1. Team Leader: Chris Casella Nate Marshall Tiffany Gundler Scott Quenville Christian Blank Kayla Wheeler P15550: Customized Personal Protection Headwear System Level Review

2. QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN SYSTEM DESIGN REVIEW Is there anything in regards to our System Level Review that we overlooked? Should we re-evaluate any aspects of our project? Please feel free to ask questions or make comments during the presentation.

3. AGENDA Background Problem Statement Market Analysis Customer Requirements Engineering Requirements Market Comparison System Analysis HOQ Functional Decomposition & Analysis Concept & Architecture Development Engineering Analysis System Level Proposal Risk Assessment Test Plan Updated Project Plan

4. PROBLEM STATEMENT Current State: ●Limited to manufactured helmets in contact sports Desired State: ●Custom Fit helmets using 3D printed Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU) as the padding to absorb energy from the impact Project Constraints: ●Overall helmet weight (benchmarked against competitors) ●Durability (Target Age: 15-25) ●Manufacturability ●Biocompatability ●$1000 budget Key Goals and Deliverables ●CAD models of different 3D printed cellular materials ●Semi-automated workflow for sending scanned dimensions to SolidWorks to the 3D printer ●3D printed, customized, energy absorbent pads ●Custom fitted football helmet with pads ●Drop test rig with impact sensor feedback

5. BACKGROUND

6. ●1.6-3.8 million sports related head injuries in the U.S. ●2012 - 261 diagnosed concussions o.81 conc/game ●2013 - 228 diagnosed concussions o.71 conc/game ●Repeated head injuries result in Chronic traumatic encephalopathy ●On august 29th, 2013 a lawsuit was taken against the NFL for a total of 765 million dollars. ●Manufacturers Include: Riddell, Schutt, Rawlings, and Xenith.

7. CURRENT PRODUCT- Schutt ION 4D Adult Football Helmet The new Schutt helmet uses a unique facemask design that allows easy removal Uses Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU) padding that allows for higher cushioning value Scored better ratings in impact testing than the Xenith X1

8. ADDITIONAL DELIVERABLES ●Ability to market the prototype to athletic companies ●Use the designed foam in other athletic applications ○Soccer headbands ○Basketball headbands ○Hockey helmets ○Lacrosse helmets ●Design alternatives ○Other possible geometry configurations

9. STAKEHOLDERS Denis Cormier Athlete Trainer Medic Manufacturer Hospital Insurance?

10. CUSTOMER NEEDS Key: 9-Very Important 3- Important 1- Somewhat Important

11. ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS Key: 9-Very Important 3- Important 1- Somewhat Important

12. BENCHMARKING SPECS A - instantaneous acceleration

13. OPEN ITEMS FROM LAST REVIEW Issue ●Needed to make updates to project plan ●Compensating for hair with 3D scan Action taken ●Necessary updates made ●Wear compression cap while scanning Current Status ●Closed

14. SYSTEM ANALYSIS

15. HOUSE OF QUALITY Key: - Strong Correlation O- Moderate Correlation - Weak Correlation

16. FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION 2141 MSD1 13026 annotated System Level Design Review Presentation

17. CONCEPT & ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT

18. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

19. (PUGH EVALUATION CHART)

20. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

21. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

22. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS NEEDED G-Force requirement What will the helmet need to withstand in order to protect players from concussions? Durability How many impacts will the padding have to be reliable for? How many seasons? Test Rig Can we design a test rig that matches the specifications of standard testing equipment that is repeatable, and will allow us to test different impact scenarios? Prototype Cost Approximately how much will a prototype cost?

23. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ●Moisture Retention Testing ○Linear ○Hexagonal ○With or without material cover ●Material response to temperature change ○Playing in Texas? ○Playing in Upstate NY? ●Biocompatability ○Is material cover necessary? ●Print Speed and Time ●If there is a concussion suffered using our padding, should we replace it?

24. RISK ASSESSMENT IDRisk ItemEffectCauseLikelihood Severit y ImportanceAction to Minimize RiskOwner Describe the risk briefly What is the effect on any or all of the project deliverables if the cause actually happens? What are the possible cause(s) of this risk? L*S What action(s) will you take (and by when) to prevent, reduce the impact of, or transfer the risk of this occurring? Who is responsible for following through on mitigation? 1 Is TPU foam the best option for preventing concussion impacts Won’t change our project. However future MSD projects could be focused on the new material New types of foam are discovered 313 This concern is outside the scope of the project. We accept that this is a high possibility None 2 Cell wall stiffness will affect density calculations and segment size This will primarily determine how big our foam segments are Printer capability339 Design around this parameter Team 3 Time requirements to scan, import, and print must be short to make production practical Slow production will hinder product adoption Printer speed, material required 326 Reduce material requirement without increasing impact force’s to the head Team 4Will the design and testing phase require more material than expected Increased project cost Varied designs to test 224Use computer modeling to insure the design is viable before actual testing Team

25. 5 How will 3-D printed foam help reduce concussions from rotational impacts Effectiveness at concussion prevention is reduced Foam is primarily used for linear impacts. Straps can help with rotational impacts 33c9 A neck guard while not within the scope of the project could be helpful in reducing rotational forces on the neck Team 6Printer failureDelayed printing time Human error or machine malfunction 133 Learn how to properly operate printer within its parameters Nate/Team 7Printer availabilityDelayed printing time Other students needing printer time 122 Plan printing time a week in advance with customer Chris 8Printer printing sizeLimits printing segment size Defined printer capability 224Design the segment size within printer capability Team 9Printer operability Printer can malfunction and delay printing requirements Ignorant operation of printer 132 Learn required skills to operate printer efficiently Nate/Team 10Customer accessibility Required answers could delay schedule Dennis likes to travel 326 Plan meetings in advance. Constant email contact with customer Team 12 High test rig costs/failure Go over budget building test rig/failure can delay foam testing Expensive parts/sensors. Improper build techniques 224 Visit material design lab to witness proper build techniques Team 13 Sense software produces incomplete scans Extra time reproducing complete scans Limited capability of Sense hardware and software 111 Expect extra time to obtain complete and usable head scans/check with Dennis Nate 14Integrating solidworks and scanning software Frustration with obtaining custom segment sizes Limited capability of “Talking” between software’s 122Check with Dennis/team members Nate

26. 15 Acceleration sensor accuracy Inaccurate measurements of impact forces Inefficient placement or lower quality sensor 121 Preliminary testing will show how good a sensor we need Team 16 Failing to meet project plan deadlines Fall behind schedule and miss deliverable due dates Related to numerous other concerns and risks 224 Constant contact with team members. Be willing to ask if you need help Team 17 Cracked plastic helmet during testing Increased cost for extra helmet and delayed testing time Hard testing impact236 Research previous test plans. Did they have this problem within test parameters? Team 18 All printed designs do not meet requirements spec Unmarketable idea. Maybe printed TPU is inefficient compared with marketed helmet foams 339 Complete lots of testing. Exhaust all options Team 19Attachment failing Inaccurate force measurements. Failed test Adhesive used to apply foam segments fails 122 Durability issue most likely apparent during testing. Apply more adhesive Scott 20Material sensitivity to water/sweat and cleaning solutions Does not meet bio- compatibility and testing parameters TPU form does not respond well to wet conditions 122Prior TPU material analysis has shown this is a non-issue with this foam. However printing could change this Team 21Helmet durability Test fails required parameter Foam is not durable/helmet breaks during testing 224 Redo design for next test with high emphasis on durability Team 22Loss of partsIncreased budget cost. Delayed project We lose parts for the project 133Materials required to be locked up after use Team

27. TEST RIG Design Considerations: ●Accelerometer inside the helmet, on the base or both? ●Must be dropped from a height that will allow 72 in. of free fall. ●Single rail or twin wire guided? ●Is there a way to capture rotational forces on the head?

28. SHARED VISION FOR WEEK 9 & SCHEDULE Shared Vision for Week 9: Have a successful Phase 3 Review during week 9 Refine our system level proposal to answer questions and considerations given during systems review Begin gathering required materials for test rig and create a build plan. Begin preliminary Sense software scans and import into Solidworks. Establish compatibility between software Update and upload all relevant project information to EDGE Look ahead and plan for next phase of MSD 1

29. PROJECT PLAN UPDATE

30. ●Create CAD models of foam samples 10/2 - 10/31 ●Begin printing some preliminary foam samples (Gain Familiarity with Makerbot) 10/21 -10/31 ●Tour Testing Lab to get ideas for test rig 10/6-10/14 ●Design test rig 9/30-10/30

31. QUESTIONS