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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

experiences for any Ѳ greater than 0. The interior angle between “Fr” and “Fr’” is equal to Ѳ. The resolved rubber band force (Fr’) can then be solved similar to the resolved user input force: Figure 5 illustrates the way that the term “x” is also a function of Ѳ. Figure 6.1.6 – Displacement & Angle FBD Combining these two functions, the resolved rubber band force and the resulting rubber bandinduced torque can be determined: Figure 6 shows the hook drawing with both forces resolved. Figure 6.1.7 –Resolved Forces FBD (9) (10) (11) (12) 26
Since the torques of the both the rubber band (Tr) and the User (Tc) can be determined easily by using Figure 6, the following fraction can be utilized to monitor the user’s capability to open the hook. (Capability Index) By plotting the Capability Index for the hook’s entire range of angular motion, the relative ease which the user will experience while opening the hook (assuming they apply full force for the entire travel of the hook) can be observed. This is shown in Figure 6.1.8. The plot labeled “GOOD” indicates that the user is capable of opening the hook throughout its entire range of motion. The ease of opening, however, diminishes as the springs/rubber bands are stretched increasingly. The plot labeled “BAD” shows that at some intermediate Ѳ, the torque input from the user becomes equivalent to the torque produced by the stretched springs/rubber bands. Since the user’s input force is assumed to be maximum, the user is not capable of opening the hooks beyond this point. UDetermining Minimum Opening Force: Figure 6.1.8 – Capability Index Plots It may also be of interest to find what minimum amount of user force (Fcm) is needed to open the hooks to some angle Ѳ. This can be done easily, using the equations derived from the prior sections. (13) (14) (15) (16) 27
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 and 14: Feature Hosmer Model 7 Work Hook Ot
Page 15 and 16: hook is closed. The harness idea is
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: Figure 6.1.4 - Input Force FBD The
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?