DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE, AND
MODULAR ROBOTICS
Dianne Goodwin, MEBME
President/Rehab Engineer
Nicholas Lee, BSME
Partner/Design Engineer
Minneapolis, MN
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Design and Development Process

Need: Problem needs solving
Identify the Need
 Involve real people and end users


Design and Development Process
Design Goals and Specifications
 Prototype Development (electronics/mechanical)


Design for Manufacturing (DFM)
Best materials and methods of Manufacture
 Cost of Production (NRE and Piece parts)

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
The 3 areas impact each other
DFM
Design
Needs
and
Usability
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Needs: end users and teams
End user preferences
Ease of use/Accessibility
Product Cost
Compatibility with equipment
Look and feel
Preferences
Manufacturability
Ease of assembly
Manufac. costs (parts, tooling)
Material options
Safety
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Manufacturing
Product
Design
Needs &
Usability
Figure 2. Interdependence of
Development Considerations
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Need: Independent
access and positioning

People with significant disabilities (no UE)


Independent access


reliant on others
devices, electronics, speech, water, controls
AND to move/position things independently
move it where they need it
 when they want it
 easily, safely and efficiently


Across environments—bed, w/c, table
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Review Existing Technology

Static mounts


Daessy, Rehadapt, CJT
Movable with some extremity use
Mount’n Mover
 Daessy SwingAway


Wheelchair-mounted Robotic Arms
Focus on reaching and grasping
 Move by alternate means (ie, joystick, switch)
 Load capacity is <3.5 pounds

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Wheelchair-mounted Robotic Arm

JACO
Holds 1 kg (2.2 pounds )
 Reach 70 cm (27.5 in)
 Speed: 20 cm/s (8 in/s)
 Weight: 5 Kg (6 pounds)
 $38-50,000

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
iArm (formerly Manus)

iArm
Holds 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs)
 Reach 90 cm (35.4 in)
 Speed: 15 cm/s (6 in/s)
 Weight: 9 Kg (20 lbs)
 $34,000-??

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Product concept:
Modular Power Mount
Power mount
 Support and
reposition devices
 NOT grasping and
reaching
 Accessible controls
 Single or Multi-joints
 Simple and functional

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Design goals:
Accessible, Modular, Affordable and Safe
Support up to 15 lbs, extended 15 inches
 Accessible and easy to operate

A wide range of control options
 Memory positions (easy to program)
 Fine adjustments also accessible


Modular (hybrid/system/build your own)
Single Joint—Tilt or Rotation
 Multi-jointed
 Height Adjustment module

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Sometimes Less is More

Single Joint/Actuator

Tilt (Hybrid)

SMART Joint
Rotation
 Lift


Operated by
Single switch
 Two switches
 Joystick (via ECU)

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
SMART joint
Sometimes More is More
Multi-joint Systems

Programmable
Up to 12 Sweet Spots
 Levels (devices,
environments, people)

Individual joint
adjustments
 Many input options


Joystick, switches,
smart devices
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Original concept: one arm length
Big new idea: SMART Joint
SMART Joint = Building block
 Joint + Extrusion opens up options
 Single Joint version to create hybrids

Joint in different orientations
 Horizontal, creates Rotation
 On its side, creates a Tilt


Joint + Extrusions (of different lengths)
= different arm lengths
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Lego-land: so many options…
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
So many details to decide
Implications: Design, Usability, Manufacturing

Length of arm



How many options?
Joint Housing


Joint Cap
 Joint Release
Connections
Inputs
 Wiring harnesses
 Power and data

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Locks w/o power
How it Works
Programming
 Feedback


Worm Gear


Control
Input options
 Display
 Graphics

Dizzy Di and the Wonder Guy
I wonder
how long
the arm
should be?
I wonder
What kind
of people
will use it?
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
How will it
attach to a
wheelchair?
How fast
should it
move?
How will
people
control it?
How
should it
work?
I wonder
what forces
it needs to
withstand?
What material
should we
use?
Usability considerations
User Interfaces, Input and feedback

End Cap
Input jack(s)
 Touch control


Control Pad/Display


Touch, input jacks, wireless
Feedback
Movement
 Visual (joints glow)
 Auditory

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
What it Does and How it’s Done
End Cap and Control/Display
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Development Methods

Mechanical and Electronics vary
3D CAD and Printing
 Simulation Software to demo

Cannot look at things in isolation
 Concurrent focus on:

Technical design and feasibility
 Accessibility and Usability
 Manufacturability


Areas overlap and influence one another
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
End User and their Team
Needs
 End User preferences
 Ease of Use
 Accessibility
 Product Cost
 Compatibility with other equipment
 Look and feel
 Safety

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Questions we’re asking

What will they use this for?  What controls do they
want to use?
 Who might use it?
 How would they access it?  What kind of user
interface makes sense?
 What are they doing now?
 How will the UI operate?
 How do they want it to
 How big can it be?
work?
 How much would they pay?  How long is the “arm”?
 Do they want a Single
 Who (person, voc rehab,
joint, or Multiple joints?
insurance) would pay?
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Product design considerations
Functionality
 Utility
 Ease of Use
 Durability
 Safety
 Aesthetics
 Size and weight
 Compatibility

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN

Tech support
Assembly
 Electronics

Loads
 Impact
 Failure modes
 Environments
 Manufacturability

Simplify

Product


Limit choices
Interface
Easy to use
 Intuitive (relate to familiar products)


Manufacturing
Reduce parts (Unibody and worm carriage)
 Easier to assemble
 Use one part in multiple ways

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
One part, Multi-purpose

Extrusion



Plate



Arms
Battery pack
Mounting Plate
Bottom Plate
Hole pattern



Existing MM parts
Extrusion
Compatibility increases flexibility
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Manufacturing influences Design

Ex: Joint Housing
Idea: from tour of an Investment Cast facility
 Clam shell (2 part) evolved into UniBody
 Part reduction 2>1; no screws needed
 Fewer seams for water


Minimize part count
Combine parts
 Less assembly
 Have each part “do more”

RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Worm’s turn: Investment Casting

Carriage: 6 parts to 1




Multi-functional



No assembly required
Easy assembly of motor/worm
More rigid
Motor attachment
Release feature/gear mesh adjustment
Investment casting



Tooling cost <die cast
0 degree Draft
2nd Ops: Machine for precision
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Joint Release Mechanism
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Iterative Design Process
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Joint Release—Multi-functional

Release for
Safely and easily move the mount
 Without power


Release for


Ease of programming
Perhaps for

Training the arm to follow a path
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Ideal Design Evolution

Key features—design and evaluate for:



DFM
Manufacturing/design



Usability
Manufacturability
Consider alternatives
Cost implications (tooling/parts)
End result



Design
Needs
and
Usability
Affordable product
That meets their needs
People can do what they want—independently!
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN
Questions?

Thank you!
 Your opinions and ideas are Welcome
 Keep in touch
 dianne@blueskydesigns.us
 nick@blueskydesigns.us

http://blueskydesigns.us/projects/powered-mount/
Thank YOU! To NIH/NICHD!!!
Research supported by NIH/NICHHD
SBIR Award Number R44HD072469
RESNA 2014
Indianapolis, IN