Posted on

Team Update for 10/19/2024

General Update

This week, Josh, Alex, and Jubi produced a design report detailing the use-cases, requirements, trade-off-analyses,  implementation details and more.

…More details TBD by 10/19

Design Report

Risks and risk mitigation

One potential risk is identified in the sensor amplifier circuit. Our goal is to amplify the sensor output to enhance our systems force-reading precision by providing a larger voltage range for the sensor output. Failure to obtain fine-grain readings may result in innacurate readings, which may fire alarms unecessarily or fail to fire alarms upon force-threshold excession. To mitigate this, we are working to determine the best amplifier circuit model (gain, phase, etc.) to obtain sufficient sensor output ranges with respect to our power constraints.

overall design changes

Instead of the STM32F4E Nucleo Board, we will be utilizing the ESP-WROOM-32 board as our controller because of its size advantages, built-in peripherals (more ADCs, Bluetooth), and ease-of-use via Arduino ESP32 libraries, as compared to bare-metal development on the STM.

schedule

The schedule remains the same as we are on track.

GANTT Chart

Posted on

Team Update for 10/5/2024

General Update

This week, we each worked more individually on our assigned parts of the project. Josh and Alex met with team StrideSense to discuss several common hardware challenges that we are facing with our projects since we both intend to use sensors and analyze data collected from these sensors. Alex worked mostly on the mobile app in Android Studio, and completed an implementation of the initial startup sequence for the app. Jubahed worked on implementing the SqLite-based database that backs our mobile application. Josh worked on testing the sensors with precise weight measurements, as to validate its functionality for our project. Next steps are to test multiple sensors on a hand. 

Risks and risk mitigation

One potential risk is sensor failure. If the sensors are damaged and lose sensitivity during use, we plan to cross-reference other surrounding sensors to validate sensor readings. We plan to look into other sensors that can be used in this cross-referencing, we are considering temperature sensors, shear-force sensors, pressure sensors, IMU, etc.

overall design changes

We are considering using Dart and Flutter for development of our mobile app over Kotlin and AS. However, if we do not find it significantly easier to develop in Dart/Flutter we intend to stick with AS. Additionally we have made the decision to remove Google OAuth sign in as a feature of our app because it does not fit our intended use case.

schedule

The only changes that have been made to the schedule is added time for mobile app frontend/backend integration. Otherwise the schedule remains the same.
GANTT Chart

Posted on

Alex Nguyen’s Status Report for 10/5/2024

Personal accomplishments
  1. Mobile App Development (7h): Several changes were made to our initial plans regarding the mobile app. We have decided not to include google OAuth sign in because session data will be stored locally on the device and thus there is likely no need for multiple users to be using the same mobile phone. After watching other team’s presentations during the design review, I found that Flutter SDK may also be a viable option for creating a cross-platform version of the mobile app. I am currently experimenting with using the Flutter plugin in addition to Android Studio IDE to create the frontend of the app. This decision may still change since Flutter is written in Dart as opposed to Kotlin. My main accomplishments regarding the mobile app this week was creating the initial landing page of the app which takes you to the first-time startup questionnaire in Android Studio (which may need to be modified when introducing the Flutter plugin).
  2. Meeting with Vansh (0.5h): Met with another capstone team whose projects had some similar challenges and use cases as our project, and discussed how we were dealing with some of these issues. Also learned about Flutter as a possible solution for our mobile app development, and will give it a try before fully committing to Android Studio.
  3. Design Review Slides (2h): Helped the team work on the block diagrams and design review slides for this week’s design presentation.
  4. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4h): Watched design review presentations from other teams and received important feedback on our own project. One question that was raised during our presentation was regarding the usage of our device during dynamic (dyno) moves in climbing (which typically is defined by moves which require a jump off the wall where you lose all points of contact during the move). I did some research and found that dyno moves can typically double the force of the same climber on a similar static move, so that will have to be taken into consideration during our stretch goals. Our current MVP is for the device to take accurate readings during static moves (or hang boarding sessions), since this well have a less likely chance of breaking sensors and also because most climbs consist of mainly static moves rather than dynamic moves.
Progress
  1. Depending on what decision we make regarding Flutter/AS, I will be a little behind on mobile app development if we decide to switch to Flutter. However if we stick with AS, I am on schedule for mobile app development. Me and Judi will make that decision soon so we can move on to integrating the frontend and backend of the app. We are meeting on Sunday to make this decision, so by the end of the week we will be back on track as far as the mobile app goes.
Next week task & goals
  1. Mobile App Development: I plan on meeting several times with Jubi over the next week to begin planning integration of the frontend and SQLite database. We may also start looking at how to integrate bluetooth pairing and communication into the mobile app. I plan on finishing the home page such that I can integrate AnyChart API calls to begin testing of dummy data on the data visualization side of the app.

 

Posted on

Alex Nguyen’s Status Report for 9/28/24

Personal Accomplishments
  1. Piezoresistor Sensor Testing (4.5 hrs): Together with Josh, I helped test our current piezoresistor model (A301) to determine if it was viable for our project goals and use cases. While Josh built the circuit (and testing environment) and set up the STM32 ADC, I calculated the AC and DC gain of the amplifier to assist us in adjusting the values of the supply voltage (Vdd), reference voltage (Vref), and the feedback resistor (Rf) to attain an ideal range of outputs that we can use to accurately track force placed on the piezoresistor sensor.  Currently, we have found that the following values yield the following output range: Vdd = 2V, Vref = -2V,  Rf = 220 kOhm, C1 = 47 pF, Output Range = (approximately) 10mV – 2000mV. Further testing with standardized weights will be conducted to further determine accuracy and initial calibration of the sensor. We have placed an order for the remaining sensors following our test results.
  2. Android App Development (4h): I created a template for our CLIMB mobile app in Android Studio as well as the landing page, however I have not implemented the login page yet. I have not programmed in Kotlin before, so I have spent considerable time learning it over the past several weeks, but I have plenty of experience with similar programming languages and have no reason to believe it will cause any delay in the development of the rest of the app.
  3. Biomechanics Research (3h): I conducted biomechanics research on the physiological relationship between the A2 and A4 pulleys and the respective tendons that they are responsible for.  I determined that the initial placement of our sensors will likely suffice for prevention of pulley injuries. Additionally, I have found that typical A2 pulleys can generally hold up to 380N to 400N of force, so for safety and testing reasons we will likely use approximately 75% of that value (85.4 lbs to 90.0 lbs) as our alarm threshold for the A2 pulley sensor during integration testing. In our piezoresistor testing, we have found that bending of the sensor does not appear to affect the accuracy of the force readings, and as a result this should not impact our intended force sensor placement. Additionally, the A301 sensor data sheet states that the sensor can withstand forces up to 4400 N (1000 lb), so it should be more than able to handle the range of forces we intend to measure with our product. 
  4. Mandatory Lab Meetings (2.5h): Met with the professor and TA and received valuable feedback about our presentation and project implementation. One especially valuable piece of information that I received from the professor was to begin thinking about amplifier circuits as well as bridge circuits while tuning the output of our piezoresistor. After the meeting I researched the Wheatstone Bridge design of a piezoresistor which helped me gain an understanding of how it would fit into our circuit as well as how the piezoresistor worked internally.
Progress
  1. My progress is currently on schedule according to our Gantt chart. I believe learning Kotlin for app development will take some time and will allot additional time as needed for this task in next week’s schedule.
next week tasks & goals
  1. Android App Development: Create sign-in page for the app, ideally with OAuth google account sign-in. Additionally, some time will be spent learning Kotlin and additional features in Android Studio.
  2. Additional Piezoelectric Sensor Testing: Now that we have determined that we will be moving forward with the A301 sensor, we will test the sensor with standardized weights to begin calibration of the sensor and determine corresponding force readings with voltage outputs.
Posted on

Team Status Report for 9/28/24

General update
  1. This week we were able to test the A301-100 sensor and identify that it will be a viable component for our product, further testing is required.  We also have performed research into the biomechanics of our device in regards to sensor placement. We also performed a design review and worked on a presentation desribing our review.
POtential risks and risk management
  1. We plan to use the 316040001 vibration motor as the haptic for our system. In the case where this motor is too aggressive or too subtle, we may need to redesign the alarm of our system. In this case, we will utilize another method of alarm via noise, or search for more suitable motors. Other factors that will influence this potential redesign are motor current and supply voltage, as our system will limited on resources. We will perform a trade-off analysis of our options accordingly to determine the choice.
Overall design changes
  1. Based on the results of our sensor testing this week, no design changes will be necessary. Next week, the haptic sensors will come in and we will determine if they will be suitable for our device.
Initial Schedule

  1. No updates have been made to our schedule, we remain on schedule as of this status report.

CLIMB Gantt chart

Additional Week-specific Items

Part A (Alexander)

Our product is designed with one goal in mind: to ensure the personal safety of climbers. This applies to both the mental and physical well being of the user. Since our product aims to help climbers prevent and rehabilitate from pulley injuries, there are several clear health, safety and welfare considerations that we made. Pulley injuries can be (and often are) incredibly painful, especially when they are severe Grade III or Grade IV ruptures, which are injuries in which the pulley itself is fully disconnected from the tendon. Recovery from these injuries requires surgery and months of rehabilitation and is a significant detriment to the victim’s overall health and wellbeing. Since our product is an injury prevention device, it will be beneficial to the safety of climbers who use it. An additional use case for which it can be used is in the rehabilitation of climbers who have suffered a pulley injury. As they ease back into climbing with partial physical ability, our device aims to be able to set lower thresholds so that the climber can avoid reinjuring themselves, thus ensuring their physical safety and wellbeing as they recover. 

There are also several psychological considerations we made in the course of designing our product. By having a device which will alarm users when they are approaching dangerous force distributions on their fingers, users who are anxious about climbing can have assurance that they will be physically safe. This could be especially important to both new climbers who are anxious about the seemingly dangerous activity of bouldering as well as experienced climbers who have previously experienced pulley injuries and are thus aware and afraid of reinjury and the pain and rehabilitation that goes along with it. Finally, being scared or stressed on the wall can increase the danger associated with climbing, since smart decision making is key in this type of activity, so our device can help users be worried about one less thing while climbing and thus increase the psychological and physical safety of the climber. Overall, our product aims to keep users at peak physical and psychological condition and keep members of the climbing community healthy and safe.

Part B (Joshua)

During rehabilitation or injury-based-suspension, climbers rarely visit the climbing gym, nor do they go on outdoor climbing excursions as often. Unfortunately, this not only results in a pause of one’s favorite hobby and/or career (professional sport climbing ie. Olympic), it also steals away a social outlet. Typically, it is easier for one to meet others over shared interests, this is what makes a social outlet beneficial for making new connections. And when a climber loses this social outlet, they’re either forced to find another, or wait until they can use it again. CLIMB aims to mitigate this scenario. No climber should have to suspend themselves from the climbing gym or their outdoor excursions with friends. By preventing the most common injury in climbers (pulley injuries), our product aims to create a world where climbers don’t have to worry about an accident taking away their main social outlet.

Besides this scenario, our product does not have any other social influence. Our product’s main use-case is for pulley-injury prevention and rehabilitation in rock climbers. The only social implication of a pulley-injury is the indefinite suspension from a favored social outlet. This product does not meet the needs of other social factors because it specifically aims to improve an individual’s safety and welfare, regardless of social standing.

Part C (Jubahed)

There are many ways that this product can make economic impacts via its production, distribution and/or consumption. One main scenario that comes to mind is the financial incentives on the side of a fitness business, more specifically a gym that offers climbing services or a club/society for climbers. Through the widespread use of our product, these businesses can more easily attract new customers, as well as retain existing ones. Firstly, because our device is aimed toward injury mitigation, the potential fear of getting hurt through climbing will lessen, therefore making interested people more likely to make the jump toward purchasing a membership. Secondly, many climbers may consider quitting or significantly reducing their frequency to climb if injured. However, with increased ease of rehabilitation through our product, I can see this injury window being smaller, therefore encouraging climbers to retain their relevant memberships to these gyms.

Other economic benefits through our product are related to the broader society, outside of the fitness / personal wellness industry. Firstly, by simplifying and increasing access to reliable rehabilitation for injured individuals, we could potentially lessen the financial load with respect to healthcare services. So, an injured person can save money by needing less professional rehabilitation. Also, because this product could shorten the rehabilitation process, an injured individual could end up needing less time off from their day-to-day work, potentially increasing their economic productivity and prosperity.

Posted on

Team Status Report for 9/21/24

POtential risks and risk management

  1. A301 sensor failure / incompatibility: Due to our planned application of this sensor, it may be exposed to conditions too harsh, which may result in either partial or total failure. In this case, we will re-evaluate the positioning of the sensor to reduce the amount of sheer force applied to the sensor, mitigating potential damage. Our plan for verifying the sensor’s reliability is to measure readings in a controlled environment where it is applied to extreme physical scenarios.

    FLX-Datasheet-A301-RevI

  2. Op-amp incompatibility with sensor: We found several op amp models in ECE labs however their specifications were not exactly the same as those listed in the A301 documentation. To mitigate any adverse effects this could cause while testing the sensor, we have ordered the exact op amp model specified in the documentation to use in testing, and ideally in the final product if everything works as expected.

Overall design changes

  1. Since we are currently in the stage of testing each of our initial design choices, we will make design changes based on the results of our testing this week (no major changes have been made).

Initial Schedule

  1. We have created an initial schedule which breaks down all the tasks we intend to complete on our way to finishing our project. No updates have been made to our schedule, we remain on schedule as of this status report.

CLIMB Gantt chart – 4/21

Posted on

Joshua Ramos’ Status Report for 9/21/24

Personal Accomplishments
  1. Sensor research and ordering (5hr): I looked into viable solutions to our sensors problem: how can we efficiently and effectively measure force being exerted at multiple pulley joints on a finger? I found the FlexiForce A301-100 Sensor that can measure up to 100 lbs of force. I researched videos to identify if this sensor would be sustainable for our use-case, since it will be bent in many different angles. I also called the FlexiForce help-line to speak with a representative, for which I asked if the sensors would be a reliable solution for our product. I also scoured the campus ECE labs for operational amplifiers and other electrical components that we will need for our system. Lastly, I ordered the sensor and the recommended electrical components necessary to test and calibrate it.
  2. Proposal Presentation (4hr): I spent time researching existing solutions to our problem, modelling the requirements, formulating the challenges, and diagraming the implementation/testing plans. I also spent time practicing the presentation to prepare for delivering it this past Monday.
  3. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4h): During our lab meetings, we recieved great feedback. We were able to discuss our product’s intended purpose, describe its functionality and mechanics, and review our implementation approach. It was very rewarding.
Progress
  1. My progress is on schedule, except for initial testings which is a little behind due to ordering delays.
Next Week tasks & goals
  1. Build testing environment (stm32 + breadboard) for the A301-100 sensor, and verify its reliability and functionality for our product.
Posted on

Alex Nguyen’s Status Report for 9/21/24

Personal Accomplishments
  1. Device Design and Mobile App UI Mockups (5h): I drew design mockups (shown below) for each component of our project, the wearable device itself and the mobile app that will receive and analyze force readings from the wearable. I designed each mockup based on conversations that me and my team held regarding our vision for the features and use cases of the device.
  2. Wearable Device Prototype (5h): I created a prototype (shown below) for the wearable device part of CLIMB based on the wearable device mockup created earlier in the week. This prototype is constructed of cardstock and masking tape, and should be durable enough to conduct basic testing with A301 sensors and our microcontroller before creating the final product. The prototype can also help our team make the necessary revisions to ensure that the final wearable design accomplishes our goals regarding comfort and usability of the user. 
  3. Mandatory Lab Meetings (4h): We received valuable feedback from TAs and professors regarding our project ideas, and afterward I further researched several interesting points brought forth during the meetings (e.g. potential for IMU integration). During last week’s lab meetings, I listened to other group’s proposal presentations and provided feedback.
  4. Proposal Presentation (3h): Worked with Jubahed to break down our project into task groups and subtasks and create a Gantt chart to both plan and track our progress over the course of the semester.
Progress
  1. My progress is currently on schedule. I added biomechanics research to the schedule/Gantt chart for my personal tasks so that I can finalize the sensor placements in our design.
Next Week tasks & goals
  1. Mobile App Frontend: I intend to begin programming the page architecture/model of our web app based on the intended features and UI mockup (no functionality yet).
  2. Qualitative Testing of Wearable: I will be conducting some ease-of-use testing of the wearable device prototype with climbers and collecting feedback on any improvements that can be made for the next revision.
  3. Biomechanics Research: I also intend to finish researching the ideal placement of sensors for pulley ligament injury detection and finalize our sensor placement in our design.