Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table
of
Contents
1.
Problem
Description.3
1.1
Problem
Statement.4
2.
Customer
Requirements5
2.1
List
of
Customer
Requirements.5
2.2
Discussion
of
Most
Critical
Requirements.6
3.
Engineering
Specifications7
3.1
List
of
Engineering
Specifications....7
3.2
Discussion
of
Critical
Engineering
Specifications..8
4.
Conceptual
Design.9
4.1
Concept
Generation
(Divergence)..9
4.2
Concept
Selection
(Convergence).10
4.3
Discussion
of
Conceptual
Design10
5.
Embodiment
Design.....11
5.1
Description
of
Major
Subsystems/Components....11
5.2
Critical
Technical
Challenges
to
be
solved
in
Detailed
Design.....12
6.
Detailed
Design....16
6.1
Product
Functionality.18
6.2
Design
of
Track
Sections..18
6.3
Design
of
Folding
Platform.19
6.4
Performance
Analysis...20
6.5
Cost
Analysis.22
6.6
Safety
Analysis.23
6.7
Discussion
of
Final
Design..23
7.
Testing
and
Refinement.24
7.1
Test
Approach
and
Findings
for
Functionality
and
Feasibility..26
7.2
Test
Approach
and
Findings
for
Tolerancing
and
Machinability.27
7.3
Test
Approach
and
Findings
of
Assembly28
7.4
Impact
of
Prototyping
Findings
on
our
Design.28
8.
Production........29
8.1
Production
of
the
Platform29
8.2
Production
of
the
Track
Sections..29
8.3
Production
of
the
Track
Connections29
8.4
Assembly30
9.
Conclusion..30
9.1
Assessment
of
Success.30
9.2
Opportunities
for
Future
Development..31
10.
References33
2 Appendix....34 A.1 Customer Requirements ......34 A.2 Engineering Specifications......35 A.3 House of Quality........38 A.4 Concept Generations........39 A.5 Concept Selection........41 A.6 Evolved Architecture......42 A.7 Larger CAD Models......43 A.8 Analysis Documents........45
1.
Problem
Description
Handicapped
persons
are
faced
with
the
problem
of
mobility
on
a
daily
basis.
An
every
day
trip
to
the
store
or
night
out
to
a
favorite
restaurant
is
not
so
every
day
for
a
handicapped
person.
Stairways
and
walkways
have
been
predominantly
designed
for
those
of
us
who
have
the
ability
to
freely
walk
around
and
use
our
legs;
not
for
those
required
to
use
a
wheel
chair
or
other
mobility
aiding
device.
Handicapped
persons
are
required
to
adapt
and
change
their
way
of
life
due
to
their
disability
and
inability
to
easily
move
from
place
to
place.
The
most
common
problem
faced
by
those
who
are
required
to
use
mobility
equipment
is
getting
up
and
down
stairs/angled
planes.
Homes,
buildings,
and
everyday
pathways
are
common
places
that
limit
a
handicapped
persons
capabilities
due
to
the
frequent
use
of
stairs
in
those
locations.
Some
numbers
on
handicapped
persons
according
to
the
data
collected
in
the
2010
U.S.
Census
(http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf)
are
as
follows:
56.7
million
people
have
some
type
of
disability
in
the
U.S.
which
equates
to
about
18.7%
of
the
population
or
one
in
every
five
people.
That
number
is
extremely
close
to
the
estimated
value
discussed
about
provided
by
the
University
at
Buffalo.
30.55
million
people
ages
15
and
older
have
a
disability
that
gives
them
trouble
walking
or
using
stairs.
Specifically,
22.262
million
people
have
trouble
using
stairs.
As
you
can
see,
the
number
of
people
that
are
disabled
in
our
country
is
significant.
These
numbers
prove
that
there
exists
a
large
population
of
people
that
have
to
deal
with
mobility
issues
on
a
daily
basis.
Figure
1
below
shows
the
distribution
of
those
who
use
accessibility
aids
currently
on
the
market.
Figure
1
Distribution
of
those
who
use
accessibility
aids
throughout
their
home.
http://dsc.ucsf.edu/pub_listing.php?pub_type=Report
Report
#14
As shown above, those who are physically disabled are currently forced to live in homes and places that can accommodate their needs. This can become a struggle as most people who suffer from immobilizing disabilities are not born with the issue. Those who are not born with the disability may be forced to move homes and or restructure their home. These restrictions force people to change the way they have been living their life simply because there is no way for them to get up and down stairs, or around society. There are currently many different types of ramps and lifts on the market but there is yet to exist a portable and versatile ramp that can be used with ease. The portable ramps cost around $1000 but can only cover a small amount of stairs because they take a slight angle to increase the user comfort when going up the ramp which
4
restricts
the
height
covered
due
to
force
issues.
They
are
easily
portable
but
cannot
be
used
in
large
stair
situations
due
to
the
angle
restrictions.
Also,
a
person
must
physically
must
the
handicapped
person
up
the
ramp.
The
other
group
is
elevators
which
cost
around
$5000
but
need
to
be
attached
to
the
stairs
and
are
not
portable.
They
automatically
carry
someone
up
the
stairs
but
can
only
be
used
on
one
set
of
stairs.
Creating
a
system
that
is
both
portable,
but
versatile
and
covers
all
stair
heights
while
maintain
a
low
cost
is
essential.
Address
the
need
to
make
the
physically
disabled
an
active
part
of
society
by
creating
a
lightweight,
versatile,
ramping
solution
for
everyday
use.
The
design
must
be
portable,
easy
to
set
up,
and
reliable.
Objectives
for
Problem:
Design
a
solution
to
aid
those
who
use
a
wheelchair
or
power
chair
Design
must
be
able
to
handle
most
stair
heights
with
one
collective
system
Maintain
a
low
cost
for
the
system
between
cost
of
portable
ramp
and
elevator
systems
System
must
be
portable
and
easy
to
transport
(as
lightweight
as
possible)
Design
must
be
user
friendly
(easy
to
assemble)
and
comfortable
for
the
user/operator
Solution
must
be
safe,
strong,
and
reliable
Constraints for Problem: # of persons required for set-up Balance between weight and strength of materials Use secure/reliable design components while maintaining low cost Variations between stairs and sizes
To determine the success of our project, a number of factors will be considered and measured through both prototype testing and analytical models. These measures include: Prototyping critical sections of our design to prove functionality as well as integrity we will prototype our most critical section (track connections) to prove we can hold tolerances and easily assemble them together. We will build a scale model of the ramp and tracks out of wood to prove functionality. Measuring ease of assembly allowing friends and unbiased persons to test our equipment will tell us how easy our tracks connect together and function. Measuring Versatility we will measure how many stairs the design can confine to by combining certain tracks and analyzing lengths and configurations. Measuring Proof of Concept using the model of the ramp and track, we will be able to convey our idea to those who require the use of a system like this as well as those who would need to help operate. This will provide necessary feedback on the overall concept.
5
FEA
analysis
perform
testing
on
the
strength
of
track
sections
to
ensure
they
will
be
able
to
withstand
the
forces
that
will
be
generated
as
well
as
allow
us
to
determine
if
material
choices
will
be
sufficient.
The
remainder
of
this
report
will
outline
our
design
process
used
to
develop
a
solution
to
the
problem
discussed
above.
We
will
discuss
sections
such
as
customer
requirements,
engineering
specifications,
concept
generation,
detailed
design,
prototyping
and
testing,
etc.
These
sections
will
provide
an
overview
to
the
steps
we
took
to
design
our
solution
and
ways
in
which
we
refined
our
design.
2.
Customer
Requirements
To
represent
critical
end-users
and
others
affected
during
the
lifecycle
of
our
system,
we
considered
the
following
groups
to
develop
customer
requirements:
Consumers
-
People
with
Disabilities
(C)
Families
of
those
with
Disabilities
(F)
Insurance
Companies
(I)
National
Government
(G)
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(E)
Businesses
and
Municipal
Buildings
(B)
(The
letter
in
parenthesis
correspond
to
the
customer
requirements
they
belong
to
in
Table
1
and
Appendix
A.1)
We interviewed actual handicapped persons and those who use the current devices to better understand problems they have will current systems as well as changes they would like to see made. The emphasis of these customer groups is on the individual consumers since so many people in the United States require the use of mobility devices. Consumers are the ones who actually purchase the system and use the design.
6
Cost
Effective
(C,
F,
I,
B)
Efficient
(C,
F,
B)
Weather
Resistant
(C,
F)
Safe
Power
Source
(C,
F,
E,
B)
Environmentally
Friendly
(G,
E)
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.8
3.5
3.
Engineering
Specifications
To
develop
our
engineering
specifications,
we
used
the
list
of
customer
requirements
in
Table
1
and
identified
20
engineering
specifications.
Using
the
House
of
Quality,
Appendix
A.3,
relationships
to
customer
requirements
were
identified
to
support
calculation
of
the
relative
importance
of
each
engineering
specification.
Importance (1-10) 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3
From
the
roof
of
the
house
of
quality,
we
found
that
there
were
many
correlations
between
the
engineering
specifications.
We
found
there
to
be
very
strong
correlations
between
material
strength
and
weight
capacity,
number
of
steps
to
assemble
and
assembly
time,
number
of
safety
features
and
number
of
codes
followed,
reliability
and
maintenance
time
required,
reliability
and
number
of
rust
resistant
parts,
and
lastly
9
number
of
steps
to
operate
along
with
time
required
to
operate.
It
was
also
found
that
the
specifications
of
material
strength
as
well
as
reliability
generally
had
a
lot
of
positive
correlations
to
other
specifications,
while
characteristics
such
as
range
of
elevation
and
number
of
stair
rise
configurations
had
an
extremely
large
number
of
negative
correlations
with
respect
to
other
engineering
specs.
These
correlations
played
an
important
role
in
deciding
what
we
need
to
maximize,
minimize,
and
how
much
will
that
affect
other
characteristics
related
to
its
field.
Engineering
specifications
put
a
value
to
our
customer
requirements
and
make
them
easier
to
understand. The specifications are the specific values in which we will aim to try and hit as far as characteristic values. Next, we began generating concepts and possible solutions to the problem stated above.
4.
Conceptual
Design
The
conceptual
design
phase
involved
both
identification
of
potential
concepts
and
selection
of
a
single
concept
to
focus
on
for
the
semester.
Each
aspect
is
detailed
here.
A
complete
list
of
all
concepts
can
be
found
in
Appendix
A.4.
Figure 2 Pulley/Cable Ramp System Figure 3 Extendable Ramp Figure 4 Lego Ramp Design
Figure
5
Tanks
Tracks
on
Bottom
of
Wheelchair
Figure
6
Adaptable
Wheels
10
11
5.
Embodiment
Design
Before
developing
a
detailed
design,
we
establish
a
preliminary
system
layout
which
in
Figure
7.
An
exploded
view
of
our
system
is
shown
in
Figure
8.
Figure
7
-
Preliminary
system
layout
Figure
8
Exploded
view
of
system
layout
12
provides
easy
packing
and
helps
the
ramp
fold
up.
Lastly,
we
added
what
we
refer
to
as
landing
gear,
or
a
damper.
This
is
a
rack
and
pinion
system
will
help
the
ramp
on
the
way
down
while
collapsing
and
provide
a
back
force
that
will
absorb
some
of
the
force
while
the
ramp
collapses.
Operational
Assembly
Track
Assembly
Assembly
of
the
individual
track
sections
which
are
to
be
available
in
varying
lengths
will
be
accomplished
through
the
interfacing
of
two
large
connecting
pieces
with
male
and
female
sides.
These
connection
points
were
placed
on
the
outer
side
of
each
track
section
in
order
to
lower
the
risk
of
interfering
with
stair
geometry
and
or
platform
movement.
Upon
sliding
this
connection
together
a
pin
can
be
inserted
vertically
into
the
male
part
extruding
just
beyond
the
limit
of
the
female
connector
(see
Figure
9).
Tolerances
for
these
parts
should
be
accurate
to
about
+/-
0.005
which
we
believe
will
allow
for
a
tight
enough
fit
to
prevent
flexing
of
the
connections,
but
will
still
be
easy
to
slide
together
in
an
efficient
manner.
Figure
9
Track
Connection
Point;
Assembled
View
13
Platform
Assembly
The
proposed
design
for
the
platform
which
will
hold
both
the
mobility
device
and
the
disabled
person
contains
several
components.
The
top
platform
component
is
attached
to
the
vertical,
lower
support
by
a
stationary
pin
hinge
which
will
not
be
removed
by
the
operator.
Configured
to
the
underside
of
the
platform
is
a
winch
and
battery
combination
which
will
also
not
be
removed
by
the
operator.
The
only
assembly
required
for
the
platform
is
for
the
front
and
back
rollers
to
be
inserted
into
the
track
sections
previously
configured,
in
addition
to
connecting
the
winch
cable
to
the
top
module,
which
will
be
discussed
below.
See
Figure
10
below;
which
gives
a
visual
representation
of
the
platform
assembly
as
a
whole.
Figure 10 Platform assembly: assembled view of both the horizontal and vertical support, placed in the tracks.
Wheelchair Interface Assembly After the mobility device has been loaded onto the platform it will strapped onto the platform by ratchet straps. Once the winch has pulled the platform to the top of the staircase it can be unloaded by disconnecting these tethers, effectively creating a simple, efficient means of interfacing the user to the product. Top & Bottom Console Assembly Connecting the top and bottom consoles to the individual track sections is nearly the same as connecting the individual track segments together. In the same manner, this assembly will require the insertion of a locking pin following the mating of the two segments.
14
Manufacturing
Assembly
Platform
The
winch
and
battery
setups
will
have
to
be
attached
to
the
platform
during
manufacturing.
The
flap
on
the
leading
edge
of
the
platform
to
aid
in
the
loading
of
the
wheelchair
will
also
have
to
be
attached
prior
to
shipment
to
the
end
user.
Connecting
the
horizontal
and
vertical
supports
together
with
a
steel
bearing
pin
will
be
the
final
assembly
process
required
for
the
platform.
Track
Connection
The
track
assembly
will
be
manufactured
after
the
interface
between
the
male
and
female
connectors
has
been
established.
Prior
to
this,
the
track
components
are
identical,
and
a
male
and
a
female
piece
must
be
attached
using
eight
screws
apiece
to
ensure
a
secure
fit
between
the
track
and
the
male/female
parts.
After
all
the
screws
have
been
threaded,
a
locking
pin
will
be
used
to
secure
the
connection
between
the
male
and
female
component.
The
locking
pin
freedom
will
also
provide
variability
in
the
male/female
section
lengths
depending
on
the
users
needs.
Top
&
Bottom
Console
The
top
and
bottom
console
will
be
attached
in
a
similar
manner
to
the
track
connections.
These
components
will
use
eight
screws
apiece
to
thread
and
establish
the
male
and
female
parts,
then
a
locking
pin
will
be
placed
in
to
hold
these
components
in
place.
The
only
difference
is
that
instead
of
having
freedom
where
each
track
connecting
pin
is
placed,
these
modules
must
be
placed
in
a
fashion
so
that
the
bottom
console
is
connected
to
the
first
piece
of
track,
and
the
top
console
is
attached
after
the
last
piece
of
track.
Upper and Lower console allow for variation in stair angle o Our product is designed to follow building codes for the steepest allowable stairs Decreasing the angle of the stairs will simply lean the user forward slightly, maintaining comfort and safety Flexible angle of console allows for some variation in stair dimensions
Product design for worst case scenario o Product dimensions, weight capacity, and strength designed for the heaviest, largest wheel chairs
15
o Factory
of
safety
of
2
ensures
that
our
product
will
not
only
meet
the
99%
percentile
but
extend
to
even
the
worst
case
scenarios
Width
and
shape
of
wheel
chair
nonfactor
o o Platform
design
allows
for
wheelchair
of
any
width
as
opposed
to
set
width
tracks
All
types
of
wheelchairs
will
be
safe
and
secure
Winch
is
connected
to
platform,
not
to
the
wheel
chair
frame
Safety
straps
have
ratchet
design
to
secure
to
anywhere
on
the
frame
manufacturing, specialized for the design of the top module, bottom module, and ramp sections. Stock parts will be used to help cut costs and minimize the number of parts manufactured in-house. The ramp will be injection molded out of HDPE allowing for high strength and versatility as stock pre drilled holes make it easy for attachment. The HDPE will give us a lightweight advantage with the ramp. The top and bottom modules will be made out of aluminum stock and will also require a milled hole on one face, so that the platform can easily slide from bottom to top. Our manufacturing process is kept very simple as all bolts and pins are the same, making every hole placement uniform to minimize errors.
16
6.
Detailed
Design
**Pictures
of
our
design
evolution
may
be
found
in
appendix
section
A.6
with
more
design
photos
in
A.7**
17
Part # 1.01 1.02 1.03 2.01 2.02 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04
Description
in.
Aluminum
Hollow
Bar
Stock
2x2x24
Track
Roller
Aluminum
Flat
Bar
Stock
1x2x8
3/4in
Aluminum
Hollow
Tube
Stock
6
1/4in.
Aluminum
Hollow
Bar
Stock
2x2x6
HDPE
Base
1/8
in.
Aluminum
Hollow
Bar
Stock
1x1x10
Ratchet
Strap
Steel
Diameter
Solid
Round
Stock
4ft.
Winch
(2000lb
Capacity)
12V
Battery
(30Ah)
2.5
33Amp
14AWG
Wire
Locking
Pins,
10
total:
6
for
tracks,
2
per
console
1/4
Diameter,
1.8
Usable
Long
Bolts,
80
total
needed:
64
for
tracks,
16
for
console
8-32,
1.125
long
Short
Bolts,
80
total
needed:
64
for
tracks,
16
for
console
8-32,
1.5
usable
U-Bolt,
3
total
needed:
1
for
powertrain
cage,
1
for
top
console,
1
for
front
edge
of
platform
Table
3
Bill
of
Materials
Quantity 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 10
Total Price 204.00 107.44 95.12 11.16 56.68 56.60 25.70 62.88 5.72 69.99 201.49 0.93 19.50
Location Metals Depot: T3214 McMaster: 6461K19 Metals Depot: F412 McMaster: 1658T51 Metals Depot: T3214 Metals Depot: T3118 McMaster: 29925T23 Metals Depot: R112 Northern Tool: 14190 AtBatt: 24379 McMaster: 7587K973 McMaster: 98404A138 McMaster: 92196A200 McMaster: 92196A194 McMaster: 3035T11
2 1 3
18
PLATFORM
CONNECTION/LOADING
Platform
rollers
slide
into
the
track
sections
and
platform
folds
to
allow
for
easy
loading
Platform
locks
in
an
ascending
position
which
provides
the
rider
with
a
level
platform
surface
to
prevent
sliding/rolling
off
UNLOADING
After
the
platform
has
been
raised
to
the
top
of
the
staircase,
unloading
is
as
simple
as
disconnecting
any
restraints,
and
rolling
the
rider
off
DISASSEMBLY
Platform
returned
to
loading
position,
removed
from
tracks
Tracks
disassembled
and
stored
19 Material Selection In order to optimize the influential factors above with regards to material selection the proposed material for the track sections was aluminum. Aluminum is commonly available, easy to machine, and lightweight. With a yield strength of about 55 MPa aluminums strength, if designed efficiently will provide excellent material properties for the track sections. Weight Of Part Density (wolframalpha.com): 0.09754lb/in3 Volume (typical staircase: 13in. length section): 19.5in3 Single Track Section Weight: 1.90lb or 0.17lb/in. Weight of Assembled Track (staircase height @ 8ft. requires 160 linear in.): 27.20lb
Figure
15
Transparent
platform
structure
shown
in
the
folded
loading
position
The platform design is critical to the operation of the modular ramp system. The following are the main design attributes considered in the design of the platform.
20 The platform should fold up to allow the handicapped person to easily roll up onto the horizontal support As the platform raises, the handicapped person should be in a level position to prevent any feeling of tipping backwards/forwards During operation, when the track components are all assembled, the platform should remain held into the tracks to allow the unit to fold up correctly, and so that it may re-ascend the stairs if necessary Material Selection As with the track sections described above, weight should be minimized for the folding platform, while maintaining strength, functionality, and durability. HDPE was selected for the platform since its strength to weight ratio is excellent with a yield strength of 20-25 MPa and a density of 0.0344in3 (wolframalpha.com). HDPE is often used in the packaging industry, and has been a proven load bearing material used in the manufacture of pallets for shipping/transport of products. Approximate volume required for injection molded HDPE platform: 0.920ft3
21
Figure 16 Stress simulation on single track section supported at stair contact points.
Figure 17 Displacement simulation on single track section supported at stair contact points.
22
Winch
From
a
performance
view,
the
winch
will
need
to
have
the
following
capacities
(see
appendix
A.8
for
electro- mechanical
power
calculations):
Lift
the
platform
and
load
to
a
desired
height,
up
to
12
feet
Perform
the
lifting
operation
within
a
desired
time
constraint,
less
than
4
minutes
Withstand
several
operations
following
one
charge
cycle
head cap screws. Even though the dimensions of the male and female parts are unique, the fasteners will be the same length and size. Allowing for easier assembly, and lower purchase cost. Powertrain The winch we decided upon (http://imgur.com/IyRlsI3) took some time to find. This one was chosen because of its very low cost, and low amperage demand on the batteries (30 amps for an average load). This meant that instead of 3 batteries, we are saving $100 by using two, which still give 10-12 uses per charge (50 min. of charge time)
23
Platform The platform collapses down to a small angle of 9 degrees for when they mount and dismount at the bottom The platform starts at an angle of 9 degrees, and has a gradual and smooth transition to reach the horizontal position Winch The winch has a performance load of 2000lbs The integrity of the connection to the platform is adequate The platform will lock and keep the passenger on a level surface until they can dismount at the top.
24
In
order
to
explore
several
key
critical
issues
in
our
design,
we
prototyped
our
two
major
subsystems.
Our
approach to prototyping for each subsystem was decided upon based on the key concerns for that subsystem itself. We decided on prototyping the two major subsystems based on the ability of those subsystems, when tested and proven individually, to collectively prove both the feasibility as well as the integrity of our design. The first subsystem we prototyped is the largest and most visible portion of our design, and arguably the most important. In our design of the platform, we originally used aluminum framing with a steel sheet metal covering to keep the materials in the design simple. Late in the design process, when revisiting our goal to make this system as portable as possible, our group decided to change the platform material to high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Since this process requires a tremendous upfront cost in the design and production of a mold for the platform, we opted to design this portion of the product out of wood. Building the platform out of wood allowed us a couple of key advantages: Full scale model Maintains accurate assessment of functionality Exact dimensions allow for more realistic interpretation of the process itself Reduces prototype cost by thousands of dollars Gives customer groups the ability to view the entire process for approval/recommendations
Figure
18
Platform
prototype
in
testing
25
Our
second
subsystem
that
we
prototyped
is
not
necessarily
the
most
noticeable
part
of
the
project,
however to our group this part is the key to our whole design. The track connections are the key to making our product the compact, portable design we set out to design. By successfully proving our track connections are simple, easy to operate, and safe, we are able to prove the major concept of our design. As a result of the decision to make the platform out of reduced cost materials, it no longer made sense to prototype the tracks in their entirety. We instead chose to manufacture a track connection with small portions of track. Our track and connection pieces were to be prototyped to exact dimensions using the exact materials we chose in our design process. This allowed us the advantages to view: Ability to machine to our desired tolerances Simplicity of the design Strength of the design Functionality of the connections Manufacturability of the materials we selected
Figure
19
3-D
model
(left)
and
actual
prototype
(right)
with
exact
materials
and
dimensioning
Using the combination of these two prototypes, we were able to test several aspects of our design. This
includes the functionality, tolerancing and machinability, ease of assembly, and feasibility.
26
Track
section
prototype
FEA
analysis
The
FEA
analysis
used
a
factor
of
safety
and
a
worst
case
scenario
to
prove
our
track
sections
will
be
more
than
strong
enough
Combines
the
strength
and
deflection
analysis
with
the
proof
of
feasibility
from
the
track
sections
to
show
effectiveness
Proving
that
our
varying
length
track
section
design
will
fit
together
flawlessly
By
proving
that
the
sections
fit
together
we
remove
any
doubt
of
functionality
of
the
track
sections
Proving
our
unique
folding
platform
design
is
effective
and
very
useful
Showing
that
our
design
size
and
stair
angle
is
effective
for
home
use
Showing
that
by
adding
minor
components
(winch,
landing
gear,
ext)
little
physical
effort
is
required
Figure
20
Strength
test
on
track
section
at
an
estimated
1400
pounds,
four
times
the
maximum
load
from
platform
with
factor
of
safety
with
no
failure
27
Track section prototype Tolerances remained effective even when machining is done with lower tolerance machines Machining would have been preferred on the CNC for highest accuracy Still able to machine accurately but in much larger timetable
28
o Reducing
the
weight
not
only
lessens
material
cost
but
also
makes
the
system
even
more
portable-
a
major
customer
requirement
Platform
prototype
Redesign
would
include
hydraulic,
regulating
legs
o o o Hydraulic
legs
would
be
included
to
keep
the
platform
horizontal
at
all
times
Current
design
is
effective
but
introduces
some
platform
angles
that
we
would
like
to
alleviate
After
loading
at
small
angle
we
would
prefer
to
maintain
horizontal
platform
orientation
Emergency shutoff addition o o o In testing found that the force of the platform being pulled up stairs would be very great Foreign objects, children, or pets could get in path of platform Emergency shutoff upon contact with foreign object would add safety for those around the product as well as the handicapped individual
Redesign would include the ability of the platform to maneuver around corners in staircases o o o Current design only goes up straight stair cases due to design time constraints Would require disassembling and reassembling on the next set of stairs Incorporations of hydraulic legs could allow for simple transitioning around corners
8.
Production
From
the
information
gathered
throughout
the
detailed
design
and
prototyping
processes,
we
believe
the
best
method
of
production
would
be
to
have
most
of
the
manufacturing
outsourced
with
pieces
such
as
the
metal
stock
and
the
socket
cap
screws
to
be
brought
in
from
a
supplier.
The
assembly
would
be
done
in
house
as
well
as
the
molding
of
the
HDPE
platform.
Obviously
the
scope
of
economics
would
apply
to
the
production,
however
this
system
is
for
a
smaller
percentage
of
the
population
so
large
scale
production
is
not
necessary.
The
subsections
listed
below
describe
the
method
of
production
for
critical
components
of
the
design.
29
finish
the
end.
There
would
be
a
total
of
160
holes
drilled
and
tapped
to
8-32
for
the
track
connections.
Finally
the
sections
would
be
cut
to
the
proper
lengths
and
shipped
to
our
assembly
facility.
The
two
12
foot
sections
would
take
less
than
2
hours
to
complete
and
would
cost
approximately
$100
depending
on
the
local
shop
prices
and
contract
negotiation.
8.4
Assembly
The
system
consists
of
numerous
components
that
must
be
assembled,
and
this
is
the
most
time
consuming
portion
of
production.
Due
to
the
high
cost,
an
automated
process
to
attach
the
connections
to
the
tracks
was
unable
to
be
utilized,
however,
an
alternative
and
less
expensive
method
of
quickly
fastening
the
two
pieces
must
be
developed.
A
possible
solution
has
been
established
and
would
consist
of
a
modified
flooring
screwdriver
that
utilizes
an
auto
feed
system.
This
would
drastically
reduce
the
time
required
to
assemble
and
therefore
reduce
the
cost
of
assembly.
The
unit
would
be
shipped
in
its
portable
state
but
would
require
some
assembly
before
it
is
ready
to
ship
to
the
customer.
The
majority
of
production
is
outsourced,
but
as
the
assembly
would
be
done
in
house
the
assembly
process
is
well
defined.
Below
are
the
required
steps
to
prepare
the
Modular
Ramp
System
for
shipment:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Mount
the
track
connections
to
the
track
sections
and
upper
and
lower
console
Connect
lateral
support
to
legs
of
platform
Connect
track
rollers
to
legs
and
platform
Connect
legs
to
platform
Mount
tie
down
straps
to
top
of
platform
Mount
eye
hook
to
underside
of
platform
Wire
batteries
in
series
and
connect
to
winch
Mount
powertrain
in
housing
Mount
eye
hook
to
powertrain
housing
30
10. Mount
powertrain
housing
to
bottom
of
platform
The
assembly
process
would
require
two
trained
individuals
and
time
of
assembly
would
be
in
the
neighborhood
of
1.5
hours.
This
is
an
initial
estimate
and
with
practice
and
modification
to
the
assembly
process
could
be
streamlined.
Upon
completion
of
these
steps,
the
production
is
completed
and
is
ready
to
be
distributed
to
the
consumer.
9.
Conclusion
From
our
effort
this
semester,
we
were
able
to
develop
a
solution
making
the
physically
disabled
a
more
active
part
of
society.
The
remainder
of
this
section
assesses
the
level
of
success
and
opportunities
for
future
work.
31
received.
Even
though
our
initial
prototype
was
made
of
low
tolerancing
materials,
and
manufactured
in
a
wood
shop,
the
functionality
of
the
design
was
conveyed
as
a
trustworthy
solution
to
the
problem
statement
thus
protecting
the
integrity
of
our
concept.
With
a
fully
functioning
model
using
the
proper
materials
pertaining
to
our
design,
this
level
of
trust
would
increase
significantly.
32
Another
added
feature
to
our
design
would
include
a
damper
system
housed
on
the
bottom
of
the
platform,
for
the
sole
purpose
of
a
smoother
transition,
and
less
oscillation
felt
by
the
user
whilst
on
the
platform.
Also
with
only
our
prototype,
there
was
no
real
testing
performed
on
our
design.
With
a
means
of
creating
our
full
model
we
would
perform
three
point
bending
tests,
destructive
tests,
and
many
other
tests
to
be
able
to
analyze
our
design
and
refine
it
accordingly.
Lastly,
we
would
like
our
design
to
be
efficiently
compactable,
and
as
portable
as
possible.
Conceivably
we
would
like
the
design
to
transform
into
a
suitcase
type
device,
where
the
ramps
wheels
will
be
used
to
drag
the
system
around,
the
platform
would
collapse
into
the
body
of
the
suitcase,
and
all
needed
track
length
sections
could
be
held
underneath
the
platform.
This
would
make
it
extremely
easy
to
move
around,
as
the
system
as
a
whole
will
be
fairly
heavy,
and
arduous
to
carry
by
hand.
Continuing
with
these
developments
for
our
design
would
yield
a
safe
and
successfully
designed
product.
With
the
completion
of
a
method
of
manufacturing
efficiently,
this
design
could
conceivably
be
market
ready
within
a
year.
This
time
measurement
is
assuming
this
product
is
being
sold
from
an
established
business
entity,
which
has
already
provided
a
means
of
investors
and
has
accommodated
all
other
business
arrangements.
10.
References
UCSF
Disability
Statistics
Center
Publication
Listing.
11
Oct.
2012.
Disability
Statistics
Center.
24
Feb.
2013
<http://dsc.ucsf.edu/pub_listing.php?pub_type=Report>.
Americans
with
Disabilities:
2010
p70-131.pdf.
15
July
2012.
Americans
With
Disabilities:
2010.
28
Jan.
2013
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf>.
Access
Lists
&
Ramps/Home
Elevators/Stairlifts/Wheelchair
Lifts.
19
Mar.
2013.
Access
Lifts
&
Ramps
Inc.
Home
Elevators.
3
Feb.
2013
<http://www.accessliftsandramps.com/>.
Power
wheelchair
range
testing
and
energy
consumption
during
fatigue
testing
cooper.
3
Oct.
1995.
Department
of
Veteran
Affairs.
5
Feb.
2013
<http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/95/32/3/pdf/cooper.pdf>.
WolframlAlpha:
Computational
Knowledge
Engine.
29
Mar.
2013.
Wolfram
Alpha.
7
Mar.
2013
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/>.
McMaster-Carr.
11
Feb.
2013.
McMaster-Carr.
19
Mar.
2013
<http://www.mcmaster.com/#>.
Portable
Generators,
Pressure
Washers,
Power
Tools,
Welders
l
Northern
Tool
+
Equipment.
13
Dec.
2012.
Northern
Tool
+
Equipment.
18
Mar.
2013
<http://www.northerntool.com/>.
33
Metals
Depot
Buy
Metal
Online!
Steel,
Aluminum,
Stainless,
Brass.
9
Aug.
2012.
Metals
Depot.
17
Mar.
2013
<http://www.metalsdepot.com/>.
Batteries,
Battery
Charger,
Power
Supplies
l
AtBatt.com.
19
Nov.
2012.
Atbatt.com.
18
Mar.
2013
<http://www.atbatt.com/>.
34
a. Whether
it
is
a
private
customer,
a
hospital
or
an
insurance
company
paying
for
the
product,
it
needs
to
be
reasonably
priced
in
order
to
be
viable
for
a
widespread
number
of
consumer
groups.
6. Reliable
(C,
F,
I,
B)
a. A
product,
which
is
not
reliable,
is
not
a
good
product.
By
smart
design,
we
can
create
a
product
with
minimal
maintenance
and
with
six
sigma
standards
of
operation;
we
can
guarantee
a
good
reliable
product.
7. Weather
Resistant
(C,
F)
a. As
the
product
will
be
used
in
a
variety
of
conditions
both
indoors
and
outdoors
as
well
as
on
a
variety
of
surfaces,
the
product
must
be
able
to
withstand
a
large
temperature
range,
have
little
or
no
rust
spots
or
other
failure
points
due
to
weather.
Consideration
should
also
be
made
for
waterproofing
electronic
motors
and
batteries
(if
applicable).
8. User
Friendly
(C,
F)
a. Operation
shouldnt
be
overly
complicated
or
confusing.
It
should
be
easy
to
learn
and
remember
how
to
operate
the
system.
The
number
of
steps
to
operate
should
be
minimal
as
well
as
the
input
force
of
the
user
and
the
overall
time
needed
to
set
up,
use,
deconstruct,
and
stow.
9. Meets
Regulations
(C,
F,
G)
a. The
system
will
likely
be
looked
at
by
organizations
that
regulate
the
safety
and
failure
rate
of
the
product.
This
could
be
private
insurance
deciding
whether
or
not
to
cover
the
premium
to
purchase
the
product,
or
a
federal
set
of
regulations
set
by
the
ADA.
10. Environmentally
Friendly
(G,
E)
a. With
an
ever-growing
conscience
for
the
planet,
customers
will
likely
require
(or
appreciate)
the
materials
chosen
for
the
system
to
be
recyclable
after
the
product
lifespan
has
passed.
11. Safe
Power
Source(C,
F,
E,
B)
a. If
the
system
is
designed
to
expand
with
a
motor,
attention
should
be
made
to
the
source
of
power.
Most
likely
it
would
be
an
electric
motor,
which
if
possible
could
be
powered
by
renewable
energy.
35
Force
required
to
assemble
Time
required
to
assemble
Versatile
Safe
Cost
Effective
Reliable
Portable
Weather
Resistant
User
Friendly
Meets
Regulations
Recyclable
Materials
The
Engineering
Specifications
introduced
in
the
above
chart
are
expanded
upon
and
discussed
in
greater
detail
below
in
order
to
better
understand
their
significance
to
the
problem,
and
the
implications
of
their
respective
benchmarks.
1. Power
Used
(~>5
Amph
per
use)
a. To
improve
efficiency,
the
power
consumption
should
be
minimized,
particularly
since
this
unit
is
intended
to
be
as
mobile/portable
as
possible.
For
the
unit
to
be
operated
outside
away
from
other
buildings,
it
would
have
to
operate
on
DC
power
from
a
battery
supply.
2. Material
Specific
Strength
(~60
MPa)
a. Rigidity
of
the
product
is
a
high
priority
in
this
design
problem
since
it
will
involve
transporting
the
user
from
one
elevation
to
another.
The
reason
specific
strength
is
considered
is
to
account
for
the
fact
that
we
are
dealing
with
a
portable
system,
so
it
is
essential
to
consider
the
weight
of
the
product
even
while
optimizing
the
material
strength
required.
3. Number
of
Steps
to
Assemble
(~5)
a. For
obvious
reasons,
the
number
of
steps
to
assemble
directly
influences
the
ease
of
set
up
requirement.
The
number
of
steps
required
for
any
product
to
be
ready
to
use
should
be
minimized
to
ease
the
burden
on
the
customer,
or
operator.
4. Force
Required
Assembling
(~10
lbs.)
a. To
ensure
this
product
is
simple
to
use
for
all
customer
groups,
including
those
who
may
be
elderly,
the
force
required
to
assemble
the
product
is
an
essential
specification.
By
minimizing
the
force
required
to
assemble
the
product
we
simultaneously
expand
our
potential
customer
range.
Range
of
distance
rise
available
Weight
capacity
Consumer
price
Reliability
Weight
Volume
of
product
when
collapsed
Number
of
water
proof
parts
Force
required
to
operate
Time
required
to
operate
Number
of
codes
followed
Number
of
recyclable
materials
Min
Min
Max
600
lb.
Min
Max
Min
Min
Max
Min
Min
Max
Max
Table A.1 - Customer Requirements and Corresponding Engineering Specifications with proposed benchmarks
36
5. Time
to
Assemble
(~5
min.)
a. The
direct
correlation
between
number
of
steps
to
assemble
and
time
to
assemble
is
also
intuitive.
It
is
possible
that
the
number
of
steps
to
assemble
can
remain
low,
while
the
time
to
assemble
is
high,
therefore
it
was
necessary
to
implement
the
duration
of
assembly
as
well.
6. Range
of
Stairs
Ascended
(~1-10
stairs
standard)
a. In
order
to
better
accommodate
as
many
handicap
conditions,
and
environmental
settings
as
possible,
the
maximization
of
elevation
change
would
be
necessary.
Not
only
do
we
want
to
be
able
to
cover
as
many
stairs
as
possible,
but
in
addition
we
want
to
be
able
to
adjust
for
any
number
of
stairs.
For
example,
our
goal
could
be
to
ascend
at
least
10
stairs
with
this
system.
To
us,
the
system
will
now
need
to
be
capable
of
ascending
any
number
of
stairs
from
1
to
10.
7. Weight
Capacity
(~650
lbs.)
a. More
often
than
not
the
weight
of
someone
with
limited
mobility
will
be
greater
than
someone
who
can
conveniently
move
around
and
burn
calories.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
weight
capacity
will
be
taken
seriously,
with
the
appropriate
factor
of
safety
in
mind.
We
have
estimated
a
using
the
weight
of
a
heavy
motorized
wheel
chair
as
well
as
a
heavy
user
that
the
weight
capacity
will
need
to
be
around
600
pounds
before
a
factor
of
safety
is
considered.
8. Consumer
Price
($2,500)
a. Even
though
insurance
companies
will
be
covering
a
large
part
of
this
device,
for
people
with
disabilities
and
their
families,
the
burden
of
paying
for
the
device
should
be
as
cost
effective
as
possible.
The
difficulty
presented
in
this
estimation
is
the
lack
of
direct
competition
our
product
has.
We
are
creating
a
product
with
no
similar
competitors
on
which
to
base
a
price.
9. Reliability
(~0)
a. From
a
safety,
cost,
and
reliability
perspective;
the
number
of
failures
which
this
product
exhibits
should
of
course
be
minimized.
Being
that
the
product
is
intended
to
be
mobile
and
not
fixed
in
one
location
makes
design
for
reliability
a
difficult
task.
We
will
aim
for
six
sigma
reliability
as
a
failure
in
this
system
could
be
deadly
for
the
user.
10. Weight
(~100
lbs.)
a. Again,
for
portability,
the
unit
will
have
to
weigh
as
little
as
possible.
The
person
will
be
able
to
roll
the
system
when
in
transport
however
the
system
will
have
to
be
lifted
into
a
vehicle
for
long
distance
traveling.
We
do
not
want
weight
to
be
a
factor
that
limits
our
customer
range.
11. Volume
of
Product
When
Collapsed
(~3
ft^3)
a. In
addition
to
weight
being
a
factor
in
portability,
the
volume
which
the
unit
occupies
when
it
is
being
transported
should
be
minimized.
This
will
allow
the
product
to
be
stored
in
even
smaller
vehicles,
and
increase
the
convenience
of
moving
around
people
with
disabilities.
12. Number
of
Water
Proof
Parts
(~All
Parts)
37
a. Obviously
this
product
will
not
be
submerged
during
operation
or
storage,
but
if
it
is
exposed
to
water,
especially
in
outdoor
conditions,
it
should
not
take
on
moisture
in
its
internal
components.
All
vital
parts
should
be
water
proof
or
at
the
very
least
water
resistant.
13. Force
Required
to
Operate
(~0
lbs.)
a. Another
important
consideration
for
this
product
being
user
friendly
would
be
that
little
force
is
needed
to
operate.
This
stems
from
a
major
factor
in
most
simple
ramps.
The
assistant
would
historically
be
responsible
for
physically
pushing
the
handicapped
individual
up
the
ramp.
We
want
to
minimize
this
requirement
in
order
to
continue
to
increase
our
customer
range.
14. Time
Required
to
Operate
(~2
min.)
a. Reducing
the
time
required
to
move
the
person,
or
time
required
to
operate,
improves
this
products
user
friendliness.
A
product
which
takes
far
too
long
to
operate
would
be
inconvenient
to
the
user,
and
people
surrounding
the
environment
in
which
this
product
is
being
used.
In
many
cases
this
system
will
occupy
the
entire
width
of
the
staircase,
so
the
faster
the
system
can
be
used
the
faster
normal
operation
can
resume.
15. Materials
Recyclable
After
Product
Life
(~33%)
Maximize
a. In
a
perfectly
sustainable
world,
our
product
would
be
designed
with
100%
recyclable
material.
Unfortunately
this
is
not
always
possible
since
material
strength
is
more
important
for
this
product,
but
will
be
our
ultimate
goal.
38
Figure
A.1
House
of
Quality
39
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Gyroscopic
wheel
chair
(bubble
design)
Wheel
chair
with
legs
to
pull
up
Lego
combinable
ramp
system
Lightweight
composite
collapsible
ramp
Scissor
lift
installed
into
chair
Platform
pulley
lift
system
Crane
lift
device
Air
bag
friction
reduction
system
(air
hockey
table)
Rotational
lift
system
that
swings
platform
up
to
top
(think
twister
ride)
Spiral
ramp
system
that
ends
with
bridge
to
top
Pneumatic
hand
air
pump
to
propel
block
up
stairs
Table A.2 List of All Generated Concepts Figure A.2 Pulley/Cable System (#1 Below) Figure A.3 Tank tracks Figure A.4 Adaptable Wheels Figure A.5 Extendable Ramp
40
41
Figure
A.7
Decision
Matrix
42
Figure
A.9
Exploded
Design
from
MAE
451
Figure
A.10
Overall
Design
from
MAE
451
Figure
A.11
Week
1
Modified
Design
Shown
on
Figure
A.12
Week
1
Modified
Track
Design
Stair
Case
Figure
A.13
Update
3
Modified
Track
Connections
Figure
A.14
Update
3
Modified
Wheel
design
Figure A.15 Platform in Opened Position Figure A.16 Platform in Lowered Position
43
44
45
Figure
A.22
Weight
Calculations
46
Figure
A.24
Weight
of
HDPE