Dissertation Report Presentation
-
Upload
james-king -
Category
Documents
-
view
90 -
download
0
Transcript of Dissertation Report Presentation
MODIFICATION OF A GEARBOX GO-KART TO ALLOW FOR FULL HAND CONTROL OPERATIONFinal Year Report PresentationBy: James King
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Project Introduction Physically impaired drivers struggle to continue driving their
vehicle without hampering comfort, ergonomics and safety. In a competitive situation (such as shifter karting), these factors could affect driver competitiveness and safety.
Subjects Drawn Upon 3D CAD Modelling Technical Communications
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project Objectives Research available human motions Determine optimum motion for each control Determine optimum method to actuate controls (How?) Generate and Evaluate concept ideas Generate 3D model of final concept design
SOURCES
Assistive Technology Partners (2011) Adaptive driving for persons with physical limitations
Case, K., Porter, M., Gyi, D., Marshall, R. and Oliver, R. (2001) Virtual fitting trials in ‘design for all’. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. [Online] Vol.117 (s 1–2), pp.255–261.
Dilullo, G., Kocienski, S. and Zopatti, D. (2013) Development of Zero-Leg input manual transmission driving interface A major qualifying project. Bachelor Thesis. [Online]. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Dols, J. F., García, M. and Sotos, J. J. (2014) Procedure for improving the ergonomic design of driving positions adapted for handicapped people. [Online] Vol.12.
SOURCES Federal Aviation Administration, Ahlstrom, V. and Longo, K. (2003)
Human Factors Design Standard (HFDS). Gartner, N., Messer, C. J. and Rathi, A. K. (2001) Revised monograph
on traffic flow theory [Online]. Gyi, D. ., Sims, R. ., Porter, J. ., Marshall, R. and Case, K. (2004)
Representing older and disabled people in virtual user trials: Data collection methods. Applied Ergonomics. [Online] Vol.35 (5), pp.443–451.
Kong, Y.-K., Kim, D.-M., Lee, K.-S. and Jung, M.-C. (2012) Comparison of comfort, discomfort, and continuum ratings of force levels and hand regions during gripping exertions. Applied Ergonomics. [Online] Vol.43 (2), pp.283–289.
Koppa, R., J., McDermott Jr., M., Raab, C. and Sexton, D., J. (1980) HUMAN FACTORS ANALYSIS OF AUTOMOTIVE ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR DISABLED DRIVERS.
SOURCES Lawton, C., Cook, S., May, A., Clemo, K. and Brown, S. (2008) Postural support
strategies of disabled drivers and the effectiveness of postural support aids. Applied Ergonomics. Vol.39 (1), pp.47 – 55.
Li, J., Deng, F., Liu, S. and Hu, H. (2012) Analysis of the influence of clutch pedal to vehicle comfort. Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress. [Online] Vol.5, pp.15–20.
McGinnis, P. M. (2013) Biomechanics of sport and exercise with web resource and Maxtraq 2D software access-3rd edition. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Monacelli, E., Dupin, F., Dumas, C. and Wagstaff, P. (2009) A review of the current situation and some future developments to aid disabled and senior drivers in France. IRBM. [Online] Vol.30, pp.234–239.
Peters, B. (2001) Driving performance and workload assessment of drivers with tetraplegia: An adaptation evaluation framework. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development. [Online] Vol.38 (2), pp.215–224.
SOURCES Reed, M. R., Manary, M. A., Flannagan, C. A. C. and
Schneider, L. W. (2000) Effects of vehicle interior geometry and Anthropometric variables on automobile driving posture. Human Factors. [Online] Vol.42 (4), pp.541–552.
Richter, R. L. and Hyman, W. A. (1974) Driver’s brake reaction times with adaptive controls. Applied Ergonomics. [Online] Vol.5 (4), p.237.
The Motor Sports Association (2015) The MSA Yearbook 2016 [Online]. Staines, Middlesex: The Royal Automobile Club Motor Sports Association Ltd.
Vink, P., Koningsveld, E. A. P. and Molenbroek, J. F. (2006) Positive outcomes of participatory ergonomics in terms of greater comfort and higher productivity. Applied Ergonomics. [Online] Vol.37 (4), pp.537–546.
MAIN FINDINGS Anthropometrics and Ergonomics are
key Drivers often shift position under
braking/ cornering Forces acting on driver due to
cornering and braking Accelerator should not be actuated
using push motion Available forces of different human
motions (Right) Forces required to actuate different
controls systems
PRIMARY RESEARCH
EXISTING DESIGN
Accelerator and Brake Clutch and Gear Change
DESIGN BRIEFHigh End Objective Must allow for driver to actuate all control systems without
removing hands from wheel.Product Design Specification Survive in track environment with max. vibration frequency of
Approximately 10hz Must adhere to MSA (Motor Sport Association) safety and
technical regulations (Section H and Section J) Remove requirement for driver to take hand off steering wheel
DESIGN BRIEF Accelerator – precise, accurate activation
with max. force 25N Brake – precise, accurate activation, safe
with max. force 200N Clutch – only required ONCE, max. force
100N Gear Change – Driver can quickly and
comfortable change gear within 0.1 seconds Installation – Quickly and easily, Clamp
onto steering column Maintenance – Easy to maintain on the
move
DESIGN EXERCISE
ANALYSIS OF MOTIONS AND FORCES
► Analysing data from tables collected from Federal Aviation Authority (2008)
► Determining Optimum Elbow Flexion position (CEM Table)
► Determining optimum actuation motion for each control sub-system:
► Accelerator► Brake► Clutch► Gears
ELBOW FLEXION ANALYSIS
► Concept Evaluation Matrix Table► Looked at:
► Forces Available► Practicality and Comfort► Ergonomics with wheel
► 150 Degrees deemed optimum► Closest to natural driving position (Right)
ACCELERATOR MOTION SELECTION
Maximum Force 25N Requires accurate motion for
actuation All motions capable of force
requirement Pull, Push and Grip better
Ergonomically
BRAKE MOTION SELECTION
Maximum Force 200N Only Pull, Push and Grip motions
get close to force. Pull and Grip motions again
more ergonomic Grip motion selected for use
in final concept design
CLUTCH MOTION SELECTION
Maximum Force 100N Pull, Push and Grip motions best
to actuate Most comfortable and
ergonomic for driver Grip Motion selected for use
GEAR CHANGE SELECTION Current gear change system requires driver to remove hand from
wheel May result in driver instability, affecting drive and safety Ideal system removes this requirementIdeas Proposed
Push Button Flappy Paddle Bicycle Gear Change
Problems Uncertainty around rules, system would need to be verified by
MSA Karting governing body.
CONCEPT GENERATION
CONCEPT 1 – TRIGGER THROTTLE
Uses motorcycle brake system with master cylinder
Modified brake lever for better ergonomics/ comfort
Trigger fly-by-wire throttle located at top of brake lever using RC servo system
Problems Fingers joined by same muscle, no independent
movement (Right)
CONCEPT 2 – 2 PADDLE DESIGN Uses 2 levers to actuate accelerator and brake
sub-systems Same braking system (motorcycle brake), modified
handle Accelerator lever fly-by-wire system using RC
servoProblems 2 paddles require slight hand position adjustment
from one to the other
CONCEPT 3 – THUMB THROTTLE
Fly-by-wire thumb throttle using RC servo Thumb motion works independently from fingers
(Below Right) Allows neater control packaging space Suitable for use in final concept
CONCEPT 4 – BICYCLE BRAKE CLUTCH
Clutch only required ONCE, during get away Use bicycle brake lever to actuate Mount to back of steering wheel Once released, moves out of wayProblems Doesn’t allow for tidy package with other controls
CONCEPT 5 – GRIP LEVER CLUTCH
Motorcycle brake lever system (similar to brake sub-system)
Allows for neater product design package Suitable for use in final design package
FINAL CONCEPT DESIGN MODEL
FINAL DESIGN CONCEPT
Accelerator sub-system – Thumb throttle, fly-by-wire servo system
Brake sub-system – Motorcycle brake lever (modified handle)
Clutch sub-system – Motorcycle brake lever (modified handle)
Gear change sub-system – Electronic push button system (would require verification)
MODEL OF FINAL CONCEPT DESIGN
PROJECT LIMITATIONS
Ambiguity around gear change regulations Design layout due to Internet source model Limitation in references on subject
CONCLUSION Aim was to design an alternative control system for a gear
shift Go-Kart. This was achieved by:
Analysing available forces from human motions Determining which motions are suited for each control Identifying the optimum control actuation method Generate and analyse concepts Create final concept design
FUTURE WORK
Optimising package size Clearer understanding of gear change rules Look into linkages between controls and systems Look into materials and manufacture of parts Build and test prototype in controlled environment
Test for Functionality and Safety
THANK YOU FOR LISTENINGAny Questions?