P 17011 Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom Phase 3 A

P 17011 Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom Phase 3 A | Preliminary Detailed Design Review Industrial Designers | Veronica Santoso, Nina Zheng Engineering | Evan Bartlett, Ben Marus, Tyler Roneker, Tom Skudlarek

AGENDA 10. 13. 16 1. Background 2. Concept Selection 3. Lifting Concept 4. Feasibility analysis 5. 6. 7. 8. Proof-of-concept Risk Assessment Test Plan Future Plans 2

PROBLEM STATEMENT Background Design an affordable solution that makes public accessible bathrooms truly accessible for a variety of wheelchair users. Ideally design a product that can be implemented immediately without modifying the current design of a standard ADA accessible restroom. Look into longer or more extensive solutions that make the accessible stalls more usable for wheelchair users. 3

DEFINING THE USER Background Wheelchair user who travels independently Uses a public toilet Does not use a catheter Very limited or no control of body from waist down Has need for underside access Limited trunk support 4

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE Background: System Level Proposal 5

CONCEPT VERIFICATION CRITERIA Concept Selection Floor Mounted Seat Mounted 6

TOILET CONSIDERATION Concept Selection No universal ADA toilet Must be ADA Compliant Designed to be easier to use Minimum 17”-19” from ground Preferably undercut bowl Flush Control Maximum height is 44” from mounting surface American Standard Afwall 1. 6 gpf Toilet American Standard Madera 1. 28 gpf Toilet 7

CONCEPT VERIFICATION CRITERIA Concept Selection: Standard Operating Conditions For the purposes of this demonstration, the bowl was modeled as 6061 AL. The toilet was then simulated in a structural analysis tool under the conditions of a 500 [lb] person sitting on top. 8

CONCEPT VERIFICATION CRITERIA Concept Selection: Standard Operating Conditions Under these conditions, we see four points of stress concentration and a Von Mises Stress of 0. 07782 [ksi] on the 6061 AL Toilet 9

CONCEPT VERIFICATION CRITERIA Concept Selection: Seat Mounted Concept Conditions With the cantilevered set up, using the same toilet bowl and a worse case of 500 [lb] point loading on the end of the arm. 10

CONCEPT VERIFICATION CRITERIA Concept Selection: Seat Mounted Concept Conditions Under these conditions, we see stress concentrations at the mounting locations and a Von Mises Stress of 0. 9369 [ksi] on the 6061 AL Toilet 11

CONCEPT VERIFICATION CRITERIA Seat Mounted Concept Conditions Standard Set Up Near Limit of Design Cantilevered Set Up with 12 x greater stresses 12

TACKLING THE PROBLEM Concept Selection Back Arms Control 13

ARM CONCEPTS Concept Selection Variety of forms With or without cushion What is comfortable 14

BACK CONCEPTS Concept Selection Considering size and curve that is most comfortable veronica 15

PROFILE CONCEPTS Concept Selection Bulky v. s Slim Mounted on toilet Mounted on floor 16

INTERFACE CONCEPTS Concept Selection 17

PRELIMINARY CAD Concept Selection High level of complexity Resolving issues of Location of interface Position of user Brings up more questions Challenge in finding proper aesthetic 18

REFINING THE CONCEPT Concept Selection Finessing joints based on need No pinch points Better integrating interface Curve of back plate 19

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept: User Input Targeting user familiarity, The user interface is designed to resemble a wheel chair wheel. 20

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept: User Input According to the ADA, the average wheel chair wheel diameter is 26”. With the average human walking speed of 3. 1 mph, that equates to 40. 07 rpm on the wheelchair wheels. 21

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept: User Input A trained cyclist can produce about 400 watts of mechanical power for an hour or more, but adults of good average fitness average between 50 and 150 watts for an hour of vigorous exercise. Assumption: The user is outputting 50 [W]~0. 067051 [hp] 22

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept: User Input F Therefore the user input force to maintain an average walking pace in a wheelchair is 8. 11 [lbf] r 23

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept Rack and Pinion Lifter Concept Input Torque=8. 7886 lbf*ft 2 x Racks Support Load of User Plus Weight of Toilet Seat L Racks=12 in Pinion Diameter=4 in

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept: Preliminary FBDs w 15 in P w=35. 33 lbf/in P 25

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept: Preliminary FBDs W=35. 33 lbf/in*15 in= 530 lbf w 15 in w=35. 33 lbf/in P P 26

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept P=265 lbf Assuming Rack 4140 Steel E=27557 ksi 1 in 0. 089 in

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept VW Golf Ratcheting Seat Adjustment Mechanism

ROUGH FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS Lifting Concept 16 “Inputs” Per Revolution 16 Pushes/Pulls to lift/lower the user the full 12 in

Critical Components Feasibility Analysis ● Lifting mechanism (not pictured) ● Joint between seat and lifting mechanism (not fully defined) ● Armrest and hinge ● Backrest ● Portable Handle (not pictured) 30

Theoretical Analysis - Lifting Mechanism Feasibility Analysis Options: 1. Use scavenged mechanism (or two) for prototype Already have one (no extra work) Don’t know materials, so theoretical analysis is impossible 2. Design new mechanism Large design project added to current work Know exact limits of design 31

Theoretical Analysis - Armrest Feasibility Analysis The most likely worst case scenario is a load of 500 lb (the heaviest possible user trying to support all of his/her weight) on the very end of a 10 inch armrest. With these conditions, the hinge must withstand moment of 417 lb-ft 32

Theoretical Analysis - Backrest Feasibility Analysis Assuming leg spasm force of 150 lb, the material of the backrest frame must be able to withstand a stress of 31. 2 ksi. Raising the thickness from 0. 25” to 0. 5” will lower that requirement to 3. 9 ksi, which is more manageable. 33

Portable Handle Existing Devices: 34

Portable Handle Feasibility Analysis Concept 1 Concept 2 35

Ergonomics Proof-of-Concept Safety Is the user safe when using this product? Does the user feel safe? Does the user feel comfortable? Ease of Use Does the user know understand how to use the product? Is it intuitive? Comfort 36

COLORS & MATERIALS Proof-of-Concept Colors: whites clean, hygienic Interior: made of metal for strength Steel or aluminum Exterior: medical grade plastic easy to sterilize, more comfortable 37

FMEA Risk Assessment Failure Mode Effects Analysis 38

ID TESTING CRITERIA/METHOD Risk Assessment Physical Testing Determining comfort with full size mock up Ease of use Having user sit to test ergonomics Reach points Points of contact Appearance Testing Is it intimidating or confusing? 39

PRELIMINARY TESTING PLAN Test Plan ● Anterior/Posterior Support ○ Maximum Load and Moment ○ Verify adjustability ● Lateral arm rest ○ Maximum Load and Moment ● Adjustable Seat Unit ○ Cyclic Testing ○ Maximum Load and Moment ● User Testing ○ Identify contact points when transferring using normal toilet and our device ○ Identify overall hygiene of these points ○ Compare work on muscles on the user when using both toilets ○ Completion of survey comparing device to original toilet seat 40

DDR VISION AND GOALS Project Plan Personal Team Member Goals for Next Phase: Mechanical Engineers (Tom and Evan): ● Complete Design of Product Structure ● Design test rig. Industrial Designers (Nina and Veronica) ● Refine Final Design Concept ● Creating scale model ● More physical models ● More in-depth ergonomic analysis Project Manager (Ben): ● Thorough agendas for meetings ● Meeting with professor to discuss portable handle feasiblity Biomedical Engineer (Tyler): Complete user testing preparation Submit approval for user testing 41

PLANS FOR NEXT PHASE Project Plan Project plan created for next phase (see next two slides) Detailed description of meeting deliverables and talking points created for all remaining meetings. Need to discuss and evaluate where we are and what is feasible to achieve for our Detailed Design Review. 42

43

44

Thank you! P 17011 | Wheelchair Accessible Bathroom Questions? 45

feedback Seat that tipped up Professors having trouble with the validity of our solution We need to reiterate our solution and researh at the beginning of the preso Didnt come out of customer requirements Bolts Position standard to flor? Leaning on floor Add the feet Proof of concept before final solution 46

Comments After Presentation Side- bar ing the portable clamps - Instead of doing the hand clamps making the handle part of the bowl itself. - Feasiblity of the handle clamps the toilet bowl will probably break - Integrating the portable handle into the seat system. - Using rubber to cause the load to disperse axially may work to reduce the stress on the bowl and prevent it from breaking. OVerall design - The rack and pinoin can fit in the supporting legs of the unit - However we need something like feet that can prevent us from sliding backwards and forwards. - Making the leg a zig-zag from the seat to the bowl similar to other cantilevered seats. How many cranks to the top 47