Prosthetic Arm Force Reducer Team 1 – Halliday's ... - Ohio University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Introduction to Numerical Math and Matlab ... - Ohio University$

The i-LIMB Hand has taken years to develop and the overall level of detail is out of our scope. The myoelectric power and five independent motors are a little too advanced for this project, and the battery power it utilizes is something that we may not want to incorporate into our final design. The TRS Adult Grip Prehensor is very durable, so we may be able to incorporate its strength and simplicity of design components into our final design. The RSL Steeper MultiControl Plus is not sturdy enough for an agricultural environment, yet does have a convenient feature which is a quick closing time and automated power system. The MAGNUM Parallel Grippers utilize a veritable design with a great strength to weight ratio that could be used to aid us in final concept selection, but it would require an electrical power source in order to operate. The Vector Prehensors are very useful because the gripper force is adjustable. This is good for the farmers to use high grip force when using heavy duty jobs then lower the force for tasks that require less force. The two prosthetic forearms presented in this section (as seen in Table 4.1.2) represent the two major types of prosthetic arms. The Utah Arm 3 is a typical electric powered microprocessor prosthetic arm, and the Custom Prosthetic Services Body-Powered Upper Extremity Prosthetic is the typical body-powered prosthetic arm. Due to its robustness, years of testing and field experience, and simplicity the body powered prosthetic might be the ideal path for our customer’s needs. The benchmarking has illuminated some strong points and weak points of products that are currently available. We will use some of the strengths and improve some of the weaknesses seen in the above products to make our design work with our need statement, customer input, and requirements. Durability, grip strength, and ease of use will be strong differentiators of our final design as compared to the benchmarked products. 4.2 Applicable Patents The following are patents that may apply to the particular focus of our project: 1. Loveless, J. H., "Prosthetic Load-Lift Hook Locking Mechanism," U. S. Patent 4,074,367, February 21, 1978. • Describes an electronically controlled pawl and ratchet system that would increase the grip strength and lifting capacity of a prosthetic arm. A ratchet wheel in the elbow of the arm is driven by a motor and pulley system located in the upper portion/shoulder of the arm. This system is used to clamp the gripping portion of the arm, located in the position of the hand. A nice system, however, it is fairly complicated and requires that the entire arm be prosthetic. There would be no use for this system in the case of an amputation at the elbow. 2. Cooper, C. M., "Harness for Control of Upper Extremity Prosthesis," U. S. Patent 3,188,655, June 15, 1965. • Describes a harness that can be attached to a hook at the end of a prosthetic arm. By raising their opposite arm the user of this harness can open the hook at the end of their prosthetic arm. When the arm is lowered to the normal position the prosthetic 14
hook is closed. The harness idea is one worth consideration but used in the manner shown here it is doubtful that the gripping force needed in our application could be achieved. A modification of this system could definitely be used in a future design. 3. Threewit, D. M., "Terminal Connection for Control Cables," U. S. Patent 2,493,841, January 10, 1950. • Describes a means for attaching and operating a cable in order to open and close a hook attached at the end of a prosthetic arm. A modification of this patent could be used in conjunction with the above harness. 4. Radocy, R. and Dick, E., "Prosthetic Terminal Device," U. S. Patent 4,225,983, October 7, 1980. • Describes a claw that is to imitate the gripping action of the thumb and forefinger. The device is closed through the use of an attached cable and is spring-loaded to return to the open position. The device utilizes two manual locking devices and three gripping surfaces to provide a variety of closed positions that allow for the grasping of objects of different sizes. 5. Landsberger, S. L., "Artificial Hand For Grasping an Object," U. S. Patent 7,087,092, August 8, 2006. • Describes an alternative gripping device that utilizes two “fingers” which are connected to a “thumb.” This device resembles the human hand except in uses three “fingers” instead of five. 6. Farquharson, R. H. and Still, D. P., "Attachment for Artificial Arm Prosthetic Device," U. S. Patent 5,464,444, November 7, 1995. • Describes a terminal device comprises of a first main part in operable and pivotal combination with a second main part, the combined main parts providing on one end a device for attaching to the end of an arm prosthesis, and on the other a device for attaching a variety of implements, the said device for implement attachment providing articulation capabilities that allow positioning of the implements in a variety of positions relative to the position of the arm prosthesis. 7. Zajac, T. S., “Device for Gripping Workpieces,” U.S. Patent 4,591,199, May 27, 1986. • Describes a device for which fluid pressure is applied to opposite pistons connected to a gripping jaw hence moving the jaws open and closed. A rod extending along the axis of the two cylinders which is interconnected to the pistons is the means for synchronous movement. The interconnection affects rotation of the rod in opposite directions upon movement of the pistons with a bearing assembly located between the two fluid cylinders supporting the rod for rotation. The MAGNUM Parallel Grippers (Fig. 4.1.7) utilize this patent. 4.3 Applicable Standards There are Quality Standards set for suppliers of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS). The organization recommends that the supplier of a custom fabricated, custom fitted, custom-made prosthetic device be trained in a wide variety of treatment 15
Page 1 and 2: Prosthetic Arm Force Reducer Team 1
Page 3 and 4: 1.0 Introduction Limb loss generall
Page 5 and 6: 2.1 Weighting of Customer Needs Wei
Page 7 and 8: which could limit the use of rubber
Page 9 and 10: design of the two load hook allows
Page 11 and 12: Fig. 4.1.6 - Utah Arm 3 MAGNUM Para
Page 13: Feature Hosmer Model 7 Work Hook Ot
Page 17 and 18: purchase it. Safety is another exte
Page 19 and 20: Figure 5.1.2 - Solid Edge Model of
Page 21 and 22: 5.1.4 Concept D - Upgraded Springs
Page 23 and 24: 6.0 Concept Selection 6.1 Data and
Page 25 and 26: Figure 6.1.4 - Input Force FBD The
Page 27 and 28: Since the torques of the both the r
Page 29 and 30: Once the design of the system was u
Page 31 and 32: 7.0.3 Professional/Ethical Standard
Page 33 and 34: Table 7.0.2 - Risk Priority Number
Page 35 and 36: The actual FEA testing involved uti
Page 37 and 38: Another sector that has aided in ou
Page 39 and 40: Figure 7.0.10 Cable Path for Mechan
Page 41 and 42: 7.2.1 Rings (Part #’s THH-001 [El
Page 43 and 44: 7.2.4 Collars 1) Using lathe turn o
Page 45 and 46: 7.3 Cost Analysis & Bill of Materia
Page 47 and 48: manufacturing costs are $525.00. Th
Page 49 and 50: operation necessary. This convertib
Page 51 and 52: Appendix A - Split Hook Sample Calc
Page 53 and 54: George Platounaris - Interview (12:
Page 55 and 56: Appendix C - Tim Lang’s Forearm D
Page 57 and 58: Health Progress, “Disables Enteri
Page 59: Drawing Package 1. THH‐001……

Prosthetic Arm Force Reducer Team 1 – Halliday's ... - Ohio University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?