1. Heather Beam Thomas Bean Megan Chapman Steven Geiger Kimberly Keating

2.  Confirm Customer Needs and Engineering Specifications  Review System Decomposition  Review Concepts  Introduce preliminary calculations and assumptions  Cross-disciplinary review to generate further ideas  Receive approval from customer to select and purchase a stander

3.  Work Breakdown Structure (1 min)  Project Background (1 min)  Customer Needs (3 min)  Engineering Specs (3 min)  Needs vs Specs (2 min)  Functional Decomposition (5 min)  Concept Generation (5 min)  Concept Screening Matrices (30 min)  Speed and Tipping Forces (10 min)  System Architecture (13 min)  Risk Assessment (5 min)  Project Schedule(2 min)  Questions (10 min)

4.  Megan Chapman-Project Leader ◦ Construct schedule, monitor budget, distribute workload ◦ Assist Heather with Mechanical Engineer work  Heather Beam-Lead Mechanical Engineer ◦ Design motorized wheel system, mounting mechanisms, raise/lower system  Steven Geiger-Lead Controls Engineer ◦ Design user interface, control system, and Trainer Mode  Kimberly Keating-Systems Engineer ◦ Develop safety tests, help with budget, conduct safety tests  Thomas Bean-Controls Engineer ◦ Design sensor integration, assist Steve with control system programming, design Trainer Mode

5.  Mobilize a Pediatric Stander to increase independence and mobility for user ◦ Add ≤ 20 lbs. ◦ Incorporate Training Mode ◦ SAFETY ◦ Versatile Controls  Risks ◦ Components will not be compatible ◦ Device will not be stable/safe ◦ Sensors will interfere with each other

12. Accept User Input Field Goal Head Array Joystick Push Button Switch Touch Screen (iPad) Tongue Switch Accept Trainer Override Bluetooth Wire Connection Wifi Move User Safely Motorized Wheels Treads Detect Hazard Contact Switch Infrared Sensor Laser Rangefinder Thermal Imaging Sensor Ultrasonic Sensor Adjust Height Hydraulic Adjustable Pneumatic Adjustable Power Adjustable Stander Rifton Dynamic Stander Snug Seat Gecko Standing Frame Sung Seat Rabbit Mobile Stander

20.  We wanted to find a happy medium between a stopping distance and a stopping time.  Luckily, we figured out that even at a speed of 6 mph stopping in 250 mm, we were safe from an acceleration perspective.  According to the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, sneezing subjects the body to approx. 2.5g's, or 22.5 m/s^2, noticeably more than our top speed/shortest distance calculation.

21.  The spreadsheets on the following slides show the stopping times that would be associated with speeds from 3-5mph at certain distances.  These values do not account for user reaction time as well as hardware reaction times. These times would have to be added to the values calculated. ◦ Human reaction time is approximately 250ms. However, because of the nature of our user, our time will be larger than that. ◦ Hardware reaction time should be under 100ms, but this is highly dependent on the hardware we end up choosing.

26.  There are two options for speed control ◦ Our first option is potentiometers leading to the motors ◦ Our second option is to set software limits to govern speed.

27. A physics analysis was completed to evaluate the tipping force. We assumed that the force was impacting one corner at the top and the center of gravity was on the bottom in the middle of the stander. Stander Center Of Gravity Force