Transcript Slide 1
MEDEVAC EXTRACTION DEVICE http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~zms22/site Advisor: Dr. Paul Oh Team Members: -Sajeel Shiromani -Zachary Sabato -Jonathan Sente -David Williams Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics Drexel University, Philadelphia PA Outline 1. Objective 2. Design Approach a) Research b) Quality Function Deployment 3. Concepts 4. Final Design & Validation 5. Conclusions & Questions DARPA Vision Problem Definition (What are we trying to do?) • Minimize time between injury and treatment • Keep rescue personnel out of harm’s way • Save lives Objective “Design a mechanism to safely remove the injured from the ground.” Design Approach Quality Function Deployment • Customer-driven product requirements – Who are our customers? – What are their requirements? • Use to derive design constraints Importance Product Specifications Customer Requirements Value Assessment Injury Statistics • 86% of deaths occur 30 minutes after injury • 72% are soft tissue and extremity wounds • Spinal cord trauma accounts for only 7% Soldier performs an underarm drag. Current Methods • EMT • Military • S&R All use an antiquated process that puts more lives at risk. Current Methods Our design focuses on the first step in a typical evacuation flow. (Point of Injury to Aid Station) Hence, replicating the movement of a human litter team is desired. Suitable Pre-existing Vehicular Platforms Kawasaki Mule 3010 Diesel 4x4 All Terrain Mobility Platform (Supacat) American Emergency Vehicles TraumaHawk Land Rover Defender 137 Ambulance AM General HMMWV M997A2 Vehicular Platform Considerations • • • • Nimble, Off Road Ability Small Turning Radius Must be Diesel/JD9 powered (NATO mandate) Must be able to keep up with Task Force (or needs to be small enough for transport). • Inexpensive Platform “Black Box” Footprint Length: 108” Height: 48 to 56” Width: 36 to 45” QFD Chart Device Weight Size Pinch Patient Handling - 4 5 2 - Control 3 - 3 - 4 Platform 5 5 - - 5 Lift Procedure - 2 4 3 - Terrain 1 4 - - - Soldier Dimension - - - - 5 Range: 0-5; 5=most important Weight Materials Capacity Concept One Concept One Concept Two Concept Two Concept Three Concept Three Concept Three Preliminary Design Review • Completed January 2005 • Review conceptual designs for: – Progress – Compatibility with requirements (QFD) – Technical adequacy – Risk resolution Next steps Critical Design Review • March 2005 • Down-select to (2) concepts: – Detail mechanical design • Mechanism simulation • Material testing – Brass board design – Verify with QFD Final Assembly Gripping mechanism Friction Experiment m = 1 kg Fnormal Ffriction = μstatic*N Fapplied mg Friction Experiment Test materials were chosen to represent expected conditions. grass, concrete, wood, asphault, gravel, dirt cotton, windbreaker, BDU, canvas, denim Maximum recorded coefficient of static friction: 1.2 This value is used for mechanism simulation. Finite Element Results qL4 PL3 A 1.5" deflection 8EI 3EI 3 3 b h bh I 11 12 12 = 3.72 Fabrication, Assembly, Integration & Testing • To be completed in May 2005 – Proof of concept prototype Proof of Concept Statement of Work Overview/Milestones 1. Research Define scope & customer requirements - Quality Function Deployment 2. 3. 4. 5. Concept Development Preliminary Design Review (01/05) Critical Design Review (03/05) FAIT Impacts: • Environmental – Manufacturing less harmful than existing products • Societal – Inspires confidence – New paradigm for extraction processes • Control at a distance, effect local change Term Fall Deliverables 1. Patient Threshold 2. Conceptual designs 3. Proposal Winter 1. Mechanical model, simulation results 2. Bill of materials 3. Schematics & fabrication Spring 1. Test results & validation 2. Demonstration (proof of concept) 3. Recommendation for progress Review The problem is real. The current approach is inadequate. We are the right people to create a better way. Questions? A hiatus exists between the inventor who knows what they could invent, if they only knew what was wanted, and the soldiers who know, or ought to know, what they want and would ask for it if they only knew how much science could do for them. -- Winston S. Churchill Thank you! Dr. Paul Oh • Dr. Parag Batavia – Allied Perceptions • Colonel Linda Lawrence, MD – ACEP • Ed Celiano – GM, ACIN • Lt. S. Russell Gochenhour – ARMY • Dr. Wei Sun • Dr. Steve Smith • Binil Starly Appendix: Team Members Team Composition (Zachary Sabato) solid modeling systems integration virtual prototyping Team Composition (Dave Williams) machine design technical drawing prototype fabrication Team Composition (Jonathan Sente) technical communication product validation consumer-driven product planning Team Composition (Sajeel Shiromani) project management process development electromechanical design manufacturing