1. Project Review P10011 - Motion Tracking Human Interface Joe Piehler – Project Manager, ISE Alex Frechette – Manufacturing Lead, ME Dan Shields – Lead Engineer, ME

2. Background Customer  Nazareth Physical Therapy Clinic Measure motion of patient System to wear out of the lab Joint Project / Continuing Project  Sensors group

3. Project Description Human Interface  Enclose Sensors  Attach to the body Key high level Customer needs  Sanitary  Portable  Comfortable  Durable  Easy to Use

4. Concept Description – Hard Enclosure 4-40 Screw Bottom Plate Counter Sunk Holes

5. Concept Description – Hard Enclosure Delrin Filed Corners Wire Hole Top Piece Screw hole with SS HeliCoil

6. Attachment Styles Glue Tape Velcro Tight-fitting clothing

7. Soft Barrier

8. Risk Assessment Risk: Patient cannot move naturally while using system  Would adulterate reported data  Reviewed results with Customer and Advisor  Mitigated during design phase by making people’s movements a design concern Risk: Testing phase does not occur under realistic circumstances  Enclosures would not survive ‘real’ conditions  Exposed enclosures to expected usage  Mitigated by testing beyond overloading test conditions upon completion to find approximate factor of safety.

9. Risk Assessment Major Risk: Interfaces do not stay on patient  Sensor package reports useless data Solution  Careful attention paid to making the system viable for patients with many body types  Mitigated by delivering multiple attachment styles

10. Current State of Design Engineering Specifications  Compression testing Robustness Material Selection  Impact Testing Max Load  Attachment Glue Slippage Mitigations:  Soft Barrier  Heli-coils  Silicone Sealant

11. Current State of Design (cont’d) Customer Needs  Large enclosure rejected by customer Budget  Total Investment: Under $1000 Current Schedule  Flex Interference Test

12. Test Plan and Results Spec UnitsMarginalIdeal Test ResultPass/Fail WeightOunce31 2.035Pass Size/dimensionsInches 2.375 x 2.375 x 1.125 1.125 x 1.125 x.625 0.738 x 1.311 x 1.569 Pass Pain0-1010 1Pass CleanlinessYes or NoYes Pass Time to Set UpMin3525 12Pass Time to removeMin3020 6Pass Enclosure StrengthLbs50150 5000+Pass Water ResistantYes or NoYes Pass Interference with current system Yes or NoNo Pass Driftinches0.250.01 0.10Pass Attachment strength to Skin Lbs1025 ~5Fail Attachment strength to Enclosure Lbs1020 ~10Pass Flex Interference% Change52

13. Test Results Enclosure Strength  Normal Force: Over 5000 lbs  Impact Testing: Over 500G’s Attachment Strength  Only test failure  Revise specs to account for pain threshold Time to Setup/Remove  Tacky glue, toupee glue run long Flex Interference TBD

14. Project was Successful! Met Customer Needs/Engineering Specs On-Time Under Budget Integration with Sensor Team Documentation for Future Teams

15. Future Work Define Ideal Attachment Strength Further System Testing Wireless Redesign

16. Questions? Team Acknowledgements:  National Science Foundation  Dr. Sara Gombatto and the Nazareth PT Clinic  Rochester Institute of Technology  Dr. Beth DeBartolo, faculty advisor  Dr. Sanjay Palit, advisor  P10010 Group