1、Active Ankle/Foot Orthotic,Client: Dr. Robert Pryzbelski Advisor: Professor Brenda Ogle Team Members: Jessica Hause - Co-leader Erin Main - Co-leader Joshua White - Communicator Anthony Schuler - BWIG Emily Andrews - BSAC,Presentation Outline,Problem Statement Background Summary of PDS Current Ortho
2、tics Design Alternatives Spring Joint Material Design Matrix Future Work References,Problem Statement,Orthotic for patients with neuropathies affecting gait Actively enhances forefoot propulsion Increases proprioception and balance Supports ankle weakness,Background,Neuropathy Stroke Charcot-Marie T
3、ooth Multiple Sclerosis Plantar & Dorsiflexion Foot Drop Normal Gait,Summary of PDS,Stability and support Aids propulsion Weight-bearing Under $300,Universal vs. custom-fit Light, strong and durable Thermoplastics, biopolymers, nano-fibers, neoprene,Current Orthotics,Spring Design,Thermoplastic 90 a
4、ngle Leaf spring in sole aids propulsion,Joint Design,Thermoplastic Two pieces connected by joint Tamarack joint assists plantar and dorsiflexion,Material Design,Memory material High energy return Material assists plantar flexion and dorsiflexion,Design Matrix,Future Work,Continue biomechanics resea
5、rch Perform gait analysis Finalize design Build prototype Perform prototype testing,References,http:/ http:/ http:/ http:/ http:/ http:/ http:/ http:/www.germes- http:/ http:/ https:/ http:/www.mda.org/publications/fa-cmt.html http:/sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca/gait/normal/walk.gif,Spring Design (Pros an
6、d Cons),Pros Cost efficient Ankle stability Durable,Cons Over-coverage can cause excessive heat Poor propulsion Bulky Restricted range of motion,Joint Design (Pros and Cons),Pros Cost Propulsion Foot clearance,Cons Bulky Poor breath ability Inflexible sole,Material Design (Pros and Cons),Pros Lightweight Flexible Propulsion Foot clearance Durable,Cons Poor stability and support Cost Availability of materials,
