3D Imaging Software Brad Boldizar, Aubrey McKelvey, and Mackenzie Thomas Advised by: Dr. Paul King Matt Moore Aubrey Sole Supports makes custom orthotic insoles for shoes.

Flow Chart of the Sole Supports Current Manufacturing Process 1. Sole Supports sends foam blocks to participating doctors 2. Doctor sees patient in office 3. Doctor imprints patient’s foot into foam Shipping 4. Doctor sends imprinted foam blocks back to Sole Supports 5. Sole Supports checks for shipping damage Shipping Aubrey

Flow Chart of the Sole Supports Current Manufacturing Process 4. Doctor sends imprinted foam blocks back to Sole Supports 5. Sole Supports checks for shipping damage Shipping 6a. If foam is undamaged, Sole Supports makes the actual insole 6b. If foam is damaged, Sole Supports sends more foam to the doctor for re-imprinting 6c. Doctor calls patient back into office for re-imprinting Aubrey Shipping

Flow Chart of the Sole Supports Current Manufacturing Process 6a. If foam is undamaged, Sole Supports makes the actual insole 6b. If foam is damaged, Sole Supports sends more foam to the doctor for re-imprinting 6c. Doctor calls patient back into office for re-imprinting Shipping Aubrey Problem #1 6d. Doctor sends imprinted foam blocks back to Sole Supports Shipping

Flow Chart of the Sole Supports Current Manufacturing Process 6a. If foam is undamaged, Sole Supports makes the actual insole 6d. Doctor sends imprinted foam blocks back to Sole Supports Shipping 7. Sole Supports sends the insoles to the doctor’s office 8a. Doctors fit the patient with the new custom insoles Aubrey Problem #2 Shipping 8b. Sole Supports keeps plaster molds of patient’s feet for 6 months or more

Cost Analysis on Store Room www.gearbits.com Current manufacture space: 10,000 sq ft Estimated gained space: 10,000 sq ft Estimated profit per sq ft: $400 Double profit Mackenzie

Possible Solutions Advantages: Solution #1 Disadvantages Solves problem of foam blocks crumbling during shipping. Frees up storage space. Removes step in manufacturing process at Sole Supports. Disadvantages Doctors may still need to recast patients’ feet if improperly done the first time. Potentially expensive with time. Air bubbles in plaster could ruin impression. Solution #1 Supply doctor’s offices with plaster to pour into the foam blocks, let dry, and cure with UV light to polymerize. Build/buy one image-capturing machine for Sole Supports to digitize excess impression storage. Mackenzie

Possible Solutions Solution #2 Advantages: Disadvantages Supply doctor’s offices with scanner/camera apparatus so they can email image to Sole Supports. Advantages: Solves problem of foam blocks crumbling during shipping. Sole Supports can check for improper casting almost immediately. Over time, frees up storage space. Disadvantages Large upfront cost. Mackenzie Add/change advantages and disadvantages as necessary.

Our project flowchart scanner x x y z … LabView VI y or RHINO z .txt file x y z … x scanned or photographed foot impression (.bmp) or LabView VI y RHINO program (Sole Supports) z two-camera Aubrey 3D Milling Machine (Sole Supports)

Accuracy Needed According to preliminary testing of RHINO software with the 3D milling machine at Sole Supports, it has been determined that the system works well with an error of 2mm or less. With this in mind, we considered the scanner method’s potential accuracy. Assuming an arch depth of no more than 3 in, 3 in * 2.54 cm/in = max error or 0.2 cm error # of pixels According to this, we need at least 40 different pixel intensities, each one corresponding to 0.2 cm depths. Since grayscale ranges from 0255 and our preliminary tests showed many values within this range, it won’t be the 40 different pixel intensities that might give us trouble, but rather the 2mm resolution in the z direction. Aubrey

Past Work Created foam ramp to scan into computer. Imported into LabView VI to set up testing of scanner method. (Will test very soon.) Discussed two-camera method vs. scanner method with Dr. King. Began research on the two-camera method. Brad Add/change these as needed.

Current Work Test foam ramp image with LabView VI to determine if pixel gradient is accurate enough (within 2mm error). Meet with Matt Moore, Sole Supports advisor. Continue researching two-camera method, brainstorming what we would need to do to make this method work. Who wants it? Add/change things as needed.

Future Work Decide on image-capturing device Scanner or two cameras? Create image-capturing apparatus. Implement our program in conjunction with RHINO to make real foot molds (test it) Who wants it? Add/change things as needed.

Timeline This week: Continue researching two-camera method and finish testing scanner method, definitely decide on which solution best suits our needs. Visit Sole Supports to discuss/test progress with our advisor. February 17: Begin necessary calculations/plans/construction of image-capturing apparatus. February 17-March 5: Continue to work out kinks in LabView program/de-bug. Continue apparatus construction. March 5: Begin testing all components of process together. April 5: Begin work on final paper and presentation. Brad