1. Upper Arm Extremity Exerciser – Concept Review
James Letts, Eduardo Borges, Dennis Bradford, Daniel Kelly, Mark Perkins, Chris Reed, Renzo Salazar Najar, Julie Watkins
Concept Review – January 19, 2007

2. Resistance Concepts – Rejected for Pugh Evaluation

3. Resistance Concepts – Rejected for Pugh Evaluation

4. Resistance Concepts – Rejected for Pugh Evaluation

5. Resistance Concepts – Rejected for Pugh Evaluation

6. Resistance Concepts – Accepted for Pugh Evaluation

7. Resistance Concepts – Accepted for Pugh Evaluation

8. Resistance Pugh Evaluation
Resistance M I R D Q L
Current Design 1
Natural arm movement + - 2
Variable Resistance 3
Assists motion 4
Safe 5
Ease of use (Therapist) 6
Ease of manufacture 7
Cost 8
Adustable for body types
TOTALS -1 -2

9. Results: M D I

10. Resistance Scored Pugh Evaluation
Resistance
weight M I D
Current Design
rating
wieghted score 1
Natural arm movement
0.25 3
0.75 5
1.25 2
Variable Resistance
0.15
0.45
Mobilty
0.1 4
0.4
0.3
Safe
0.6
Ease of use (Therapist)
0.05
0.2 6
Ease of manufacture 7
Cost 8
Adustable for body types
TOTALS
3.5
2.7
3.6
3.1

11. Final Concepts: M D

12. Force Measurements Position 1 - 0˚ Position 2 - 30˚ Position 3 - 60˚

13. Force Results of Current Design from BTE Simulator II
James
Eduardo
Angle
Position
Force
(lbs)
Elbow
Shoulder 1 8
117 16 2
7.4
108 40 3
6.7
120 55 4
3.9
180
104
7.9
115 17
7.7
110 39
7.1
122
5.1
109

14. ANSYS Stress Eval. – Beam with 1 Point Constrained

15. ANSYS Stress Eval. – Beam with 2 points constrained

16. Attachment to Extremity Subsystems – Accepted for Pugh Evaluation

17. Attachment to Extremity Subsystems – Accepted for Pugh Evaluation

18. Extremity Attachment Pugh Evaluation
Attach to extremity C D K L M J H 1
Adjustability (hand position) + 2
Adjustability (hand size) - 3
Ease of use 4
Comfort 5
Safe 6
Attaches Securely 7
Cost 8
Ease of manufacture
TOTALS -2 -1 -3

19. Results:

20. Attachment to Base Subsystems – Accepted for Pugh Evaluation

21. Base Attachment Pugh Evaluation
Attach to base A B C+ D F H 1
Adjustability (waist) 2
Adjustability (height, R/L) + 3
Safe 4
Ease of use - 5
Comfort 6
Secure attachment 7
Cost 8
Ease of manufacture
TOTALs -2
note modularity of B/C
C will not be a solitary concept solution!

22. Base Attachment Scored Pugh Evaluation
Attach to base
weight A B D
rating
wieghted score
Adjustability (height)
0.1 4
0.4 2
0.2 3
0.3
Safe
0.8
0.6
Ease of use
Comfort
Secure attachment
0.25 1
0.5
0.75
Cost
Ease of manufacture
0.05
0.15
TOTALS
3.55
2.35
3.05
note modularity of B/C
C will not be a solitary concept solution!
F concept can be applied to most other concepts

23. Attachment to Base Subsystems – Selected for Use

24. Extra Ideas

25. Existing Ramps