To Predict X To Design X To Perform

ME, ECE Capstone Design Programs

Team#5: Improving Outcomes in Cervical Spine Trauma – Building a Better Cervical Collar
Ayesha Badat, Don Ho, Cade Lonibos, Alack Patel, Annie Rickman, Joshua Showers, Kyle Wilson

Objective Statement Cervical Collar Design Compliance Device Analysis

Design an adjustable cervical collar for adults that 5 7 Chin Microcontroller:
1 FEA: Back Piece and Side Piece:
immobilizes the cervical spine, while also 4 Attachment • TinyLily Mini (ATmega328P)
monitoring compliance. 8 Max:
Adjustable • Operating Voltage: 2.7-5.5V 686 psi
2 • 1KB EEPROM
Background Columns
3 Chest Plate Sensor:
Cervical Collar Purpose: • APDS-9960 Proximity Sensor
¾ Immobilize the neck 4 Side Piece 9
1 • Operating Voltage: 3.3V
¾ Properly heal and fuse the cervical spine for • Operating Range: 4-8in
4 5 Back Piece
postoperative patients 2
6 Pins Battery:
Engineering Specifications 3 Monitoring
10 • CR2032 Coin Cell Battery * Convergence was checked and verified
6
• 3V
Tracheostomy • 13.8mm diameter opening in 7 Device (under Boundary Conditions:
Opening front of the neck padding) 10 Back Piece (pictured center-right):
• Battery life of 6 weeks ¾ Applied Force of 278N normal to the
8 7 surface (red arrows)
without recharging or
replacing between doctor ¾ Hinged fixture applied to the back
Monitor Testing Results piece
visits
Compliance Where: ¾ Safety Factor of 4
• Record and store the time the Criteria Data
collar is worn with 98% • LSU Kinesiology Motor Control Lab Side Piece (pictured left):
accuracy Method: Preliminary data shows that the ¾ Applied force of 75.5N normal to the
• IRB approval (21 subjects tested) prototype limits motion better than surface (blue arrow)
• Flexion/Extension: 20% Immobility
• Subjects were randomly fitted with the the competition in about 80% of Columns (pictured bottom-right):
decrease in ROM compared
prototype collar, Aspen, and Miami-J participants ¾ FMEA determined that the most catastrophic
to Aspen
Immobility • Kinematic data was collected to compare Not obstructive to users, recorded failure would be with the columns.
• Lateral Flexion/Rotation: 25%
decrease in ROM compared degrees of ROM for each collar Compliance time accurately, and displayed data to ¾ Bending and Buckling calculations were performed.
to Aspen monitor
՚With the subjects Budget
• Fits the 5th percentile of informed consent, the Comfort Aspen Vista: -16%, Miami-J: -8%
$70 $39 $65 $115
female head & necks to the prototype collar is being
Adjustability properly fitted for Fit Aspen Vista: +33%, Miami-J: +29% $68 Sensor Battery
95th percentile of male head testing. Three reflective
& necks in the US markers can be seen Available: Microcontroller Testing
which are depicted by
Aesthetics Aspen Vista: -27%, Miami: -36% $5,000 $442 $157
• 15% greater than the average Manufacturing Padding
Comfort, Fit, the grey dots on the
rating for Miami-J and Aspen subjects head. Weight 0.8 lbs. Utilized: $252
Aesthetics Collar Structure Connection
Vista (competitor’s collars) $1,603
Compression $395
Memory
Weight • Less than 3 lbs. Held target load of 50 lbs.
Test-Columns
October: January: May:
February:
September: Kinesiology November: Kinesiology March: April: Present final
December: Continued
Project kickoff and IRB Department meeting Engineering analysis Department training Prototype complete Prototype testing and prototype and publish
Supplies ordered manufacturing and
training and IRB application and design revision and collar and initial testing analysis of results results for further
volunteers recruited
submission manufacturing development

Sponsor: Dr. Abhishek Kumar Advisers: Dr. Hunter Gilbert & Linda Cross
 To Predict X To Design X To Perform

ME, ECE Capstone Design Programs

Team #10: Cool Motorized Scooter for Teenagers Jack
Mason Drouant, Devin Merz, Mon Tapalla, Leah Troskot, Collin Weyenberg, Zachary Zimmer Rettig
Objective Statement Project Architecture & Design Overview Testing & Validation
A student at St. Lillian Academy Riding Position
Geometry
requires mobility assistance. Team #10 1: Front Hub Motor Prototyping
7
aimed to design a “cool motorized 2: Collapsing Bracket
scooter” unlike current mobility aids for 3: Decorative & Grating Controller
Plates Calibration
individuals with physical limitations. 4: Electrical & Battery Box
5: Collapsible & Adjustable
Stowing
Engineering Specifications Seat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Capability
Collapsed Position 6: Rigid Casters Client
Metric Target Achieved 7: Handlebars, Fork, &
Operability
Downtube
Top Speed 5 mph 5 mph
Kill Switch
Total Weight ≤55 lbs 63 lbs Range
Battery Life 2.7 hrs 2 hrs Manufacturing Process Engineering Analysis Brake
Weight Capacity 375 lbs 350 lbs Hub-Motor Power Draw across Varying
Stopping
→ Waterjet: → MIG Weld:
Dimensions 3.5 x 2.5 3.7 x 2.5 700 Inclines Distance
Decorative Plate Downtube Pin & 600
ADA Code
Wheelchair Ramp
(l x w x h) X 3.6 ft X 3.1 ft → Band Saw: Bracket 500 Maximum Achievable
Tipping
Power (Watts)
Ramp Angle
Downtube & → Metal Bending: 400
Stowing Time <30 s 24 s Grating Aluminum 300
ADA Code Power
Wheelchair Ramp Threshold
Power Draw
→ CNC: Bracket Supports 200

100 Rated Power Draw

Safety Components 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Maximum Tested
Budget
Power Draw
Incline (Degrees)

Remote Kill Electrical Safety Frame – 31%

Weld-Joint Validation: Battery – 14%
Switch Box Motor – 19%
• At weld, $2500
Safety Fuse Supplied PPE Electrical Accessories – 8%
ߪ ൑ ͺͲͲͲ psi Wheels – 2%
Lift Handles & Manufacturing – 2%
Self-Cooling Motor
Rolling Transport Remaining Funds – 24%

August September October November December January February March April May
● Research ● Concept ● Material ● Parametric ● Design ● Manufacturing ● Manufacturing ● Manufacturing ● Client Tests ● Distribute to
● Concept Generation Selection Design Completion ● Design ● Design ● Testing ● Prototype Client
Generation ● Material Selection ● Analysis ● 3D Modeling ● Order Parts Amendments Amendments Completion
Sponsor: Elissa McKenzie 2017-2018 Advisor: Dr. Warren Waggenspack, Jr
 To Predict X To Design X To Perform

ME, ECE Capstone Design Programs

Team 24: NASA Human Exploration Rover Challenge
Nicholas Caruso Natalie Cousin Darren Dehesa Kathleen Edwards
Blake Elkins Richard Hensarling Luke Landaiche Hayden O’Neal
Sponsors: Jack Rettig represented by Dr. Dimitris Nikitopoulos

Background CAD Model Versus Actual Prototype Testing Plans

Student competition at NASA in Huntsville, Alabama Vehicle Turn Radius – Rover must be able to turn within the
on April 12-14, 2018. constraint in order to progress through the course
• Design, build, test, and race human powered Vehicle Stability – Steep inclines/rough terrain require rover
rovers on simulated planetary terrain course. to be stable with a well-positioned center of mass
• Win points by completing obstacles and tasks. Vehicle Speed – Find the top vehicle speed and time to get
there to accurately predict course time
Proficiency – Rover needs to allow drivers to complete tasks,
as well as obstacles
Dye Penetrant/Fillet Weld Bend Test – Examine weld fusion
and porosity of welded Aluminum

Budget

Main Component Analysis

Objective Statement
Frame
Design, manufacture, and test a robust human powered Loads Applied:
vehicle using fundamental and advanced engineering • 1500 lb. impact load
practices to complete the NASA competition mission • 375 lb. at upper supports from suspension
objectives, in order to gain points and place first. • Fixed at seat supports

Results:
• Max Stress: 27.7 ksi seat supports
Engineering Specifications • Yield Strength of 6061-T6 Aluminum: 40 ksi

Specification Target Actual

• Factor of Safety: 1.44
Manufacturing
Water jet - Frame bracing, crankset supports,
Maximum Speed ≥10 MPH 3 Wheel wheel spokes
Loads Applied: CNC mill – Wheel hubs, connecting yokes, etc.
Turn Radius ≤ 15 ft 3 CNC lathe – Suspension and frame connections
• 1500 lb. impact between spokes
Vehicle Weight < 170 lbs 2 Wire EDM – Control arm connectors
Results: Manual lathe – Shafts, collars, rear frame
Width ≤ 5 ft. 3 • Since tetrahedrals are unreliable, results connectors
were only used qualitatively
Fender Area ≥ 120 in2 3 • Max Stress: above yield at curve of supports
End mill – Rear wheel hubs, various frame
• Increased the thickness of the spokes at components, boring/drilling
Collapsed TIG and MIG welding – Aluminum and carbon
this location
Dimensions ≤5x5x5 ft3 3 steel
Driver Clearance ≥ 15 in. from grade 3
Concept Generation Concept Selection Engineering Analysis Purchasing Manufacturing/Assembly Testing Competition
Sep 19 – Oct 2 Oct 3 – Oct 18 Oct 19 – Nov 30 Dec 1 – Mar 31 Dec 15 – Apr 1 Apr 1 – Apr 11 April 12-14, 2018 Adviser: Dr. Glenn Sinclair
 To Predict X To Design X To Perform

ME, ECE Capstone Design Programs

Team #30 University Student Design and Applied Solutions Jack
John Burns (ME), Joseph Mundell (ME), William Stewart (ME), Gilberto Zamarron (EE) Rettig
Inspection Methods GoPro Hero 5 Session
Project Scope & Objective
Type Method Function • The challenge for the 2018 USDASC Competition is to develop a system for
Distance Sensor corrosion inspection in difficult-to-access areas.
• High Resolution • Corrosion Sizing
5-Axis • The project objective is to design a remote controlled robotic system to:
Camera • Corrosion Location
Visual Inspection – Inspect Confined Spaces
• Distance Sensor • Corrosion Type Robotic Arm Displacement Sensor
– Identify Corrosion Related Defects
Depth • OD Mini • Thickness and extent – Quantify Corrosion Related Defects
Measurement Displacement Sensor of corrosion damage 200 Lumen LED
Electrical
Engineering Specifications
Housing
Pin Connection
Specification Target Actual
Rocker
Weight ൑ 10 lbs. 10 lbs.

Size < 18 in. Dia. 17 in

Obstacle Climbing Height > 3 in. 5.5 in 3” OD Wheels

Sizing Efficiency ൒ ͺͲΨ 85% per Picture Units in inches

DC Motor Competition Structure: 3/16” thick A36 Carbon Steel.
Location Efficiency ൒ ͺͲΨ 85% per Picture

ଷ ଷ
Corrosion Sizing Accuracy ൑ in in Competition Results Safety
଺ସ ଺ସ

ଷ
LSU Team #30 Placed 2nd Overall in USDASC • Controlled Current and Power Flow from Battery Sources
Corrosion Location Accuracy ൑ ͳ in ଺ସ
in – Implemented Fuses and Mechanical Switches to Prevent Hazards
• Li-Po Battery Sources Stored in Heat Resistant Bags during Charging.
Corrosion Depth Measuring ଷ
• Designed for Nondestructive Inspection of Surfaces
൑ in .00394 in – Robotic Arm utilizes digital inputs for precise controlled movements
Accuracy ଺ସ
– Inspections do not require contact with surface of structure
Cost ൑ $5,000.00 $3,172.92 – Max velocity of 0.22 ft/s reduces impact forces with surroundings
Initial Image Segmented Image Image Region Analyzer

Timeline Expenses
Jan 7- Jan 14- Jan 21- Jan 28-Feb Feb 4- Feb 11- Feb 18- Feb 25- Mar 4- 10 Mar 11- Mar 18- Mar 25- Apr 1- 7 Apr 8- 14 Apr 17- TOTAL EXPENSES
13 20 27 3 10 17 24 Mar 3 27 24 31 18
Mobility,
$3,172.92 $570.69
Machine/print all special Complete
C
Manufacturing parts and begin unit Manufacturing and
O
assembly Assembly Structural,
M Sensors,
Develop control Develop code for Build Test P
Preparation E $1597.94 $421.46
logic/code sensors Structure
T
Testing/ Test system dynamics/obstacle I
Test and Calibrate Sensors Competition Simulation
Analysis clearance T
Electronics,
I
Sensor Locomotive Final major O $582.83
Modifications Fine Tuning
Modifications Modifications modifications N

Sponsors: Jack Rettig, Kim Ray - NACE International Advisers: Dr. Sunggook Park, A.J. McPhate
 To Predict X To Design X To Perform

ME, ECE Capstone Design Programs

Team #33: 2018 Shell Eco-Marathon
Kevin Castrinos ● Brendan Costner ● Ziyad Frangie ● Aminat Momodu ● Mark Loreno ● Nathan Richardson ● Brent
Villavaso

Objective Safety Specifications Driving Strategy

• Compete in, and win, 2018 the Shell-Eco Marathon competition • Electric equipment properly fused
• Design, build, and test ultra-energy efficient vehicle • Internal /external kill switches
• Using the previous year’s body and chassis, perform analysis to design, implement, and test a power train • Exhaust gases directed outside of the
• Develop an energy consumption model to achieve an efficient driving strategy vehicle
• Chain guard for transmission
• Fireproof metal tray for Lithium Iron
Engineering Specifications battery
• Find an efficient speed range
• Accelerate to desired maximum speed
• Shut engine off
• Coast to desired minimum speed
• Start the engine
• Repeat the cycle

Average Speed 15 mph

Horsepower 1.5 hp Matlab Results
Torque 15-18 lb-ft
Transmission Gear Ratio 14:1-18:1
Miles Per Gallon 1,500 mpg

Drivetrain Weight 15 lbs

Engineering Requirements
• Must use body and chassis from 2017 team
• Electronic fuel injection • The plot above shows the distance • Horsepower equation:
• Clutch for idling purposes covered while accelerating and
• Fuel provided by competition, no additives coasting for a flat track
Acceleration distance =
Fengine = Pengine/v Ff = W*mυ*cosΘ
FEA Analysis Deceleration distance =
Fdrag = 0.5*cd*af*v2 Fe =W*sinΘ
v = velocity of car

• Static FEA analysis done on chassis to analyze

the effects of the forces on the car With A2 = Budget: $7,400
• Drivetrain force = 12lbs
• Distributed pressure from driver weight:
P = W/2LD = 3.515 psi
• Max deformation = 0.964 psi

Advisers: Dimitris Nikitopoulos, Shyam Menon, Taylor Robnet, Steven Rogeou Sponsors: Jack Rettig
 To Predict X To Design X To Perform

ME, ECE Capstone Design Programs

Team #44 Single-Handed Steering System for RIB
Austin Aucoin, Brandon Davenport, Johnnie Driver, Marc Fournet, John H. Wilson
Objective Engineering Analysis
To design and construct a single-handed steering and throttle
system with an external shifting device that is ergonomic,
durable, and enables safe operation of a rigid inflatable boat.

Background
The RIB is an 11.5’ AB Inflatable with an aluminum hull and a
Yamaha 15 horsepower tiller handle engine. Two custom made
seats are located in the boat to seat up to 4 people. The RIB is
used to taxi between a sailboat and shore in remote sailing
locations. When stored, the engine is removed and the boat is
hung on the rear or side of the sailboat. Challenges present
include the obvious safety concern of steering and throttling
with on hand, but also creating a space efficient system which is
easy to maintain and remove when the RIB is stored.

Functional Requirements
Steering Throttle Gear Shift
Testing & Validation
Fully Turn RIB Accelerates Boat
Shifts between Forward, Component Tested Result E-Spec
Neutral, and Reverse
Pushing steering arm 10.7 lbf 15 lbf
Incorporated into Accessible from Pulling steering arm 11.3 lbf 15 lbf
Easy to Push & Pull steering arm operator’s seat
Required Throttle Torque 6 lbf-in 13 lbf-in
Push Arm – Turns Left Maintain Speed without Gear-shifting force 14.4 lbf 15 lbf
Pull Arm – Turns Right hand on throttle
Corrosion Testing Pass Pass
Kill Switch Functionality Pass Pass
Engineering Specifications
Full turn radius Pass 45°(Å)/40°(Æ)
Quantitative Qualitative
Full engine tilt Pass 63°
Max tilt = 63° Easy to attach/detach
Easy to attach/detach 5:27 5-8 minutes
Turn radius = 45°(Å)/40°(Æ) Corrosion resistant
Steering = 15 lbf Functioning Kill Switch Budget
Shifting = 15 lbf Easy to maintain
14%
Throttling = 13 lbf-in No hydraulics IN DESIGN
*Tilt & Turn Radius are Yamaha Manufacturing Specifications $416.66
Total: $730.17 MANUFACTURING
Embodiment $26.13
Our unique design, while customized to this specific RIB, provides 25%
Budget: $1000.00 TESTING
57%
an ergonomic system that can be adapted to a variety of boats. It $185.08
combines aspects of a tiller handle engine, stick steer system, and SPARE PARTS
small center consoles, allowing the operator to face forward and 4% $102.31
steer, throttle, and shift the vessel safely and effectively.

September October November December January February March April

• Concept Generation, • Engineering Analysis • Prototype Modeling • Procurement of Raw • Fabrication of Steering • Steering, Throttle, and • Subassembly Testing • System Optimization
Evaluation, & Selection • Material Selection • Manufacturing Plans Materials & Parts Arm & Pulley Mounts Shifting Assembly • Performance Analysis • Final Testing

Sponsor: Craig Robnik Advisor: Dr. Shengmin Guo