low manufacturing cost Cons: Fragile/weak structure Sensor system not integrated Loose electrical connections Bulky microprocessor Excess of small parts P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Team Update 2nd customer interview Tour of ABVI facilities Meetings with individual stakeholders Team building activity It was aMAZEing! P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Updated Customer Requirements *Customer requirements are ranked by importance P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Updated HOQ P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Pareto P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Pareto Analysis 25% of the engineering requirements contain 66% of the weight for this project Top Four Items Provide 90 degree detection range in front of user Signal detection of obstacles via haptic feedback (horizontal and vertical motion in handle) Horizontal detection range of 6 feet Prototype cost under 1,000 USD P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Functional Decomposition -Link important technology to key functions -Post image of our finalized decomposition P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Morphological Analysis Concept Generation Morphological Analysis Concept Generation Pugh Analysis Concept Proposal P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Morph Analysis Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 -Used to identify our top X number of design ideas (proposed X=4) P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Concept 1: Roller In Handle Pros: Beta Phase (Continued from last year) Concerns: User feedback awareness User learning curve Versatile cane handling P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Concept 2: Actuated Buttons In Handle Pros: Easy learning curve Feedback awareness Potential to have versatile cane handling Concerns: Handle must be designed carefully to ensure versatile cane handling P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Concept 3: Wrist Bands Pros: Very versatile cane handling Easy learning curve Cons: Potentially costly Potentially time consuming Multiple separate parts Possible to switch wristbands and get incorrect feedback P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Pugh Selection Matrix P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014 -Post our comparison of the different designs that we are comparing P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Pugh Selection Matrix Comparing our 3 concepts to better understand their advantages with respect to each other P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Proposed Concept Concept 2 Feedback through actuated buttons on handle What we like about it: Easy to interpret feedback Direction is clear (rollers are not intuitive) Not significant internal design deviation (motors, wiring) Feasible in two semester schedule Does not require expensive technology (Bluetooth) Trade-offs More moving parts Less flexibility with user grip P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

System Architecture Micro Processor Sensors Haptic Feedback (User Interface) Motor  Environment  Battery P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis Key Topics (Potential faculty correspondence) Question Consideration Type How will the user be effected if the feedback is delayed or not working (connection error/disconnect)? Analysis Will the cane be able to be easily collapsed or reassembled in one minute or less? Benchmarking How quickly must feedback be relayed to the user in order to allow them the ability to comfortably react? How does user height affect sensor height on the cane? Will the additional weight of the cane have a significant negative impact on the user? If the sensors are placed lower on the cane will it affect the user more, vice versa? -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design Key Topics (Potential faculty correspondence) Feedback to the user (Tom Oh) Sensor location (Tom Oh and Kolodziq / Wellin) Cane weight (Matt Marshall) Cane collapsibility (Matt Marshall) P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Risk Assessment P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014 Risk Item   Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance Actions to Minimize Risk General 1 Battery contact is compromised Loss of power Deflection of wire connection 2 3 6 Make sure all components that house wires are rigid and secure wires sufficiently for cane movement User Muscle Fatigue Pain/discomfort to user •How hand grips on handle •Weight distribution of cane 4 Ergonomics considered in design Over heating Damage to system Harm to user Insufficient heat dissipation Perform thermal analysis Cane malfunction No feedback delivered to user Component malfunction or damage Design for redundancy 5 Misplaced parts User frustration Multiple unconnected in the system •Make system all one piece •Create a way separate components can be stored together when not in use Sensors Sensors relay incorrect information to feedback Confusion and/or danger to user •Sensor malfunction •Broken connection •Problem with program Test prototype extensively 7 Sensors hit obstacles when cane is sweeping •Damage to sensor •Shift in sensor position •Sensor falls off Location of sensors on the cane Attach sensors in the top region of the cane 8 Sensors get dusty/dirty Malfunction Environment encountered State in user manual that sensors should be cleaned frequently Haptic Feedback 9 Water damage Ruined components Not waterproof •Minimize openings •Put waterproof cover over feedback 10 Loss of haptic motion (when signal is sent from sensors, feedback does not respond with motion) Feedback not given to user •Disconnection of feedback mechanism and motor •Burnout of motor •Sufficiently secure roller to motor •Do analysis to make sure torque is not too high for motor 11 Haptic motion is unclear and not intuitive •User confusion •Learning curve to use cane Haptic motion design Do thorough testing to make sure haptic feedback relays information clearly to users 12 Feedback is obstructed by clothing or jewelry (ex. Gloves) Decreased feeling of feedback Location where feedback comes in contact with the user Brainstorm ways to minimize clothing/jewelry obstruction P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Risk Mitigation Items such as 4 and 10 can be reduced or eliminated through mindful design 4: Cane malfunction 10: Loss of haptic feedback We will actively aim to reduce the number of risks as the project progresses Severity to project outcome will increase if not addressed P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Patents Patent No. US 8,077,020 Method and apparatus for tactile haptic device to guide user in real-time obstacle avoidance. By Gary Behm and Richard Mering 1. An apparatus for providing information about a physical surrounding environment to a user includes an elongate body having first and second opposing ends and a mast, at least one sensor mount ably coupled to the mast, at least one dual purpose, bi-directional haptic force feedback device including first and second haptic feedback mechanisms and a vibrator, and a processor, which receives signals from the at least one sensor and operatively controls the at least one dual purpose, bi-directional haptic force feedback device. P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Patents cont. Patent No. US 7,706,212 B1 Mobility director device and cane for the visually impaired By Terry Campbell 1. A mobility cane for use by a visually impaired person has a handle portion having an outer surface, an elongated member extending from the handle, a detection apparatus operably mounted on the mobility cane, and a plurality of vibrating tactile transmitters arrayed on the outer surface of the handle operably connected to the detection apparatus. P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Patents cont. Patent No. US 7,755,744 B1 Environment sensor that conveys information about objects in the vicinity of the visually impaired user. By Thomas Leberer 1. The present invention relates generally to the field of virtual tactile sensing, specifically to the field of virtual extension of the senses of the fingertips of the operator in the form of a line. The present invention senses information regarding distance, thermal values and optical spectrum values and conveys this information to the operator by means of mechanical movements and/or thermal changes of the actuators. These actuators are the equivalent of placing the operator’s fingertip on the object. The device as a whole acts as an extension of the hand that senses information by placing virtual fingertips on an object and conveys that information to the operators fingertips. P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Patents cont. Patent No. US 8,823,389 B1 Mobility device and method for guiding the visually impaired By Terry Campbell and Eric Karich 1. A mobility device has an elongate handle housing that includes an electronic directing system that comprises a computer microcontroller operably connected with a transceiver for communication with an electronic beacon. The mobility device may be used to trigger an audible signal from the electronic beacon to guide a visually impaired person to the electronic beacon at a desired location. The mobility device may further include a laser detection apparatus for directing the visually impaired person around obstructions. P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Lessons Learned Pugh chart and feasibility analysis helped to: Expose areas to address in our risk assessment and mitigation plan Highlighted gaps in our expertise Customer communications are critical in the design process Better coordinate project work with team member’s schedules P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Schedule – Phase III P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014 -note high-risk items -note critical sub-systems P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Next Steps – High Level Select system design based on phase II review Test Plan System Level High risk sub-systems Proof of Concept (POC) Design review with appropriate RIT faculty P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Questions P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 1 How will the user be affected if the feedback is delayed or not working (connection error/disconnect)? Assumptions: User uses cane regularly User checks to makes battery is charged Battery is on Connections are completely plugged in Problem: If cane is not working properly, there is no mechanism to communicate this back to the user Conclusion: Feedback should be put in the cane to alert user that there is a connection error/disconnect. -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 2 Will the cane be easy to collapse or reassemble in one minute or less? Assumptions User understands how the cane should be folded before performing this task User has the motor skills necessary to perform the task User is in a reasonable environment to be performing this task (i.e. No extreme temperatures) No tools will be required for the task -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design Benchmarking Collapsible Canes Option Estimated Time Notes 1. Folding (elastic) 7 seconds Time would be much longer for a non-experienced user 2. Push button to open 3 seconds Assumes one connection 3. Cane couplers 2 seconds Time is per connection P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 2 Will the cane be easy to collapse or reassemble in one minute or less? -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design Figure 3. Cane Couplers (2 sec per connection) Figure 2. Push Button Cane Figure 1. Folding Cane (7 sec) P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 3 How soon must feedback initiate to allow time for user to react? Assumptions: User will be traveling at an average of 3 mi/hr (1.34 m/s) Feedback is provided instantly The amount of time it takes to react to stimuli by clenching a fist is equal to the time it takes to react by changing course. The amount of time required for the brain to receive feedback from tactile stimuli at the hand and shoulder are the same. Equations Used: (sites.google.com/site/danielassupercoolbiologylab/) 𝒙=𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒑𝒔𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒊 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉=𝟎.𝟐𝟏 𝒎 𝑥= 1 2 𝑎 𝑡 2 →𝑡= 2𝑥 𝑎 = 2∗0.21 9.8 =0.21 𝑠  Results: 𝟏.𝟑𝟒∗ 𝟎.𝟐𝟏+𝜷 = 0.28+1.34𝛽 m 𝛽=𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦 Conclusion: The minimum distance between the user and an obstruction before the cane initiates haptic feedback is 0.28 m. Additional space is to account for cane delay.* *Values calculated are worst-case minimum values. Additional space is necessary for practical use. -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 4 How does user height affect sensor height? Background: Most typical canes are sold in varying lengths. Assumptions: Sensor is in the middle of the cane Cane length: 52” (middle value) Height of armpit for 5’ and 6’ person is 47” and 56”, respectively. Arm length for 5’ and 6’ person is 19” and 26”, respectively. Equations Used: Law of Sin: a sinα = b sinβ Trig Equation:sinθ= y r   Results: H5 = 17.4”=Sensor Height for 5’ person H6 = 18.7”=Sensor Height for 6’ person Therefore the sensor for the 5’ person will only be 1.3” lower than the sensor for the 6’ person. It was expected the sensor for the 6’ person would be significantly higher, but their extra arm length helps keep the sensor lower. Conclusion: For future sale of the cane varying cane lengths should be considered, but the height of the sensors on the cane prototype should be fairly similar. -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 5 Will the additional weight of the cane have a significant negative impact on the user? 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒: Additional weight is centered Height (bottom of foot to top of head): H=2m ∆m=.454kg 𝜃=45 degrees 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡=𝑐𝑜𝑠45 .36(2𝑚) (.454𝑘𝑔)( 9.8𝑚 𝑠 2 ) =2.27𝑁𝑚 -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design 𝑚𝑔 𝜃 What does this mean? P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Feasibility Analysis: Question 6 How much is the user effected if the sensors are placed at the bottom, compared to them being placed near the top. Assumptions: Center of gravity is where the cane is held/handle. It is being held at a 45degree angle at all times. Average weight of cane handle: 3 lbs Average weight of sensors: .25 lb Equations: Center of mass of regular cane: 0.5ft Center of mass with sensors near handle: 1ft Center of mass with sensors near tip: 2.75ft -Assess team’s technical capabilities for supporting our chosen design P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014

Updated Engineering Requirements Rqmt. # Importance Source Function Engr. Requirement (metric) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value S1 9 CR1 System Operation Provide 90 degree detection range in front of user Degrees   90 S2 Signal detection of obstacles via haptic feedback (horizontal and vertical motion in handle) Binary S3 3 CR2 System Portability Adds no more than 1 lb. to standard white cane Lbs. 1 S4 CR3 System Assembly Decrease number of existing parts by ~50% or more Pieces S5 CR4, CR5 8 hour rechargeable battery (minimum battery life) Hours 8 S6 CR6 Collapsible into 8-10" sections Inches 10 S7 CR7 System Cost Manufacturing cost $125 or less USD 125 S8 CR8 Design assembly process to be completed in a blind assembly environment S9 CR9 System Usability Keep cane collapse/re-open time less than 1 minute Minutes S10 CR10 Horizontal detection range Feet 6 S11 PRP N/A Prototype cost 1000 <1000 S12 CR12 Maximum pressure psi 5 S13 Time from motor input signal to when the roller reaches the minimum rotation speed at 3 psi Grip ms 500 <400 S14 CR11 System Safety Circuit voltage V 12 <12 S15 System Structure Handle contents fit within handle mock up envelope Pass S16 Maximum handle grip diameter in 1.5 0.78 Importance: Sample scale (9=must have, 3=nice to have, 1=preference only), or see Ulrich exhibit 4-8. P15043 Systems Design Review 10/2/2014