To Design and Develop A Cost Effective Manual Wheelchair Propulsion System

TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP A COST
EFFECTIVE MANUAL WHEELCHAIR

PROPULSION SYSTEM
AUTHOR
Laurence Headd
A MID MODULE REPORT FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHLEOR OF

ENGINEERING (HONOURS) IN MECHNANICAL ENGINEERING,
AT THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING,
GALWAY-MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, IRELAND
SUPERVISOR
Eddie Dunbar
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING,

GALWAY-MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, IRELAND
SUBMITTED TO THE GALWAY-MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

02/5/2014
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
April, 2014
The substance of this thesis is the original work of the author and due reference and
acknowledgement has been made, when necessary, to the work of others. No part of
this thesis has been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted for any
other award. I declare that this thesis is my original work except where otherwise
stated.
(Signature of Candidate)
____________________________
Name of Candidate
(Name Typed)
_____________________
Date
Abstract
The aim of this project was to study current wheelchair designs and to design and
develop a new propulsion system, which will improve the quality of life for wheelchair
users. Extensive research was undertaken to establish what the medical effects of using
a manual wheelchair are. Market research revealed what wheelchair propulsion systems
are already available to the consumer. It also identified the problems associated with
current propulsion systems, which is mainly their high cost. A number of different
concept designs were generated. The final design was developed from concept scoring,
by combining the positives from all the previous concept designs. Working drawings
were developed and the final design was manufactured. The new system was tested and
compared to traditional manual wheelchair operation. A cost analysis of the new design
revealed significant differences to those systems already on the market.
Acknowledgments
Throughout the course of this project, there have been a number of people that have
helped me. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people.
The first person I wish to thank is my supervisor Eddie Dunbar for all the help,
guidance and encouragement he gave me through the project. Also my co supervisor
Gerard O Donnell, whose door was always opened for any questions I had.
I wish to thank all the staff in GMITs workshop and my good friend and neighbour,
Alan Winters who kindly let me use his machinery, during the manufacturing process.
A special thanks to all my family and friends who have supported me throughout the
year especially, my mother, sister in-law Molly and my brother Padraig, whose constant
help and encouragement got me through the project.
The final person I wish to thank is my wife Mary for all her help and encouragement
she gave me throughout my time in college.
I wish to dedicate this thesis to my father Patrick, whom I have sadly lost during my
time in GMIT.
Glossary
(ADL) ………………………………………………………..Activity of Daily Living
(CAD)…………………………………………………...Computer Aided Engineering
(CTS)………………………………………………………...Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
(EPW)……………………………………………………Electric Powered wheelchair
(FBD)……………………………………………………………...Free Body Diagram
(FDA)………………………………………………….Food and Drug Administration
(HDPE)…………………………………………………….High Density Polyethylene
(LDPE)……………………………………………………..Low Density Polyethylene
(MA)…………………………………………………………...Mechanical Advantage
(ME)...…………………………………………………….Mechanical Effective Force
(MIG)………………………………………………………………….Metal Inert Gas
(MRI)…………………………………………………...Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(MS)………………………………………………………………...Multiple Sclerosis
(MWP)………………………………………………...Manual Wheelchair Propulsion
(MWU)……………………………………………………….Manual Wheelchair User
(PCD)……………………………………………………………Pitch Circle Diameter
(PTO)…………………………………………………………………Power Take Off
(RSI)…………………………………………………………..Repetitive Strain Injury
(SPI)………………………………………………………………...Spinal Cord Injury
(TIG)……………………………………………………………….Tungsten Inert Gas
(WBV)…………………………………………………………Whole Body Vibration

Nomenclature
Symbol Name S.I Units
L Length m
F Force N
M Mass kg
Fr Rolling resistance N
Fd Drag force N
V Velocity m/s
cd Coefficient of drag N/a
c Coefficient of resistance N/a
δ Density kg/m3
g Gravity m/s2
A Area m2
Contents
1 Chapter One Introduction...................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims & Objectives:.........................................................................................2
2 Chapter Two Literature Review.........................................................................3
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................3
2.2 Wheelchair History and development.............................................................3
2.3 Wheelchair frames...........................................................................................4
2.4 Rigid vs. Folding.............................................................................................4
2.4.1 Titanium Frames......................................................................................5
2.4.2 Aluminium frames...................................................................................5
2.4.3 Carbon Fibre frames.................................................................................6
2.4.4 Steel Frames.............................................................................................6
2.5 Wheelchair rims...............................................................................................6
2.5.1 Effects of rims..........................................................................................7
2.5.2 Flex rim....................................................................................................7
2.5.3 Natural fit contour rim.............................................................................8
2.6 Wheel design...................................................................................................9
2.6.1 Carbon fibre vs. Steel spokes...................................................................9
2.7 Tyre selection................................................................................................10
2.7.1 Pneumatic tyres......................................................................................10
2.7.2 Semi pneumatic tyres.............................................................................10
2.7.3 Solid Tyres.............................................................................................10
2.8 Casters & Forks.............................................................................................12
2.9 Electric wheelchair........................................................................................12
2.9.1 Components............................................................................................13
2.9.2 ibot..........................................................................................................13
2.10 Wheelchair seating........................................................................................14
2.10.1 Foam Cushions:......................................................................................15
2.10.2 Gel Cushions..........................................................................................15
2.10.3 Air or Dry Flotation:..............................................................................15
2.10.4 Urethane honeycomb Cushions:............................................................16
2.11 General Gearing.............................................................................................17
2.11.1 Spur Gears..............................................................................................18
2.11.2 Helical gears...........................................................................................18
2.11.3 Worm Gears...........................................................................................19
2.11.4 Gear terminology...................................................................................20
2.12 Levers and mechanical advantage.................................................................21
2.12.1 Calculating Mechanical Advantage.......................................................23
2.13 Medical Research..........................................................................................23
2.13.1 Spinal cord.............................................................................................23
2.14 Spinal cord injuries and causes......................................................................27
2.14.1 Strokes....................................................................................................28
2.14.2 Multiple Sclerosis...................................................................................29
2.15 Effects of Manual wheelchair propulsion......................................................30
2.15.1 The Elbow Joint.....................................................................................30
2.15.2 Hand and wrist joint...............................................................................31
2.15.3 Shoulder Joint.........................................................................................32
2.15.4 Repetitive Strain Injury..........................................................................33
2.15.5 Carpal tunnel syndrome.........................................................................34
2.15.6 Obesity...................................................................................................34
2.15.7 Hygiene..................................................................................................35
2.16 Market research.............................................................................................35
2.16.1 Product one.............................................................................................35
2.16.2 Product two:...........................................................................................37
2.17 Product Three:...............................................................................................38
2.18 Hygiene:........................................................................................................39
2.19 Conclusion.....................................................................................................40
3 Chapter Three Materials and Methods............................................................41
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................41
3.2 Design Specifications....................................................................................41
3.3 Forces during propulsion...............................................................................42
3.4 Friction..........................................................................................................43
3.5 Concept design phase....................................................................................45
3.5.1 Design one..............................................................................................45
3.5.2 Design two.............................................................................................46
3.5.3 Design three...........................................................................................48
3.5.4 Concept Screening.................................................................................49
3.6 Final design...................................................................................................50
3.6.1 Why this design......................................................................................51
3.7 Initial testing..................................................................................................53
3.8 Drawings........................................................................................................56
3.9 Possible Materials..........................................................................................57
3.9.1 Key Properties........................................................................................58
3.9.2 Aluminium alloys...................................................................................58
3.9.3 Heat treatable and non heat treatable alloys...........................................59
3.10 Magnesium/Magnesium alloys......................................................................60
3.10.1 Properties................................................................................................60
3.10.2 Uses........................................................................................................61
3.11 Polymers........................................................................................................62
3.11.1 Properties................................................................................................62
3.11.2 Polyethylene...........................................................................................62
3.11.3 Polyvinylchloride...................................................................................63
3.12 Steels..............................................................................................................64
3.12.1 Steel types..............................................................................................64
3.12.2 Properties of Steel..................................................................................65
3.12.3 Steel Alloys............................................................................................66
3.13 Composites....................................................................................................67
3.13.1 Properties................................................................................................67
3.14 Material selection..........................................................................................68
3.15 Results/Conclusion........................................................................................71
3.16 Design Calculations.......................................................................................71
3.16.1 Size of socket plate bolts required?........................................................73
3.16.2 Size of bolts required for Ring gear Plate?............................................75
3.16.3 Sizes of pins required for spur gear........................................................77
3.16.4 Size of shaft required?............................................................................80
3.16.5 Gear ratio required.................................................................................84
3.17 Bearing Types................................................................................................85
3.18 Manufacturing...............................................................................................86
3.18.1 Finishing.................................................................................................92
3.18.2 Assembly................................................................................................92
3.19 Testing...........................................................................................................93
3.19.1 Force test................................................................................................94
3.19.2 Speed test...............................................................................................95
3.19.3 Stroke test...............................................................................................96
3.19.4 Ergonomic Evaluation............................................................................97
3.19.5 Effects on the heart.................................................................................97
3.19.6 Costs Analysis........................................................................................98
3.19.7 Ansys testing..........................................................................................98
4 Chapter Four Results.......................................................................................100
4.1 Force test.....................................................................................................100
4.2 Speed test.....................................................................................................101
4.3 Stroke test....................................................................................................103
4.4 Ergonomic Evaluation.................................................................................104
4.5 Ansys results................................................................................................105
4.5.1 Verification of Ansys results................................................................107
4.6 Effects on the heart......................................................................................108
4.7 Costs Analysis.............................................................................................108
4.8 Results conclusion.......................................................................................110
5 Chapter five discussion.....................................................................................111
6 Future Work/Recommendations/ Conclusion................................................114
7 Bibliography......................................................................................................116
Appendices................................................................................................................120
Table of figures
Figure 2-1: Different size rims..........................................................................................7

Figure 2-2: Flex rim design...............................................................................................8
Figure 2-3: Natural fit rim.................................................................................................8
Figure 2-4: Steel and Carbon fibre wheels…....................................................................9
Figure 2-5: Rolling resistance as loads are increased......................................................12
Figure 2-6: Climbing stairs Figure 2-7: Upright position..............................14
Figure 2-8: Air filled cushioned seating..........................................................................16
Figure 2-9: Spur Gears....................................................................................................18
Figure 2-10: Helical Gear Figure 2-11: Double Helical Gear......................19
Figure 2-12 : Worm gears................................................................................................20
Figure 2-13: Gear terminology........................................................................................21
Figure 2-14: Class one Lever Figure 2-15: class one lever in the body............22
Figure 2-16: Class two lever Figure 2-17: Class two lever in the body...........22
Figure 2-18: Class three lever Figure 2-19: Class three lever in the body.........22
Figure 2-20: Lever system...............................................................................................23
Figure 2-21: Spinal cord..................................................................................................24
Figure 2-22: The vertebrae joint......................................................................................25
Figure 2-23: Type and range of motion at different levels of the spine..........................26
Figure 2-24 : Causes of SCI............................................................................................27
Figure 2-25: Leading causes of paralysis........................................................................27
Figure 2-26: Anatomy of Elbow joint.............................................................................31
Figure 2-27: Anatomy of hand and wrist........................................................................32
Figure 2-28: Anatomy of the shoulder joint....................................................................33
Figure 2-29: Rowheels gearing system...........................................................................35
Figure 2-30: Pushing a wheelchair Figure 2-31: Pulling a wheelchair......................36
Figure 2-32: Speed varied by gear handle.......................................................................37
Figure 2-33: Change of direction button.........................................................................37
Figure 2-34: Wijit lever system.......................................................................................38
Figure 2-35: Wheelchair gloves......................................................................................39
Figure 3-1: Concept sketch one Figure 3-2: Pin between the spur gear................45
Figure 3-3: Design idea two Figure 3-4: Design idea two...............................47
Figure 3-5: Hub and driver Figure 3-6: Lever attached to driver...................48
Figure 3-7: Initial model Figure 3-8: Plate attached to large gear.............50
Figure 3-9: Large gear driving small gear.......................................................................50
Figure 3-10: Final concept scoring..................................................................................51
Figure 3-11: Different exercises for wheelchair users....................................................52
Figure 3-12: Angle of rotation for lever..........................................................................53
Figure 3-13: Force Test rig..............................................................................................54
Figure 3-14: Subject being tested....................................................................................55
Figure 3-15: Testing tile surface Figure 3-16: Testing timber surface....................55
Figure 3-17: Example of working drawings....................................................................57
Figure 3-18: Types of works...........................................................................................59
Figure 3-19 : Some aluminium alloy mechanical properties...........................................60
Figure 3-20: Polymer properties......................................................................................63
Figure 3-21: Effects of carbon content............................................................................65
Figure 3-22: Steel properties and uses.............................................................................66
Figure 3-23: Mechanical properties of some composites................................................67
Figure 3-24: Steel components........................................................................................68
Figure 3-25: Socket plate bolts.......................................................................................73
Figure 3-26: Free body diagram of socket plate..............................................................73
Figure 3-27: Ring gear plate bolted in place...................................................................75
Figure 3-28: Free body diagram of ring gear plate..........................................................75
Figure 3-29: spur gear pinned in position........................................................................77
Figure 3-30: Free body diagram of gears........................................................................78
Figure 3-31: Shaft which fits into two bearings..............................................................80
Figure 3-32: Free body diagram of shaft.........................................................................80
Figure 3-33: X-Y and X-Z planes of shaft......................................................................81
Figure 3-34: Bending moment diagram of X-Y plane....................................................81
Figure 3-35: Bending moment diagram of X-Z plane.....................................................82
Figure 3-36: Combined BMD showing points of max bending on both planes..............83
Figure 3-37: Needle bearing Figure 3-38: Ball bearing....................................85
Figure 3-39: Power hacksaw Figure 3-40: Power sander...................................86
Figure 3-41: Paper marker Figure 3-42: Nylon template...............................87
Figure 3-43: Spur gear template......................................................................................87
Figure 3-44: Shaft hole being bored................................................................................88
Figure 3-45: Completed rim connection..........................................................................88
Figure 3-46: Cutting spacer Figure 3-47: Completed spacer...........................89
Figure 3-48: Ring gear plate............................................................................................89
Figure 3-49: Square section removed..............................................................................90
Figure 3-50: completed socket plate................................................................................90
Figure 3-51: Completed lever..........................................................................................91
Figure 3-52: Complete shaft and plate............................................................................91
Figure 3-53: Components spray painted..........................................................................92
Figure 3-54: Connection and shaft assembly..................................................................92
Figure 3-55: Completed assembly...................................................................................93
Figure: 3-56: Force testing rig.........................................................................................94
Figure 3-57: Sports hall marked in 5 meters segments...................................................95
Figure 3-58: Manual propulsion Figure 3-59: Lever propulsion.............................96
Figure 3-60: Ergonomic evaluation test site....................................................................97
Figure 3-61: Types of webs tested...................................................................................98
Figure 3-62: Max bending stress.....................................................................................99
Figure 3-63: Max deflection............................................................................................99
Figure 4-1: Comparison of wheelchair propulsion methods.........................................100
Figure 4-2: Speed test results lever...............................................................................102
Figure 4-3: Speed test manual.......................................................................................102
Figure 4-4: Results of stroke test with lever..................................................................104
Figure 4-5: Results of stroke test traditional method....................................................104
Figure 4-6: Max stress...................................................................................................105
Figure 4-7: Max deflection............................................................................................106
Figure 4-8: Max deflection using steel web..................................................................106
Figure 4-9: Job card for socket plate.............................................................................109
Table of Tables
Table 2-1: Material properties...........................................................................................5

Table 2-2: Different tyre characteristics..........................................................................11
Table 2-3: Percentage of ROM of ADL..........................................................................26
Table 3-1: Results from wheelchair Propulsion Studies.................................................43
Table 3-2: Correlation values for rolling resistance........................................................44
Table 3-3: Concept screening scoring.............................................................................49
Table 3-4: Force testing...................................................................................................56
Table 3-5: Wrought alloys notation Table 3-6: Casting alloys notation..........58
Table 3-7: Magnesium alloy properties...........................................................................61
Table 3-8: Mass with steel components..........................................................................69
Table 3-9: Mass with mixed components........................................................................69
Table 3-10: Cost with steel components.........................................................................70
Table 3-11 : Cost for mixed components........................................................................70
Table 3-12: Subject profiles............................................................................................95
Table 4-1: Results for lever force test...........................................................................100
Table 4-2: Results for speed test lever..........................................................................101
Table 4-3: Results for speed traditional method............................................................101
Table 4-4: Stroke Test Results For traditional Propulsion............................................103
Table 4-5: Stroke test results for lever..........................................................................103
Table 4-6: Materials costing for lever system...............................................................108
Table 4-7: Cost comparison...........................................................................................109
Table of Equations
Equation 2-1....................................................................................................................21
Equation 2-2....................................................................................................................21
Equation 2-3....................................................................................................................21
Equation 2-4....................................................................................................................23
Equation 3-1....................................................................................................................42
Equation 3-2....................................................................................................................44
Equation 3-3....................................................................................................................44
Equation 3-4....................................................................................................................45
Equation 3-5....................................................................................................................56
Equation 3-6....................................................................................................................72
Laurence Headd Mechanical Engineering G00006587
1 Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Wheelchairs provide mobility for people with physical impairments. Users suffer from
paralysis, lower extremity weaknesses or amputations. Other medical conditions which
force individuals to use wheelchairs are Multiple Sclerosis (MS), arthritis and
spinabifida. A manual wheelchair is one in which the user has to physically propel the
chair in a given direction. To achieve this, users must engage with a push rim, which is
attached to the wheel of the chair. This motion causes several problems for the user. It is
an extremely inefficient method and causes Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) of the upper
extremities, primarily the shoulder. Carpel Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is an additional
common side effect of manual wheelchair use. It affects the hands and wrists causing
numbness and weakness. There are currently 1.8 million manual wheelchair users in the
U.S.A., 750,000 in the U.K (Kaye 2000). The goal of this project is to design and
develop a cost effective prototype for manual wheelchair propulsion. The final design
will allow the operator to propel the wheelchair in a safe and more ergonomic manner.
The design will help to reduce the common complaints of CTS & RSI. The design will
also overcome the issue of hygiene which is associated with the movement of
wheelchairs.
Currently, there are systems which exist on the market to help manual wheelchair users;
they have been slow to catch on, due to their substantial price tag. Several wheelchair
users are unable to work as a consequence of their condition, so these expensive
systems are not economically viable for these individuals. In order to develop a cost
effective system, current designs must be simplified. The anticipated result of this
project is to design a prototype system which will serve as a good starting point for
future developments. Several of the current designs have taken years to develop to the
marketplace, because of the complexity of the problem. With this in mind simplification
must be a key design feature.
GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 1

1.2 Aims & Objectives:
The following are the aims and objectives of this thesis;
 To develop research techniques

 To improve on current wheelchair design
 To improve quality of life for wheelchair users
 To design a wheelchair mechanism to alter wheelchair movement
 Manufacture the wheelchair mechanism
 Test the mechanism in a real working environment
 Evaluate results and suggest improvements
 To carry out a cost analysis of the prototype

2 Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This section outlines the research completed on the project subject. The research can be
viewed as three sections; the first examines wheelchair design in general. Research
investigates the developments and ergonomic design changes, which have been
developed for manual wheelchairs. The second section is the medical research, which
investigates the anatomy of spinal cord, common causes of Spinal Cord Injury (SPI) and
the problems encountered by Manual Wheelchair Users (MWU). The final section is the
market research, exploring alternative manual wheelchair propulsion systems which are
currently available for MWU.
2.2 Wheelchair History and development
No one is certain who created the first wheelchair; their existence in various forms has
been in use for thousands of years. One of the earliest representations of a wheelchair is
a Chinese engraving that dates from 525 A.D. It is also recognised that King Phillip of
Spain used a wheelchair later in his life, while suffering from gout around 1500 B.C.
These early designs of wheelchairs were made of wood, leather and iron which made
the wheelchair heavy and hard to manoeuvre. Push rims were added to wheelchair
designs around 1881, this addition allowed for self-propulsion and less of a need for
somebody to push the wheelchair. Hollow rubber wheels, push rear wheels and
spooked wheels made their first appearance in 1900 (Bells 2013). When soldiers began
returning from the First World War, the need and desire for a return to an active life
spurred the design changes in wheelchair innovation. The first motorized wheelchair
was developed in 1916 in London. It was slow, heavy and difficult to stop. Although it
wouldn’t be mass produced until the 1950’s after a Canadian inventor gave the
overhauled design to the Everest & Jennings engineering company. In the early 1930’s
two mechanical engineers, Harry Jennings and William Everest designed and patented
the first folding wheelchair. The Stoke Mandeville hospital recognized the need for
rehabilitation programs for the disabled in the 1940’s.


The British hospital also created a program of competitive sports for veterans who had
been injured in World War 2. International competitive games were held in 1952. A
total of 130 athletes with SPI competed in six wheelchair sports. The first official
Paralympic games were held in Rome in 1960 to coincide with the Olympics. This
allowed people with disabilities to showcase their athletic ability and prowess in the
field of sports. Fast forward forty years and the styles and designs of wheelchairs
number in the hundreds. Each unique device is based on a user’s need and lifestyle. No
longer is the “one size fits all” approach viable, as people with a SPI live as mainstream
a lifestyle as those not using wheelchairs (Scherer 2003).
2.3 Wheelchair frames
The frame design of wheelchairs has been slow to develop with material choice being
one of the most important design considerations. Frame material type is ultimately
down to the user. Influential factors include: cost, weight and durability. Frames are
broken into two groups: rigid or foldable. Manufacturing material for frames are steel,
aluminium, titanium and carbon fibre. They are classed according to their weight which
is standard, light-weight and ultralight weight. The frame of the wheelchair will have
significant effect on wheelchair propulsion. Lighter frames are more efficient and
require less force to move, when compared to standard wheelchairs. The frame is a vital
component and the life expectancy of a typical wheelchair varies from three to seven
years depending on uses(Liu et al. 2008).
2.4 Rigid vs. Folding
Rigid wheelchairs, as the name suggests, cannot be folded and comprise of a welded
frame. These types of chairs are typically manufactured from steel or aluminium. They
cannot be folded and only the wheels may be removed. Folding frame wheelchairs can
be folded by releasing the locking mechanism. This allows the chair size to be reduced
greatly. As a result, folding frame chairs have more moving parts and are not as durable
as rigid frame.

2.4.1 Titanium Frames
Titanium is used as a material for wheelchair frames as it has key desirable material
properties. These include strength, durability and natural vibration dampening. Titanium
frames are more expensive as the material is difficult to refine and process.
Manufacturing difficulties arise as special equipment and tools are required for working
with Titanium. One of the main advantages of using Titanium is the high strength to
weight ratio in comparison to any other materials in existence. Due to this key material
property, less amounts of the material are required in the manufacturing of the
wheelchair, thus making the wheelchair lighter and propulsion more comfortable
(Brubaker 1988).
2.4.2 Aluminium frames
This is one of the most popular materials for wheelchair frames. It is typically
SAE6061-T6 material. This is the same type of aluminium which is used to
manufacture aircraft wings. The material has many advantages, it surpasses steel in
strength to weight ratio, it is much lighter, cheaper, non-corrosive and easy to
manufacture. It is more commonly known as high performance aluminium and has the
highest strength ratio of all the aluminium alloys(Liu et al. 2010). Table 2 -1 indicates
both frame material mechanical properties.
Table 2-1: Material properties

2.4.3 Carbon Fibre frames
Carbon fibre wheelchair frames are commonly used for wheelchair sports athletics. The
weight to strength ratio is higher than both aluminium and steel. Carbon fibre frames are
manufactured in a series of layers. These layers are laid on top of each other at angles. It
gives the material unique properties; stiffness can be increased in one direction and
flexibility in another direction. Carbon fibre forks found on racing bikes use this
technology. These forks are initially designed with increased lateral stiffness. When the
wheel hits an object, the fork will then flex in the vertical direction to protect the frame
and to act as a shock absorber. Carbon fibre is an extremely expensive material and is
difficult to machine. The components must be bonded together with adhesives as it
cannot be welded. As a result, carbon fibre wheelchairs are quite expensive.
2.4.4 Steel Frames
The most common type of steel used in wheelchair manufacturing is tubular stainless
steel. These types of frames are typically found in hospital wheelchairs. The
disadvantage of steel is its low strength to weight ratio compared to other materials.
Although steel frames are regarded as outdated, they are still very popular as they are
cheap and durable.
2.5 Wheelchair rims
The rim is connected to the wheelchair tyre rim via a plate and bolt. Contact with the
wheelchair rim is the correct method of wheelchair propulsion. Studies have shown that
only an estimated 39% of MWC users use this method. It went on to suggest that 54%
of users use both the tyre and the rim while the remaining 7% use the tyre only (van der
Linden et al. 1996). Ergonomically, there has been very little improvement over the
past decade. Factors which influence the hand rim design and functionality are the rim
angle (Camber), material type, tube diameter and shape. The camber evolved from
sports wheelchair design. Typical value of the camber for the average everyday user is
seven degrees (Veeger,van der Woude and Rozendal 1989). This angle greatly increases
in sports wheelchair design. It provides mainly two functions: making the wheelchair
more stable and easier to pulsate as the top of the wheels are closer to the body.

The disadvantage of camber wheelchairs is the base of the wheelchair becomes wider
making transport through doorways more difficult.
2.5.1 Effects of rims
The hand rim radius is effectively a gearing mechanism. Smaller hand rims require
greater effort which concentrates more force on the arms and shoulders of the user to
achieve propulsion, Figure 2 -1 displays examples of smaller and larger hand rims.
Figure 2-1: Different size rims

(van der Linden et al. 1996)
The problems associated with the rims are couple stresses which are applied to the
hands and the wrists. These coupling stresses are a result of poor ergonomic design. The
standard rim is a nineteen mm diameter tube. Recent developments have incorporated
different tube material. There has been a shift from aluminium to plastic. Studies on
four different hand rims with respect to shape and materials did not find significant
effects on the user’s comfort or force. However the study did find two alternative hand
rims which provided more positive results. The Flex rim and the Natural fit contour
hand rim (van der Linden et al. 1996).
2.5.2 Flex rim
The design is manufactured from a high friction rubber. The rubber rests between the
rim and the wheel as presented in Figure 2 -2.

Figure 2-2: Flex rim design

(van der Linden et al. 1996).
The flex rim is ergonomically designed to conform to the hand when the rim is gripped.
Studies have shown the following results (van der Linden et al. 1996).
 Pulsation pushes were found to be thirteen percent more powerful on average.

 Impact loading was reduced by ten percent on average.
 Overall effort was reduced by thirteen percent on average.
 Overall grip exertion was found to be reduced by fifteen percent on average.
2.5.3 Natural fit contour rim
This is a similar design to the flex rim. The major difference between the two is the
contour shape of the rim. The rim is oval shaped as opposed to the flex rim which is a
circular shape. This design allows for the hand rim to be retrofitted onto existing wheels
Figure 2 -3 demonstrates the design of natural fit contour design.
Figure 2-3: Natural fit rim

(Richter et al. 2006)

2.6 Wheel design
The wheel design is another important feature when discussing wheelchair propulsion.
Ergonomic improvements have mainly included material changes. Wheelchair wheels
have benefitted greatly from design improvements in the bicycle industry. Traditional
wheelchair wheels were manufactured using steel spokes (12, 8 and 6 spoke). Following
on from the bike industry, the wheelchair industry has seen the introduction of carbon
fibre wheel designs. These designs reduce the amount of vibration transmitted to the
user, weight reductions also allow for easier propulsion and manoeuvrability.
2.6.1 Carbon fibre vs. Steel spokes
The reduction in wheelchair vibration is an important feature. Whole body vibration

(WBV) results in additional discomfort, or in rarer cases, motion sickness. Studies have
shown WBV during MW propulsion frequency is well in the human sensitivity range of
five to twelve Hz. Further studies investigated the energy efficiency differences between
the carbon fibre and the steel spoke wheel during MWC propulsion. Results showed
significant reduced energy efficiency with steel spokes (Vorrink et al. 2008). It also
reported a much higher ride comfort satisfaction for users of carbon fibre spokes.
Typical carbon composite spokes weigh one fifth of their steel counterparts. Steel
spokes on average weigh about fourteen grams. Because of the unique strength
properties of carbon composite wheels, less spokes are required which reduces overall
weight of the wheel, larger thicker spokes can also be used as illustrated in Figure 2 -4
(Vorrink et al. 2008).
Figure 2-4: Steel and Carbon fibre wheels

2.7 Tyre selection
There are three tyre choices available for MWU’s these are as follows, pneumatic, semi
pneumatic and solid tyres. The tyre has a direct effect on wheelchair propulsion. The
magnitude of friction is related to the material type, amount of deformation and the
floor surfaces. Tyre deformation is dependent on the tyre pressure, thread, profile,
diameter and the mass on the chair. Different users have different needs and tyre choice
is very much dependent on the daily activity of the user (Vegter 2013).
2.7.1 Pneumatic tyres
As the name suggests, air is used to keep these tyres inflated. They are a similar design
to bicycle tyres, with an air tube concealed inside a rubber tyre. Air tyres are popular, as
they roll over soft terrain easier and provide less vibration resulting in a more
comfortable wheelchair ride. Air tyres require more maintenance than any other tyre
choice. Users regularly get punctures from thorns, nails and other sharp objects.
Pneumatic tyres will go soft over time and require regular pumping. If tyres become
soft, they increase surface traction on the user adding additional force to the arms and
shoulders during propulsion.
2.7.2 Semi pneumatic tyres
These types of tyres are made of plastic or rubber. Polyurethane is the most commonly
used material. The advantage of using these types of tyres is that they do not require any
air and as a result, will not puncture. They require less maintenance, but, typically
weigh about 1.5 times more than the pneumatic tyre system. This additional weight can
add three to four pounds on the wheelchair. The disadvantages associated with this tyre
choice are wheels become stiffer, not as shock absorbing and tend to grip the surface
more.
2.7.3 Solid Tyres
These tyres are manufactured from solid rubber. They require little or no maintenance
and are more durable than pneumatic tyres. Solid tyres greatly reduce ride comfort and
have low propulsion performance. They are more expensive and their operations are
largely for indoor use in hospitals and nursing homes.

Tyres are available in a variety of widths and threads, ultimately tyre choice will depend
on user needs. Smooth, thin tyres are more desirable for indoor use while outdoor
activities require wider, thicker thread sizes. Several studies have examined the effects
of using different tyre types during wheelchair propulsion. One of the most important
factors when choosing a tyre type is its rolling resistance. This is the force which
opposes the tyre as it rolls over a surface. Resistance occurs as a result of an elastic
deformation of the materials of the tyre. A study of five different tyre types shows the
variation on different tyres(Kwarciak et al. 2009).
The five tyre types were fitted to a rigid frame wheelchair and placed on a two drum
dynamometer which was used to measure all applied forces. Table 2 -2 features the
tyre characteristics.
Table 2-2: Different tyre characteristics
(Kwarciak et al. 2009)
Figure 2 -5 demonstrates as loads in Newton’s (N) increase, rolling resistance is

increased at a much higher rate, on both the solid and semi-solid tyres.
Recommendations from the studies suggested that both wheelchair users and clinicians
should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages associated with different
tyre types for MWC users.

Figure 2-5: Rolling resistance as loads are increased

(Kwarciak et al. 2009)
2.8 Casters & Forks
The casters are the small scale wheels which are located at the front of the wheelchair.
Their function is to provide stability and allow the wheelchair to turn easy. Key features
in the design of casters include shock and vibration transmission. Smaller wheels
provide greater rolling resistance. Caster tyres are typically solid and manufactured
from rubber (Brubaker 1988).
2.9 Electric wheelchair
The electric wheelchair was developed for people who are unable to operate manual
wheelchairs. There are three basic design styles – rear wheel, front wheel or central
wheel drive. The typical controller is a joystick fitted on the arm rest. They can be
placed either on the left or right hand of the user. Older models of Electric Powered
Wheelchairs (EPW) were not user friendly and provided little comfort, due to their size
and weight. As EPW’s were not designed for transportation, components were difficult
to remove; as a result most EPW’s were not easily disassembled. Due to a change in
user demands and technologies, there have been large improvements in EPW
technology. EPW are now designed for both inside and outside use. Their battery life
allows them to travel distances of up to twenty miles and reach speeds of six miles per
hour.

2.9.1 Components
The basic components of EPW’s are as follows:

Controllers: The function of the controller is to control the voltage supply to the motor.
This will increase or decrease speeds depending on operator requirements. It also
displays the battery strength of the wheelchair and houses the charging port for the
battery. The most common type of controller is the joystick. Others exist such as
fingertip control or sip and puff tube, where the operator blows into a tube to control
movement of the chair.
Motor: This is what drives the EPW and is located underneath the seat, the size and
power output depends on the user’s needs. Indoor users require a small motor with less
power output in comparison to outdoor activity users.
Battery: The battery is used to supply voltage to the motor. Reports have shown
(Kauzlarich and Aylor 1989) that batteries are the most common form of breakdown in
EPW’s. Typically, wheelchairs are connected to two twelve volt batteries connected in
series. Batteries used for EPW’s should be rated at least thirty seven ampere hours.
2.9.2 ibot
One of the most recent developments in EPW technology has been the development of
the ibot. This was the invention of Dean Kamen who describes it “as not a wheelchair
but something you wear”. The ibot received the FDA approval ( Food & Drug
Administration ) in 2003 (Anonymous 2003a). The machine cost twenty nine thousand
dollars. It consists of several sensors called Gyroscopes which are connected to the main
computer system. This chair provides independence and mobility for users (Anonymous
2003b). It allows for movement over uneven terrain, grass, gravel etc. The system
allows for ascent or descent of stairs without any assistance as illustrated in Figure 2-6.
.

Figure 2-6: Climbing stairs Figure 2-7: Upright position

(Anonymous 2003a).
2.10 Wheelchair seating
The wheelchair seat and cushion are an important parameter for manual wheelchair
users. Due to the extensive time spent on the chair in the one position, pressure sores in
the buttock area are a common side effect. To combat the problem, different cushion
materials are available. The cushions come in various depths and sizes. Cushion
dimensions depend on factors such as height of the chair back, armrest positions and
length of footrests. It is important; the cushion does not affect posture of the operator.
The sores are a result of lack of blood flow, as the human body is in the seating position
it transfers all of its weight onto the buttock area. As a result of spinal cord injuries,
blood flow and circulation is limited further by loss of muscle. This muscle in an
enabled working body, acts as a natural cushion. During wheelchair pulsation,
additional shear forces are experienced by wheelchair users, as they slide forward and
back. This can lead to the skin surface becoming damaged.
There are four basic types of cushions:

2.10.1Foam Cushions:
These cushions were the first in use and are a similar design to cushions found on
couches today, a soft fluffy material. Due to advances in material technologies, the foam
cushions now offer a greater degree of comfort. These cushions hold shape, due to their
“memory” properties. It offers more support to the spine and spreads the weight evenly
across the sitting surface. The type of foam used when choosing a wheelchair will
depend on the activity of the wheelchair user. Different foams can be layered to produce
different types of properties, such as softness or memory. The foam cushions are cheap,
but wear quite quickly and must be replaced, so as to avoid recurrence of pressure sores.
The foam cushions can be shaped around the back to produce more comfort. The foam
cushion will not leak compared to other cushion types (Karp 1998).
2.10.2Gel Cushions
Gel cushions are manufactured from a type of dry, polymer gel. Gel cushions are used
for individuals with poor sensation or movement. They are manufactured in pouches
and placed inside the cushions on top of foam base, providing excellent pressure,
distribution and spinal support. Gel cushions range in price, depending on the
manufacture, with average costs being between $200 and $400. These types of cushions
are heavy in comparison to other cushion types. Gel cushions also have a tendency to
bottom out. Due to the body’s weight, the gel pushes out the sides and up around the
hips, offering little support to the buttock area. Cost and possibility of leakage means
gel cushions are only used in circumstances of extreme cases. They are also quite heavy
with their weight varying from 4-6 kg.(Karp 1998)
2.10.3Air or Dry Flotation:
This type of cushion uses individual air cells which are inflated to support the weight of
the human body. The balloon structures are arranged in rows. Different air cushions
offer different properties. In Figure 2 -8 the balloons on the outside of the cushion will
inflate and once inflated, the inner balloons begin to deflate. This type of movement
mimics the movement of the operator, lifting his or her body. This technique reduces
the risk of possible pressure sores. Inflation is regulated by the control panel. For
manual wheelchairs, this is a self-power battery unit which can be adjusted by the user.

It controls the microprocessor which alters each air cell. Air fill cushions are typically
covered by an anti-myclobial material which reduces bacteria growth and friction on the
skin and range in height from 50-75mm. The cost varies depending on cushion type
with standard simple models starting from $50. The disadvantage of air cushions is their
height, for active wheelchair users they cause stabilisation issues. Air cushions are
prone to leakage if penetrated by sharp objects. Puncture kits similar to bicycle kits are
available for air filled cushions.
Figure 2-8: Air filled cushioned seating
2.10.4Urethane honeycomb Cushions:

These cushions are manufactured from a thermoplastic material. They are the latest
development in wheelchair cushion manufacturing technology. The structure represents
that of a beehive. It consists of individual, open cells. Cells allow for air to travel easily
and efficiently through the cushion. Due to this phenomenon, skin is kept cooler and the
build-up of moisture, due to sweating, is prevented. The honey comb structure is very
light and acts as a shock absorber when pressure is applied i.e. hitting a bump.
Honeycomb cushions can be easily cleaned by simply placing them into a washing
machine, because of their material properties, water will have no effect on the structure.
This is especially useful in cases where wheelchair users have bowel or bladder
difficulties. They are relatively light typically between 1.5 and 2 kgs. The disadvantage
of using honeycomb cushions is the cost and lack of stiffness (Karp 1998).

The decision of the type of wheelchair cushion can have a major impact on the quality
of life obtained by the user. If wheelchair cushions are changed, it is important that
seating positioning for the user is not altered. For example, replace a 75mm cushion
with a 50mm cushion will mean the footrest must be lowered by 25mm. If this is not
corrected the knees will be elevated too high placing additional pressure on the buttock
area.
2.11 General Gearing

Gears are toothed wheels that, when used in pairs, are used to transmit motion and
power from one shaft to another. The use of gears can be seen in all areas of mechanics
from small toy cars to large automobiles. They come in different shapes and sizes and
are manufactured from different materials depending on their operation. The basic laws
of gearing states that gears are designed, so that the ratio of angular velocity of the
driver to the angular velocity of the driven remains constant (Budynas,Nisbett and
Shigley 2008). This reduces vibration and impact stresses. Tooth profiles of this nature
are said to be conjugate. Most conjugate designs use an involute profile because:
 They are easier to make and require simple tooling.

 A constant angular velocity is maintained
Gears are used for a number of reasons, they keep the rotation of two axes together, and
they can increase speed and also change the direction of rotation. They are typically
characterised by the following:
 Durable leading to long service life

 Up to 98% efficient
 Contain common materials, Iron, steel, brass and plastics.
 There are three basic types of gearing, Spur, Helical and Worm gears.
(Budynas,Nisbett and Shigley 2008).

2.11.1Spur Gears
Spur gears are distinguished by their straight teeth profile and parallel axis of rotation to
the shaft. These gears are used to transmit torque between parallel shafts Figure 2 -9
illustrates two spur gears meshing.
Figure 2-9: Spur Gears
(Budynas,Nisbett and Shigley 2008)
They maintain angular velocity and transmit power at a constant rate. They are used in
devices such as clocks, screwdrivers and washing machines. Spur gears have many
advantages over other gear designs, they are cheap, easy to manufacture and are also
readily available. Negative aspects of spur gears dictate that the axis of each gear must
be parallel. Spur gears will also only work with mating gears. The one major
disadvantage of using spur gears is their contact, because of the tooth geometry. When
they engage, they have a collide effect which results in increased stress on gear tooth
vibration and noise (Budynas,Nisbett and Shigley 2008) .
2.11.2Helical gears
Helical gears have inclined teeth to the axis of rotation. They are used in applications
similar to spur gears. Helical gears illustrated in Figure 2 -10 and are preferred to spur

gears in circumstances where loads are heavy, high speeds and where noise reduction is
desirable. Contact between helical gear teeth begins as a single point.
As the teeth continue to mesh, the point extends to a line. This line is parallel to the axis
of rotation. Gradual engagement of teeth allows helical gears to transmit large loads at
greater speeds. Due to this physical parameter, helical gears are always used in
situations of high speed transmission. Reaction trust which develops along the shaft axis
is a major disadvantage of using helical gears. It causes a kick force during tooth
engagement, which results in increased stress and fatigue failure. Double helical gears
demonstrated in fig 2-11 are used to prevent trust loads, by developing opposition to
trust reactions (Budynas,Nisbett and Shigley 2008) .
Figure 2-10: Helical Gear Figure 2-11: Double Helical Gear
(Budynas,Nisbett and Shigley 2008)
2.11.3Worm Gears
Worm gears are used in situations where large reductions are desirable. If the tooth of
the helical gear makes a complete revolution on the pitch cylinder, the result is a worm
gear. These gear sets allow large speed reductions and change of direction. In this
particular gearing system, the gear cannot turn the worm. The angle is so shallow on the
worm that any rotation of the gear creates huge friction between the gear and the worm,
as a result the worm is held in position. This property is referred to as the “Locking
Mechanism”. Conveyor belt operations take advantage of this system. When the motor
is powered off, due to the gears transmission systems locking mechanism, it prevents

slippage. Fig 2-12 demonstrates a worm gear set. As can be seen from the diagram, the
movement between the worm and the gear face is entirely sliding.
This movement causes increased friction, as a result, lubricants of a high viscosity value
must be used in gear systems of this nature (Jelaska 2012).
Figure 2-12 : Worm gears

(Jelaska 2012).
2.11.4Gear terminology
When designing gears, the following parameters are important to ensure correct gear
design. The equations are given below where N is the number of teeth on the gear and
Figure 2 -13 illustrates the different terminology.
 Pitch circle: is the circle upon which all theoretical calculations are based
(PCD).
 Circular pitch (p): is a measurement from a point on one tooth to a
corresponding point on the adjacent tooth measured on the pitch circle.
 Module (m): is the ratio of pitch diameter to number of teeth.
 Diametral pitch (P): the ratio of the number of teeth on the gear to pitch
diameter.
 Addendum (a): Radial distance between top land and pitch circle.
 Dendum (b): Radial distance between bottom and pitch circle
Figure 2-13: Gear terminology
N ….…………………………………………………………………...Equation 2-1
P=
d
d ..........................................................................................................Equation 2-2
m=
N
πd ……………………………………………………………………..Equation 2-3
p=
N
2.12 Levers and mechanical advantage
Mechanical Advantage (MA) is described as the output force or torque produced by a

machine to the input force. One of the simplest methods to achieve MA is by using
levers. Levers are ineffective when used on their own and most have a pivot point
known as the fulcrum. There are three classes of levers which are as follows:
 Class 1 lever: This type of lever works on the same principle as a see-saw. The
fulcrum is placed between the load and the effort. Changing the distance of the
fulcrum will have a direct effect on the effort (force) applied. If the fulcrum is in

the middle, the effort must be equal to the load. Fig 2-14 shows a typical class 1
lever, while fig 2-15 shows a class 1 lever in the human body.
Figure 2-14: Class one Lever Figure 2-15: class one lever in the body
 Class 2 lever: In this lever system, the load is in between the effort and the
fulcrum. Both the load and the effort are working in the same direction. A
classic example of this system is presented in fig 2-16 while fig 2-17 displays
how this lever works in the human body at the foot.
Figure 2-16: Class two lever Figure 2-17: Class two lever in the body
 Class 3 lever: Third class levers have the effort placed between both the load and
the fulcrum. This is the most common type of lever found in the human body.
Figs 2-18 and 2-19 display both a mechanical and biomechanical layout of class
3 type levers.

Figure 2-18: Class three lever Figure 2-19: Class three lever in the body
2.12.1Calculating Mechanical Advantage
Fig 2- 20 demonstrates a typical leverage system. To calculate MA, the following

equation is used
d 1 …………………………………………………………………. Equation 2-4

MA=
d2
Figure 2-20: Lever system

If the following is true
D1 = 8 metres
D2 = 2 metres
MA is equal to 4. From this simple example, it is clear to see the advantage which can
be gained from using simple lever systems.
2.13 Medical Research
2.13.1 Spinal cord

The spinal cord can be described as the electrical circuit of the human body connecting
the brain to the nervous system. It is typically about 1.5 cm in diameter. The length of
the spinal cord in men is typically 45 cm while in women it is 43 cm. It is the most
important structure in the body and is made up of nerves composing of white and grey
matter. The function of the spine is to protect the spinal cord and to provide support to
enable flexible motion. The cord is broken up into four sections as shown in fig 2- 21:

 The Cervical is located in the neck region. It consists of eight vertebrae which
are typically abbreviated C1-C8. The vertebrae protect the brain stem and spinal
cord and provide support to the skull. This allows for the range of head motion.
 The Thoracic spine consists of

twelve vertebrae abbreviated T1-
T12. These increase in size down
along the cord. The thoracic
spine is stronger and more stable
than the cervical, due to the rib
bones being attached to vertebras.
This limits the thoracic spine’s
range of motion.
 The Lumbar spine consists of

five vertebrae. These are the
largest in the spine and are designed to carry most of the body’s weight. They
Figure 2-21: Spinal cord are typically abbreviated as L1-L5. The

lumbar spine joints allow for greater range of motion in comparison to the
thoracic spine. This allows for significant flexion and extension.
 The Sacral spine: The sacrum is located behind the pelvis. These bones are
forged together to form the sacrum (Nordin and Frankel 2012) .
Figure 2 -22 illustrates the vertebrae. Every two vertebrae form a joint. In between the
vertebrae, lies the cartilage more commonly known as the disc. The disc acts as a shock
absorber for the spine. The disc may become compressed during daily activity and
decompressed during rest periods. This is the reason why there are height discrepancies,
when measuring human height first thing in the morning compared to late at night. Pain
in the back is a very common ailment and effects eighty percent of people at some time
in their lives (MacDonald 2009).

Figure 2-22: The vertebrae joint

(MacDonald 2009)
Fig 2-23 demonstrates the range of motion associated with typical body movements:
 Flex extension, bending forwards and backwards.

 Lateral flexion: movements side to side.
 Rotation: rotation movement about the hips.
The left hand side of the figure demonstrates the various vertebrae, in the spinal cord,
while the number on the top represents the max degree of motion the joints will flex.
For example, during a flex extension, the max angle is twenty degrees for each joint at
the lumbosacral level.

Figure 2-23: Type and range of motion at different levels of the spine
(Nordin and Frankel 2012)
Table 2-3 presents some Activity of Daily Living (ADL) and the average percentage of
range of motion associated with these activities.
Flexion / Extension Lateral Bending Axial Rotation

ADL (%) (%) (%)
Stand to sit 37 20 12
Backing car 10 16 18
Reading 4 6 6
Feeding 5 8 9
Putting on
Socks 22 19 14
Putting on
Shoes 20 20 16
Sit to stand 39 14 10
Washing
hands 12 15 12
Washing hair 9 11 12
Shaving 8 11 9
Bending 59 29 18
Walking 11 19 18
Table 2-3: Percentage of ROM of ADL

2.14 Spinal cord injuries and causes
Figure 2 -24 represents typical causes of SCI. These figures represent injuries in the
U.S.A., where a survey of over 1.2 million injuries were investigated. The three largest
contributors to SCI are motor vehicle, work and sports/recreational accidents
(foundation. 2014).
Figure 2-24 : Causes of SCI

(foundation. 2014)
Fig 2-25 demonstrates different causes of paralysis in the U.S.A. The main two
contributors are stroke victims and SCI. There are several diseases which are associated
with paralysis, the most predominate Multiple Sclerosis.
2.14.1 Strokes
Figure 2-25: Leading causes of paralysis

Over ten thousand strokes occur in Ireland on a yearly basis and over a quarter of people
die from these strokes (P 2011). People under sixty five years old account for one-third
of strokes. Strokes are caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain which is typically caused
by a blood vessel, which can either become blocked by a clot or burst. As a result, blood
supply to the brain is reduced. This can destroy or damage brain cells which control
human body movement. Depending on the side of the brain where the cell becomes
damaged, this will have a direct effect on the affected areas of the body. Strokes occur
with no warning and effects are immediate. The following are common symptoms of
stroke victims:
 Numbness or paralysis on one side of the body.

 Blurred vision.
 Confusion.
 Slurred speech.
 Mouth begins to drop to one side.
Strokes are broken down into two forms: Ischemic stroke which occurs in over eighty
percent of stroke victims. This is the blockage of the blood vessel to the brain. The other
is Haemorrhagic stroke which is caused by direct bleeding in the brain and affects
twenty percent of stroke victims. The exact causes of strokes are not known, although
factors which increase the risk include stress, smoking, being overweight, diabetes and
poor diet. Statistics have shown Asian and African communities are the most likely to
experience strokes.
Stroke victims can experience different forms of paralysis, depending on brain cell
damage; both upper and lower limbs can be affected. In circumstances of this nature,
victims may require specially customised electric wheelchairs.

2.14.2 Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a disease which affects the body’s immune system. The
human body nerve system is protected by Myelin. MS attacks the Myelin which in turn
leads to eventual nerve damage. Damage to the nerves results in a loss of
communication between the brain, spinal cord and other body parts. If the nerves
become impaired, the damage is irreversible. Depending on the amount of nerve
damage, paralysis is very often the outcome. Symptoms of MS are difficult to detect,
typical symptoms include the following:
 Numbness or weakness.
 Double vision and blurred vision.
 Fatigue.
 Dizziness.
 Tingling or pain in parts of the body.
In some cases, victims have a benign form of MS, where the disease does not advance
and patient’s condition remains stable. The causes of MS are unknown and no cure has
been developed. Researchers believe genetics play a large role in the cause. MS can
occur at any age but is most common between the ages of twenty to forty. Women are
almost twice as likely as men to develop the disease. Asian and African communities
have the lowest risk, while Northern Europeans have the highest risk.
Doctors have several methods to diagnose MS. A simple blood test can help rule out
symptoms associated with MS. Spinal Tap is a procedure in which the doctor inserts a
needle through the lower back into the spinal cord, fluid is removed and analysed for
abnormalities such as a high white blood cell count. Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(MRI) is also used to take detailed images of the body. The MRI uses radio waves and
magnets to examine the body. It allows doctors to check for any Myelin loss or lesion
growths which would indicate early signs of MS (Alyssa and David 2012).

2.15 Effects of Manual wheelchair propulsion
Through continuous uses of the same muscles, MWP has a devastating effect on the
body’s components. The parts of the body which are affected are mainly the shoulder,
the hands/wrists and to a lateral extent, the elbow and lower back. Before discussing the
effects the use of the wheelchair has on these components, it is first important to
understand the anatomy of each.
2.15.1 The Elbow Joint
Although not as common, the elbow also experiences fatigue during wheelchair
propulsion. The elbow joint is a complex joint that functions as a fulcrum for the
forearm lever system, that is responsible for positioning the hand and space (Nordin
and Frankel 2012). The elbow consists of three bones which form the Synovial hinge
joint. The three bones are the Humerus, Ulna and the Radius. The Humerus is the
largest bone in the elbow joint; it extends the length of the upper arm, where it is
connected to the Scapula (shoulder blade) and forms a ball and socket type joint. The
elbow joint is complex and can be broken into three joints, the Humeroulnar, the
Humeroradial and the Radioulnar joint. Figure 2 -26 displays where the three bones
meet to form these joints:
 The Humeroulnar joint: This is formed between the humerus and the ulna
bone. The joint is classed as a hinge joint, it allows for motions such as flexing
and extending. When the forearm is extended to the max limit, it forms an
obtuse angle which is known as the carrying angle.
 The Humeroradial joint: This is formed between the radius bone and the
humerus. The joint is a ball and socket type joint. The head of the radius bone is
a ball like structure which fits into the socket structure of the humerus. The
radius bone is connected to the ulna bone through the annular ligament which
prevents any separation of the two bones.
 The Radioulnar joint: This forms a pivot joint between the head of the radius
bone, the ulna bone and the annular ligament. This joint provides stability for the
forearm(Nordin and Frankel 2012).

Figure 2-26: Anatomy of Elbow joint

(Nordin and Frankel 2012).
2.15.2 Hand and wrist joint
The wrist is composed of two rows of carpal bones.
 Flexor and extensor tendons allow for the hand to function and rotate.
 The wrist and hand joint is a complex joint. There are 29 bones in total, which
form different groups called carpus, metacarpals and phalanges.
 There are 8 carpal bones which form the wrist. These are composed of two rows
and are attached to the radius and ulna bones of the forearm to form the wrist
joint.
 The palm of the hand consists of 5 bones which are called the meta-carpels.
Each of these bones extends to the 4 fingers and the thumb.
 There are 14 bones in the fingers called the phalanges bones. These bones are
divided into three groups which are:
1. Proximal phalanges.
2. Middle phalanges.
3. Distal phalanges.
Figure 2 -27 demonstrates the anatomy of the human hand and wrist.

Figure 2-27: Anatomy of hand and wrist

(Craig 2013)
The finger bones are the same design and only differ in size with the exception of the
thumb. The thumb joint does not contain the second phalanges bone; this allows greater
movement of the thumb. The ligament in the wrist prevents dorsal and lateral
movement, but still allows for the large range of motion associated with the wrist. There
are vast numbers of muscles contained in the hand and wrist which extend from the
forearm. These muscles give the wrist and hand strength to carry out daily tasks. The
ligaments contained between the carpal bones are sensitive and easy to sprain or
damage (Craig 2013).
2.15.3Shoulder Joint
The shoulder is the most mobile joint in the body. The glenohumeral joint is a ball and
socket joint that is surrounded by a fibrous sleeve, which helps hold the joint together.
The inner layer of the sleeve produces a fluid which feeds the cartilage and lubricates
the joint. This allows the arm to move in a circular motion and in different directions.
Flexion, extension, and adduction are all movements that the glenohumeral provide.
Cartilage and ligaments also play an important role in proper shoulder function.
A smooth surface allowing for the humerus head to rotate with less friction is made
possible by the labrum. This piece of cartilage cushions both the scapula and the
humerus. The three glenohumeral and coracohumeral ligaments assist in the
stabilization and movement of the shoulder joint along with the labrum and the rotator
cuff (Kjaer Michael).
The rotator cuff is a group of

relatively small muscles and
tendons, located deep in the
shoulder and surrounded by the
joint. Soft tissue is the main
form of support for the shoulder
and in addition to controlling
movement; it also helps hold the
joint together.
Figure 2-28: Anatomy of the shoulder joint
When a person using a manual wheelchair is suffering from RSI, and the symptoms
have lasted between six to twelve months with a significant weakness and loss of
function in the shoulder, surgery may be required. In the case of the rotator cuff, if
there is a tear more than three centimetres, surgery would be required, reattaching the
tendon to the head of the upper arm bone (Smith and Funk, 2010),( Smith Blair 2004).
2.15.4 Repetitive Strain Injury
Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) is a condition that can develop in MWU, due to
continuous use of the same muscles. It is a musculoskeletal disorder that is caused by
cumulative damage to the muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves or joints, from highly
repetitive movements. Repetitive strain injury is characterized by pain, weakness, and
the loss of feeling and/or numbness in the affected area. The shoulder is the most
common site of musculoskeletal injury in MWU.

Typically, the shoulder will break down after ten to fifteen years of use with an active
manual wheelchair user (Cooper 2013). This requires users to find alternative means of
transport, usually, in the form of electric wheelchairs. Pain in wrist, elbows, and hands
were also reported. Studies have shown the prevalence of forearm, wrist and hand pain
to be between 8 per cent and 85 per cent (Cooper 2013) . Although research indicates
that RSI is a looming issue for most individuals who use a wheelchair for daily living,
the answers to how and why people develop RSI through manual wheelchair propulsion
is still being investigated. Several experts have agreed, the major contributing factor is
the continuous coupling forces, which are associated with wheelchair propulsion
(Sarraj, 2011).
2.15.5 Carpal tunnel syndrome
Carpal tunnel syndrome is a condition caused by compression of a nerve which is

located between the wrist and hand. The symptoms are weakness, pain, and
disturbances of sensation in the hand and fingers. It may become difficult to grip the
hand rims of a manual wheelchair with CTS thus affecting the output force needed to
propel the wheelchair. CTS among MWU is between 49 per cent and 73 per cent
(Cooper 2013). The incidence of CTS is increased with duration of wheelchair use.
High repetition is more important than force in the development of CTS. Prolonged use
of a manual wheelchair can lead to RSI in the upper extremities. The number of manual
wheelchair users experiencing pain tends to increase with the time spent using a
wheelchair. High repetition is a greater factor than high force in the development of
CTS (Sarraj, 2011).
2.15.6 Obesity
Obesity is another major issue for MWU. The prevalence of obesity in MWU exceeds
that of the general population by more than 200% (Cramer et al.). Many paraplegics are
unable to work or exercise. This leads to depression and binge eating habits. A
secondary condition, cardiovascular disease usually develops in MWU, as a result of
obesity. Cardiovascular disease develops as a result of plaque building up inside the
arteries. This build up can have a devastating effect, cutting blood flow to the heart and
oxygen to the brain. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death for individuals
with SPI (Cramer et al.). The existing problem for MWU is additional exercise.

Even though MWU continually move their arms during propulsion, this motion uses the
same muscles repeatedly. This exercise does little for other muscles in the body. One of
the key exercises in SPI rehabilitation is rowing. This type of workout helps build the
muscles in the arms and the chest area (Cramer et al.).
2.15.7 Hygiene
The problem of hygiene for MWU has been well documented. Studies have illustrated
that 54% of MWU engage with the rim incorrectly(van der Linden et al. 1996). This
percentage uses both the tyre and the rim to propel the chair forward. As the user makes
contact with the tyre, germs and dirt are transferred to the wheelchair operator. This is
both unhygienic and dangerous to the user. Paths and roads contain glass and other
sharp objects which can become lodged in the wheelchair tyre, resulting in painful cuts
to the user.
2.16 Market research
In order to design a new product to help combat the medical issues associated with
manual wheelchair operation, it is important to research existing products and to find
out the pros and cons of different designs.
2.16.1 Product one
‘Rowheels’ is scheduled to launch in Feb of this year (2014) in the USA. The product
was the innovation of Salim Nasser. Nasser, a Mechanical design engineer became
wheelchair bound at the age of twenty as a result of a SCI. The design incorporates both
physics and engineering principles. The product consists of a complex gearing system
Figure 2 -29.
Figure 2-29: Rowheels gearing system

(Rowheels. 2014)

The system is made up of a planetary gearing system. The centre gear, the sun gear
rotates four smaller gears known as the “planetary gears”. These planetary gears rotate
the outside carrier gear thus, providing a change of direction. As a result, the user uses a
pullback motion to move forward. The hub containing the gearing system can be
attached to ninety percent of manual wheelchairs, through the use of an unobtrusive
adaptor. The gearing ratio reduces candescence by 340,000 strokes per year. The
science behind the design allows the user to maintain a more stable posture position and
to use the biceps muscles, rather than the triceps, which are not as strong shown in
Figure 2 -30 and 2-31.
Figure 2-30: Pushing a wheelchair Figure 2-31: Pulling a wheelchair
This allows the user to maintain a straight back and leg position, the most desirable
position for a wheelchair user. The pulling motion, as opposed to the more traditional
pushing motion uses much stronger muscles in the back, arms and shoulders.
The gearing system is manufactured from Acetal Copolymer. This is an engineering

polymer with the following characteristics: strength, stiffness, fatigue resistance and low
friction. The hub is manufactured from magnesium alloy, which is 33% lighter than
standard aluminium and 75% lighter than steel. This unit is manufactured by ‘Rowheels
Incorporate’ and costs are estimated at US$3,750(Rowheels. 2014)

2.16.2 Product two:
The pivot dual lever drive is a lever system which can be mounted onto a manual
wheelchair. The system consists of two wheels with an internal hub and an independent
lever attached to each wheel. The device is attached to the wheelchair via the quick
wheel release mechanism. To attach the system, the user must press the quick release
button, remove the existing wheelchair wheels and replace them with the dual pivot
lever drive system. The speed is varied, by moving the gear handle vertically up or
down fig 2-32.
The gears are set from one to five, according to the

operator’s needs. The selection of gear 1 allows the
user to travel up inclined surfaces with ease and
comfort. The selection of gear 5 can be used on flat,
even surfaces where speeds can be increased.
Directional change is achieved by altering the button
on the top of the lever handle fig 2-33. This allows the
user to operate the wheelchair in reverse mode.
Figure 2-32: Speed varied by gear handle
The pivot dual lever drive system, is compatible with all

known commercial models with standard tube frame
diameters ranging from 22.2 mm to 31.8 mm. Due to the
engineering design of the lever and gear system the
product allows the wheelchair user to exert less force
during wheelchair pulsation.
Figure 2-33: Change of direction button

The use of this product adds additional weight to the wheelchair of 6.5kgs. The cost of
the product is US$4,200. It is manufactured by Pivot TM based in the USA(Pivot 2014)
2.17 Product Three:
The Wijit is another lever drive system. It is similar to the Pivot Dual Lever system with
less controller options. The gearing components are housed in a hub which is attached
to the wheels. To retrofit existing manual wheelchairs, the wheels are replaced with the
Wijit system. Inside the hub is a gear transmission system containing the gear system.
Forward and reverse movement is achieved by the shifter situated at the top of the lever
(fig 2-34). The gearing system allows the user to move two to three times as far with
every push of the lever compared to normal pulsation movement of the conventional
wheelchair. This reduces the risk of RSI to the shoulder and CTS to the hands and
wrists. Clinical tests on this product have proved upper extremity kinetics, during
wheelchair propulsion, were reduced considerably. The Wijit is compatible with most
commercially manufactured wheelchairs and costs US$4,500 (Wijit. 2014).
Figure 2-34: Wijit lever system

(Wijit. 2014).

2.18 Hygiene:
As outlined earlier, hygiene is a contentious issue for manual wheelchair users.

Currently, few options exist on the market for wheelchair users. The lever device
systems enable the user to avoid complete contact with the wheelchair tyres. Due to
excessive costs, these systems are not economically viable for most wheelchair users.
The current and cheapest alternative is the use of wheelchair gloves Figure 2 -35.
Studies have shown that with the use of gloves, the forces and moments required for
manual wheelchair pulsation are somewhat reduced (Shimada1997). Reports have
demonstrated issues with the use of gloves with users complaining of general
discomfort. Through repetitive use, the gloves become soiled. This reverts back to the
original hygiene issues experienced by MWU. Glove prices vary depending on a user’s
situation e.g. sports gloves are more costly than standard wheelchair gloves. The
average cost of a standard pair of wheelchair gloves lies between €30-€35.
Figure 2-35: Wheelchair gloves

2.19 Conclusion
From an extensive literary review, the problems associated with MWU have become
clear. Ergonomically, wheelchairs have improved, but this has been mainly attributed to
the materials which have been used in recent years. Reduction in weight has been a key
feature in order to help reduce the required force for movement. The medical research
identified common ailments associated with manual wheelchair usage, RSI & CTS
being the most prominent. The market research identified existing products, the
“Rowheels” wheelchair being one of the latest developments in recent years to combat
the problem of RSI & CTS. The general consensus on the lever systems has overall
been positive. Most reports have shown they have benefitted the wheelchair user.
However, the major negative point is the considerable costs associated with these
systems.

3 Chapter Three Materials and Methods
3.1 Introduction
This section explains the methodology behind designing the new wheelchair propulsion
device. It discusses the design ideas and testing, it shows the pathway to the final design
and the reasoning behind the decision. Material choice, manufacturing and costs are
discussed in this section. Specifications and assumptions are set out at the early concept
stage. This continually changed, as the project became more in-depth and unforeseen
problems arose. Again, it is important to realise this is a prototype and several
improvements can be made in the next stage of development.
3.2 Design Specifications
 Low cost.
 Light weight material.
 Functionality.
 Recyclable.
 Ease of maintenance.
 Resistance to corrosion.
 Forward and backward motion.
 Simple design.
 Safe to use.
 Retrofit
Low cost is very important in the design of the prototype. The costs of the existing
systems on the market have already been documented. As this is a prototype and only
one is being produced, it will be more expensive, as opposed to mass production.
However, it is important that the design would be significantly cheaper than existing
products.
Light Weight material must be considered because if the prototype is heavy it will
increase the force required to move the wheelchair. The design must be functional, easy

to use, safe and adjustable to user needs. It must also be easily retrofitted onto existing
wheelchair models.
Recyclability, although not crucial to the design, is an important consideration.
Choosing materials, which are recyclable, will benefit manufacturers and users alike.
Ease of maintenance will add value to the design. When designing this prototype,
thought must be given not only to developed countries, but also developing countries.
Developing countries are limited in what they can manufacture and maintain, so the
design must be easy to fix and maintain, using common materials and manufacturing
practices. Resistance to corrosion is vital. Wheelchair users find themselves in different
environments. If they are outside in the rain, the design must be capable of resisting
corrosion. The design must also incorporate forward and backward motion. Current
products entail this design feature and therefore must be implemented.
3.3 Forces during propulsion
To calculate forces during wheelchair propulsion, the smart-wheel system is typically

used. This is a hub which is fitted directly onto the wheelchair and the data is then
logged onto a computer system. The system measures vector forces in all three
directions, Fx, Fy and Fz, the sum of which is equal to Fr (resultant force). It also
measures the tangential torque (Ft) by measuring the torque applied to the wheel and
then dividing it by the pushrim radius. From this information, the mechanical effective
force (MEF) can be calculated. The MEF is the portion of the force that is actually used
to move the wheelchair forward. Equation 3-1 is used to calculate the percentage of
MEF. Typically, the MEF is 55% - 75% less than Fr, which is why; wheelchair
propulsion is so inefficient (Guo, 2002).
Ft 2 / Fr 2….…………………………………………………………………Equation 3-5
Factors which affect the force being applied include tyre choice and the surface on
which the wheelchair is moving on. Studies carried out on different surfaces concluded
the highest resultant force experienced by the user, is, during the initial start-up
phase(Koontz et al. 2005). As the strokes increase, the applied force decreases and

typically, levels out after about five strokes. Table 3-1 demonstrates results from these
studies on wheelchair propulsion.
Table 3-4: Results from wheelchair Propulsion Studies
This data is important, as it shows the types of resultant forces required to move the
wheelchair. When designing the components of the prototype, the correct force must be
used in order to ensure the parts will not fail.
3.4 Friction
Friction plays a major role in most mechanical parts. It is believed that half the energy
in the world is used to overcome some form of friction. Friction has many different
forms; the main categories are as follows:
 Static friction.
 Kinetic friction.
 Rolling friction.
 Fluid friction.
From the above list rolling friction and fluid friction contribute to the forces
experienced by manual wheelchair users. Rolling resistance occurs when two objects
move relative to one another. This happens, when the wheelchair wheel rolls on
surfaces such as tarmac or concrete. The amount of resistance will depend on the
amount of hardness of the tyre and the surface. Softer surfaces produce a much higher
degree of friction. Fluid friction occurs, when a body moves through a fluid. The

particles of fluid hit the body, causing a resistance force. The fluid, in the case of a
wheelchair user, is air.

To calculate rolling friction, equation 3-2 or equation 3-3 may be used where the
following notation is used;
 Fr = Rolling resistance measured in Newton’s (N)

 c = Coefficient of rolling resistance and is unit less
 W = Normal force or weight of a body (m*g)
 M = Mass(kg)
 G = acceleration of gravity (9.81m/s2 )
 Ci = Coefficient of rolling resistance with dimensions of length (metres)
 r = radius of wheel (metres)
Fr=c∗W ………………………………………………………………...Equation 3-6
Fr=ci∗W /r …………………………………………………………….Equation 3-7
Table 3-2 illustrates typical values which are used for the coefficient of resistance (c) in
equation six. Railroad steel wheels on steel rails offer less resistance than ordinary car
tyres travelling on concrete.
Rolling Resistance
Coefficient Surfaces
C
0.001 - 0.002 Railroad steel wheels on steel rails
0.002 Bicycle tyre on concrete
0.004 Bicycle tyre on asphalt road
0.006 - 0.01 Truck tyre on asphalt
0.01 - 0.015 Ordinary car tyres on concrete
0.03 Car tyres on tar or asphalt
Table 3-5: Correlation values for rolling resistance
(Lemair 1991)

The drag force or fluid friction can be calculated using equation 3-4 when the following
notation is used;
 Fd = Drag force measured in Newton’s (N)

 Cd = Coefficient of drag
 δ = Density ( air 1.2 kg/m3)
 V = Flow velocity (m/s)
 A = Area of body or object
Fd=Cd∗.5∗δ∗V∗A ………………………………………………Equation 3-8
(Lemair 1991)
3.5 Concept design phase

3.5.1 Design one
This design is based on the principle of the bicycle. The two gears in green represent the
back spindle of a bike. A shaft runs through (red in the diagram) and is attached directly
on the wheelchair wheel. The lever arm is attached to a hub which includes a bearing
inside (this section is coloured yellow in the diagram).
Figure 3-36: Concept sketch one Figure 3-37: Pin between the spur gear

The lever handle has a pin which fits between the teeth of the spur gears fig 3-2. As the
handle moves forward, the gears rotate. Then, when the operator pulls the lever back
into the upright position, the gears will freewheel.
This is the same principle as pedalling a bicycle. When pedalling forward, the gears
engage, however, if the bike is pedalled backwards, nothing will happen. The free-
wheel mechanism allows the operator to move the lever forward and backwards to
achieve propulsion.
The pros of this design are:
 Very simple.
 Cheap to make.
 Can use existing bicycle parts.
The cons of this design are:
 Difficult to retrofit.
 No reverse.
 Requires large spur gear teeth.
 Uses the same teeth continuously.
 Safety issues.
3.5.2 Design two
This design incorporates a spur gear system. The lever handle is attached to the large
spur gear (green in the diagram). As the gear rotates, it turns the second spur gear
(blue). The large gear is twice as big, which would give a 2:1 ratio. This would allow
the user to rotate the wheelchair wheel twice as far for one rotation of the lever. The
blue spur gear is attached to the wheel in the same manner as idea one. It would allow
the gear to rotate one way and engage in the other, similar to a road bike .The large gear
is held in place, using a plate, which is held in place, by bolting it to the wheelchair
frame (Yellow in Figure 3 -38 ).

The large gear can rotate on the shaft which is attached to the plate via a bearing. This
design incorporates features from existing products already on the market. It is a lever
system, which operates opposite to existing systems. Similar to the ‘Rowheels’ system
the operator will pull the lever instead of pushing. This is a similar motion to that of a
rowing machine.
Figure 3-38: Design idea two Figure 3-39: Design idea

two
The pros of this design are:

 Simple.
 Nothing like it on the market.
 Gives a 2:1 ratio.
The cons of the design:

 Not easy to retrofit.
 No reverse.
 Poor aesthetics.
 Would not work with all wheelchair models.
 Safety issues.


3.5.3 Design three
This idea is based on current technology. It is a type of ratchet system. The hub, red in
Figure 3 -40 contains a number of small teeth which are machined into the housing.
The internal gear is the drive. The teeth on this gear are spring mounted, these types of
teeth, are more commonly known as ‘Pawls’. As the drive gear is rotated forward, the
gears engage with one another, which will rotate the housing forward.
Figure 3-40: Hub and driver Figure 3-41: Lever attached to

driver
The hub is fitted to a flat plate, which in turn, is attached to the push rim via the existing
bolts. The lever is attached to a solid shaft via a shear pin. As the lever rotates back into
position, the drive gear will then rotate, backwards. As it rotates the spring mounted
‘Pawls’ will compress, which allows the drive gear to rotate backwards. This allows the
lever to push forward and then return. This type of operation is used on slip clutch
systems in Power Take Off (PTO) machines.
The pros of this design are as follows:

 Easier to retrofit.
 Cheap.
 More aesthetically pleasing.


The cons of the design are:
 Outer hub a vast amount of teeth.

 May be difficult to machine in the college workshop.
 No reverse.
3.5.4 Concept Screening
To help develop and select a final concept design, concept screening was incorporated.
Table 3 -6 illustrates the results. The selection criterion chosen was deemed the most
important to the design. Each section of criteria was given a weighting of importance.
Each design idea was rated according to the criteria. The total weighted score was added
and each design was ranked accordingly. This process proved very useful, as it outlined
two possible designs on which to concentrate. Both of the designs scored similar, but,
both had one major flaw, neither design incorporated the option of reverse. Providing
this feature was proving more difficult than anticipated. In order to keep costs down, the
gearing system must be kept as simple as possible. After some time of exploring and
experimenting with design ideas, a final concept design was developed.
Table 3-6: Concept screening scoring

3.6 Final design
The final design incorporates aspects of the three concept ideas. Several ideas were
researched with the outcome negative on most occasions. Because of these setbacks, a
decision was made to manufacture a quick model of the design to ensure it worked.
Figure 3-7 to 3-9 illustrates the basic outline of the system. The small spur gear is
attached to a flat plate which is bolted onto the hand rim. Running through the gear and
the plate is a 12mm shaft which is used to fix the wheel to the chair. This shaft is fixed
to the frame and cannot rotate. The internal ring gear Figure 3-8 is used to drive the
small gear. This gear rotates on the shaft, attached to the plate in Figure 3 -42. The
large gear will be driven by a ratchet. This will allow the user to achieve both forward
and backward movement, by simply moving, the switch to the left or to the right. Figure
3 -44 illustrates the design attached to the wheel.
Figure 3-42: Initial model Figure 3-43: Plate attached to large gear
Figure 3-44: Large gear driving small gear

3.6.1 Why this design
This design was chosen, because it combined aspects of all three concept designs. It also
allowed for the system to work in both forward and backward mode which was very
important to the design. It will be easy to retrofit onto existing standard wheelchairs.
The design can be marketed as an accessory kit or sold as a single unit including the
wheels and the lever system. This design will provide a more ergonomic approach for
the user. It will eliminate the tangential forces already discussed and reduce the resultant
force. The wheelchair operator will push the lever straight out, compared to the normal
angle currently used. This will be a more efficient method of wheelchair propulsion and
should reduce resultant forces (Fr) for the end user, Figure 3 -45 illustrates the final
concept scoring. The chosen design scores much higher than the previous three designs.
Using this design will incorporate some of the exercises required for wheelchair users as
demonstrated in Figure 3 -46.
Figure 3-45: Final concept scoring

Figure 3-46: Different exercises for wheelchair users

3.7 Initial testing
In order to obtain some idea of how the design will work and what is required, initial
testing was carried out. The first question to answer is what a comfortable speed for a
wheelchair user is? In order to achieve this, a twenty metre length was marked out on
flat tarmac. An able bodied subject travelled over this length five times, the average
time and the amount of strokes were obtained. The results illustrated, that for one stroke
the wheelchair moved .7 to .8 of a metre, this equates to an average speed of two MPH.
The testing also revealed some vital information on the lever system. In order for the
operator to move the lever comfortably, it must not move forward more than an angle of
60°, illustrated by the black line in Figure 3 -47. If the lever moves any more, it causes
the operator to lean forward during propulsion, which is poor for posture and can cause
additional back problems. This result indicates that the lever system must be geared in
order to achieve movement of .7m or greater in one stroke of sixty degrees.
Figure 3-47: Angle of rotation for lever

More testing was carried out to examine the general kind of forces required to move the
wheelchair over different surfaces. The types of surfaces examined were as follows;
 Rough concrete
 Floor tiles
 Timber
The wheelchair used was a ‘Days’ model manufactured from stainless steel, the mass of
the chair and subject is 20kg and 85kg. Figure 3 -48 illustrates the test rig, which was
set up. The subject sat on the chair, weights were added till the chair moved, illustrated
in Figure 3 -49. The different types of materials are illustrated in Figures 3-15 and 3-
16.
Figure 3-48: Force Test rig

Figure 3-49: Subject being tested
Figure 3-50: Testing tile surface Figure 3-51: Testing timber surface

The results of the test are presented in Table 3 -7. The mass, which was added, was
recorded and the force was calculated using equation 3-5;
Mass (m) in kg
Gravity (g) measured in m/s2
F=m∗g ………………………………………………………………. Equation 3-9
Surface Mass added Force (N)

Rough Concrete 3.4 kg 33.3
Floor Tiles 2.5 kg 24.5
Timber 2.2 kg 21.6
Table 3-7: Force testing
3.8 Drawings
After making a decision on the final design, the next phase was to develop a working
drawing. Creo parametric was used to generate the working drawings. Both 2-D and 3-
D drawings were generated using this Computer Aided Design (CAD) package. The
drawings were adhered to as closely as possible during manufacturing. As with any new
design, there were slight changes in the working drawings compared to the final
product, due to unforeseen complications in the manufacturing phase. Figure 3-17
illustrates the type and quality of drawings which were created. The complete set of
working drawings are attached in the appendices. To generate the involute curve for the
gears, the following equation was used
r = Pitch circle radius

ang = t * 90
s = (3.1416 * r * t) / 2
xc = r * cos(ang)
yc = r * sin(ang)
x = xc + (s * sin(ang))
y = yc - (s * cos(ang))
z=0

Figure 3-52: Example of working drawings
3.9 Possible Materials
The following examines the possible materials which could be used to manufacture the
new design; the following are the desired material properties:
 Cheap
 Light
 Non-Corrosive
Aluminium is the second most plentiful metallic element on earth. It’s use in
engineering applications began towards the end of the 19th century. Pure Aluminium on
its own is quite a soft, lightweight material with low fatigue strength. It is very ductile,
due to its weakness and uses include lining for vessels, where a high corrosion
resistance is desired. It is extremely expensive to refine, almost seven times that of steel.
Aluminium is refined from bauxite and is dissolved in a cryolite bath. An electric
current is passed through the bath to electrolyze the dissolved alumina.

3.9.1 Key Properties
One of the key properties associated with aluminium is its light weight. It has a density
of 2.7g/cm3, almost one third of steel which is 7.83g/cm 3. Aluminium has the ability to
resist corrosion, it combines with oxygen to form an oxide film. This film acts as a
barrier and will prevent further rusting. The layer is extremely thin, not visible to the
human eye. Unlike the oxidation layer which forms on iron, the aluminium layer will
not flake off, thus preventing oxidation on new surfaces; if the protective layer becomes
scratched or damaged, it has the ability to repair itself. Aluminium also displays
excellent electrical and thermal conductivity properties and is a nonferromagnetic
material.
3.9.2 Aluminium alloys
Aluminium alloys are divided into two categories, casting and wrought composites.
Wrought alloys are alloys which have been worked, forged or heat treated. Cast alloys
are those in which its molten metal is poured into shape. For wrought alloys, a four digit
system is used to produce a list of wrought composition families, for example 2xxx
alloys are, where copper is the principal alloying metal. A similar system is used in
casting composites; it uses a three digit system and a decimal point, as illustrated in
Table 3 -8 and 3-6.
Table 3-8: Wrought alloys notation Table 3-9: Casting alloys notation

3.9.3 Heat treatable and non heat treatable alloys
Heat treatable alloys are hardened by a controlled means of heating and cooling. These
alloys are typically in the 2xxx,6xxx and 7xxx class. The increase in strength from the
heat treatment can be condiderable in some cases over two and half times as much,
however this process does effect formability. Alloys which are not heat treated are
hardened, by cold working only. Their strength comes from the alloying processes, they
are in the 1xxx and 5xxx class. Figure 3 -53 illustrates the types of works which are
carried out on the alloys.
Figure 3-53: Types of works
One of the most commonly used aluminium alloys is 6061, it contains magnesium and
sillcone as its alloying elements. It was developed in 1935 and contains good
mechanical properties, high strength to weight ratio and weldability. The class of 6061
depends on the works carried out on it. 6061-T4 has an ultimate tensile strength and
yield strength of 207 and 110 MPa. The most commonly used alloy of the 6061 range is
the 6061-T6. This has an ultimate tensile strength and a yield strength value of 300 and
241 MPa. Some of the common uses include the construction of aircraft wings and
Fuselages. It is also used to manufacture boats, fishing reels, bicycle and wheelchair
frames. One of it’s key attributes is it’s ability to be welded. It can be welded, using
conventional methods of MIG or TIG welding. However, areas around the weld
typically have a loss of strength up to 60%. It has good cold formability in the temper
T4, but, limited in the T6. Figure 3-19 illustrates properties of some aluminium
alloys(Davis 1993).

Figure 3-54 : Some aluminium alloy mechanical properties
3.10 Magnesium/Magnesium alloys
Magnesium is one of the lightest structural metals; on its own, it is quite soft and weak.
Magnesium alloys are typically mixed with other metals to acquire desired mechanical
properties. Some of the most common alloy metals are aluminium, zinc, silicon and
copper. Magnesium weighs about two thirds of aluminium. It is a non-toxic, non-
magnetic substance. It is a light, silvery white metal colour and comes in forms of grey
powder, thin sheets or chip. Magnesium dust can affect breathing when inhaled and
contact with the eyes and skin should be avoided.
3.10.1 Properties
Magnesium has a chemical symbol Mg. Magnesium will rust, but, at a much slower rate
as compared to metals such as steel.
Due to its softness, this results in high machinability and does not require any special
tooling. Magnesium, however in powder form, is highly flammable. As of 2013,
magnesium alloy consumption is less than one million tonnes per year, while aluminium
alloys stand at fifty million tonnes a year (Baker 1999).
3.10.2 Uses
The motor industry uses large volumes of magnesium alloys to manufacture car frames
for lightweight vehicles. It was also used to manufacture the engine blocks in some of
the BMW car range. Magnesium alloys maintain good electrical properties, this coupled
with its light weight, allows for use in mobile phones and laptops. Table 3 -10
illustrates mechanical properties of magnesium alloys.
Magnesium alloys are typically recognised by the two letters which are followed by two
numbers. The letters represent the alloying metal and the numbers represent the weight
percentage of each in the compound. Alloys, are typically classed as casting alloys or
wrought alloys similar to aluminium alloys.
Casting alloys are manufactured, by using die casting or sand casting. When comparing
mechanical properties between casting and wrought alloys, casting has significantly
lower properties, especially its ductility property. Wrought Alloys are heated and forged
together. These are typically alloyed with aluminium, zinc or zirconium (Baker 1999).
Table 3-10: Magnesium alloy properties

3.11 Polymers
There are two main types of plastics, thermoplastics and thermosets. Thermoplastics can
be softened by heat and have the ability to be moulded by injection or vacuum form
moulding. Examples of these types of plastics are acrylic. Plastics of this nature can be
used in certain circumstances instead of glass. Other examples are nylon, PVC and
Polypropylene. Thermoset plastics are polymers which are usually in liquid form at low
temperatures. When high temperatures are applied, they change their properties and
become a hard substance, the effects of which are irreversible. Examples of thermoset
plastics are exposy resins. These are used as coating materials or insulators.
3.11.1Properties
Plastics are light and will not rust; however, they are not as strong as metals and have
poor resistance to shock loading. Polymers, when compared with metals, have much
lower density, stiffness and hardness.
In general they are more ductile. Solid and foam polymers have low conductivity
values, when compared with metals. Polyurethane is a prime example and is used for
domestic insulation.
Polymers are also used as electrical insulators, as they have a much higher resistance in
comparison to metals. Properties of polymers are generally affected, when exposed to
the atmosphere or direct sunlight (John 1983). This occurrence can make the material
more brittle. Two of the most common types of polymers used are polyethylene (PE)
and polyvinylchloride (PVC) (Philip and Bolton 2002).
3.11.2 Polyethylene
This is more commonly referred to as low density (LDPE) or high density (HDPE).
Some of its characteristics include its flexibility and good chemical resistance. HDPE,
on the other hand, is a much stiffer material with good chemical resistance. Both forms
can be blow or injection moulded. The main uses for LDPE are sheeting, bags, milk
cartons and tubes for ballpoint pens. HDPE is used to make piping.

3.11.3 Polyvinylchloride
PVC is quite a hard, rigid material. Plasticiser is usually added to give PVC more
flexibility. Similar to polyethylene, it can be injected and blow moulded.
Unplasticisered PVC is used to manufacture piping in drainage systems, window frames
and light fittings. Plasticised PVC can be used to make raincoats, bottles and the soles
of shoes. Thermoset polymers are stronger and stiffer than thermoplastics. Usually, they
can be used at higher temperatures than thermoplastics. Once thermoplastics have been
shaped they cannot be re-shaped, which limits their use.
Figure 3-55: Polymer properties

3.12 Steels
Plain carbon steels, have alloys of iron and carbon. There are vast amounts of different
grades of steel. Over three hundred recognised types, each offering different strengths
and properties. Steel, with low carbon content, has similar properties to iron. It is soft
and easy to form and shape.
The different grades of steel are dependent on the carbon content. As carbon content
rises, steels become harder and stronger. However, it reduces the ductility and the
material becomes harder to machine.
3.12.1 Steel types
 Mild steel
This is a low carbon steel; it contains approximately .05 to .3% carbons. It is one of the
most common types of steel. This is due to its low price and mechanical properties,
which are suitable for many applications. The tensile strength of mild steel can range
from 250 MPa, to 500 MPa depending on the carbon content. It has a young’s modules
of approximately 210 GPa.
 Medium carbon steel
These steels have a carbon content which range from 0.3 to 0.6%. They have many
desirable mechanical properties such as high strength and good wear resistance.
 High carbon steel
High carbon steel has approximately a carbon content of 0.1%. It is extremely strong
and is commonly used to manufacture springs and high tension wires. In fully heat
treated conditions, it is very hard and it will withstand high shear and wear resistance.
 Ultra high carbon steel
Ultra high carbon, contains approximately 1-2% carbon. These steels are extremely hard
and can be tempered to increase hardness. Their uses include areas such as axles or
punches, where hardness is a desirable mechanical property. Steels of this nature are
manufactured, using powder metallurgy and are classed as high alloy carbon steel.


Figure 3 -56 gives an evaluation of the effects of the percentage of carbon within
steels, as can be seen from the graph, the higher the percentage of carbon the lower the
ductility, but, the higher the hardness (Higgins 2006).
Figure 3-56: Effects of carbon content
3.12.2 Properties of Steel
Steels have a density which ranges from 7.7 to 8.1 e3 kg/m3. Their density is the reason
why aluminium is preferred in situations, where weight is a more important factor than
strength. Steels are used because of their high strength and workability. Depending on
the carbon content, steels can be easily welded and machined and are preferred in many
cases, due to their low cost (.49 Euros/kg). One of the major disadvantages associated
with using steel is its resistance to corrosion. Corrosion occurs in steels, when in the
presence of moisture and oxygen, a hydrate ferric oxide layer forms, also known as rust.
The following is the chemical equation to represent this reaction.
Fe(steel) + 3O2(Oxygen) + 2H2O(Water) = 2Fe2O3H2O (Rust)

The problem with rust in steels is that it flakes off to produce new surfaces for
oxidation. Over time the rust will completely erode the steel. Prevention methods
include painting or galvanising.
3.12.3Steel Alloys
There is a vast amount of alloying materials used with steels. These range from copper,
carbon, aluminium and chromium. The alloying materials provide different mechanical
properties.
 Improved toughness
 Improved tensile strength
 Obtain better corrosion resistance
 Improve wear resistance
One of the best known of these alloys is steel and chromium, otherwise, known as
stainless steel. It is used in areas where corrosion or stain is not acceptable. It’s common
uses include kitchenware. It’s density is similar to that of steel but is far more expensive
(5.06 euros a kg). Figure 3 -57 illustrates some steel properties and uses (Higgins
2006).
Figure 3-57: Steel properties and uses

3.13 Composites
Carbon fibre composite materials are composed of two or more materials. There has
been a significant rise in their development in recent years. They offer unique properties
of a high strength to weight ratio and are resistant to corrosion. The development of
composite materials began in the 1950s by NASA airspace to aid in the Apollo projects.
One of the most commonly used composites is carbon fibre (Chung 1994).
3.13.1 Properties
It consists of carbon fibrous subrate in a carbona-ceous matrix. The composite

behaviour of each state may range from carbon to graphite. These structures are laid in
different configurations and bonded together. The atoms, within the thin layer, have
covalent bond strengths of 525 kj/mol. The strength and properties of the composite
depend on the type of layering and the fibre materials used. Different types produce
different properties. Their uses include golf shafts, bicycle and wheelchair frames and
formulae one.
The problems associated with carbon fibre are; it is extremely expensive, 33 euros a kg
and very difficult to machine. It requires special tooling and cannot be welded like
metals(Chung 1994).
Figure 3-58: Mechanical properties of some composites

3.14 Material selection
When selecting the design material, cost is the most important factor, but, weight is also
a key feature. Different components require different physical properties. The research
carried out on the different materials has helped with material selection. Carbon fibre is
not an option. It’s far too expensive and difficult to machine. It would be light, but, the
cost could not justify its selection. Using polymers on some of the components may be
an option. They are light, relatively cheap and avoid corrosion, but the problem with
most polymers is that they are brittle. If the wheelchair, for example, hit a kerb or a
footpath, it may cause a sudden force on the components, forcing them to snap. The two
stand-out candidates from the research are aluminium and steel. The aluminium is non
corrosive and light, but, is more expensive when compared to steel. Aluminium does
not offer the same strength and fatigue properties as steel. The problems associated with
steel are its weight and if not protected, it will corrode. The one major advantage of
using steel is it’s low cost.
The shaft of the design must be manufactured from steel. The bearings contained in the
wheelchair are for a 12mm diameter shaft. As the design will be marketed as a retrofit
system, these bearings cannot be changed on existing wheelchairs. In order to
accomplish and provide safety for the user, steel must be used. If aluminium was used it
would require a larger diameter to provide the same factor of safety. The shaft plate
must be welded to the shaft, steel and aluminium cannot be welded through normal
techniques, so, this dictates the material choice for the plate. Figure 3 -59 demonstrates
the completed pieces which must be manufactured from steel. As the rest of the
components are not under the same degree of stress, they can be manufactured from
aluminium or steel.
Figure 3-59: Steel components

Parts Material type Vol (mm3) Density (kg/m3) Mass (kg)

Rim connection Steel 124320 7.70E+03 0.957264
Ring gear plate Steel 23140.2 7.70E+03 0.1781795
Spacer Steel 17153.1 7.70E+03 0.1320789
Socket Plate connection Steel 3601.6 7.70E+03 0.0277323
shaft Plate Steel 11942.7 7.70E+03 0.0919588
Long shaft Steel 15833.6 7.70E+03 0.1219187
Small shaft Steel 2940.53 7.70E+03 0.0226421
Pins (4) Steel 1244 7.70E+03 0.0095788
Lever handle Steel 123700 7.70E+03 0.95249
Wheelchair plate Steel 7200 7.70E+03 0.05544
Lever bushing Nylon 10602 7.70E+03 0.0816354
Spur gear Steel 7.70E+03 0.076
Ring gear Steel 7.70E+03 0.1
Ratchet Steel 7.70E+03 0.35
Total (kg) 3.16
Table 3-11: Mass with steel components

Parts Material type Vol (mm3) Density (kg/m3) Mass (kg)
Rim connection Aluminium 124320 2.70E+03 0.335664
Ring gear plate Aluminium 23140.2 2.70E+03 0.06247854
Spacer Aluminium 17153.1 2.70E+03 0.04631337
Socket Plate connection Aluminium 3601.6 2.70E+03 0.00972432
shaft Plate Steel 11942.7 7.70E+03 0.09195879
Long shaft Steel 15833.6 7.70E+03 0.12191872
Small shaft Steel 2940.53 7.70E+03 0.022642081
Pins (4) Steel 1244 7.70E+03 0.0095788
Lever handle Aluminium 123700 2.70E+03 0.33399
Wheelchair plate Aluminium 7200 2.70E+03 0.01944
Lever bushing Nylon 10602 7.70E+03 0.0816354
Spur gear Steel 7.70E+03 0.076
Ring gear Steel 7.70E+03 0.1
Ratchet Steel 7.70E+03 0.35
Total (kg) 1.66
Table 3-12: Mass with mixed components

Material
Parts type Length(m) price €/m Total
Rim connection Steel 1 1.00E+00 1.00E+00
Ring gear plate Steel 0.01 3.20E+00 3.20E-02
Spacer Steel 0.012 3.80E+01 4.56E-01
Socket Plate connection Steel 0.06 2.20E+00 1.32E-01
shaft Plate Steel 0.07 2.20E+00 1.54E-01
Long shaft Steel 0.14 3.00E+00 4.20E-01
Small shaft Steel 0.05 3.00E+00 1.50E-01
Pins (4) Steel 0.012 1.50E+00 1.80E-02
Lever handle Steel 0.6 5.80E+00 3.48E+00
Wheelchair plate Steel 0.06 2.20E+00 1.32E-01
Lever bushing Nylon 0.06 6.00E+00 3.60E-01
Spur gear Steel 1.50E+01 1.50E+01
Ring gear Steel 4.20E+01 4.20E+01
Ratchet Steel 8.00E+00 8.00E+00
Bearings + Bolts Steel 6.00E+00 6.00E+00
Total 77.33
Vat 21% 16.24014
Total € 93.57
Table 3-13: Cost with steel components
Parts Material type Length(m) price €/m Total

Rim connection Aluminium 1 2.50E+00 2.50E+00
Ring gear plate Aluminium 0.01 6.50E+01 6.50E-01
Spacer Aluminium 0.012 6.50E+01 7.80E-01
Socket Plate connection Aluminium 0.06 4.50E+00 2.70E-01
Pins (4) Steel 0.012 1.50E+00 1.80E-02
Lever handle Aluminium 0.6 1.10E+01 6.60E+00
Wheelchair plate Aluminium 0.06 4.50E+00 2.70E-01
Spur gear Aluminium 1.50E+01 1.50E+01
Ring gear Aluminium 4.20E+01 4.20E+01
Total 83.33
Vat 21% 17.49993
Total € 100.83
Table 3-14 : Cost for mixed components

3.15 Results/Conclusion
The result of the investigation into the possible material is demonstrated in tables 3-8 to
3-11. Table 3-8 illustrates the mass of the new design, using steel; the volume of each
component was obtained from Creo Parametric. The results of this design are for one of
the wheels, so, this must be multiplied by two to obtain total mass. The total mass
equates to 6kgs using steel, compared to 3.33 kgs using a mix of steel and aluminium.
This is a significant difference in mass, Table 3 -13 and 3-11 illustrate the cost of the
design for a single wheel. Using steel equates to 188€ the mix of components equates to
202€. From these figures, the best option is to use the mix of components, as this offers
a significant reduction in the mass. It also offers a resistance to corrosion which would
be important, as the wheelchair user would most definitely use this system outside.
From the cost and weight analysis, it can be concluded, that, the significant reduction in
weight is a more important factor. The difference in cost is only 14€, but, the weight
reduction is halved. Based on this analysis, a mixture of steel and aluminium should be
used for manufacturing.
3.16 Design Calculations
Before carrying out any calculations, it is important to understand the properties of

materials and their relevance to the design process.
 Tensile strength:
This is more commonly known as Su or Sut. This is the maximum stress reached on the
stress/strain diagram. It is carried out by pulling test specimens apart to see how ductile
the material is. Some materials show downward trends after the maximum stress is
reached.
 Yield strength
This is typically notated as Sy. When a specimen is tested in tension, it’s strain rate may
begin to increase very quickly without a corresponding increase in stress, known as the
yield point. This is very difficult to find, so, the yield strength is usually defined by the
offset method. This is typically 0.2% of the original gauge length.

 Hardness
This is a material’s ability to resist deformation. There are a number of different tests
used to measure the hardness of a material. These include Brinell, Vickers and
Rockwell testing. The material, which is tested, is indented by a ball or a diamond shape
under a given load. The size of the impression is measured from which it’s hardness can
be calculated.
 Young’s Modulus
This is used to measure the elastic property of materials and is denoted by the letter ε. If
a material is loaded or stretched, when the load is removed, the material will return to its
original shape. It is the slope of the elastic region on the stress/strain curve and is
referred to as Hooks law, illustrated by equation 3-6.
Stress
ε= …………………………………………………....... Equation 3-10
Strain
 Fatigue and modifying factors

Fatigue occurs when a part continuously experiences loading and unloading. Depending
on the geometry of the mechanical component, it can occur on sections known as stress
risers. There are many different types of stress risers and with each one is a stress
concentration factor, Kt. In calculating the fatigue strength of a component, the
following factors must be examined:
 Se is the corrected endurance strength of a part and is equal to

ka*kb*kc*kd*ke*kf*se’.
 Se’- this is the level of stress which can be applied indefinitely without
causing fatigue failures. For most ductile metals it occurs at
approximately 106.
 ka: accounts for the type of surface finish.
 kb: accounts for the size factor of the piece.
 kc: accounts for the type of reliability required for a component.
 kd: accounts for the type of temperature experienced by a component.
 ke: is a stress concentration factor, caused by geometry of the piece.
 kf: accounts for all other miscellaneous factors.

The following section illustrates the calculations for the main components in the system.
All material properties and modifying factor were obtained from tables (Shigley 1986)
which can be seen in the appendices. The shaft was analysed as a canter lever beam and
the software package MD solids was used to generate the shear force and bending
moment diagrams. The values obtained in these diagrams were used in the calculations.
A force of 70N was used as an application force to the levers with an uncertainty factor
of three and a lever length of .6 meters. Free Body Diagrams (FBD) were used to
simplify the problems and help calculate the forces experienced by the components.
3.16.1 Size of socket plate bolts required?
Figure 3-60: Socket plate bolts
Figure 3-61: Free body diagram of socket plate

F1 = F2
∑Fy = 0
70N*.6 = 2*F1*(.036)
70 N∗.6
F1 = F1 = 583.33 newton’s
2(.036)
Shear force for static load = 584 newton’s.
F
Ssy = Ssy = .577 Syt
A
Table 8-4, bolt class 4.8 Syt = 340 MPa
Ssy = .577*(340) = 196 MPa
√
(584)(3) (584)(3)
196 = D2 = D 196∗10e6
π( ) π( )
4 4
Diameter of bolt for static load = 3.37 mm.
Bolt required 4mm bolt
Fatigue Loading
Se’ = (.5 SUT) = 210MPa
ka = 1
kb = 1
kc = 1
kd = 1
1
ke = = .45
kf
kf = 2.2 rolled threads (table 8-5)
kb = 1
Se = .45*210 = 100 MPa
Sse = .557*Se = 57.7 MPa

√
(584)(3) ( 584)(3)
F
Sse = 57.7 = D2 = D 57.7∗10e6
A π( ) π( )
4 4
Diameter of bolt required for fatigue 6.2mm bolt.
Bolt required 7mm bolt.
3.16.2 Size of bolts required for Ring gear Plate?
Figure 3-62: Ring gear plate bolted in place
Figure 3-63: Free body diagram of ring gear plate

F1 = F2
∑Fy = 0
70N*.6 = 2*F1*(.05)
70 N∗.6
F1 = F1 = 420 newton’s
2(.05)
Shear force for static load = 420 newton’s.
F
A
Table 8-4, bolt class 4.8 Syt = 340 MPa
Ssy = .577*(340) = 196 MPa
√
( 420)(3) (420)(3)
196 = D2 = D 196∗10e6
π( ) π( )
4 4
Diameter of bolt for static load = 2.86 mm.
Bolt required 3mm bolt
Fatigue Loading
Se’ = (.5 SUT) = 210MPa
ka = 1
kb = 1
kc = 1
kd = 1
1
ke = = .45
kf
kf = 2.2 rolled threads (table 8-5)
kb = 1
Se = .45*210 = 100 MPa

Sse = .557*Se = 57.7 MPa
√
( 420)(3) (420)(3)
F
Sse = 57.7 = D2 = D 57.7∗10e6
A π( ) π( )
4 4
Diameter of bolt required for fatigue 4.9 mm bolt.
Bolt required 5mm bolt.
Torque = F (force)*d (distance)*n (number of bolts)
42N.m = F*.05m*8
F = 105N
With eight bolts each bolt will experience a force of 105 newtons in shear.
3.16.3 Sizes of pins required for spur gear
Figure 3-64: spur gear pinned in position

Figure 3-65: Free body diagram of gears
FR (force in ring gear)
FG (force in the spur gear)
TG (torque in spur gear)
Torque (T) = Force (F) * Distance (D)
FR * .044m = 42 N.m FR = 954.54 newton’s
FG*.0176m = TG
FG = FR
955N*.0176 = 16 N.m
TG = F (pin) * D (distance of pins) * n (Number of pins)
16N.m = Fp * .013m *4
Fp = 307.7 newton’s

Using 070M20 HR steel Syt = 200 MPa (table A-16)
F
A
Ssy = .577*(200) = 115.4 MPa
√
(307.7)(3) (307.7)(3)
115.4 = D2 = D 115.4∗10e6
π( ) π( )
4 4
Diameter of pin for static load = 3.1 mm.
Fatigue Loading
Se’ = (.5 SUT) = 200MPa
ka = .9
kb = 1
kc = .814
kd = 1
1
ke = =1
kt
kf = 1
Se = .9*.814*200 = 146.52 MPa
Sse = .557*Se = 84.5 MPa
√
(307.7)(3) (307.7)(3)
F
Sse = 84.5 = D2 = D 84.5∗10e6
A π( ) π( )
4 4
D = 3.7mm
4mm pin required.


3.16.4 Size of shaft required?
Figure 3-66: Shaft which fits into two bearings
Figure 3-67: Free body diagram of shaft
Shaft analysed as a canter lever beam
Max operator mass 100kg
Mass of wheelchair = 20kg
Material 1.5MnNiCr H&T table A-16

Figure 3-68: X-Y and X-Z planes of shaft
Figure 3-69: Bending moment diagram of X-Y plane

Figure 3-70: Bending moment diagram of X-Z plane

Figure 3-71: Combined BMD showing points of max bending on both planes
Torque in the shaft = .6m * 70N = 42N.m
Combined bending moment (1) = √ .00652 +27.3 2 = 27.3N
Combined bending moment (2) = √ 8.832 + 13.652 = 16.25 N
Maximum bending moment = 27.3N
D = ¿ (M2 + T2)1/2]1/3

D = ¿ (27.32 + 422)1/2]1/3
Shaft diameter for a static load is 10.6 mm.
Fatigue loading
Se’ = (.5 SUT) = 500MPa
ka = .9
kb = 1.189(11)-.097 = .94
kc = 1
kd = 1
1
ke = =1
kt
kf = 1
Se =.94 .9*500 = 423 MPa
32 Mn 1/3
D= ( πSe )
32(46)(1.5)
D= ( π (423∗e 6) ) 1/3 D = 11.8 mm
3.16.5 Gear ratio required
Length required = .8metre

Lever angle = 60°
Wheel diameter = 600mm
Circumference of wheel = π*600mm = 1.9metres
(1.9m / 360°)*150° = .8 metre
150°/60° = 2.5
Ratio required 2.5: 1

3.17 Bearing Types
The function of a bearing is to allow rotational or linear movement, while reducing

friction and stress. There are a number of different classes of bearings. Their selection
depends on the loads, experienced by the shaft. Common loads which are generated,are
radial, thrust or a combination of both. The following are examples of common bearing
types:
 Ball bearings { Figure 3-38 }

These are one of the most commonly used bearings. They have the advantage over other
bearings, as they perform equally well in both radial and thrust loads. They are used in
areas where both high loads and RPM’s are a common feature. The disadvantage of
using steel ball bearings is their weight. They are also noisy and require lubrication.
 Roller bearings {Figure 3-37 }

Roller bearings are used to carry heavy loads. The rollers are a cylindrical shape which
allows the load to be spread over a much larger area. This allows the bearing to
withstand heavier loads. This design is more suitable for radial loads and is not used in
applications where thrust loads are present. Needle roller bearings are used in areas
where space is an issue. The outside diameter is close to that of the inside diameter.
 Ball Thrust bearings

These bearings are designed mainly for applications were thrust loads are present. One
of the most common uses for these types of bearings is bar stools, where the bearings
are used to support the seat.

Figure 3-72: Needle bearing Figure 3-73: Ball bearing
3.18 Manufacturing
Ideally, all parts for the prototype would have been manufactured in house
unfortunately; this was not possible due to machining resources in the college
workshop. The gears and the ratchets were purchased from wholesalers. The gears were
obtained from HPC suppliers and the ratchets were purchased in Lidl. These ratchets
contained 72 teeth, ideally, 100 tooth ratchets would have been used. The gears also
caused issues; HPC did not have the required tooth size in stock at the time of ordering.
A module of two or three was required, but, the company only had mating gears with a
module of .8. It was decided to manufacture the prototype from steel, as it was readily
available and no ordering of material was required. The power hacksaw was used to cut
the material, while the power sander and angle grinder were used to produce curved
profiles. Figure 3 -74 and 3-40 illustrate both piece of equipment.

Figure 3-74: Power hacksaw Figure 3-75: Power sander

 Template
Two templates were created to ensure that all the holes were drilled correctly and
accurately. These templates were manufactured from nylon. The required holes were
marked on paper and then transferred to the nylon pieces, Figure 3 -76. Template one
was used to mark the holes on the ring gear, spacer and the ring gear plate. The second
template was used to mark the holes on the spur gear, Figure 3 -78.
Figure 3-76: Paper marker Figure 3-77: Nylon template
Figure 3-78: Spur gear template

 Spur Gear
The template was used to mark the holes for the spur gear. Four small 2.5mm holes
were drilled on a 26mm PCD. This was achieved, using the pillar drill; these holes were
later tapped, using an M3 tap. In the middle of the spur gear a 12mm hole was drilled to
allow for the shaft to go through. This was drilled on the lathe, using a 12mm bit as
illustrated in Figure 3 -79.
Figure 3-79: Shaft hole being bored

 Rim connection plate
The connection plate was originally manufactured from three pieces of flat plate steel
which were welded together. This method, however, left very little room for the fixings
for the spur gear, as they landed on the point of weld. So the connection plate was
profile cut by a local engineering company. This meant, the piece was manufactured
from one whole piece, Figure 3 -80 illustrates the final piece.
Figure 3-80: Completed rim connection

 Spacer
The spacer was manufactured from a 100mm diameter pipe. This pipe was held in the
lathe and the parting tool was fed in, to cut a 12mm thick spacer. Once the spacer was
cut, the holes were drilled, using the nylon template one and later tapped. Figure 3 -81
shows the spacer being cut on the lathe; figure 3-47 illustrates the finished piece.
Figure 3-81: Cutting spacer Figure 3-82: Completed spacer

 Ring gear plate
This was manufactured similar to the space from 100mm diameter solid steel pipe. The
parting tool was fed in and cut a 5mm thick flat disc. All the holes were drilled and
tapped, similar to the ring gear. Figure 3 -83 demonstrates the final piece.
Figure 3-83: Ring gear plate

 Socket & Plate

The socket was manufactured from 40mm bar. On the top of the bar, a square section
was removed, using the milling machine. The four corners of the square were drilled,
using a 4mm bit to avoid having a radius in the corner, Figure 3 -84 displays the
square section removed.
Figure 3-84: Square section removed

The plate was made from 100 by 60mm plate. Three holes were drilled in total, two
outside holes 7.5mm which were tapped using an M8. There was a number of different
size holes drilled in the centre to achieve the 40mm diameter required to let the socket
through. The socket and plate were welded together on the inside. A 32mm hole was
required for the bearing; this was achieved, using a 30mm drill bit. The remaining 2mm
was removed, using a 32 mm boring bar, which ensured a tight interference fit. Figure
3 -85 demonstrates the completed piece.
Figure 3-85: completed socket plate

 Levers
The levers were made from 26 mm aluminium tube. The ratchet handles were cut, using
the angle grinder. A bushing made from nylon rod with an outside and inside diameter
of 18 and 15mm was manufactured. This piece was inserted into the aluminium tube
and the ratchet was pressed into place. This bushing ensured a tight fit between the two
components, Figure 3 -86 demonstrates the completed lever.
Figure 3-86: Completed lever
 Shaft and plate

The shaft, manufactured from 12mm steel bar was cut, to the required length. At the end
of the shaft a square section was cut using the milling machine. The plate was
manufactured from flat plate steel; the holes for the shafts were drilled on the pillar drill
at 26.4mm centres to match the pitch circles of the gears. The shafts were welded to the
plate; the final complete piece is illustrated in Figure 3 -87.
Figure 3-87: Complete shaft and plate

3.18.1Finishing
To avoid corrosion, the product needed a surface finish. The cheapest and most cost
effective method was to simply paint the components. In order to achieve this, all
components were sanded to remove excess dirt and grit. The components were sprayed,
using aluminium car filler paint Figure 3 -88.
Figure 3-88: Components spray painted
3.18.2Assembly
The following explains how the product is assembled. The spur gear is bolted to the rim
connection plate. The plate is connected to the wheel via the rim bolts as the shaft is slid
through the bearings of the wheel and is attached to the wheelchair Figure 3 -89.
Figure 3-89: Connection and shaft assembly

The ring gear, spacer and ring plate are all joined together, using hex head M4 bolts.
The unit is positioned, on the shaft. The two bearings are placed on the shaft and held in
position, using a 10 mm circlip, the socket plate is bolted onto the ring gear plate using
8mm bolts. The shaft is held in position, via the square plate bracket, Figure 3 -90
.
Figure 3-90: Completed assembly
3.19 Testing
The following section describes the various testing which was carried out on the
prototype. These were as follows:
 Force test
 Speed test
 Stroke test
 Ergonomics evaluation
 Effects on the heart
 Cost analysis
The results from each test are contained in the results section of the report.

3.19.1Force test
This test was carried out to measure the effective force required to move the wheelchair,
using the new prototype system and to compare it to the force required to move the
chair manually. The same testing rig, as discussed earlier in the chapter, was used as
demonstrated in Figure: 3 -91. The same test surfaces were used as previously.
 Rough concrete
 Timber
 Tiles
Figure: 3-91: Force testing rig


3.19.2Speed test
This test was carried out to evaluate the speed of the new system. The following test
facility was created. A long horizontal stretch of timber flooring was obtained, this was
marked in 5 meter increments from 0 to 25, each segment was marked and labelled
5,10,15,20,25, using a measuring tape as demonstrated in Figure 3 -92.
Figure 3-92: Sports hall marked in 5 meters segments
In order to carry out a more accurate testing, three different test subjects were chosen.
Each of the subjects were able bodied and had no previous spinal injuries. Subjects of
this nature were chosen, because, of their lack of experience in MWC operation. It was
felt it would give a more accurate reading, as they would have no previous experience
of using a wheelchair in the traditional method or the new proposed lever system
method. The profile of each subject is outlined in Table 3 -15.
Subject Age Height Mass (Kg) Gender

1 30 5ft 9’ 89 male
2 38 5ft 7’ 76 male
3 35 5ft 11’ 90 male

Table 3-15: Subject profiles

Each subject was told to propel the wheelchair forward over the 25 length. The times of
each subject were recorded at each 5 meter interval. Each subject carried out the test
three times and their average was obtained. The test was repeated, using the lever
system.
3.19.3 Stroke test
The same test facility and subjects were used as previously discussed in the speed test.
The subjects were asked to propel the wheelchair forward and the amounts of strokes
were counted over the twenty five metre length. This test was carried out three times for
each subject. The first test was carried out, using the wheelchair in the normal
conventional method. Figure 3 -93, while the second test used the wheelchair with
the new lever system, Figure 3-59. The average of each subject was used to produce the
results.
Figure 3-93: Manual propulsion Figure 3-94: Lever propulsion

3.19.4 Ergonomic Evaluation

This test was used to obtain an overall ergonomic evaluation of the product. The testing
facility was set up inside the local community centre. Figure 3 -95 illustrates the test
facility. It represents a type of obstacle course, which is similar to the conditions manual
wheelchair users experience on a daily basis.
Figure 3-95: Ergonomic evaluation test site

A small ramp was constructed from plywood, the angle of which was five degrees,
which is the maximum angle required to comply with the Building Regulations, Part L
(Government 2011) Wood and carpet were laid down to simulate common types of
surfaces that wheelchair users encounter on a regular basis. A series of cones were laid
out, to test, the manoeuvrability of the new lever system.
3.19.5 Effects on the heart

This test was used to evaluate the effects on the wheelchair users’ heart during
wheelchair propulsion. Each subject was told to propel the wheelchair around the
obstacle course for a ten minute interval. This was initially carried out without the lever
system and then with the lever system. The results were recorded for each subject using
a heart monitor.

3.19.6 Costs Analysis

This is one of the most important tests. It will compare the cost of the new lever
propulsion system to those already discussed in the literary review of this project,
Rowheels, The Pivot Lever system and the Wigit lever system. This test will take into
account materials and manufacturing costs. As this is a one-off prototype product, the
cost is anticipated to be higher in comparison to mass production. The results of this
analysis can be seen in the next chapter.
3.19.7 Ansys testing
Ansys is a computer engineering programme used to analyse mechanical and structural

components. It is used to carry out a number of different analyses, such as structural and
thermal analysis. It is an extremely useful engineering tool, as it can identify areas
which can be improved. It was used in this project to analysis the lever and to improve
on the overall stiffness. Figure 3 -97 and Figure 3 -98 illustrates the analysis of the
current lever. The figures show the max stress (98.1MPa) and the max deflection
(9.66mm) experienced by the lever, when a force of 210N was applied.
demonstrates the types of webs which were tested to improve the levers overall
stiffness. Each web is 4mm thick and is placed inside the lever tube. The results are
discussed in the results section.
Figure 3-96: Types of webs tested

Figure 3-97: Max bending stress
Figure 3-98: Max deflection

4 Chapter Four Results
4.1 Force test
The following are the results obtained from the force test, using the levers. Table 4-1
illustrates the types of effective force the user experiences, using the system on common
surface finishes.
Surface Mass added Force (N)

Rough Concrete 3.1 kg 30.3
Floor Tiles 2.2 kg 21.5
Timber 2kg 19.6
Table 4-16: Results for lever force test

These results indicate a slight reduction in the effective force required to move the
wheelchair, using the lever system. This result was anticipated, as the mechanical
advantage gained from the levers was reduced by increasing the gearing ratio. The
graph in Figure 4-1 illustrates the difference in each method on the different surfaces.
Figure 4-99: Comparison of wheelchair propulsion methods

The figures demonstrate a reduction of 2 newton’s on rough concrete, 3 newton’s on
floor tiles and 2 newton’s on timber. This gives an average reduction of 2.3 newton’s.
Although the reduction is not significant, the result may be still considered positive.

4.2 Speed test
Table 4 -17 and Table 4-3 illustrate the results obtained in this test. Table 4-2 is the
results for the lever system and Table 4-3 is for the conventional manual wheelchair
propulsion. The tables represent the average times achieved by the subjects. The fastest
time achieved was 22.96 seconds by subject three, using normal propulsion techniques.
The average time achieved by the three subjects, using the lever system, was 26.76
seconds compared to 23.49 seconds, using traditional methods. These figures indicate
the manual technique is a faster propulsion method.
Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time

Subject Subject Subject
1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0
5 5.4 5 5.4 5 6
10 10.2 10 12.2 10 13.2
15 15.5 15 16.6 15 17.1
20 20.6 20 21.2 20 22.6
25 26 25 26.89 25 27.4
Table 4-17: Results for speed test lever
Distance Time Distance Time Distance Time

Subjec Subject Subjec
t1 0 0 2 0 0 t3 0 0
5 4.7 5 4.66 5 4.4
10 9.14 10 9.89 10 9.1
15 13.98 15 14.56 15 13.2
20 18.9 20 19.3 20 18.4
25 23.3 25 24.2 25 22.96
Table 4-18: Results for speed traditional method
This result indicates that a higher gear ratio is required for the lever system, in order to
maintain greater speeds. One factor which influenced the results was the occurrence of
slippage between the spur and ring gear, during propulsion. Had slippage not occurred,
the lever system may have matched the results obtained from traditional manual
propulsion.

Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 represent a graphical display of the result of both systems. As
indicated from the graphs, the subjects all performed similarly in both methods.
Figure 4-100: Speed test results lever
Figure 4-101: Speed test manual

4.3 Stroke test
The following are the results obtained for the stroke test. Table 4-5 demonstrates the
results obtained, using the lever system and Table 4-4 are the figures obtained for
normal wheelchair propulsion.
Stroke
Distance Strokes Distance Strokes Distance s
Subjec Subject Subjec
t1 0 0 2 0 0 t3 0 0
5 5.5 5 6.5 5 5.25
10 9.6 10 11.3 10 10
15 14 15 15.6 15 14.5
20 17.8 20 19.2 20 18.75
25 22 25 24.3 25 23.25
Table 4-19: Stroke Test Results For traditional Propulsion
Distanc Stroke
Distance Strokes Distance Strokes e s
Subjec Subject Subject
t1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0
5 5 5 4.5 5 4.75
10 9.25 10 9.1 10 8.5
15 13.25 15 14.75 15 12.85
20 17.5 20 20.25 20 17.25
25 22 25 24.75 25 22.9
Table 4-20: Stroke test results for lever
The results indicate there is no significant reduction in the amount of strokes required
by the operator, when using the lever system, compared to normal techniques. The
average amount of strokes with normal techniques is 23.5 compared to 23.2 using the
lever system.

Figure 4-102: Results of stroke test with lever
Figure 4-103: Results of stroke test traditional method
Figure 4 -102 and Figure 4 -103 represent the performance of each subject. Subject
two performed the greater number of strokes in both techniques, when compared to the
other two subjects.
4.4 Ergonomic Evaluation
The results for this test indicated that both the new system and the old method were not
very user friendly. The subjects identified the new system as being difficult to operate
when change of direction was required.

This was mainly attributed to the position of the directional button. The subjects
suggested to position the directional button at the top of the lever handle near the hand
grips. Subjects also recommended an alternative braking system. The current design
combines the direction change and the braking. In order to brake, the users must change
the directional button to bring the chair to a halt. One positive outcome from the testing
was that all three subjects agreed that using the levers caused less discomfort and that
this movement felt more natural on the shoulders, arms and hands. Subjects described
higher levels of pain and fatigue, using traditional propulsion techniques.
4.5 Ansys results
Results from Ansys indicated that a single rectangular web was the best option to reduce
overall lever stiffness. Figure 4-6and Figure 4 -105 illustrates maximum stress and
deflection experienced by the lever. These results were the same as a single rectangular
web. The second rectangular piece had no effect as it acts along the neutral axis of the
lever. Using a 4mm aluminium web reduced the stress from 98.1MPa to 80.4MPa. The
deflection was reduced from 9.66mm to 8.7mm. Changing the web from aluminium to
steel reduced the deflection to 7.4mm, as illustrated in Figure 4-8. These results are
verified by theoretical calculation in section 4.5.1.
Figure 4-104: Max stress

Figure 4-105: Max deflection
Figure 4-106: Max deflection using steel web

4.5.1 Verification of Ansys results
Elastic Modulus = 79 GPa

Outer Diameter = 26 mm
Inside Diameter =18 mm
Moment of Inertia for tube

π ( d 0 −d i )
4 4
I cyclinder= =1.7e-8m 4
64
3
b∗h
I beam= =1.94e-9
12
Total I value of shape = 1.92e-8
Max Deflection
P l3
y= = (210*.63) / (3*79e9*I) = 9.9 mm
3 EI
%E= |( y theoretical – y Ansysl

y theoretical )|∗100 Relative to theoretical calculations.
%E= |( 9.99−8.7
9.99 )|
∗100=12.9 % Relative to theoretical calculations.
M∗Y
Max Stress = = (210*.6*.013)/ (1.92e-8)
I
= 85.5MPa
%E= |( y theoretical – y Ansysl

y theoretical )|∗100
%E= |( 85.585.5– 80.4 )|∗100=6 % Relative to theoretical calculations

4.6 Effects on the heart
The results showed no significant difference between either propulsion methods. The
heart rate was consistent with both methods and demonstrated a gradual rise conceding
with the time spent on the wheelchair.
4.7 Costs Analysis
The following are the results for the costs analysis of the new design. Table 4 -21
represents the costs of materials. These prices were obtained from Impact Metals, based
in Dublin. The costing sheet is attached to the appendices. This illustrates the cost to
manufacture one of the lever devices and must be multiplied by two to give total cost.
This equates to 200€ for materials for the new design. The gears are the largest
contributor to the cost at 135€ for the four gears.
Parts Material type Length(m) price €/m Total

Rim connection Aluminium 1 2.50E+00 2.50E+00
Ring gear plate Aluminium 0.01 6.50E+01 6.50E-01
Spacer Aluminium 0.012 6.50E+01 7.80E-01
Socket Plate connection Aluminium 0.06 4.50E+00 2.70E-01
Pins (4) Steel 0.012 1.50E+00 1.80E-02
Lever handle Aluminium 0.6 1.10E+01 6.60E+00
Wheelchair plate Aluminium 0.06 4.50E+00 2.70E-01
Spur gear Aluminium 1.50E+01 1.50E+01
Ring gear Aluminium 4.20E+01 4.20E+01
Total 83.33
Vat 21% 17.49993
Total € 100.83
Table 4-21: Materials costing for lever system
To work out the cost of labour, a job card was completed for all the various
components. Figure 4 -107 demonstrates the job card for the socket plate. The rest of
the job cards for the components are attached to the appendices. The total

manufacturing time was 8 hours, with labour cost of 25€/hr. This equated to 200€ on
labour costs.
Figure 4-107: Job card for socket plate
This represents a total cost of 400€. This is an extremely positive result for the
prototype. Table 4-7 compares the cost of the new system to the cost of previously
discussed designs in chapter two.
Model Cost Difference to Prototype

Rowheels 3,750 3,650
Pivot 4,200 3,800
Wigit 4,500 4,100
Prototype 400
Table 4-22: Cost comparison

As the table demonstrates, there is a significant difference, this is a good result, as the
projects overall aim was to design a more cost effective system. With this large
difference in cost, it will allow further development of the prototype, while still keeping
it cost effective.

4.8 Results conclusion
Overall, the testing has shown good results. The results obtained demonstrate that the
gearing ratio used, matched the operating characteristics of normal manual wheelchair
propulsion. The slippage, which occurred during testing, has been disappointing;
however, the system still performed well, when compared to the normal propulsion
technique. It would be anticipated that the lever system would perform better, if the
correct gears were used, during manufacturing. The ergonomic evaluation has identified
the key areas, which need improvement in the future. The speed test revealed the ratio
of 2.5: 1 it did not have any significant effect of the speed the user travels. If the system
incorporated a high/ low gear system, it would mean the user could travel faster on flat
ground and require less force, when climbing hills in the low gear. Another issue testing
revealed was the socket insert. The connection did not allow for a tight fit with the
ratchet. As a result, there was a lot of unnecessary movement on the lever.

5 Chapter five discussion
This chapter discusses all the key points which were encountered in all the previous
sections. It outlines the problems, which arose during the project and the methods used
to overcome these problems.
Literature review
As with any new design, a vast amount of research was undertaken, to identify the key
requirements of a new design. This project examined in great detail the issues facing
manual wheelchair users. With a project of this nature, it is important for the designer to
try to position themselves in the shoes of a manual wheelchair user. The literature
review investigated several different aspects of manual wheelchair use. The first section
explored the ergonomic changes which have developed in wheelchair design. The key
findings from this research indicated a slow development process for wheelchair users.
The main improvement was the use of lightweight material. These materials included
Aluminium, Titanium and Carbon fibre. Many of the new developments in wheelchair
technology can be attributed to the developments of the bicycle industry.
The second section of the literature review investigated the medical consequences of
using a manual wheelchair. This section identified the problems which MWU encounter
throughout their lives. The research showed that large amounts of wheelchair users
suffer from CTS and RSI (up to 80%) affecting the shoulders, hands and wrists. One of
the most interesting facts from this research was the short time frame associated with
manual wheelchair use. Figures have shown on average, most users will have to change
to an electric wheelchair after ten to fifteen years of manual wheelchair operation, due
to the medical conditions already described. This change has a physiological effect on
many users, as they feel the last of their independence has been removed.
The final section of literature review investigated the products, which were already out
there on the market, to help combat the problems associated with manual wheelchair
operation. Three of the leading products were investigated, which included the
‘Rowheels’ system, the ‘Pivot’ lever system and the ‘Wigit’. All three products offer
different techniques for wheelchair propulsion.


The market research identified the cost of these products as a major issue. Wheelchair
users simply cannot afford these items to improve their quality of life. The ‘Rowheels’
system costs US$3,750, the ‘Pivot’ system costs US$3,950 and the ‘Wigit’ costs
US$4,500.
Materials and Methods

This section began, by researching different designs. The key design specifications were
identified at the beginning and a number of different designs were explored. Designing
this prototype proved more difficult than anticipated. There were a number of stumbling
blocks. In order to keep costs down, current designs needed to be simplified. For a lever
to work, a gearing system of some kind had to be used, which complicated the overall
design. Two major issues with the design were the fact that the design needed to work
in both forward and backward motion. The second issue was compatibility. The new
design needed to be easily retrofitted onto existing wheelchairs.
A number of different materials were researched for the new design which included
Steel, Aluminium alloy, Magnesium alloy, carbon fibre and plastic. The cost of some of
these materials ensured they could not possibly be considered. The materials which
were realistic options were plastic, aluminium alloy and steel. The plastic was not
chosen simply, because, of its brittle nature and the fact it is difficult to work with and
repair. Steel and aluminium were discovered to be the best options. Each offered it’s
own unique properties.
Calculations were required to accurately size the various components. This research
examined the various bolt, shaft sizes and gear ratio requirements. Initial testing gave
some insight into the speed and force requirements of the system. A simple model was
constructed to ensure the proposed prototype would operate correctly before
manufacturing. Once all component sizes were established, a working drawing was
developed, using Creo Parametric. All dimensions and manufacturing details were
attached with the working drawing to ensure correct manufacturing. The various
different machines and techniques used for manufacturing were already discussed in
detail. One of the major issues associated with the manufacturing, was trying to keep the
shafts plum, while being welded, because the working depth of the gears was so small,
it left very little room for error.
Results
This section discussed the various results obtained from the testing. The first result was
to compare the force required to operate the new system compared to the old method.
The testing ring was set up and the figures showed a slight reduction in the forces
required to operate the new system. A test facility was set up in the local sports hall to
analyse the speed and the amount of strokes required to operate the new design. The
results were compared to traditional propulsion technique.
The ergonomic test used a type of obstacle course to represent the typical challenges
experienced by wheelchair users on a daily basis. The results from this test outlined the
improvements required to improve the new design. The most negative contributing
factor of the new system was the position of the direction button. Subjects found it
difficult to make a quick response directional change. Testing the effects of the heart
during wheelchair propulsion, illustrated no significant change between either methods
of propulsion. The heart rate was consistent with both propulsion methods. The final
result compared the cost of current design to the new system. This was one of the most
positive results. The cost of the new system was €400, comparing this to the other
systems shows a huge reduction in costs.
Design
The design phase of this project proved to be quite a difficult process. Trying to design
a product, which would fit onto existing wheelchairs, was a real challenge, several
concepts were developed, many of which required special brackets to be attached to the
wheelchair. The gears used in the manufacturing of prototype were not the preferred
size, as a result, slippage did occur. This was one of the most disappointing aspects of
the project. This slippage did have an effect on the results. It would be anticipated that
had the slippage not occurred, the lever system would have performed better in the
speed and stroke tests. Another area in the design which caused problems was the
socket joint. There was some room for movement between the socket and the ratchet
which was further multiplied by the levers.

6 Future Work/Recommendations/ Conclusion
The testing of the prototype has proved invaluable for the further development of the
design and has identified a number of improvements which are required. These
improvements could be developed by any students who wish to continue this project in
the future.
 The gearing is the first area which must be improved on this design, due to the
slippage problem. Two options which could be investigated are as follows:
increase the tooth thickness, which would increase the working depth distance.
The second option would be to introduce a third gear with a PCD of 52.8mm.
This would reduce the possibility of slippage. It would also make the design
more balanced and reduce the likelihood of wear on the gear teeth.
 Another feature which could be incorporated into the design, would be the
option of having a high/low gear system. This would require a manual locking
mechanism for the ring gear hub. The high gear could be used on the flat ground
to increase speed, while the low gear could be used for climbing hills or slopes.
 The design of the lever handles needs some improvement. A preferred design
option would be a telescopic system, similar to a crutch. The handles could be
moved up or down to match the required position for the user. The directional
button was an area which received a lot of complaints during testing. This button
needs to position near the top of the levers at the handle grips. Increasing the
number of teeth on the ratchet is another requirement for future development.
 The new design requires a braking system. This would allow the user to
maintain more control of the wheelchair during propulsion.
 To facilitate maintenance, the gear hub requires a grease nipple. This will allow
the user to grease the gears, which will reduce friction and wear between the
gears.
 In going forward with this design, from a business point of view, more market
research is required. The potential market size and the global number of manual
wheelchair users requires further investigation.
 Further testing with more subjects would provide more accurate results. More
accurate test equipment is required, especially, for the force testing, ideally, a
force gauge would have been used, however, due to financial constraints, this
was not possible.
Overall, the project may be considered a success. The initial aims and objectives were
achieved to some degree. The project has proved to be a real learning curve. The thesis
allowed the author to research an existing problem and to come up with a solution based
on certain design constraints. It has been extremely satisfying for the author to see the
design being developed, manufactured and tested. This project was carried out in a
similar manner to real life problems faced by engineers on a daily basis. To conclude,
the project proved that it is possible, to manufacture a more cost effective wheelchair
propulsion system. The testing also back up the publications, which suggested, using a
lever system is a more ergonomic method of wheelchair propulsion. The author would
question some of the claims made by other lever system manufacturers. The wijit
system incorporates a gearing ratio of 2:1 and claims reduced forces and increase
speeds. From the authors own testing, this statement is questionable.

7 Bibliography
ALYSSA, N. & DAVID, A.H., 2012. 'Multiple sclerosis'. Journal of Clinical

Investigation, 122 (4), p. 1180.
ANONYMOUS, 2003a. 'FDA approves powerful iBOT'. Inside MS, 21 (3), p. 31.
ANONYMOUS, 2003b. 'iBOT navigates its way and prepares to change lives'. R & D.
p. 10. Available from:
http://gmit.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSDYG5hnTV
ONE42SjxBTQwH6SSWpqciqwdWGWmmoA2iQc6GIaFG4RFmESjlSauwkxMKXmi
TLIurmGOHvoworGJScnHhgsWliaQ6s3AzFGFiAHeNUcQbWNGAEAWlgoSkONEC
cgSPCMjzUItLbD8IVgnH1isEbmPQKS8SBZTQ4fnWN9QwAhxwpGQ.
BAKER, H., 1999. Magnesium and Magnesium Alloys. United States of America: ASM
International.
BELLS, M., 2013. 'History of the Wheelchair'.
BRUBAKER, C.E., 1988. 'Advances in wheelchair technology'. IEEE Engineering in

Medicine and Biology Magazine, 16 (3), pp. 21-24.
BUDYNAS, R.G., NISBETT, J.K. & SHIGLEY, J.E., 2008. Shigley's mechanical
engineering design. London: McGraw-Hill.
CHUNG, D.L., 1994. Carbon Fiber Composites. USA: Butterworth-Heineman.
COOPER, A.R., BONINGER,L.MICHAEL, 2013. 'Heavy handed repetitive strain

injury among manual wheelchair users'.
CRAIG, T.L., 2013. 'Anatomy and mechanics of the human hand'.
CRAMER, A.T., KARPINSKI, A.P., RODRIGUEZ, R., GUO, L., WESTING, N. &
RICHTER, W.M. 'Pilot evaluation of a wheelchair accessible treadmill'. [Online].
2010. Available from:
http://gmit.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQMEhKtkgxTrI
wTTG3NLJITjQxMklJSrMAHSOTCOwSgcYgA11Mg8ItwiJMwpFKczchBqbUPFEG
BTfXEGcPXVjdEA_an1FaHG9sBmxNAw00NhRj4E0Erf_OKwHvE0sBAB37HWg.
DAVIS, J.R., 1993. Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys. Ohio: ASM International.

FOUNDATION., R., 2014. The Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation | Paralysis &
Spinal Cord Injury [Online]. Available from:
http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/b.4048063/k.BDDB/Home.htm
[Viewed 12/11/2013].
GOVERNMENT, D.O.E.A.L., 2011. Technical Guide documents. Dublin: Stationery

office.
HIGGINS, R.A., 2006. Materials for engineers and technicians. Amsterdam:

Elsevier/Newnes.
JELASKA, D.T., 2012. Gears and Gear Drives. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
JOHN, V.B., 1983. Introduction to engineering materials. London: The Macmillian

press ltd.
KARP, G., 1998. Choosing a wheelchair a guide for optimal independence [Online].
Cambridge, Mass.: O'Reilly. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=24190 [Viewed.
KAUZLARICH, J.J. & AYLOR, J.H., 1989. 'Electric wheelchair battery research'.
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 26, p. 140.
KAYE, S.H., 2000. Mobility Device use in the usa. San Francisco,Califorina.
KOONTZ, A.M., COOPER, R.A., BONINGER, M.L., YANG, Y., IMPINK, B.G. &
VAN DER WOUDE, L.H.V., 2005. 'A kinetic analysis of manual wheelchair
propulsion during start-up on select indoor and outdoor surfaces'. Journal of
rehabilitation research and development, 42 (4), p. 447.
KWARCIAK, A.M., YAROSSI, M., RAMANUJAM, A., DYSON-HUDSON, T.A. &

SISTO, S.A., 2009. 'Evaluation of wheelchair tire rolling resistance using
dynamometerbased coast-down tests'. Journal of Rehabilitation Research &
Development, 46 (7), p. 931.
LEMAIR, D.E., 1991. 'A technique for the determination of center of gravity and
rolling resistance for tilt-seat wheelchairs - a18a24b3f0173.pdf'. 28, pp. 51-58.
LIU, H.-Y., COOPER, R.A., PEARLMAN, J., COOPER, R. & CONNOR, S., 2008.
'Evaluation of titanium ultralight manual wheelchairs using ANSI/ RESNA standards'.
Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 45 (9), pp. 1251-1267.
LIU, H.Y., PEARLMAN, J., COOPER, R., HONG, E.K., WANG, H.W., SALATIN, B.
& COOPER, R.A., 2010. 'Evaluation of aluminum ultralight rigid wheelchairs versus

other ultralight wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA standards'. JOURNAL OF

REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 47 (5), pp. 441-455.
MACDONALD, M., 2009. Your body: the missing manual. Farnham: O'Reilly.
NORDIN, M. & FRANKEL, V.H., 2012. Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal

system. London: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
P, K., 2011. Irish foundation annual report, Ireland.
PHILIP, M. & BOLTON, W., 2002. Technology of engineering materials. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.
PIVOT, 2014. Pivot™ Dual Lever Drive - Benefits of the Pivot lever drive wheelchair
attachment that transfors your manual wheelchair into a more ergonomic and
maneverable lever drive wheelchair [Online]. Available from:
http://riomobility.com/en/leverdrive/index.htm [Viewed 20/01/2014].
RICHTER, W.M., RODRIGUEZ, R., WOODS, K.R., KARPINSKI, A.P. &

AXELSON, P.W., 2006. 'Reduced finger and wrist flexor activity during propulsion
with a new flexible handrim'. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 87 (12),
pp. 1643-1647.
ROWHEELS., 2014. Rowheels | THE RIGHT WAY TO ROLL™ [Online]. Available

from: http://www.rowheels.com/ [Viewed 20/01/2014].
SCHERER, S., 2003. 'Wheels in motion. A history of the wheelchair'. Contemporary

longterm care, 26 (11), p. 26.
SHIGLEY, E.J., 1986. Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill Books.
VAN DER LINDEN, M., VALENT, L., VEEGER, H.E.J. & VAN DER WONDE,
L.H.V., 1996. 'The effect of wheelchair handrim tube diameter on propulsion efficiency
and force application (tube diameter and efficiency in wheelchairs)'. IEEE Transactions
on Rehabilitation Engineering, 4 (3), pp. 123-132.
VEEGER, D., VAN DER WOUDE, L.H. & ROZENDAL, R.H., 1989. 'The effect of
rear wheel camber in manual wheelchair propulsion'. Journal of rehabilitation research
and development, 26 (2), p. 37.
VEGTER, R., GRONINGEN, U.M.C., 2013. Wheelchair (Design of a manually

propelled wheelchair: optimizing a wheelchair-user combination) | International
Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation, In: The Netherlands.

VORRINK, S.N.W., VAN DER WOUDE, L.H.V., MESSENBERG, A., CRIPTON,

P.A., HUGHES, B. & SAWATZKY, B.J., 2008. 'Comparison of wheelchair wheels in
terms of vibration and spasticity in people with spinal cord injury'. Journal of
rehabilitation research and development, 45 (9), p. 1269.
WIJIT., 2014. Wijit Lever Driving and Braking System for Manual Wheelchairs
[Online]. Available from: http://www.wijit.com/ [Viewed 20/01/2014].
Kjaer Michael, Text book of sports medicine, pages 684-738.
Smith,C and Funk, L. (2010) The Glenoid Labrum, Shoulder&Elbow,2:87-93
Smith Blair, Lee Connie, Solomon Daniel, Whitson Matthew, and Chang Stephanie,
(2004) Biology of the Shoulder [online]. Available:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2004_Groups/Group01/bioghj.htm
[Accessed 12 December 2013]
Sarraj Rifai Ahmad, Massarelli Raphael, Design History and Advantages of a New
Lever-Propelled Wheelchair Prototype May 13 2011
Shimada,D.Sean, Effect of gloves on wheelchair pushrim kinetics, University of

Pittsburg medical center,Nov 2 1997
Guo,Yuen,L Optimum propulsion technique in different wheelchair handrim

diameter,Institute of Biomedical Engineering,Feb 18 2002

Appendices



15.1









Costing sheet

Materials Properties


Job Cards

Stress concentration factors

Bolt Calculation formulas

Shaft Diameter formulas

To Design and Develop A Cost Effective Manual Wheelchair Propulsion System

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

To Design and Develop A Cost Effective Manual Wheelchair Propulsion System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TO DESIGN AND DEVELOP A COST

EFFECTIVE MANUAL WHEELCHAIR

A MID MODULE REPORT FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHLEOR OF

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING,

SUBMITTED TO THE GALWAY-MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(ADL) ………………………………………………………..Activity of Daily Living

(CAD)…………………………………………………...Computer Aided Engineering

(CTS)………………………………………………………...Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

(EPW)……………………………………………………Electric Powered wheelchair

(FBD)……………………………………………………………...Free Body Diagram

(FDA)………………………………………………….Food and Drug Administration

(HDPE)…………………………………………………….High Density Polyethylene

(LDPE)……………………………………………………..Low Density Polyethylene

(ME)...…………………………………………………….Mechanical Effective Force

(MIG)………………………………………………………………….Metal Inert Gas

(MRI)…………………………………………………...Magnetic Resonance Imaging

(MWP)………………………………………………...Manual Wheelchair Propulsion

(MWU)……………………………………………………….Manual Wheelchair User

(PCD)……………………………………………………………Pitch Circle Diameter

(PTO)…………………………………………………………………Power Take Off

(RSI)…………………………………………………………..Repetitive Strain Injury

(SPI)………………………………………………………………...Spinal Cord Injury

(TIG)……………………………………………………………….Tungsten Inert Gas

(WBV)…………………………………………………………Whole Body Vibration

Symbol Name S.I Units

cd Coefficient of drag N/a

c Coefficient of resistance N/a

Figure 2-1: Different size rims..........................................................................................7

Table 2-1: Material properties...........................................................................................5

1 Chapter One Introduction

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 1

1.2 Aims & Objectives:

The following are the aims and objectives of this thesis;

 To develop research techniques

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 2

2 Chapter Two Literature Review

2.2 Wheelchair History and development

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 3

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 4

2.3 Wheelchair frames

2.4 Rigid vs. Folding

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 5

2.4.1 Titanium Frames

2.4.2 Aluminium frames

Table 2-1: Material properties

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 6

2.4.3 Carbon Fibre frames

2.4.4 Steel Frames

2.5 Wheelchair rims

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 7

2.5.1 Effects of rims

Figure 2-1: Different size rims

2.5.2 Flex rim

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 8

Figure 2-2: Flex rim design

 Pulsation pushes were found to be thirteen percent more powerful on average.

2.5.3 Natural fit contour rim

Figure 2-3: Natural fit rim

GMIT | Chapter Two Literature Review 9

2.6 Wheel design

2.6.1 Carbon fibre vs. Steel spokes

The reduction in wheelchair vibration is an important feature. Whole body vibration

Figure 2-4: Steel and Carbon fibre wheels