1 / 18

P11011: Motion-Tracking System Final Design Review

P11011: Motion-Tracking System Final Design Review. Brittany Bochette Lindsey Clark Mike Ostertag Maya Ramaswamy Andrei Stihi. Project Background. Motion-tracking system that measures knee flexion and head-tilt Continuation of past senior design groups P10010 Sensors

harris
Download Presentation

P11011: Motion-Tracking System Final Design Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. P11011: Motion-Tracking SystemFinal Design Review Brittany Bochette Lindsey Clark Mike Ostertag Maya Ramaswamy Andrei Stihi

  2. Project Background • Motion-tracking system that measures knee flexion and head-tilt • Continuation of past senior design groups • P10010 Sensors • P10011 Attachment Methods • Customers are Nazareth Physical Therapy Clinic and Rochester General Hospital

  3. Key Customer Needs • Measurement • +/- 80 degrees of tilt and +/- 100 degrees of rotation • Accuracy • 5-10 degrees error • Reproducibility • 5-10 degrees • Speed of Attachment and Removal • 2 minutes, 5 seconds

  4. Concept Overview USB FTDI 3.3V Breakout Board Brass screws Attachment Snaps Razor 9DOF IMU Protective enclosure Foam stabilizer

  5. System Architecture

  6. System Architecture Base Unit Knee Flexion USB Head-Tilt Options Quit

  7. Attachment Methods Head attachment and enclosure Leg attachments with enclosures

  8. Enclosures • Brass screws and nuts were used, along with rubber washers for interference free operation • Foam padding was used on the backside to stabilize it when used with various attachment methods through the use of snaps Internals:

  9. Determining Knee Flexion • Sensor is placed on the side of the leg with gravity being felt in the X and Y components of the accelerometer • The orientation of the sensor relative to gravity was calculated with Equation 1. • The amount of flexion is the difference between the two angles as seen in Equation 2. Eq. 1 Eq. 2 Y Z X Ag

  10. Determining Head Orientation • Head has complex motion due to three-axes of rotation • Breaking down motion to three individual axes (seen above) simplifies the process of determining orientation Anterocollis Retrocollis Laterocollis Torticollis

  11. Determining Head Orientation • Antero/retrocollis (pitch) and laterocollis (roll) were determined using a three-axis accelerometer • Angles were determined by comparing the components of acceleration caused by gravity (Ag) • Eq. 3 • Eq. 4 Z X Y Ag

  12. Determining Head Orientation • Torticollis (yaw) was determined using the three-axis magnetometer and the following procedure: • The magnetometer readings were corrected for tilt based upon the pitch and roll found previously. • A current magnetic heading was found with the following equation: • The difference between the initial and current magnetic heading is the amount that the head has rotated. Eq. 5 Eq. 6

  13. Testing • 30˚ rotation in the pitch, roll, and yaw directions • Changes in degree during four knee flexion cycles

  14. Results

  15. Current State of Design • Design is functional • Meets all engineering specifications except • Measurement of shift –discussed this with the customer and it is an option for future designs • Budget requirements - $1000 allowed, $735.76 spent • After changing scope, we used the more expensive Razor IMU for both systems • This caused a slight budget overrun for the knee device • On schedule with exception of rescheduled D3 meetings

  16. Risk Assessment • Contacting our customers and scheduling meetings with them proved to be one of the most relevant risks. • The device not meeting customer needs was also something that was a possible risk up until week nine. • Not being able to communicate with the base unit was another risk we had to address

  17. Project Evaluation • Project was originally scoped too large • The intent of the project became clearer after a re-scoping at the end of MSD I • Base unit and sensor sub-systems should be one group • With a similar project, a prototype should be the first step rather than a fully functioning system

  18. Recommendations • Being able to measure shift of the head would be something desired by Dr. Barbano in the future. • Dr. Barbano also voiced a need to have something on the device that helped him to level the device on the patient so that human error was reduced or even eliminated. • Dr. Mowder suggested using Dysom or some other rubber-like material to prevent the strap on the calf from slipping

More Related