MEDEVAC EXTRACTION DEVICE

1
(No Transcript)
2
MEDEVAC EXTRACTION DEVICE
http//www.pages.drexel.edu/zms22/site
Advisor Dr. Paul Oh
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics
Drexel University, Philadelphia PA
3
Outline

• Objective
• Design Approach
• Research
• Quality Function Deployment
• Concepts
• Final Design Validation
• Conclusions Questions

4
(No Transcript)
5
DARPA Vision
6
Problem Definition
(What are we trying to do?)

• Minimize time between injury and treatment
• Keep rescue personnel out of harms way
• Save lives

7
Objective
Design a mechanism to safely remove the injured
from the ground.
8
Design Approach
Quality Function Deployment

• Customer-driven product requirements
• Who are our customers?
• What are their requirements?
• Use to derive design constraints

9
Injury Statistics

• 86 of deaths occur 30 minutes after injury
• 72 are soft tissue and extremity wounds
• Spinal cord trauma accounts for only 7

10
Current Methods

• EMT
• Military
• SR

All use an antiquated process that puts more
lives at risk.
11
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.

12
Suitable Pre-existing Vehicular Platforms
Kawasaki Mule 3010 Diesel 4x4
Land Rover Defender 137 Ambulance

• American Emergency Vehicles TraumaHawk

• All Terrain Mobility Platform (Supacat)

AM General HMMWV M997A2
13
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
14
QFD Chart
Device Weight Size Pinch Materials Weight Capacity
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 5most important
15
Concept One
16
Concept One
17
Concept Two
18
Concept Two
19
Concept Three
20
Concept Three
21
Concept Three
22
Preliminary Design Review

• Completed January 2005
• Review conceptual designs for
• Progress
• Compatibility with requirements (QFD)
• Technical adequacy
• Risk resolution

23
Next steps
24
Critical Design Review

• March 2005
• Down-select to (2) concepts
• Detail mechanical design
• Mechanism simulation
• Material testing
• Brass board design
• Verify with QFD

25
Final Assembly
26
Gripping mechanism
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
Friction Experiment
30
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.
31
Finite Element Results
32
Fabrication, Assembly, Integration Testing

• To be completed in May 2005
• Proof of concept prototype

33
Proof of Concept
34
Statement of Work
Overview/Milestones

• Research
• Define scope customer requirements
• - Quality Function Deployment
• Concept Development
• Preliminary Design Review (01/05)
• Critical Design Review (03/05)
• FAIT

35
Impacts

• Environmental
• Manufacturing less harmful than existing products
• Societal
• Inspires confidence
• New paradigm for extraction processes
• Control at a distance, effect local change

36
Term Deliverables
Fall Patient Threshold Conceptual designs Proposal
Winter Mechanical model, simulation results Bill of materials Schematics fabrication
Spring Test results validation Demonstration (proof of concept) Recommendation for progress
37
Review

• The problem is real.
• The current approach is inadequate.
• We are the right people to create a better way.

38
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
39
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

40
AppendixTeam Members
41
Team Composition
(Zachary Sabato)
solid modeling systems integration virtual
prototyping
42
Team Composition
(Dave Williams)
machine design technical drawing prototype
fabrication
43
Team Composition
(Jonathan Sente)
technical communication product
validation consumer-driven product planning
44
Team Composition
(Sajeel Shiromani)
project management process development electromech
anical design manufacturing