Triton Drowning Detection System
Orange Team
CS 410
December 10, 2007
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
Table of Contents
Document
Pg. No.
1. Project Summary
1.1. Drowning Statistics in the United States (Dave Larnerd)
6
1.2. Drowning Death by Age (Dave Larnerd)
7
1.3. Focus on Theme Park Wave Pools (Dave Larnerd)
7
1.4. Non-Fatal Drowning Cases (Dave Larnerd)
8
1.5. Society’s Response to Prevent & Reduce Drowning (Dave Larnerd)
9
1.6. Lifeguard Study (Dave Larnerd)
9
1.7. Triton Solution Introduction (Dave Larnerd)
12
2. Project Scope
2.1. Target Customers (Brandon Simpkins)
14
2.2. Competition (Brandon Simpkins)
15
2.3. Innovation (Brandon Simpkins)
15
2.4. Evaluation Criteria (Brandon Simpkins)
17
3. Project Impact
3.1. Customers’ Need for a Solution (Cesar Barbieri)
18
3.2. Benefits (Cesar Barbieri)
19
4. Biographical Sketches
4.1. Senior Personnel
20
4.1.1. Project Manager (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
20
4.1.2. Financial Manager (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
20
4.1.3. Marketing Manager (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
20
4.1.4. Hardware Manager (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
21
4.1.5. Software Manager (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
21
4.2. Other Personnel – Experts
21
4.2.1. Technical Expert (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
21
4.2.2. Lifeguard Expert (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
21
4.2.3. Health Expert (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
21
5. Budget
5.1. Summary Proposal Budget – NSF Form 1030 (Dave Larnerd)
22
2
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
5.2. Salaries and Wages (Dave Larnerd)
24
5.3. Equipment (Dave Larnerd & Scott Seto)
25
6. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
6.1. Facilities (Dave Larnerd)
27
6.2. Location (Dave Larnerd)
27
6.3. Software (Scott Seto & Dave Larnerd))
37
6.4. Hard Resource (Dave Larnerd)
28
7. Reference (Kate Nguyen)
29
8. Appendices
8.1. Management and Organization Plan (Kate Nguyen)
I
8.2. Marketing Plan (Cesar Barbieri)
II
8.3. Staffing Plan (Kate Nguyen)
III
8.4. Funding Plan (Dave Larnerd)
IV
8.5. WBS (Kate Nguyen & Cesar Barbieri)
V
8.6. Risk Management Plan (Brandon Simpkins)
VI
8.7. Evaluation Plan (Brandon Simpkins)
VII
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/If not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter NSF 00-2
FOR NSF USE ONLY
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT(S) (Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e., program, division, etc.)
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES
DIVISION
FUND CODE
DUNS # (Data Universal Numbering System)
FILE LOCATION
ASSIGNED
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER
FEDERAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
000-00-0000
A RENEWAL
AGENCY?
YES
NO
IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
Computer Productivity Initiative
E & CS Building
4700 Elkhorn Ave Suite 3300
Norfolk, VA 23529-0162
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT FROM
ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP
ABOVE
CODE
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply)
3
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
(See GPG II.D.1 For Definitions)
BUSINESS
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
SMALL BUSINESS
MINORITY BUSINESS
WOMAN-OWNED
Triton Drowning Detection System
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
6
December 19, 2006
SHOW RELATED PREPROPOSAL
NO.,
IF APPLICABLE
months
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.A.3)
VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.12) IACUC App. Date
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.D.1)
HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.12)
Exemption Subsection
or IRB App. Date
PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.B, II.D.7)
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (GPG II.D.10)
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES
HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.D.10)
SMALL GRANT FOR EXPLOR. RESEARCH (SGER) (GPG II.D.12)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
FACILITATION FOR SCIENTISTS/ENGINEERS WITH DISABILITIES (GPG
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY AWARD (GPG V.H)
V.G.)
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
Computer Science
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
Norfolk, VA 23510
757-555-1234
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Electronic Mail Address
M.S.
1987
757-683-4832
brunelle@cs.odu.edu
PI/PD NAME
Janet Brunelle
CO-PI/PD
Kate Nguyen
4
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators
I certify to the best of my knowledge that:
(1) the statements herein (excluding scientific hypotheses and scientific opinions) are true and complete, and
(2) the text and graphics herein as well as any accompanying publications or other documents, unless otherwise indicated, are the original work of the
signatories or individuals working under their supervision. I agree to accept responsibility for the scientific conduct of the project and to provide the
required project reports if an award is made as a result of this proposal.
I understand that the willful provision of false information or concealing a material fact in this proposal or any other communication submitted to NSF is a
criminal offense (U.S.Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Name (Typed)
PI/PD
Signature
Janet Brunelle
Social Security No.*
Date
000-00-0000
Co-PI/PD
Kate Nguyen
000-00-0000
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant
By signing and submitting this proposal, the individual applicant or the authorized official of the applicant institution is: (1) certifying that statements made herein
are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is
made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding Federal debt status, debarment and suspension, drug-free
workplace, and lobbying activities (see below), as set forth in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 00-2. Willful provision of false information in this application
and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, the authorized official of the applicant institution is certifying that the institution has
implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of Grant Policy Manual Section 510; that to the best of his/her
knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have been made; and that all identified conflicts of interest will have been
satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated prior to the institution’s expenditure of any funds under the award, in accordance with the institution’s conflict of
interest policy. Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.
Debt and Debarment Certifications
(If answer “yes” to either, please provide explanation.)
Is the organization delinquent on any Federal debt?
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal Department or agency?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or
a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities,” in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including
subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this
certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the
required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
NAME/TITLE (TYPED)
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DATE
FAX NUMBER
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
1. Problem Summary
Over 2000 people drown
every year in pools staffed with
certified lifeguards as a result of
silent drowning.
Silent drowning
victims show no signs of struggling
on the surface and often lifeguards
don’t recognize there is a problem
until it is too late. Drowning is the
number one-leading cause of death
for children under five and it’s the
second-leading cause of unintentional, injury-related death among children under
the age of 15. Nineteen percent of all drowning cases involving children occur in
pools staffed with certified lifeguards. In addition to tremendous emotional
heartache, this problem costs us millions a year in medical and legal expenses
and the figures are continuously rising. Many facilities have responded to this
problem by requiring their lifeguards to receive additional training or by simply
hiring more lifeguards, but maybe there is a better option.
1.1. Drowning Statistics in the United States
Drowning is not some unpreventable disease or genetic disorder.
Drowning cases are accidents and most occur where people were in place to
save them had they known a dangerous situation had arisen. The following
statistics from various organizations illustrate the magnitude of the problem.
•
“Six people drown in U.S. pools every day. Many of these pools are public
facilities staffed with certified professional lifeguards.”
--Centers for Disease Control
•
“19% of drowning deaths involving children occur in public pools with
certified lifeguards present.”
--Drowning Prevention Foundation
6
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
•
“Drowning is the second-leading cause of unintentional, injury-related
death among children under the age of 15.”
--National Center for Health Statistics
•
“Drowning is the 4th leading cause of accidental death in the United
States, claiming 4,000 lives annually. Approximately one-third are
children under the age of 14.”
--American Institute for Preventive Medicine
•
“A pool is 14 times more likely than a motor vehicle to be involved in the
death of a child age 4 and under.”
--Orange County CA Fire Authority
1.2. Drowning Death by Age
The graph below shows the percentage of drowning deaths each year by
age group. As you can see, over forty percent of drowning deaths which occur
are children or adolescents under nineteen years of age.
60 to 64
55 to 59
50 to 54
45 to 49
0 to 19
40 to 44
35 to 39
30 to 34
25 to 29
20 to 24
1.3. Focus on Theme Park Wave Pools
One area of particular concern is theme park wave pools where hundreds
pile into the water and lifeguards around the pool’s perimeter try to ensure
7
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
swimmers’ safety. Below are a few headlines from wave pool incidents during
this past summer:

June 20, 2007
4-year-old Wakefield Girl Drowns
Great Wolf Lodge in Williamsburg, VA

July 4, 2007
Lifeguards Unable To Revive 29-year-old Woman In Wave Pool
(Splashin' Safari)
Holiday World in Santa Claus, IN

July 13, 2007
4-year-old Boy Drowns In Wave Pool
Great America Amusement in Santa Clara, CA
1.4. Non-Fatal Drowning Cases
Unfortunately, the problem goes
beyond the tragedy of each drowning
victim.
According to
the
American
Academy of Pediatrics, for every child
who
drowns,
four
others
are
hospitalized for near drowning.
The
effects of these near drowning cases
are devastating.
Below is a list of
common non-fatal residual effects of
drowning:
- Brain Damage
- Lung Damage
- Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)
- Aquatic phobia
8
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
Cost is another aspect of this problem yet to be addressed. Medical costs
for near drowning victims is tremendous with initial medical treatment starting
around $75,000 and then reaching about $250,000 a year for long-term care.
The cost of a single near-drowning that results in brain damage can be more
than $5.5 million.
1.5. Society’s Response to Prevent & Reduce Drowning
Many parks have added more lifeguards and or installed various drowning
detection systems (such as PoseidonTM) in response to silent drowning. These
attempts at a solution have proved inadequate and are very expensive.
1.6. Lifeguard Study
Jeff Ellis and Associates is an international aquatic safety and risk
management consulting firm that has revolutionized lifeguard training in the
United States since 1983. The firm represents approximately 93% of the U.S.A's
major water parks, 800 public swimming pools and other high profile aquatic
facilities throughout the world.
A number of studies were done by Ellis and Associates to better
understand lifeguard performance. The studies were designed to measure actual
lifeguard performance in detecting drowning incidents and to identify the factors
that influence lifeguard vigilance. The results point to causes that may be
contributing to the more than 400 deaths occurring annually in public, lifeguarded
swimming facilities in the United States. Ellis and Associates has determined
that on average a lifeguard’s vigilance capacity is only about thirty minutes due to
a number of possible factors such as:

Heat

Noise / Distraction

Monotony

Stress

Fatigue
9
Orange Team

Poor diet

Dehydration
December 10, 2007
Another study, conducted by Jeff Ellis & Associates, calculated how
quickly lifeguards could spot a swimmer in trouble underwater. Approximately
500 tests were performed on-site during the months of June, July and August at
more than 90 U.S. pools that had no prior knowledge of the study, and that
differed in size and type. In each case, a manikin was placed underwater in the
pool; a tester started the clock when it was fully submerged. Below are the
results of the study:
Results showed that on average, it took one minute and 14 seconds for
lifeguards to spot the manikin. Lifeguards noted the presence of the manikin on
only 46 occasions, or in 9% of the tests within 10 seconds, and in 30 seconds or
10
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
less in 43% of the tests. In 41% of the tests it took over one minute; it took more
than three minutes in 14% of the tests.
“Every second counts in a drowning incident. The longer a victim is
submerged, the greater the chance of permanent brain damage or death,” said
Jeff Ellis, president of Jeff Ellis and Associates. “We developed the ‘10:20’ rule,
which says that if a lifeguard can spot a swimmer in distress within the first ten
seconds of a drowning incident, and reach him to initiate aid within an additional
twenty seconds, that it remains highly unlikely a drowning accident would occur.
These dramatic results show that drowning, or near-drowning accidents with
potentially serious, negative life-long consequences, would have occurred in the
majority of the test cases.”
Ellis added that videotapes of the tests show the lifeguards were using
standard scanning techniques to guard the pool. “They clearly look, but do not
see.” The reason lifeguards cannot always see what happens in the pool is often
the result of environmental factors working against them, including noise and
heat, as well as long hours on the job and the monotonous nature of their task.
This latest review supplements existing vigilance studies on lifeguards at
sea. It details results of tests on highway drivers, airline pilots and industrial
operators, and uses them to draw implications and recommendations for pool
lifeguard vigilance. These include:

Vigilance capacity cannot be maintained at an optimum level for
more than 30 minutes. The detection of critical signals (signs of a
swimmer in trouble) in this type of task is never 100%.

Laboratory studies show that the vigilance level will be higher as the
number of relevant signals increases and the amount of non-relevant
signals (signals other than a swimmer in trouble) decreases.
However, drowning incidents with their associated signals are rare,
and they occur only randomly. The signal-noise ratio is thus very
unfavorable to maintaining vigilance.
11
Orange Team
December 10, 2007

Noise, one of the major environmental factors at a pool, generally
has an unfavorable effect on lifeguard vigilance. Moreover, noise
hinders the ability to share one's attention and tends to focus one's
attention on the signals present in the central vision, to the detriment
of those signals present in the peripheral vision.

The performance of lifeguards can be affected by monotony, stress
and fatigue. The particular environment in which the job is performed
heightens the fragile nature of the performance.

Heat is one of the factors that has a major effect on vigilance. Given
the seasonal aspect of lifeguarding activities, lifeguards are often
exposed to heat and to conditions that are not conducive to their
performance. When the temperature is over 30°C / 86°F, vigilance is
significantly reduced - by 45 percent.

Performance can be maintained by alternating activities. Lifeguards
should perform different activities (for example: vigilance, lessons,
maintenance operations) rather than just continuously lifeguarding
the pool.

Breaks have a very positive effect on the vigilance level, whatever
their content. For optimum benefit, the frequency and duration of
breaks must take into account the time of day: they must be more
frequent and shorter when the alertness level is low, for example in
the early afternoon.
The institute concluded “the maintaining of lifeguard vigilance at a high and
constant level throughout the surveillance period is particularly difficult due to the
nature of the task: the low number of critical signals and high number of noncritical signals, the monotony, the unfavorable physical conditions (noise,
temperature, etc.), and the organization of the activity over time, which may not
be ideal.”
It added that “in this context, automatic systems that help detect
drowning accidents provide essential assistance and are a determining factor in
improving safety. For such systems, it is important to take into account and to
optimize the functioning of the human/system team in order to maximize the
overall performance.”
1.7. Triton Solution Introduction
The Triton solution is designed as a tool for lifeguards to utilize not a
replacement for them. The Triton system will provide continuous underwater
12
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
surveillance and notify lifeguards when it detects a possibly hazardous situation.
Triton works by sending messages from sensor outfitted bracelets worn by pool
patrons wirelessly to a base station near the pool. These messages are received
by the lifeguards in real time and the delay time for lifeguards to recognize there
is a problem is eliminated. Triton is superior over other technological solutions
because along with offering additional features and benefits, its cost is only a
fraction when compared to the cost of similar competitors.
13
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
2. Project Scope
2.1. Target Customers
For our initial customers we will
be targeting public pools, and more
specifically, theme/amusement parks
that have wave pools. We will be
doing this for two main reasons; first,
these
pools/parks
have
enough
money to invest into a system like this
and actually have it be beneficial, and
secondly, wave pools are generally square, and they are controlled environments
which can be easily modeled. When we were trying to determine who we were
going to market this product towards we also considered private homeowners but
we determined that it would just cost too much for a homeowner and that it would
not be profitable to venture towards that area of the market. But since our overall
goal with this system is to help reduce the number of drowning incidents across
the world, we will try to find ways to expand into areas that we can not at this
point. During our market analysis we interviewed a few different water park
professionals and we came up with the following:
Aquatics Director Prince William County Park Authority:
“Always, Anything that will help prevent or reduce the likelihood of a
drowning would be worthy of exploring.”
Ocean Breeze water park manager:
“Yes, but cost is a major consideration.”
We found out that a lot of pools did not invest in drowning detection
systems because they just cost too much. But we also found out that pools and
theme parks are always trying to improve on their current life saving methods, so
that if a cost effective system came out, they would certainly buy it.
14
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
2.2. Competition
After
we
analyzed
the current market for a
drowning detection system
such as ours, we then
looked
at
our
competitors.
Our
potential
main
competitors are Poseidon,
Swimguard,
and
DEWS.
Triton is most similar to Poseidon because it actively tries to detect drowning,
where as Swimguard and DEWS are basically just closed circuit cameras that
are mounted around various places in the pool. Poseidon works by using
complicated visual processing. It has numerous cameras placed around the pool
(above and below the water) and then it processes the images it gets in real time
to determine if anyone is drowning. Our system is different because we are using
sensors and wireless technology. In our system we will have all of the pool
patrons wear a bracelet with certain sensors and a wireless transceiver, and our
computer system will be able to determine if the person could be drowning based
on the sensor readings it is receiving from the sensor bracelets. Since we are not
using expensive hardware like Poseidon is (for visual processing) we are able to
cut our costs considerably lower than theirs because our hardware is relatively
cheap.
2.3. Innovation
Our system is specifically different than all of the other current drowning
detection systems because we are trying to use sensors and wireless
technology. RFID signals can not pass through water or concrete well at all, and
it can not pass through steel at all. That is why this has never been done before,
because the existing technology has been unable to work in a poll environment.
15
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
In our research on wireless technology to use, we came across a
technology called RuBee which just received its IEEE standard this year. This
technology is similar to RFID in that it communicates wirelessly, but That’s about
It. RuBee operates at a much lower frequency, which means that the
wavelengths are longer, so the signal can pass through things like water steel
and concrete without degrading hardly. Also since RuBee operates at a much
lower frequency the battery life of the transceiver is around 10-15 years. Aside
from those differences, RuBee also distinguishes itself because the RuBee tags
are active transceivers, they can send and receive wireless signals at the
discretion of the processor on the chip. This compares to RFID tags which are
backscatter transponders which can only return the signal they receive instead of
sending back actual data. But since the RuBee tags have CPU’s in them, they
also come with sensors attached optionally that can detect things like movement,
pressure, temperature, and movement. In short, RuBee is innovative, and it will
do exactly what we need to do in order to communicate wirelessly in a “difficult”
environment such as a pool.
16
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
2.4. Evaluation Criteria
Our project will be broken up into 4 phases: phase 0 (project inception),
phase 1 (product prototyping), phase 2 (product design), and phase 3 (product
out years).
For project phases 0 and 1, the success of our project will be gauged
through weekly group meetings and by consulting the CS 410 instructor and
expert panel. During these two phases the success of the project will be closely
monitored and necessary changes will be made to ensure its success. Overall
success in phase 0 will be also determined by a successful SBIR proposal and
completion of additional required documentation. Once we have received our
initial SBIR grant, then we can proceed with phase 1. In phase 1 the main criteria
for success are to implement a functional prototype and to secure a phase 2
SBIR grant.
Project phases 2 and 3 are mainly concerned with being able to mass
produce the Triton system and support it throughout the product lifetime. Once
we have secured the phase 2 SBIR grant, then we can proceed with phase 2. In
phase 2 our main task is to improve on the functional prototype and apply
lessons learned in order to create a final product. More emphasis will be put on
marketing and product distribution, while our research and development costs
will go down. Success in phase 2 will be determined by the overall commercial
success of our product. In phase 3 the main focus will be on the product out
years, and our continuing support of the product. Again the success of phase 3
will be determined by our business success and how well we market and sell
Triton.
17
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
3. Project Impact
This section summarizes the need to prevent and/or reduce silent
drowning by introducing the Triton System. In addition, it mentions the different
alternatives that are currently available in the market and how Triton differs from
them. Also, it lists the benefits offered by Triton.
3.1. Customers Need for a Solution
Over 2000 people drown every year in pools staffed with certified
lifeguards due to a lack of real-time information available to lifeguards. In addition
to the tremendous emotional heartache, this problem costs millions of dollars in
medical and legal expenses and the figures are continuously rising.
We have contacted three potential customers, Massanutten Resort,
Ocean Breeze, and Splashdown Waterpark (all in Virginia). The three of them
are interested in exploring different options to help them prevent and/or reduce
the likelihood of drowning. However, cost is a major consideration for small
waterparks and municipal recreation centers such as Ocean Breeze and
Splashdown Waterpark.1
Currently, our potential customers2 have only three available alternatives:
Poseidon, Swimguard Safety, and Drowning Early Warning3, all of them try to
prevent drowning, especially silent drowning which occurs when a person drowns
at the bottom of a pool without being notice by lifeguards. But what makes our
Triton system different from its competitors? Its adaptability and low cost. Triton
does not only operate in swimming pools; it can also operate in wave pools,
lakes, and beaches; all the other products fail to work in those environments
because they are camera-based systems and visibility becomes a real issue for
them. Triton does not require very expensive camera equipment due to the use
1
2
3
For further information please refer to the feasibility documentation, Appendix B, section 2.1.
For further information about customers please refer to section 4 of the Marketing Plan.
For further information about products please refer to section 3 of the Marketing Plan.
18
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
of sensor technology, which reduces Triton’s cost and makes it accessible to
more customers.
Our team strongly believes that Triton is an effective, reliable, low cost
solution that will provide real-time information to help lifeguards better monitor
the safety of patrons. This continuous underwater surveillance will reduce and/or
prevent the likelihood of silent drowning.
3.2. Benefits
Within all the benefits offered by Triton, there is one that stands out
among the others. This benefit is the priceless satisfaction of saving lives, and
our primary concern. Other benefits offered are:








Reduced number of drowning incidents
Reduced insurance costs
Reduced number of law suits
Increased number of patrons due to extra safety measures
Better reputation
Patrons privacy (no cameras)
Easy to install
Low cost
19
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
4. Biographical Sketches
4.1. Senior Personnel
4.1.1. Kate Nguyen – Project Manager/Document Specialist
Kate Nguyen is a senior at Old Dominion University with a dual major in
Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. Some of her interests are web
design, graphics design, web developing, web database, and applied
Mathematics. She worked for NBFSN as an assistant web master and she is
currently working as a Math and Computer Science tutor at Tidewater
Community College. She plans to graduate in summer 2008 and work as a web
database administrator.
4.1.2. Dave Larnerd – Financial Specialist/Risk Specialist
Dave Larnerd is a senior at Old Dominion University majoring in the
Computer Science. Since arriving to ODU, slightly over two years ago, he has
been actively involved with the Military Student Union, Aviation club, and
Hampton Roads NROTC. His interests include: software engineering, computer
networking, and U.S. military history. When he graduates in May 2008, he hopes
to attend naval flight training in Pensacola, FL.
4.1.3. Cesar Barbieri – Marketing Specialist/Document Specialist
Cesar Barbieri is a senior at Old Dominion University pursuing a Bachelor
degree in Computer Science with a minor in Information Systems Technology.
He expects to graduate in May 2008 and his future plan is to pursue a Master
degree in Computer Science and Modeling and Simulation. For the last two years
he has worked at Tidewater Community College as a peer tutor assisting
students in all levels of Math and Spanish, C++, HTML, VB .NET, PHP, Perl,
mySQL, and other computer related courses. Some of his interests are webapplication development and databases.
20
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
4.1.4. Brandon Simpkins – Hardware Specialist/Web Developer
Brandon Simpkins is a senior at Old Dominion University majoring in
Computer Science. He currently has an internship at Northrup Grumman and his
various rotations have given him experience in software development, web
administration, and networking. He is interested in software development with
emphasis on numerical methods. He is expected to graduate in August 2008.
After graduation, he would like to be employed as a SDE at Northrop Grumman.
In his free time, he enjoys casual gaming and spending time with his friends.
4.1.5. Scott Seto – Software Specialist
Scott Seto is a senior at Old Dominion University majoring in Computer
Science. Some of his interests are websites design, Java server pages, and
tennis. Currently, he is working on a 3D modeling project that he is very
interested in. He has started a business of building websites on line.
4.2. Other Personnel – Consultants
4.2.1. Professor Janet Brunelle – General Consultant
Professor Janet Brunelle received her Bachelors of Science degree in
Computer Science from Old Dominion University in 1980 and her MS in
Computer Science from Old Dominion University in 1987.
4.2.2. John Stevens – Rubee Consultant
John Stevens is the CEO of Visible Assets Inc, he offered us assistance
with Rubee sensor technology.
4.2.3. Brandon Fields – Lifeguards Consultant
Brandon Fields is a senior at Old Dominion University with a 5-year
experience being a lifeguard. He assisted us in drowning related algorithm for our
software aspect.
21
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
5. Budget
5.1. Summary Proposal Budget – NSF Form 1030
FOR NSF USE ONLY
5
4
SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET
ORGANIZATION
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Old Dominion University Computer Science Orange Team (TRITON)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
Janet Brunelle
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
List each separately with name and title. (A.7. Show number in brackets)
NSF-Funded
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1.
Funds
Funds
Requested By
Granted by NSF
Proposer
(If Different)
$
$
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. (
) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (5) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
57,600
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (
) OTHER
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
57,600
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
57,600
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1,999
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT
1. STIPENDS
$
22
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (
)
TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
11,600
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I.
69,200
INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
27,680
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
96,880
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$96,880
$
M. COST SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
FOR NSF USE ONLY
DATE
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
NSF Form 1030 (10/99) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.C)
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date of Rate Sheet
Initials-ORG
23
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
5.2. Salaries and Wages
Below are tables outlining expected salaries, wages and consultation fees
for each phase of the Triton project. Expected salaries obtained from Salary.com
and were based on required job titles. For additional information, see the funding
plan located in the appendix.
Phase 1 Staffing Budget
Phase 2 Staffing Budget
Phase 3 Staffing Budget
24
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
5.3 Equipment
The following tables outline expected hardware and equipment expenses
for each phase of the Triton project.
Phase 1 Hardware Budget
Phase 2 Hardware Budget
25
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
Note: Phase 2 hardware estimates are based on a 17,000 square foot wave pool
installation.
Phase 3 Hardware Budget
26
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
6. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
6.1. Facilities
ODU’s conference room on the third floor of E&CS building will be used
for project presentations. Other technical briefs and group meeting can also be
held there.
The room has enough seats to accommodate everyone. The
conference room has two projectors, two laptops, and televisions. This will allow
us to do any technical work that needs to be displayed in the meeting. We can
reserve the conference room for up to a year so that our meetings will be at a
constant time.
The prototype will require Rubee hardware which we hope to have
donated to our team. All other equipment will be provided by ODU Computer
Science Department.
Old Dominion University (ODU) will provide adequate
facilities for the research and development of our project. The computer science
department has three labs for our teams use, the Problem solving lab (PS), the
Open research lab (OR), and a CPI lab which will be used by our team members
for our project. For the success of our project each member of the team will have
24 hours access to these labs. Each machine is Pentium 4 processor with a 19inch LCD monitor. Each machine is provided with 100mbs of Internet connection
and also has all required software for the project (details at the bottom).
6.2. Location
Department Of Computer Science
Engineering & Computational Science Bldg,
4700 Elkhorn Ave, Suite 3300,
Norfolk, VA 23529-0162
6.3. Software
Through the ODU computer science department we have access to a
wide variety of software.
Since this software will be used for educational
purposes, our team will not be required to buy any addition software packages or
27
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
licensees. The software, listed below has all the required functionality for us to
build the project prototype.
Listed is some of the common software, which will be used by your teams
to build the prototype.

Microsoft Visual Basic (Professional Version)

Microsoft Project

Microsoft.Net (Professional Version)

Microsoft Office Suite (Full) and etc (Professional Version)

Necessary software will be also be provided by university as needed.
6.4. Hard Resources
Note: Rubee hardware for prototype expected to be donated by Visible Assets
Inc.
28
Orange Team
December 10, 2007
7. Reference
Drowning News












http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=127013&ran=224592
http://www.lifesaving.com/case_studies/show_article.php?section=case&i
d=25
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/06/27/nb-motherinquest.html#skip300x250
http://wjz.com/local/local_story_201163836.html
http://www.hometowngwinnett.com/news2006/parks_rec/bogan-parkaquatic-center-drowning.shtml
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=1707183
http://www.wkyc.com/news/rss_article.aspx?ref=RSS&storyid=70462
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Girl-nearly-drowns-at-swimmingpool/2007/10/05/1191091356097.html
http://www.aquaticsintl.com/2007/sep/0709_news_drownings.html
http://www.lifesaving.com/case_studies/index.php
http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/14/MNGMKR0LJS1.DTL
http://www.gunzburglaw.com/aquatic-injuries.cfm
Drowning Fact















http://www.courier-journal.com/foryourinfo/061603/061603.html
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4481
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
http://lungdiseases.about.com/od/glossaryofterms/g/hypoxia.htm
http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec06/ch064/ch064b.html
http://lungdiseases.about.com/od/generalinformation1/a/drowning_lungs.h
tml
http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?folder_id=540&content_item_id=
1032
http://www.chp.edu/childhealth/content.aspx?pageid=P03002
http://www.westcov.org/kids/drown.html
http://nic.unlv.edu/pdf/2006%20Clark%20County%20CDR%20Report%20
Final%207.25.07.pdf
http://www.usa.safekids.org/water/documents/PoolSpaDrowning.pdf
http://healthgate.partners.org/browsing/LearningCenter.asp?fileName=997
45.xml&title=
http://www.pediatraldia.cl/ahogo_silencio.htm
http://www.momreadyespanol.com/articles/content.asp?ID=538
29
Orange Team






December 10, 2007
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.js
p?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/near-drowning.jsp
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1123013
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/SAFETY/cdp/default.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2732293184887939518&q=children+drowning+incidents&total=9&start=0
&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
http://www.infantswim.com/your-child/index.html
http://www.waterparksafety.com/water_park_safety/water_park_safety.ht
m
Competitors







http://www.poseidon-tech.com/us/system.html
http://www.swimguardsafety.com/
http://www.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/files/phatfile/Tech_IM_DEWS.pdf
http://www.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/files/phatfile/Infosheet-DEWS_CI.pdf
http://www.meorotnatan.net/
http://www.safetyturtle.com/
http://www.sonarguard.com/
Rubee Sensor Technology








http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=14841
http://mrtmag.com/mag/radio_spotlight_asset_tracking_2/
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3660296
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBee
https://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%
2Farchive%2Fc0609%2F29c09%2F29c09.asp&articleid=33905&guid=&se
archtype=0&WordList=&bJumpTo=True
http://medicalconnectivity.com/2006/09/27.html
http://www.rfidgazette.org/2006/07/vlid_and_rubee_.html
http://www.rfidweblog.com/50226711/singapores_underwater_world_becomes_worlds_fi
rst_rfid_oceanarium.php
30