g14 Final Report - April 2

Design of a Multi-Purpose
Chair Lift
Design of a Multi-Purpose
Chair Lift
Report 2 Final Design
Prepared For:
Dr. Luc Rolland & Dr. Hinchey
Prepared By:
Brad Dalrymple
Brent Paradis
Justin Noseworthy
Trevor McNeil
Date: April 2nd, 2015
Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift
Final Report
http://solwe.weebly.com/
ABSTRACT
The following document has been compiled for Mechanical Design Project II and contains a
detailed overview of the entire project involving the design and building of a height adjustable
column for a patient transfer unit which helps people with reduced mobility in and out of bed.
This report focuses specifically on the adjustable components of the chair including the
propulsion method, the type of operation, material selection, joint type and mounting method.
Structural analysis and final design was completed before construction. Further finite element
analysis was performed to ensure structure met strength goals and an experimental setup was
prepared to physically test the assembled components.
Final Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Management ............................................................................................................. 2
2.0 DEFINITION OF DESIGN PROBLEM .................................................................................. 3
2.1 Design Overview .................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 6
3.1 Alternative 1: Pneumatic Lifting cylinder, Centered Telescopic Joint ................................. 6
3.2 Alternative 2: Hydraulic Lift, Double Telescopic Joint........................................................ 6
3.3 Alternative 3: Power screw, Centered Telescopic Joint ....................................................... 7
4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................ 8
4.1 Economic .............................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Environmental ....................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Safety .................................................................................................................................... 9
5.0 DETAILED DESIGN DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 10
5.1 Calculations......................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.1 Cylinder Sizing ............................................................................................................ 10
5.1.2 Free Body Diagrams .................................................................................................... 11
5.1.3 Deflection ..................................................................................................................... 12
5.2 Hydraulic Cylinder.............................................................................................................. 12
5.2.1 Piston............................................................................................................................ 13
5.2.2 Barrel............................................................................................................................ 13
ii
Final Report
5.2.3 Purchased Cylinder ...................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Hydraulic Pump .................................................................................................................. 14
5.4 Telescopic Joint .................................................................................................................. 14
6.0 ECONOMICS ......................................................................................................................... 16
7.0 FURTHER ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 18
7.1 Finite Element Analysis ...................................................................................................... 18
7.2 Experimental Testing .......................................................................................................... 19
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 20
9.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 21
10.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A DRAWING PACKAGE .................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX B CYLINDER CALCULATIONS ....................................................................... 35
APPENDIX C STRENGTH CALCULATIONS....................................................................... 40
iii
Final Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Many hospital patients, due to one reason or another, are
unable to get in and out of bed on their own. This reality
proves to be taxing on nurses who must help patients to
get in and out of bed on a daily basis. There are currently
alternate lifts that can help get patients in and out of bed
but these prove to be very costly, not easily assessable,
and can usually only operate in one room. This problem
could easily be solved through the use of an affordable
mechanical chair lift that can be moved from room to
room whenever it may be needed.
SOLWE & Co, along with the aid and supervision of Dr.
Michael Hinchey, are designing a modification to an
Figure 1 - Patient Transfer Unit
existing patient transfer unit, created by Dr. Hinchey, to accommodate different sized hospital
beds and all patients. The lift will be height adjustable, depending on the desired needs. Its main
concept starts as a chair a patient can sit in. The chair can then be adjusted mechanically into a
bed, which will allow the patient to roll off the lift onto the bed with ease.
1.1 Project Overview

There is currently a void in the patient transfer market for a simple and strictly mechanical lift to
assist with getting patients in and out of bed. This project is to modify an existing prototype from
a double column design with a fixed height to a single adjustable member, which will
accommodate an assortment of beds, with an assumed maximum patient weight of 500lbs. For
this project to be successful it must meet structural and ergonomic requirements. The lift needs to
be able to operate smoothly with up to a 500lb person, show minimal signs of deflection (less
than 1mm), and show evidence of a high cycle life while fitting the most hospital beds. A
telescopic joint is used to provide the required adjustability which posed a risk of binding. To
negate this risk, the joint uses a hydraulic system capable of providing a vertical lifting force
while box beam configuration takes the bending forces. In the testing phase of the new prototype
Final Report
it will undergo cyclic testing to ensure the design is cable of withstanding the design
requirements before being exposed to a real world test. For the product to be received well
within the medical industry the lift will have to function well while keeping an ergonomic
design. In the design ergonomics was taken into consideration for both the patient and operator.
The transfer unit as outlined by its predecessor includes wheels at the base for easy
maneuverability, and minimal use of welds will create a product able to be disassembled for
compact transportation. To meet required deadlines, crucial and precise communications with
Memorial Universitys Technical Services Engineering Division are required to ensure the
prototype is delivered for the testing phase.
1.2 Project Management

The projects execution required Brad Dalrymple, the project manager, to organize, delegate, and
communicate the requirements for the project. This provided the guidance required to allow the
remaining team members to have equal contributions to the project and ensure milestones and
tasks were completed on the preset deadlines. The tasks have been broken into allotted hours,
which would result in equal contributions to the project and allows each member to be involved
in the entire process.
Final Report
2.0 DEFINITION OF DESIGN PROBLEM

Dr. Hinchey had constructed a previously designed patent transfer unit, but it had a fixed height
that created an issue when testing. Due to the fixed height, the lift was unable to accommodate
healthcare facility beds, rendering the prototype less universal than intended. The project was
brought to Dr. Hinchey by an inventor who had noticed the need for patient transfer unit
operated outside of the sling configuration, yet still inexpensive. The requirement for the project
is to modify a previously designed patient lift from a fixed height unit to an adjustable unit. The
project would require CAD drawings of the assembly and finite element analysis to be performed
on the lift to determine structural limitations and capabilities.
The purpose of the transfer unit is to assist healthcare professionals with transferring patients in
and out of beds. These patients have mobility issues which render them unable to perform the
task themselves, leaving the task of providing assistance to a healthcare provider. It can be very
difficult for nurses and other healthcare providers to help some patients because a patients
weight can range well beyond the physical capability of these healthcare attendants. There has
been a huge ergonomic push over the past decade with all industries trying to reduce injuries
caused by repetitive movement or over exertion. The U.S department of Human resources has
issued safety guides to educate healthcare personnel who operate assisting devices. Highlighted
in these safety guides are many cautions about not exerting oneself in awkward positions.
A popular type of patient transfer units currently in healthcare industry are sling based devices.
The sling based systems are available with a multitude of operating mechanisms and can be
stationary or portable configurations. The configurations employ such mechanisms to operate
using complex electrical/hydraulic systems or pulley systems. The operations of these lifts vary,
but they all use a sling as the method of transportation. These slings leave patients relatively
helpless and can be seen as degrading as they are suspended in the air and have little to no
control. In the same guide that highlighted health risks to the operators of the lift, the U.S
department of human resources also brings forward concerns with the lift itself. Sufficient
training is required for choosing the appropriate sized slings and the type as it can worsen a
patients condition if an improper sling is used.
Most portable configurations use wheels, some with driving motors to assist with moving
Final Report
patients. Stationary lifts can be floor or ceiling mounted and is a non-practical solution for large
healthcare facilities.
A second type of patient transfer lift is much like the one being designed for this project.
However, a major difference is the mechanism in which the lift operates the top section to alter
the patients laying/seated position. The lifts that are currently on the market use electrical
actuators to adjust the patients position, and consist of sophisticated electronics which increase
the overall cost of the unit.
2.1 Design Overview

The design creates a vertically adjustable patient lift,
capable of fitting different bed heights. From the previous
prototype, which used a fixed double support creating a
lift which was not adjustable, SOLWE & Co was tasked to
modify the previous prototype into an adjustable unit. The
adjustability of the lift allows for a generic design which
can be mass produced for consumers and be compatible
with most beds.
To create a successful design, the propulsion, joint type,
mounting, operation, material, and material shape all need
to be taken into consideration. In order to modify the
patient transfer unit for varying height an adjustable
connection between the top and bottom sections was
required. Propulsion is defined in this project as a means
of providing a vertical displacement for the lifts bed,
allowing it to be height adjustable. Joint types are how the
mechanism will operate to translate the propulsion force
into vertical displacement for the lift. Mounting is how the
joint and propulsion systems will be attached to the
chassis and seat of the lift. Operation is the input that will
be required from the lifts operator to provide the lift with
Figure 2 - Exploded Design
Final Report
vertical displacement.
To achieve the adjustability required a telescopic box beam is utilized. This telescopic box beam
provides structural support while a hydraulic cylinder located in the centre provides the lifting
force. The joint consists of two box beams which slide inside one another. The hydraulic system
is built from off-the-shelf parts configured into a design suitable for this application. The
telescopic joint is to be attached to the patient lifts chassis and seat that are to be provided by Dr.
Hinchey using a bolted connection.
Operators apply hydraulic pressure using a foot pump which feeds the cylinder to propel the lift
upwards. The use of the hydraulic cylinder provides smooth operation and requires minimal
force from the operator. To lower the lift, a release pedal is equipped to the unit.
Final Report
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Even though the eventually selected design was a hydraulic/telescopic joint, a number of other
design alternatives were also considered.
3.1 Alternative 1: Pneumatic Lifting cylinder, Centered Telescopic Joint

This design is based on a single beam centered in the back of the chair lift. It would be developed
such that the force due to the weight of the patient and chair will be taken by the telescoping
beam while the pneumatic cylinder, which is located inside the beam, will provide the lifting
force.
Pros:
Simple design and calculations
Limited chance of binding
Continuously variable height
Cons:
Significant forces on a single beam
No support in the event of a failure
Pneumatic force not strong enough
Figure 3 - Alternative 1
3.2 Alternative 2: Hydraulic Lift, Double Telescopic Joint

The second concept is similar to the first in theory except for the fact that it has two telescopic
beams supporting the load and a hydraulic jack between them to raise it. This will potentially
provide extra stability while the patient is sitting or lying in the chair.
Pros:
Stability when loaded
Reduced twisting moments
Cons:
Increased weight
More likely to bind during

extension/retraction
Final Report
3.3 Alternative 3: Power screw, Centered Telescopic Joint

The final alternative considered was a single telescopic column, much like the first, with a large
power screw in the center. A hand crank near the top of the column will be used to rotate the
screw, causing the attached beam, and therefore the seat of the chair, to rise. Power screws, or
lead screws, are also used to transfer a rotational force into linear motion. This method is entirely
dependent on the pitch of the screw. For instance, the more threads per inch that are present, the
smoother the travel will be. However, by decreasing the pitch to add smoothness the efficiency
of the screw will also decrease because it will require more rotations to lift the chair the same
distance.
Pros:
Simple and cost effective
Sturdy due to the load capacity of the

screw
Cons:
High input to output power ratio
Large friction forces when the chair is

occupied
Difficult to implement the desired foot pedal operation
Final Report
4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRAINTS

4.1 Economic
Team SOLWE & CO originally planned to have a cylinder and pump constructed by Technical
Services. However, after designing the cylinder and the pump and talking to Technical Services
it was quickly evident this would not be possible. The faculty assigned a $250 budget to
complete the project and considering the tolerances and precision of these parts it would cost
thousands for tech services to manufacture them correctly.
After team SOLWE & CO came to this conclusion the next step was to go to Princess Auto and
purchase the necessary parts that fit into the requirements found in the design calculations. The
pump, cylinder, hose and fittings were all purchased from Princess Auto for $225, which fit into
the budget.
Due to the small budget left over ($25), Dr. Hinchey decided to cover the cost of labor and parts
for the rest of the fabrication with the construction budget he had allotted to the rest of the chair.
4.2 Environmental
Environmental impacts of the patient transfer unit are based primarily on the materials that are
used to construct it. The materials considered to construct the rising portion of the chair lift are;
stainless steel, low-carbon steel, aluminum, wood and an engineered plastic.
To evaluate these materials with regards to the chair, the materials were rated based on the
following characteristics:
Impact to the Environment
Cost
Weight
Strength
Machinability
Plastics were set as the baseline when evaluating the materials. However, because plastics are not
as recyclable and would require forms for manufacturing, they were ruled out as a viable
material. All other materials were ranked higher than plastics in term of environmental impact
for recycling/repurposing properties. Weight and machinability were ranked of greater
Final Report
importance than strength because strength would be an easier obstacle to overcome than weight
and machinability as further support can be added if necessary. This allowed for weight
reduction and ease of manufacture. Aluminum emerged as the optimal material, which is also the
most environmentally friendly.
Even though aluminum is the third most abundant resource on the planet, it will not last forever.
There is 130 million tons of aluminum extracted globally on an annual basis which leads
researchers to believe that this extraction rate will last for only 400 more years until there is none
left to mine. (Leigh, 2010) To not contribute to this number, the production of these patient
transfer units will be manufactured with 100% recycled aluminum.
The hydraulic pump that will lift and lower the patient transfer unit will use water as the working
fluid instead of oil, which is typically used in industrial applications. This is due in part to the
fact that hospital health and safety codes are very strict when it comes to the well being of their
patients. If one of the patient transfer units were to malfunction and begin leaking, it will be
much easier to contain a puddle of water than oil. The other reason that water is going to be used
as the hydraulic fluid instead of oil is that oil is not environmentally friendly. Once the oil is used
up, it must be brought to a waste disposal facility where it can be broken down. It is quite
expensive to dispose of oil at these facilities, and they also have a very negative affect on the
environment that surrounds them. This is not something that SOLWE & CO wants to be
associated with.
4.3 Safety
Safety is the number one concern for this project
All components are designed with safety in mind and can support over 500lbs
Final Report
5.0 DETAILED DESIGN DESCRIPTION

5.1 Calculations
5.1.1 Cylinder Sizing
All values can be found in tables in Appendix B
Piston calculations:
Where A is area in in2, F is force in lbf and P is pressure in psi.

Barrel Failure Calculations:
Where h is hoop stress in psi, a is axial stress in psi, P is pressure in psi, r is the radius in inches
and t is wall thickness in psi.
These stress equations are evaluated using both the Tresca and Von Mises failure methods. The
Tresca Method states that the maximum stress must simply be less than the yield stress of the
material to avoid failure. The Von Mises method is slightly more complex, as it requires the
principal stresses to be calculated first. In this situation, the principal stresses are calculated using
the following formulas:
with the radial stress represented as r, which in this calculation is zero. Once these stresses are
found, they are inserted into the failure criterion as seen below.
where is the Von Mises stress, Sy is the material yield strength and is a safety factor. Ideally,
this safety factor will be between 4 and 6, though a higher value is acceptable for healthcare
situations.
10
Final Report
5.1.2 Free Body Diagrams
Static Forces:
Fx = 0
F1 = F2
Fy = 0
F1 = F2
Shear Stress:
=VQ/It
Qmaz = A
Ix = Iy = LxW^3 / 12
Bending Stress:
= -Mxy/Ix + Myx/Iy
Figure 6- Bending Stress
11
Final Report
5.1.3 Deflection
TOP = L/2 * L * M/EIB + x/2 * x * M/EIs
Figure 7 - Deflection
Figure 8 - Bending Diagram
5.2 Hydraulic Cylinder

The vertical movement for the patient lift is
provided by an off-the-shelf hydraulic power
ram, purchased from a local distributor. This
cylinder is capable of lifting up to ten tons and
withstanding nearly 9,000psi, though it will not
be required to exert nearly this much force
Figure 9 - Hydraulic Cylinder, Hand Pump, and Fittings
during normal use.

A typical hydraulic cylinder consists primarily of a piston, barrel, rod, head, and back. The
chosen cylinder can be seen in Figure 9. If well designed, a hydraulic cylinder can transfer large
amounts of force with a relatively low input force by increasing the pressure between the back of
the cylinder and the piston. This is done by forcing a hydraulic fluid, such as oil or water, into
the barrel causing the piston and rod to move in the desired direction.
The chosen cylinder, seen in Figure 9, stands at
13 tall and can provide up to six inches of
travel. This cylinder differs slightly from the
orginal design because the manufacturer has
consolidated both the rod and the piston into
one component, seen in Figure 10 and Figure
11, increasing both the axial force and bending
Figure 10 - Rod and Piston
12
Figure 11 - Cross Section
Final Report
moments that the cylinder can withstand before failure.
The downside of this configuration is the extra material, and therefore weight, that is required.
This is not an issue for SOLWE & COs patient transfer unit because the cylinder represents only
a small percentage of the total mass.
The majority of the design considerations for a hydraulic cylinder revolve around the barrel and
piston, so for the sake of brevity, these are the two that will be discussed.
5.2.1 Piston
The size of the piston is governed by the amount of force that the cylinder is required to lift as
well as the pressure range that it will be operating in. By applying a simple force equation, F=PA
where F is the force in pounds, P is the pressure in pounds per square inch, and A is the area of
the piston in square inches, the necessary diameter of the piston can be determined.
5.2.2 Barrel
The barrel experiences forces in two directions; axial and radial. As a result, there are several
types of stresses that need to be considered to ensure that the barrel does not fail. The two main
stresses are the radial stress, or hoop stress, and the axial stress that acts along the vertical axis of
the cylinder. Using the diameter of the piston as an interior diameter, comparing these stresses
using a failure method (Tresca, Von Mises, etc.) will allow for the sizing of the thickness of the
barrel itself so that it does not buckle or burst due to the load it is lifting.
5.2.3 Purchased Cylinder
Table 1 - 10 Ton Hydraulic Porta-Power Ram

Specification
The cylinder above in Figure 9 was purchased at

Princess Auto for $89.99. The cylinder is designed to
be used with hydraulic porta-power pumps to exert up
to a 10 ton pushing force for bending and lifting.
Specs of the purchased cylinder can be seen on the
right.
From the specs provided by the manufacturer of the purchased cylinder, SOLWE & Co was able
to perform a detailed analysis using the equations mentioned above to prove that this cylinder
would in fact be able to support the loads that were required during use. From these calculations,
which can be found in Appendix B, it was determined that the hydraulic power ram was in fact
13
Final Report
sufficient for this application with a working safety factor of 39. This was 6-10 times higher than
the safety factor that was originally expected, but this is not an issue because one can never bee
too safe when working in the healthcare industry. It is also important to note that this safety
factor is for a force that is applied axially, which is the case for this cylinder, but if either of the
telescopic beams were to fail and a moment was seen by the piston, this number will decrease.
5.3 Hydraulic Pump

Hydraulic fluid (water) is provided to the propulsion
Table 2 - 4 Ton Hydraulic Porta-Power Hand

Pump Specification
cylinder through a 4 Ton Hydraulic Porta-Power Hand

Pump. This hand-pump will be later modified into a
foot pump. The pump has a 20in3 fluid capacity so
there is no need for an external reservoir to achieve the
desired 6in lift. The chosen pump can also be seen in
Figure 9 and its specs are listed to the right.
It should be noted the cylinder can take 10 tons while the pump can only take 4. This is a safety
measure to ensure that if something should fail, it will be the pump before the hydraulic cylinder,
ensuring the patient on the chair will not drop suddenly.
5.4 Telescopic Joint

Telescopic joints consist of an inner and outer
barrel. The two components are sized to allow
the inner barrel to slide inside the outer barrel
and use 4 inch and 5 inch box beams
respectively, each with a wall thickness of
0.25. Between the two box beams, slider plates
made of self-lubricating Ultra High Molecular
Weight Polyethylene which causes low friction
to allow minimally restricted motion without
Figure 12 - Outer Beam
Figure 13 - Inner Beam
the use of extra oil.

Telescopic joints are widely used for their ability to change length while maintaining a small
14
Final Report
overall footprint. The major drawbacks associated with telescopic joints are that they require
tight machining tolerances and lubrication between the barrels. Using slider plates negates the
requirement for lubrications; however, tolerances still had to be taken into consideration to make
a stable lift. Inside the telescopic joint, the hydraulic cylinder that provides the vertical lifting
force is housed. The machined parts manufactured by tech services can be seen below.
Figure 14 - Pushing Plate
15
Figure 15 - Inner Beam
Final Report
6.0 ECONOMICS
The economics for SOLWE & CO are centred mainly around purchases at Princess Auto. The
three main purchases were the hydraulic cylinder, the hand pump, and the fittings. All other
materials and labor through Tech Services were provided by Dr. Hinchey to go along with the
construction of the rest of the chair. A budget of $250 was supplied by the faculty and a
breakdown of how that budget was used is listed below. In the end there was a balance of $24.03
left.
Table 3 - Balance Sheet
Current patient lifts are virtually immobile, very bulky and expensive. Despite the fact that the
patient lift being modified is intended to be implemented in health care facilities, it can also be
used in private homes. Many patients who require these lifts in their own home generally cannot
accommodate the physical and financial requirements mentioned above. For the patients who can
afford lift and have the physical space for it are still generally retired and on a fixed income,
which still creates a burden. Because many of the patient lifts on the market are well over $1000,
this can prove to be a large financial burden on these people, especially if they should ever need
to replace them. An example of a typical patient lift rated for 600lbs is about $5000.
The patient transfer unit lift that SOLWE & CO has designed is rated for a similar weight and
will cost less than $500 to produce. If this chair was to be mass-produced at a production facility
that cost could be lowered even further. This would make the cost to purchase one of these chairs
16
Final Report
less than $1000, allowing many more people to be able to own one of these chairs at home and
resulting in more money in the pockets of the people who need these chairs the most.
Currently, Canada spends over $30 Billion on disability programs annually. (Stapleton, Tweddle,
& Gibson, 2013) This Patient Transfer Unit could lower that number substantially, essentially
putting money back into the Canadian economy. There are currently about 5385 healthcare
centres in Canada.(Grey House Publishing Canada, 2013-2014) If an average hospital needs
between 2 and 10 patient lifts, which is an extremely conservative estimation, approximately
32,310 units would be required nationwide at all times. Considering it can cost nearly $5000 for
patient lifts that are currently on the market and a replacement life of 10 years, the Canadian
government has spent about $16,065,000 for those lifts annually. With SOLWE & COs design,
that cost could be lowered by a factor as high as 10 to approximately $1,606,500. That is a
difference of $14,458,500. Even though that is a big number, and is still a significant cost
savings, it barely makes a dent on the $30 Billion spent on disability programs (0.0482%).
(Stapleton, Tweddle, & Gibson, 2013) Therefore, it is the home lifts that will make the largest
difference for consumers.
Since many of the people in need of this chair lift are wheelchair users, it is beneficial to look at
wheelchair statistics. In developed countries it is estimated that 1% of the population is in a
wheelchair. (Wheelchair) For Canada, with a population of 35 Million people,(Canadian
Broadcast Corporation) about 350,000 people use wheel chairs. Because a number of these
people are children or have aid they do not require the patient lift. Assuming 50% of these people
will need the lift, which gives 175,000 people who will potentially use the patient transfer unit.
Using the same analysis as for the hospitals, if every person was to buy a lift at $5000 it would
cost them a total of $875 million while the patient transfer unit designed by SOLWE & CO,
costing $500 each, would incur a total cost of only $87.5 Million. This leads to a savings of
$787.5 Million, which, when combined with the hospital savings, creates a total savings of
nearly $800 Million. Comparing that number with the $30 Billion annual national disability
spending, SOLWE & COs chair lift could potentially save the government 2.7%. Considering
that is a percentage of billions of dollars, this is a significant cost savings.
17
Final Report
7.0 FURTHER ANALYSIS

7.1 Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a method used primarily by engineers to create a complex
mathematical model to theoretically analyze the physical behaviors of an object. These behaviors
include, but are not limited to, deflection, stress concentrations, forces between connected
components and sliding forces.
Having completed basic calculations by hand, it was expected that the overall deflection of the
column would have a maximum value of approximately 1/32 at the top of the structure. This
was comfortably below the limit of 1mm, or 1.5/32, that was set by SOLWE & Co. After the
theoretical analysis was completed, SolidWorks FEA software was used to confirm the hand
calculations and obtain a more accurate estimate of the deformations that will be experienced
during realistic operation of the patient transfer unit. The results of these simulations, using
applied patient loads of 500, 1000, and 1500 pounds, can be seen in the figures and tables below.
Figure 16 - 500lbs
Figure 17 - 1000lbs
Figure 18 - 1500lbs
Once all was said and done, the FEA produced a total deformation of 0.3 mm at the top of the
telescopic joint with a 500lb load applied roughly 0.5m from the centre of the mechanical
column, which will be the worst case scenario during realistic use of the chair. The force was
then increased using increments of 500lbs until the maximum deflection reached the limit of
18
Final Report
1mm at 1500lbs.
7.2 Experimental Testing

After confirming the theoretical calculations using FEA, SOLWE & Co created an experimental
setup for physically testing the telescopic joint. Though simple, this setup will be used to prove
the concepts outlined in this report.
To begin, the outer tube is to be welded to a flat base plate, seen in the attached drawing
package. This plate is then secured to a structural member, such as an I-beam, by using clamps or
bolts, depending on what is available. After assembling the rest of the components (cylinder,
pump, beams, etc.) a 500lb load is to be applied to the top of the assembly. The pump will then
actuate the cylinder, raising it by six inches and then lowering it again to rest. This test will
ensure that the assembly can be raised easily without experiencing binding.
Once this first test has passed, the load will be moved to a distance of 0.5m from the axis of the
assembly. This will simulate the weight of a patient sitting on the fully assembled chair. Like
before, the cylinder will then be fully extended and the displacement will be measured at the top.
Theoretically, this value should match the ones produced by the FEA simulations. After this test
is completed it can be repeated with more weight, similar to how the FEA was run with
increasing loads. The amount of weight that is applied will depend on what is available at the
testing facility, but should not exceed 1500lbs.
SOLWE & Co was not able to physically test the final assembly due to work delays in Technical
Services. However, this must be completed before the full chair is assembled.
19
Final Report
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the importance of safety for the chair further experimental testing would be
recommended. The FEA analysis of the structure provides a good estimation but still cannot take
into account machining defects which would make the chair less structural sound. Before testing
the prototype on real patients more structural testing is required.
Due to the restriction in the budget ($250) team SOLWE & CO were limited on what could go
into the chair. A better representation of what could actually go into the hospital could be
implemented if there were an increased budget. Within this increased budget, SOLWE & CO
could add a lever for the release valve on the pump for easier operation for the nurses, and could
improve the chairs ergonomics and aesthetic appeal with custom made parts specifically
designed for the chair. The increased budget could also go into further research and development
of the chair which could optimize its design to lower manufacturing costs.
If the chair was to be manufactured on a large scale it could be manufactured at a
decommissioned fish processing plant, located in a small town in Newfoundland, which would
be converted into this production facility. In 2013, there were three P. Janes and Sons seafood
plants that had to shut their doors, resulting in nearly 300 employees being dismissed. (CBC
News, 2013) If these 3 plants were retrofitted to work in conjunction with one another they could
meet manufacturing requirements and give jobs back to these Newfoundlanders.
20
Final Report
9.0 CONCLUSION
From the capstone project, SOLWE & Co have highlighted key areas which they could have
improved upon were they required to repeat the project.
The first area of improvement would be to choose a hydraulic cylinder prior to further design
because many design changes were the result of the dimensions of the cylinder changing. The
concept of determining key components concretely before furthering design phases leads to the
idea of keeping stricter deadlines wherein once design decisions are made, the project needs to
continue using the chosen characteristics. To accommodate moving ahead with decisions which
are later discovered to not be optimal, more recommendations could have been made for further
iterations instead of constantly altering the design. These alterations posed a problem due to the
time constraint of approximately 12 weeks and lead times that were required to have parts
fabricated.
Another aspect of the project that could have been done better was to ensure minimal drawing
mistakes for fabrication. By having a member who was not involved in the CAD drawings
review them; it would be easier to spot small mistakes which inflected fabrication delays. These
small mistakes, along with small oversights in design, showed the team that theoretical design
does not necessarily translate to actual fabrication.
A final improvement for our team to take from the capstone project would be to plan grace time
within phases to ensure due diligence is performed at all times in design process and review.
21
Final Report
10.0 REFERENCES
Budynas, R. G., & Nisbett, K. J. (2009). Shigley's Mechanical Engineeing Design, Ninth
Edition. New york: McGraw Hill.
Callister Jr., W. D., & Rethwisch, D. G. (2009). Material Science and Engineering. Iowa: Wiley.
Canada Revenue Agency. (n.d.). Canadian income tax rates for Individuals - current and
previous
years.
Retrieved
from
Canada
Revenue
Agency:
http://www.cra-
arc.gc.ca/menu-eng.html
Canadian Broadcast Corperation. (n.d.). Canadian hospitals rated by CBC. Retrieved from CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/health/features/ratemyhospital/hospitalratings.html
CBC News. (2013, March 5). Workers reeling from fish plant closures. Retrieved from CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/workers-reeling-from-fish-plantclosures-1.1311965
Grey House Publishing Canada. (2013-2014). Health Guide Canada 2013-2014 (1 ed.). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Grey House Publishing Canada.
Leigh, E. (2010, November 9). What Aluminum Extraction Really Does to the Environment See
more
at:
http://1800recycling.com/2010/11/aluminum-extraction-recycling-
environment#sthash.UuS6IEcd.dpuf.
Retrieved
from
1-800-Recycling:
http://1800recycling.com/2010/11/aluminum-extraction-recycling-environment
Stapleton, J., Tweddle, A., & Gibson, K. (2013, February). What is Happening to Disability
Income Systems in Canada? Retrieved from Counscil of Canadians with Disabilities:
http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/poverty-citizenship/income-securityreform/disability-income-systems
Wheelchair. (n.d.). Wheelchair Statistics: How Many Wheelchair Users Are There? Retrieved
from News Disability: http://www.newdisability.com/wheelchairstatistics.htm
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Bariatric-600-lb-Capacity-Battery-Powered-Patient-Lift-/160593428979
22

APPENDIX A DRAWING PACKAGE
23
Final Report
BOTTOM SECTION (SUPPLIED)
ALIGNMENT BLOCK
HYDRALIC CYLINDER
TOP PLATE ASSEMBLY
OUTER TUBE
4 X SLIDER
INNER TUBE
TOP SECTION (SUPPLIED)
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
TMN
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS
SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
DATE
4/02/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
N/A
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE:1:50
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
R0
SHEET 1 OF 2
8926-10
CHAIR ASSEBLY
SOLWE & CO
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
A3
EXTENDED VIEW
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
TMN
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
36.10
42.10
DATE
01/04/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
N/A
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE:1:50
DWG NO.
TITLE:
RETRACTED VIEW
REVISION
SHEET 2 OF 2
8926-10
Chair
Assembly
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
ALUMINUM
INNER TUBE PANEL
8926-09
4.5
MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION
PART NUMBER
ITEM NO.
4.5
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
TMN
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
QTY.
DATE
3/22/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
AS NOTED
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE 1:4
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
INNER TUBE
ASSEMBLY
8926-08
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
18.0
4.0
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
TMN
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
3/22/15
DATE
0.25
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
ALUMINUM
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE 1:4
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
INNER TUBE
PANEL
8926-09
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
R0.05 TYP
0.25
0.25 TYP x2
0.50
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
DATE
3/21/15
3.00
2.00
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
CARBON STEEL
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
R0
SCALE:1:1
DWG NO.
SHEET 1 OF 1
8926-07
A3
ATTACHMENT BLOCK
TITLE:
REVISION
SOLWE & CO
1.328
0.845
0.13
PEDAL PLATE
ATTACHMENT BLOCK
8926-06
8926-07
DESCRIPTION
PART NUMBER
ITEM NO.
TYP x2
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME
SIGNATURE
FINISH:
QTY.

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
1.50
CARBON STEEL
CARBON STEEL
MATERIAL
DATE
3/21/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
AS NOTED
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE:1:2
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
FOOT PEDAL
ASSEMBLY
8926-05
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
6.00
4.00
5
12
.
R0 TYP
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
0.25
DATE
3/21/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
CARBON STEEL
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE:1:2
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
8926-06
PEDAL PLATE
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
TOP PLATE
PIPE SLEEVE
8926-02
8926-03
2.25
DESCRIPTION
PART NUMBER
ITEM NO.
2.25
1/8"
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME
SIGNATURE
FINISH:
QTY.

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
CARBON STEEL
CARBON STEEL
MATERIAL
DATE
3/21/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
AS NOTED
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
R0
SCALE:1:1
DWG NO.
SHEET 1 OF 1
8926-01
A3
TOP PLATE ASSEMBLY
TITLE:
REVISION
SOLWE & CO
1.500
31
0.0
30
1.
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME

DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES
SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
SIGNATURE
FINISH:
DATE
3/21/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
CARBON STEEL
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
0
58
.
1
SCALE:2:1
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
8926-03
PIPE SLEEVE
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
3.99
4.00
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME
FINISH:
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
0.25
DATE
3/21/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
CARBON STEEL
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE:1:1
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
8926-02
Top Plate
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3
2.50
R0.25 TYP
2.25
4.50
22
2.
Q.A
MFG
APPV'D
CHK'D
DRAWN
BD
NAME
FINISH:
2.25
SIGNATURE

SURFACE FINISH:
TOLERANCES:
LINEAR:
ANGULAR:
4.50
DATE
3/21/15
WEIGHT:
MATERIAL:
WOOD
DEBUR AND
BREAK SHARP
EDGES
SCALE:1:1.75
DWG NO.
TITLE:
REVISION
SHEET 1 OF 1
8926-04
BASE SUPPORT
SOLWE & CO
R0
A3

APPENDIX B CYLINDER CALCULATIONS

Preliminary
35
Final Report

Barrel Calcs
36
Final Report

37
Final Report

38
Final Report
Final Report
Analysis of Purchased Cylinder

Purchased Cylinder Analysis
Piston:
Barrel:
Tresca
Failure
max < Sy/2
39
Force
(lbs)
500
1000
1500
Force
500
1000
1500
Diameter (in)
Area (in^2)
Pressure (psi)
1.68
1.68
1.68
2.22
2.22
2.22
225.56
451.12
676.68
Thickness (in)
0.25
0.25
0.25
H (psi)
757.88
1515.76
2273.64
A (psi)
378.94
757.88
1136.82
Safety Factors -
max
Steel
(psi)
378.94
47.8
757.88
23.9
1136.82
15.9
Safety Factors -
Von Mises
Failure
< Sy
(psi)
Steel
928.2
1856.4
2784.6
39.1
19.5
13.0
Final Report
APPENDIX C STRENGTH CALCULATIONS

Assumptions: 32x32 seat
X-Z Plane FBD:
Fx = 0.
F1 = F2 = 4000 lb
Mx = 0.
Mox = 4000 lb (4 in) = 16000 lb
in
Y-Z Plane FBD:
Fy = 0.
F1 = F2 = 4000 lb
My = 0.
Moy = 4000 lb (4 in) = 8000 lb -
in
Shear:
4 x 4 x 0.250 Square tubing
=VQ/It
Qmaz = A
Qmax = 4 in * 0.250 in * 1.875 in +
0.250 in * 1.75 in * 0.875 in +
0.250 in * 1.75 in * 0.875 in
Qmax = 5.28125 in ^4
Ix = Iy = LxW^3 / 12
Ix = Iy = 4^4 / 12 3.5^ 4 / 12 = 14.649 in^4
V = F1
= 4000 lb * 5.28125 In^3 / 14.649 in^ 4 * 0.50 in = 2.88E^3
5 x 5 x 0.250 Square tubing
Ix = Iy = LxW^3 / 12
Ix = Iy = 5^4 / 12 4.5^ 4 / 12 = 17.911 in^4
Bending Stress:
4 x 4 x 0.250 Square Tubing
= -Mxy/Ix + Myx/Iy
2)
40
Point A:
(2,-2) Point B:
(2,2)
Point C: (-2,2) Point D: (-2,-
Final Report
A= -16000lb-in*2in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*-2 in/ 14.649 in^4 = -3277 psi
B= -16000lb-in*2in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*2 in/ 14.649 in^4 = -1092 psi
C= -16000lb-in*-2in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*2 in/ 14.649 in^4 = 3276.7 psi
C= -16000lb-in*-2in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*-2 in/ 14.649 in^4 = 1092.2 psi
5 x 5 x 0.250 Square Tubing

= -Mxy/Ix + Myx/Iy
Point E:
(2.5, -2.5)Point F:(2.5,2.5)Point G:(-2.5,2.5)Point H:(-2.5,-
2.5)
E= -16000lb-in*2.5in /17.911 in^4 + 8000lb-in*-2.5 in/ 17.911 in^4 = -3349.9 psi
F= -16000lb-in*2.5in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*2.5 in/ 14.649 in^4 = -1116.63 psi
G= -16000lb-in*-2.5in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*2.5 in/ 14.649 in^4 = 3349.9 psi
H= -16000lb-in*-2.5in /14.649 in^4 + 8000lb-in*-2.5 in/ 14.649 in^4 = 1116.63 psi
41
Final Report
Deflection:
From Moment-Area Graph:
TOP = L/2 * L * M/EIB + x/2 * x * M/EIs

TOP = 14 in * 28 in * 16000 lb - in / 10E6 psi / 17.911 in^4 + 3 in * 6 in * 16000 lb in / 10E6
psi / 14.649 in^4
TOP = 0.0370
42

g14 Final Report - April 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

g14 Final Report - April 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of a Multi-Purpose

Date: April 2nd, 2015

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Figure 1 - Patient Transfer Unit

1.1 Project Overview

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

1.2 Project Management

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

2.0 DEFINITION OF DESIGN PROBLEM

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

2.1 Design Overview

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Alternative 1: Pneumatic Lifting cylinder, Centered Telescopic Joint

Simple design and calculations

Limited chance of binding

Continuously variable height

Significant forces on a single beam

No support in the event of a failure

Pneumatic force not strong enough

3.2 Alternative 2: Hydraulic Lift, Double Telescopic Joint

Stability when loaded

Reduced twisting moments

More likely to bind during

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

3.3 Alternative 3: Power screw, Centered Telescopic Joint

Simple and cost effective

Sturdy due to the load capacity of the

High input to output power ratio

Large friction forces when the chair is

Difficult to implement the desired foot pedal operation

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRAINTS

Impact to the Environment

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Safety is the number one concern for this project

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

5.0 DETAILED DESIGN DESCRIPTION

Where A is area in in2, F is force in lbf and P is pressure in psi.

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Figure 6- Bending Stress

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Figure 8 - Bending Diagram

5.2 Hydraulic Cylinder

Figure 9 - Hydraulic Cylinder, Hand Pump, and Fittings

during normal use.

Figure 11 - Cross Section

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

Table 1 - 10 Ton Hydraulic Porta-Power Ram

The cylinder above in Figure 9 was purchased at

Design of a Mechanical Patient Chair-Lift

5.3 Hydraulic Pump

Table 2 - 4 Ton Hydraulic Porta-Power Hand

cylinder through a 4 Ton Hydraulic Porta-Power Hand

5.4 Telescopic Joint

Figure 12 - Outer Beam

Figure 13 - Inner Beam

the use of extra oil.