Mechanical Glove

T h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y
E D S G N 1 0 0 H
3 / 6 / 2 0 1 4
Jeffrey Miller, Ryan Rokicki, &
Shweta Sen


1
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Product Development Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Research....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Customer Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Benchmarking .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Identifying and Quantifying Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Qualitative Customer Needs .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Quantitative Metrics ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Needs-Metrics Matrix .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Concept Generation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Clarification and Decomposition of the Problem .................................................................................................................... 6
Generating Concepts ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Concept Selection ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Concept Screening Matrix ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Concept Scoring Matrix .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Concept Development and Prototyping ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Testing Materials ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Design Process and Iterations............................................................................................................................................... 11
Reflection and Evaluation of Final Design .................................................................................................................................. 13
Closing the Loop: Testing Needs ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Needs-Metrics Matrix Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Analysis of Functionality and Feasibility .............................................................................................................................. 16
Appendix A: The Product Development Process ........................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix B: Decomposition of the Problem .............................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix C: Preliminary Design Concepts ................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix D: Identifying Concept Selection Criteria.................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix E: Elasticity Strengths ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix F: Design Process ........................................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendix G: CAD Models ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

2
Executive Summary

Upon reflecting on the physical constraints of the customer, the design team was tasked with
creating a minimally invasive glove that would restore the ability of the customer to flex his hand and
extend his fingers. Through personal experience, research, and background information on the client, a
preliminary set of needs and target specifications were created for concept selection. During the design
process, multiple concepts were generated through various methods (e.g., 6-3-5, brainstorming, idea
triggers) and the most functional and feasible designs, as determined by concept screening and scoring
matrices, were considered and compiled into a prototype. Further into the process, multiple iterations
were made to the design through an approach similar to the spiral product development process. After a
series of modifications, the final prototype was a glove embedded with elastic straps that can be adjusted
to a desired tension and contoured to the customers hand using cord locks. While the design has much
potential for further improvement and refinement, the final prototype met the majority of the target
specifications and hence, customer needs. Nevertheless, the ultimate success of the design can only be
substantiated through the experience, feedback, and discretion of the customer.

I ntroduction
In understanding the physical condition of the customer, the purpose of the project is to develop
and design a minimally invasive glove that will enable the customer to extend his fingers in a natural
manner while maintaining the ability to close his hand. With an intention to work in law enforcement,
the customer must have a glove that is functional, durable, comfortable, form-fitting, and lightweight,
among other characteristics specified further in the report. Through an iterative approach adopted by the
design team, the report contains details regarding the continuum of the prototype development process:
research, identifying and quantifying needs, concept generation, selection, development, and
reflection/evaluation.

Product Development Process
Due to the nature of the iterative approach, a spiral product development process was employed.
Refer to Appendix A for a diagram of the product development process used by the design team.

Research
Customer Background

Through early-stage customer communication, the design team was presented with the general
background of the customers circumstance. From preliminary correspondence, the following
information was gathered about the customer (refer to figures 1 and 2 for photographs of the customer):
Male, approximately 40 years old
Removal of muscle in right arm
Cannot extend fingers on right hand
Can close fingers, contract hand
Fully functional thumb
Full rotation of the hand
Right-hand dominant
Interest in law enforcement
3

Anatomical Background

To develop a better understanding of the mechanisms involving finger flexing and contraction,
research was conducted on the muscles and tendons influencing hand and finger motion. Upon
analyzing the muscular system of the forearm, the customer appears to have lost his extensor digitorum
communis (figure 3). While the muscle rests in the forearm, it is responsible for flexing the fingers away
from the palm. When flexed, the muscle pulls on the tendons running across the top of the fingers,
creating tension to lift and hold the fingers in an extended position. In contrast to the other fingers which
are controlled by the extensor digitorum communis, the thumb is controlled by the extensor pollicus
longus and the extensor pollicus brevis, explaining why the customer retains full control of his thumb
but not his fingers (Chen).
Irrespective of the selected concept, the research indicates that a glove must accommodate some
form of force to open the handweather physical or electromotive. Through the research process, some
other realizations, considerations, and questions were developed:
The final design must create the force necessary to extend the fingers, but what is that exact
force?
The potential limits of the customers hand must be taken into consideration, particularly: how
much force would be too much before the customer lost the ability to close his hand?
Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 3
4
Benchmarking

Benchmarking is a powerful method of determining what is already on the market because it
allows the designer to gauge the level of what the customer might be expecting. Furthermore, the
designer can observe what features of current products are potentially well liked among users and what
is not well liked. For example, the design team took particular interest in a therapeutic glove (figure 4)
that is specifically meant to exercise the digitorum communis. While the glove resists the extension of
the hand (producing the exact opposite effect that the customer desires), the design team realized that if
the web of elastic bands were to be flipped over, the webbed straps would pull the fingers away from the
hand, thus extending them.


However, the design team believed the fingertips of this therapeutic device were not suitable for
everyday use on the hand. Since the fingertips were open, they seemed prone to sliding off throughout
daily activities.
I dentifying and Quantifying Needs
Qualitative Customer Needs

With the primary goal of optimizing customer satisfaction, it was necessary to develop a set of
qualitative benchmarks that the product needed to meet. Accurate identification of customer needs is a
critical component of the design process because it shapes the design topography of the concepts and
creates specifications for the final product. To develop a more thorough understanding of the customers
product request and circumstance, the design team considered needs that are necessary to fulfill
everyday tasks (such as eating, writing/typing, showering, driving) towards the development of the
glove design. The following is a list developed by the design team that compiles the customers needs
and product requirements:
Low profile: The glove may not exceed a specified thickness and there may not be significant
variation in thickness of the final product. Furthermore, the product should be uniform in color
with an absence of protruding components.
Lightweight: The glove should not be bulky and may not exceed a particular weight.
Don and doff easily: The customer must be able to don and doff the glove within a certain period
of time with relative ease.
Figure 4
5
Low maintenance: The glove must be robust and not require significant maintenance or repair.
Adjustable: The customer must be able to easily adjust the tension of the glove as desired.
Durable: The glove must have a relatively long life-span and must have a high threshold of
fabric strength.
Weatherproof: The glove must not be affected by environmental conditions, such as rain, snow,
heat, etc.
Machine Washable: The glove must have the ability to be washed in a machine and still retain its
rigidity.
Rotational Freedom: The glove may not inhibit the customers rotational freedom; the customer
must be able to rotate his wrist 360
o
after donning the glove.

Quantitative Metrics

In order to determine the benchmarks necessary for optimal customer satisfaction, target
specifications were formulated in conjunction with each need. The chosen parameters reflect the metrics
the design team believed would be most thorough in assessing if the needs were met by the final
product. The following is a table of customer needs with their associated metrics, which was
subsequently used to prepare a Needs-Metrics Matrix:

Table 1. Assigning Qualitative Needs to Quantitative Metric
Customer Need Metric(s)
Low Profile Thickness < 5mm; Thickness variation < 2mm; No protruding parts; Uniform color
Lightweight Weight < 0.5kg
Comfort F
close
< 2.5N
Don and doff easily t
don/doff
< 6s
Physical Conformity Thickness between hand and glove < 2mm; Accommodates 3 fingers
Low maintenance Components Readily Available
Adjustable Variable Tension
Durable F
tear
< 20N, Abrasion Test: > 300 swipes, Absorption < 10mL
Weatherproof Absorption < 10mL
Washable Absorption < 10mL, F
tear
< 20N
Rotational Freedom 360
o
Wrist Rotation

Needs-Metrics Matrix

The design team decided to create a needs-metrics matrix in order to assign quantitative
specifications to qualitative needs. Overlap was seen in all of the specifications except for the following:
uniform color, thickness between hand and glove: < 2mm, components readily available, F
tear
> 20N and
360 wrist rotation. This shows that most of the specifications chosen to meet the needs have a high
utility. However, the needs-metrics matrix cannot indicate the relative ease of meeting each need or their
importance.




6
Table 2. Needs-Metrics Matrix
Metrics
Customer Needs
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

<

1
0
m
m

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n

<

5
m
m

N
o

P
r
o
t
r
u
d
i
n
g

P
a
r
t
s

U
n
i
f
o
r
m

C
o
l
o
r

W
e
i
g
h
t

<

0
.
5
k
g

F
c
l
o
s
e

<

2
.
5

N

t
d
o
n
/
d
o
f
f

<

6
s

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

H
a
n
d

a
n
d

G
l
o
v
e
:

<

2
m
m

A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s

T
h
r
e
e

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

R
e
a
d
i
l
y

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

T
e
n
s
i
o
n

F
t
e
a
r

>

2
0
N

A
b
r
a
s
i
o
n

T
e
s
t
:

>

3
0
0

s
w
i
p
e
s

A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

<

1
0

m
L

3
6
0
o

W
r
i
s
t

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

Low Profile
Lightweight
Comfort
Minimal User Setup
Don/Doff Easily
Physical Conformity
Low Maintenance
Adjustable
Durable
Weatherproof
Machine Washable
Rotational Freedom

Concept Generation
Clarification and Decomposition of the Problem

In order to avoid any potential oversight regarding the needs of the customer, the design team
decomposed the problem into simpler sub-problems. Effectively, each component of the device was
segregated as its own task, which permitted greater focus on individual components and added clarity to
how the components would interact together to form the final product. To ensure that each need was
met, the design team decomposed the problem into four sub-problems:
1. Developing a viable mechanism to extend the customers fingers
2. Creating an inconspicuous product with the mechanism built into the glove
3. Making the glove as comfortable as possible
4. Selecting materials that would be suitable for everyday tasks and weather conditions

7
*A flowchart visually detailing the decomposition of the problem may be referenced in Appendix B.

Generating Concepts

Through a unique combination of idea triggers and brainstorming, the design team drafted a total
of approximately twenty unique design concepts. In addition, a 3-8-5 approach, was taken to generate
more concepts and iterate upon the designs of team members and classmates. A table illustrating a list of
design concepts, as brainstormed by the design team, can be referenced in Appendix C. After creating a
preliminary list of concepts, research was conducted on anatomy so that bio-mimicry may be utilized as
the natural model of restoring extension capability to the customers fingers. Realizing the damaged
tendon region was on the back of the hand, the design team reevaluated the feasibility of multiple
designs and refined several designs to fit a mechanism on the back of the customers hand. Specifically,
the mechanism was placed on the back of the hand because it follows the natural tendon structure of the
hand and prevents palm obstruction. Observing the natural elasticity of tendons, rubber bands and elastic
straps were toggled with and tested to establish which materials contained the optimum combination of
stretchiness and strength.

Concept Selection
Concept Screening Matrix

After developing a set of preliminary concepts, necessary criteria for the design (listed below)
were discussed and established. Effectively functioning as the median design, the elastic lock system
was assigned to be the benchmark in the screening matrix (table 3). Each concept was subsequently
given a + (exceeds benchmark), 0 (comparable to benchmark), or a (below benchmark) to
correspond to each criterion. Once scoring was complete, the net scores of each concept were tabulated.
Concepts with scores that exceed the benchmark value (i.e., greater than 0) were reconsidered and
revised for development while concepts with scores below the benchmark were generally not
reconsidered.

As a cursory yet efficient screening technique, the concept screening matrix was utilized because
it quickly provided insight on how each concept compared relative to the benchmark concept. Because
only three options were available (+, -, and 0), the concept screening matrix was not as heavily
influenced by individual subjectivity as the concept scoring matrix, which utilizes a more precise system
of weights. Generally speaking, the concept screening matrix did provide a relatively accurate
representation of how each concept compares to the benchmark. As a result, however, the reliability of
the concept screening matrix is completely dependent on the benchmark that is chosen. In addition, the
concept screening matrix may also not be the most dependable screening technique because it assigns
the same weight to each category, irrespective of how important or integral the category. Hence, the
concept screening matrix has the potential to provide a skewed representation of the relative strengths of
each concept because 1) the same benchmark is used for each need, 2) equal weights are assigned to
each category, and 3) assignment of equal weights results in limited transparency. Below is a concept
screening matrix exploring the generated concepts (the outlined box represents the benchmark concept).
8
Table 3. Concept Screening Matrix
Selection Criteria
Concepts
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
b
l
e

T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
A
d
j
u
s
t
a
b
l
e
)

M
i
n
i
m
a
l

U
s
e
r

S
e
t
u
p

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
r
e
e
d
o
m

o
f

W
r
i
s
t

H
i
g
h

P
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

A
n
g
u
l
a
r

M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s

T
h
r
e
e

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

R
o
b
u
s
t
/
D
u
r
a
b
l
e

M
i
n
i
m
a
l
l
y

I
n
v
a
s
i
v
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

I
n
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e

L
o
w

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

D
o
n
/
D
o
f
f

E
a
s
i
l
y

C
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

f
o
r

E
v
e
r
y
d
a
y

L
i
f
e
/
T
a
s
k
s

L
i
g
h
t
w
e
i
g
h
t

E
a
s
i
l
y

R
e
p
a
i
r
e
d

i
f

B
r
e
a
k
a
g
e
/
M
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

R
e
a
d
i
l
y

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

W
a
s
h
a
b
l
e
/
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
o
f

A
u
t
o
m
a
t
e
d

(
n
o

m
a
n
u
a
l

m
o
t
i
o
n

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
)

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

N
e
t

S
c
o
r
e

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
?

Elastic Pulley + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 N
Adjustable Elastic + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Y
Spring System 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 N
Retractable Lanyard + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 2 Y
Sensor Device 0 0 0 0 14 N
Elastic Lock System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y
Automated "Robo" Glove 0 0 0 15 N
Joystick "Robo" Glove 0 0 0 15 N
Thumb-Controlled Pulley 0 0 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 3 N
Neural Sensing 0 0 0 15 N
Prosthetic Device + + 0 13 N
Thumb-Controlled Button 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 10 N

As stated previously, a limitation of the concept screening matrix is its extreme sensitivity to the
chosen benchmark. After creating the concept screening matrix, a cursory comparison of the net scores
reveals that nine of the twelve concepts fell below the threshold of the benchmark, the elastic lock
system. Assuming the benchmark represents the median of all the concepts, it may be deduced that the
elastic lock system may not be the most acceptable benchmark. To refine and improve the clarity of the
screening matrix, a revised concept screening matrix was created (below), using the elastic pulley as the
new benchmark.





9
Table 4. Revised Concept Screening Matrix
Selection Criteria
Concepts
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
b
l
e

T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
A
d
j
u
s
t
a
b
l
e
)

M
i
n
i
m
a
l

U
s
e
r

S
e
t
u
p

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
r
e
e
d
o
m

o
f

W
r
i
s
t

H
i
g
h

P
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

A
n
g
u
l
a
r

M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s

T
h
r
e
e

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

R
o
b
u
s
t
/
D
u
r
a
b
l
e

M
i
n
i
m
a
l
l
y

I
n
v
a
s
i
v
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

I
n
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e

L
o
w

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

D
o
n
/
D
o
f
f

E
a
s
i
l
y

C
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

f
o
r

E
v
e
r
y
d
a
y

L
i
f
e
/
T
a
s
k
s

L
i
g
h
t
w
e
i
g
h
t

E
a
s
i
l
y

R
e
p
a
i
r
e
d

i
f

B
r
e
a
k
a
g
e
/
M
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

R
e
a
d
i
l
y

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

W
a
s
h
a
b
l
e
/
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
o
f

A
u
t
o
m
a
t
e
d

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

N
e
t

S
c
o
r
e

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
?

Elastic Pulley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y
Adjustable Elastic + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + 0 7 Y
Spring System 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 4 Y
Retractable Lanyard 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 1 Y
Sensor Device 0 0 0 0 + 12 N
Elastic Lock System + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 3 Y
Automated "Robo" Glove 0 0 + 14 N
Joystick "Robo" Glove 0 0 0 + 13 N
Thumb-Controlled Pulley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 1 N
Neural Sensing 0 0 0 + 1 Y
Prosthetic Device + + + 12 N
Thumb-Controlled Button 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 7 N

Concept Scoring Matrix

Although the concept screening matrix was fast and simple to create, it had three primary
limitations:
1. Low resolution due to three point scale (-, 0, +)
2. High sensitivity to selected baseline
3. No weights

To add resolution to the concept screening matrix, a concept scoring matrix was created. The concept
scoring matrix was employed because it addressed each limitation of the concept screening matrix by 1)
having a quantitative scale of choice, 2) using a unique baseline for each category, and 3) having a
prescribed weight for each category. In the concept scoring matrix, shown below, each selection
criterion was assigned a weight as determined by how critically it would affect the glove, its comfort,
10
and its functionality. After the net scores of the concept scoring matrix were computed, the three
concepts with the highest net scores were reevaluated, refined, and reconsidered before selecting a final
prototype concept, discussed further in the report.

Table 5. Concept Scoring Matrix
Selection Criteria
Concepts
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
b
l
e

T
e
n
s
i
o
n

(
A
d
j
u
s
t
a
b
l
e
)


6

M
i
n
i
m
a
l

U
s
e
r

S
e
t
u
p


6

C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

F
r
e
e
d
o
m

o
f

W
r
i
s
t



8

H
i
g
h

A
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

o
f

A
n
g
u
l
a
r

M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

F
i
n
g
e
r
s



8

A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s

T
h
r
e
e

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

7

R
o
b
u
s
t
/
D
u
r
a
b
l
e

6

M
i
n
i
m
a
l
l
y

I
n
v
a
s
i
o
n

o
f

A
r
m

a
n
d

H
a
n
d



8

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

I
n
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e



4

L
o
w

P
r
o
f
i
l
e


7

D
o
n
/
D
o
f
f

E
a
s
i
l
y


7

C
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e

1
0

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

f
o
r

E
v
e
r
y
d
a
y

L
i
f
e
/
T
a
s
k
s



7

L
i
g
h
t
w
e
i
g
h
t


5

E
a
s
i
l
y

R
e
p
a
i
r
e
d

i
f

B
r
e
a
k
a
g
e
/
M
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n



9

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

R
e
a
d
i
l
y

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e



7

W
a
s
h
a
b
l
e
/
W
e
a
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
o
f

6

A
u
t
o
m
a
t
e
d

1
0

F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

5

N
e
t

S
c
o
r
e

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
?

Elastic Pulley 24 18 24 24 21 18 24 20 28 28 40 21 20 36 35 24 10 20 435 Y
Adjustable Elastic 30 24 32 32 21 30 32 16 35 35 50 35 20 45 35 30 30 20 552 Y
Spring System 18 24 32 16 21 12 32 16 28 35 30 28 20 36 28 18 40 20 454 Y
Retractable Lanyard 18 24 32 32 21 18 32 16 28 28 50 28 20 27 21 24 40 15 474 Y
Sensor Device 12 12 32 24 21 12 16 4 14 14 20 21 10 9 14 6 40 10 291 N
Elastic Lock System 24 24 32 32 21 24 24 12 21 28 50 35 15 36 35 24 30 20 487 Y
Automated "Robo"
Glove 6 12 16 16 7 18 16 4 7 7 20 14 5 9 7 6 40 5 215 N
Joystick "Robo"
Glove 6 12 16 8 7 18 16 4 7 7 20 7 5 9 7 6 30 5 190 N
Thumb-Controlled
Pulley 24 18 16 8 21 6 16 20 21 21 30 7 15 36 35 30 10 10 344 Y
Neural Sensing 6 6 8 16 21 12 8 4 7 14 10 7 10 9 7 6 40 5 196 N
Prosthetic Device 6 12 8 16 7 24 8 4 7 7 10 14 10 18 7 24 40 5 227 N
Thumb-Controlled
Button 12 12 24 24 21 12 16 8 21 21 20 7 15 9 14 6 10 10 262 N

Although the adjustable elastic concept received the highest net score, the concepts with the 2
nd
and
3
rd
highest net scores (adjustable lock system and retractable lanyard, respectively) were also evaluated
and considered in the concept selection process. The retractable lanyard concept was attractive because
the tension could be adjusted by a string that reeled in and out of the holder. Nevertheless, the precise
11
mechanism responsible for retraction was relatively intricate and unfamiliar. Like the retractable
lanyard, the adjustable lock system had favorable components, particularly the simplicity in its
adjustable mechanism. However, the adjustable lock system, which runs up the wrist and arm, is not
contained to the hand. In the adjustable elastic concept, a mechanism had not been conceived to keep to
elastic in locked in place. Thus, the lock system of the adjustable lock system was incorporated into
the adjustable elastic concept: one lock mechanism would be placed at the wrist through which the
elastic could be threaded and adjusted. Although ideas were presented to combine the elements in the
adjustable elastic and retractable lanyard concepts, the consolidation of the adjustable elastic and
adjustable lock system concepts seemed most approachable.

Concept Development and Prototyping

Testing Materials

Pursuing the adjustable elastic concept, preliminary prototypes were created using rubber bands.
The design team, however, felt that using rubber bands would not be an appropriate or sustainable
solution because rubber bands are sensitive to temperature extremes, disintegrate quickly over time, and
break relatively easily. Because the elastic was the mechanism responsible for extending the fingers,
choosing the right material for the elastic was a critical component in the design process. Many types of
elastic of different thicknesses, circumferences, materials, and stretchiness were tested to determine
which elastic satisfied the optimum combination of strength, stretchiness, and durability. Refer to
Appendix C to see the types and strengths of the elastics tested. The design team chose to utilize elastics
from goggle straps because 1) they had the greatest strength of the materials tested and 2) was least
likely to decay by virtue of the silicone material, which is generally more heat resistant and resilient
compared to rubber bands.


Figure 5, Measuring the Maximum Force of the Black Elastic
Design Process and Iterations

As a result of the concept screening and scoring matrices, the adjustable elastic concept was chosen
to be prototyped. In addition to the matrices, however, the design team consensually agreed that the
adjustable elastic concept most naturally mimicked the design of the muscular system and would most
likely be the most practical and least invasive of the designs. Inspired by bio-mimicry, the design was
prototyped in a way to mimic natural muscle tendencies. For example, the tendons that rest on the top of
the hand are flexible enough to stretch when the extensor digitorum contracts, but are strong enough to
lift and hold the fingers away from the arm. Likewise, the first prototype for the design aimed to
integrate the same properties into the device. Additionally, natures design of the hand is inconspicuous;
12
the tendons are held within the skin and thus, modeling after them would allow them to be feasibly
designed within a glove.

Examining the adjustable elastic concept, the force necessary to extend the fingers is induced
through the tension created by stretching a band across the top of the hand, similar to when the tendons
spanning the fingers are stretched by the contraction of the extensor digitorum. Refer to Appendix F for
a summary of the design process. The first prototype was made with a shell of masking tape that covered
the finger. An elastic strap procured from a pair of swim goggles was threaded through the shell and
pulling the elastic down prompted the finger to be extended. With the prototype, the ability to contract
and close fingers was not compromised. During the design process, several types of elastics were
considered and can be referenced at Appendix A. The table shows the number of stretches the selected
band endured before it broke, which was meant to provide insight on the materials resilience to the
stress of everyday life, along with the maximum force the band could withstand.

Immediately after the first prototype, several challenges were observed and needed to be discussed
and addressed for the second prototype:
1. The elastic straps veered off to the sides of the finger. How can the position of the elastic strap
be maintained along the finger?
2. Where is the loose end of the strap attached?
3. How is the strap going to stretch to create the necessary tension to lift the finger?

With tension being stretched down the fingers of the glove, the elastic was tied through a hole in the
fabric covering the wrist of the glove. While toggling with the glove/elastic apparatus, a limitation of the
design became apparent because the glove had a tendency to stretch with the elastic, thus causing
bunching at the base of the palm. However, the challenge was addressed by utilizing a baseball glove,
which contained a Velcro strap along the wrist, allowing the glove to be effectively pinned into place.
Reflecting on the first prototype, the design team needed to consider the mechanism to which the
strap would be attached. The fasteners of swim goggles (where the elastic straps were taken) provided
an optimal starting point because they can 1) hold the strap in place and 2) allow the strap to be adjusted
to modulate the tension experienced by the hand.

By introducing the goggle fasteners, the adjustability component of the glove became more
technical and complex than anticipated. Hence, the design team drafted ideas that would provide the
same function, but would be simpler in design. After some deliberation, the cord locks that are generally
used in laundry bags appeared to be effective in providing the necessary mechanics to hold the elastic
strap while in a stretched state. With the aforementioned iterative processes, the design team proceeded
to develop a second prototype.

After nestling the contraption of the first prototype within a fabric glove, the elastic strap was fed
through a hole in the glove and the cord lock. The cord lock was large enough so that it would not be
drawn back into the hole. Furthermore, a Velcro strap from a rehabilitative wrist guard was wrapped
around the bottom of the glove to prevent the bunching effect experienced in the first prototype. The
design team agreed that the masking tape fingertip shells used in the first prototype were neither rigid
13
enough to maintain shape nor strong enough to hold back the elastic. Thus, the masking tape shells were
replaced with shells crafted of multiple layers of duct tape for increased strength and durability.
Additionally, fabric was wrapped on the inside of the duct tape shell to enhance user experience by
adding comfort and making the tips feel like an integrated, not separate, component of the glove itself.
With revised ideas and better informed designers, the drawing board was revisited to reevaluate the
design concept and determine if the selected concept and prototypes were meeting customer needs.
For the final prototype design, a lightweight, tightfitting, durable, solid black baseball glove was chosen.
In addition to the stated characteristics, the glove also contained a Velcro strap along the wrist, which
enables better fitting and prevents bunching. The elastic straps were fed through the glove and the fabric
of pinky finger was cut and re-sewn to more precisely contour to the customers right hand.

During the process, several different cord locks were tested. The small black, circular cord lock was
selected for the following reasons:
1. It is the least protruding shape.
2. It is uniformly colored with the glove.
3. The lock contained grooves on inside that increased the surface area to grip each strap.

After donning the glove, one of the original design problems persisted: the elastic straps veered off
the fingers and hand. The problem was decomposed to its core and addressed with a strip of tape that
would sit across the top of the knuckles with holes to thread the strap through.

The protruding shape of the knuckles was the primary cause of the straps veering off the fingers.
Hence, a new approach was taken in which holes were cut into the glove above and below the knuckle-
line where the straps were threaded through, which maintained their alignment. In the final iterative step,
a cardboard strap was placed across the wrist for the cord locks to rest and flush against, preventing the
cord locks from placing pressing against the skin.

Reflection and Evaluation of Final Design
Closing the Loop: Testing Needs

After final prototype construction was complete, rudimentary tests were performed to determine
if the prototype met the metrics corresponding to the established needs. Initially, an absorption test was
performed by soaking the glove in a fixed volume of water and subsequently wringing the glove in the
same container of water to determine how much water was retained by the glove (Figures 6 10).
However, this method of testing was later learned to be defective because wringing the water did not
guarantee that the glove was fully dried, similar to how a sponge can be fully wringed yet still be damp
on the inside. As a result, a revised absorption test was conducted in which the glove was soaked in a
fixed volume of water, taken out, and placed on a balance, which indicated how much heavier the glove
became when saturated. At full saturation, the glove gained approximately 0.03 kg. The design team
then used the density of water to convert this mass to a volume ( 1
g
/
cm
3
). The soaking process did not
visibly affect the durability or the integrity of the other glove components, such as the silicone bands,
Velcro strap, and the cord locks. To test the durability of the glove, an abrasion test was performed by
14
swiping 120 Grit sandpaper across the top surface of the glove. After 300 swipes, there was no
observable change in the glove fabric or in the exposed silicone. To measure the strength and durability
of the glove, a force meter was connected to the glove. One member of the design team pulled one end
of the glove while another member of the design team pulled the other end of the glove, which was
connected to a force meter. The amount of force required to tear the glove was approximately 15 lbs,
which converts to 67 N.























Figure 11, Sandpaper
abrasion test.
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9 Figure 10
15
Needs-Metrics Matrix Evaluation

Table 6. Meeting Needs-Metrics Matrix
Metrics
Customer Needs
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

<

1
0
m
m

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

V
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n

<

5
m
m

N
o

P
r
o
t
r
u
d
i
n
g

P
a
r
t
s

U
n
i
f
o
r
m

C
o
l
o
r

W
e
i
g
h
t

<

0
.
5
k
g

F
c
l
o
s
e

<

2
.
5

N

t
d
o
n
/
d
o
f
f

<

6
s

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

H
a
n
d

a
n
d

G
l
o
v
e
:

<

2
m
m

A
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s

T
h
r
e
e

F
i
n
g
e
r
s

C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s

R
e
a
d
i
l
y

A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

T
e
n
s
i
o
n

F
t
e
a
r

<

2
0
N

A
b
r
a
s
i
o
n

T
e
s
t
:

>

3
0
0

s
w
i
p
e
s

A
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

<

1
0

m
L

3
6
0
o

W
r
i
s
t

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

Low Profile X X
Lightweight

X
Comfort X

X X

X

X
Minimal User Setup

X
Don/Doff Easily

X X
Physical Conformity X X

X X

X
Low Maintenance

X
Adjustable

X
Durable

X X X
Weatherproof

X
Machine Washable

X X
Rotational Freedom

X

Cost Analysis

A cost analysis was carried out in order to determine the price our customer would pay if he was
to build this glove for himself. The cost of all of the individual components and the total cost of the
glove is shown below in the table. The calculation that was used to determine the cost of the amount of
duct tape used is shown below the table.
Components Currency Quantity Total
Goggle Strap Dollars 2 $4.99
Cord Lock Dollars 3 $1.05
Glove Dollars 1 $18.42
18 of Duct Tape Dollars 1 $0.09
Total Cost: $24.55
16
*18 in.
2
of duct tape was used in the design; the roll of duct tape cost $6.85.
Area of one roll of duct tape: 1.88 in. 20 yd.
(


) (


)

Area of one roll of duct tape = 1.88 in. 720 in. = 1353.6 in.
2

)

Analysis of Functionality and Feasibility

By the conclusion of the design project, majority of the target specifications for the prototype
were achieved, with the exception of protruding parts and discrepancy in color. Due to the nature of the
adjustable mechanism, specifically the cord locks, the outer wrist strap of the glove contained three
protruding parts, although the design team attempted to keep the protrusion to a minimum without
compromising the customers ability to adjust the tension. Similarly, the need for uniform color was not
met because a glove of solid color with Velcro reinforcements could not be found under the cost
restraint. Rather, the design team chose a black baseball glove that had a white logo on the outer hand,
which may have disrupted its low profile appeal and uniform color. Based on rudimentary tests, the
glove met the remaining requirements set forth by the metrics and therefore, had some order of
functionality.

While the elastic strap design may be one approach to solving the problem, the design team
acknowledges that 1) there are many possibilities and outlooks towards approaching the problem and 2)
there are numerous iterations that can still yet be performed on the elastic strap product to further
improve it. While the presented design is feasible and appears to be one solution the given problem, the
relative success of the elastic strap glove compared to other gloves is still unknown. Furthermore, the
success of achieving many of the needs, such as comfort, must be experienced and attested for by the
customer, not determined empirically by the design team. Generally speaking, the final prototype met
the baseline needs of the customer. As further improvement, iterations must be made on the adjustable
mechanism to make it less visible, bulky, and more comfortable. Instead of making assumptions about
the customers physical abilities, in the future, data must be collected from the customer regarding his
grip strength, tension required to lift fingers, and the exact extent of his current ability to move his
fingers. Through additional research on the customer, learning about the concepts of other design teams,
and more design/concept building experience, future iterations of the project will likely be more
successful and hopefully result in improved customer satisfaction.







17
Works Cited

"1/2" Split Silicone Replacement Gogge Oggle." Speedo. N.p., N.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.speedousa.com/1-2-split-silicone-replacment-goggle-oggle.shtml>.
"Ball Style Cord Lock." Strapworks. N.p., N.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.strapworks.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PCLBall>.
Chen, Kevin, Mark Gonzalez, Vivek Mohan. Extensors of the Hand. Medscape. N.p., 02 Feb. 2014.
Web. 04 Mar. 2014. < http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/780286_2>.
"Duck Brand 280292 All Purpose Duct Tape, 1-7/8-Inch by 20-Yard, Silver." Amazon. N.p., N.d. Web.
05 Mar. 2014. <http://www.amazon.com/Duck-280292-Purpose-8-Inch-20-
Yard/dp/B001QJTTI8/ref%3Dsr_1_54?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1394164467&sr=1-54>.
Green, Robyn. "Grip Strength Norms.com." GripStrengthNorms.com. Brunel University, 2010. Web. 06
Mar. 2014. <http://www.gripstrengthnorms.com/>.
Hggstrm, Mikael. Extensor Digitorum Muscle. Wikipedia, 2010. Png.
Mizuno Vintage Pro G4 Batting Gloves. Amazon. N.p., N.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.
<http://www.strapworks.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PCLBall>.

Ostrovsky, Gene. The Xtensor Rehab Glove. MedGadget, 2008. Jpeg.



















18
Appendix A: The Product Development Process

19
Appendix B: Decomposition of the Problem
20
Appendix C: Preliminary Design Concepts

Table 7. Preliminary Design Concepts
Concept Explanation Illustration
Elastic Pulley
Elastic is connected to each finger
and collectively connected to a
bracket, which would be moved up
and down manually to lift and
lower fingers.

Adjustable Elastic
Strip of elastic is connected to each
finger and clasped into place by a
bracket fixed at the wrist. Elastic
for each finger may be individually
tightened or loosened and re-
clasped to achieve desired tension.

Spring System
Three springs are placed inside the
palm and connected to the tip of
each finger. Spring would maintain
an open hand position; any force
placed on the spring will contract
fingers.

21
Retractable Lanyard
Each finger is connected to a
lockable retractable lanyard
system. Lanyard at fixed tension
will maintain an open hand
position without compromising
ability to close fingers.

Sensor Device
Sensor is placed on the palm of
hand. Placing sensor near and
object will prompt hand to open
through a mechanism connected
to each finger.

Elastic Lock System
Elastic is connected to each finger
and can be adjusted to desired
tension and held in place by clasps
placed along wrist and lower arm.

Automated Robo Glove
Fully operated mechanical robo
glove that maintains an open hand
position without compromising
ability to contract fingers.

Joystick-Controlled Robo Glove
Fully operated mechanical robo
glove that is controlled by a
joystick, which moves each finger
individually.

22
Thumb-Controlled Pulley
Elastic is wrapped around each
finger and connected to thumb.
Thumb is moved into and away
from hand to move other fingers.

Neural Sensing (Implant)
Electrodes implanted into brain
and right arm and fingers.
Electrodes connected between
brain and fingers; electrical
impulse from brain prompts finger
movements.

Prosthetic Device (Implant)
Prosthetic hand is implanted and
programmed to conform to desired
gestures and commands. Each
finger moves independently and
bends at natural joints.

Thumb-Controlled Button
Button is placed on the left side of
pointer finger. Pushing button with
thumb prompts fingers to open.









23
Appendix D: Identifying Concept Selection Criteria
Table 8. Identifying Concept Selection Criteria
Need Explanation Why it was chosen?
Configurable Tension
(Adjustable)
The amount of tension across the
hand should be able to be adjusted.
The selected concept would exert a constant force of
tension across the hand while the glove is done. This
could potentially be a discomfort. Furthermore, the
design team can only approximate the tension
needed to open the customers hand. He should be
able to adjust the tension to the necessary amount.
Minimal User Setup After the glove is on the customers
right hand, it should take little to no
time or effort to activate the
gloves ability to open his hand. The
users hand should simply open after
adjusting it-no or startup time or
process.
While the gloves primary purpose is to allow the user
to extend his fingers, the glove is of little use if it is
not responsive to the user.
Complete Rotational
Freedom of Wrist
The customer must be able to rotate
his hand, at the wrist, fully.
The customer needs to be able to retain original
motion of the hand to complete various everyday
activities.
High Precision of Finger
Movement
Each finger must not only respond
accurately to the users command
but also allow for precise motion.
Precise motion and control of the fingers is not only
crucial to everyday tasks, such as picking up a coffee
mug or fitting a key in a small lock, but also in his job
of law enforcement. His fingers must remain adroit,
as to quickly adjust to grab a gun, or operate
handcuffs.
Accommodates Three
Fingers
The glove needs to be designed for
the customers unique finger
pattern-a missing finger.
While the customer may be able to fit his hand in
unmodified glove, an additional finger on the glove
would get in the way.
Robust/Durable The product must be designed from
a strong fabric and have a long life
time.
The product must be able to withstand not only the
wear everyday use, but also the additional stress from
law enforcement. Regardless of how effective the
product is at its main purpose, it is of little value if it
does not last long.
Minimally Invasive The product should not alter (or
require alteration) or interfere with
(of) the physical state of the users
hand.
The glove and its effects must remain independent
from the users physical condition. The customer does
not want the product to physically change his hand,
but function as more as a support.
Relatively Inexpensive The glove must be affordable both
by the design team and the
customer.
The designers and customer have to be able to afford
the product if they plan on building it.
Low profile The glove may not exceed a
specified thickness and there may
not be significant variation in
The customer has likely had difficulty adjusting to life
without the full function of his dominant hand. Thus,
the goal is to make the glove as inconspicuous as
24




thickness. It should also be uniform
in color and absent of protruding
components.
possible to allow the customer to both regain function
of his hand and readjust to his previous lifestyle.
Don and doff easily Customer must be able to don/doff
glove within a certain period of time
with relative ease.
The glove should not be a challenge to put on because
the product aims to simplify the use of the users right
hand.
Comfortable The glove should not have rough
material on the inside. It also should
not make the users hand too hot or
sweaty.
This product is intended for maximum use, the user is
not going to wear it if it causes discomfort or pain.
Practical for Everyday Life
Tasks
The final product should be able to
be used in as many situations as
possible.
The product is not going to be useful if the customer is
only able to use it in a handful of situations.
Lightweight Glove should not be bulky or exceed
a specified weight.
With an intention to join law enforcement
(presumably police work), the customer needs a
lightweight glove to make his work easier.
Easily Repaired if
Breaks/Malfunction
The design should be simple enough
for the customer to quickly fix if the
product breaks or malfunctions.
The amount of time the customer is able to use the
glove should be maximized. Since the customer cant
use the glove when it is broken, maximum usage
requires a swift and simple repair.
Components Readily
Available
The product should be designed
from components that the design
team and customer have access too.
Not only is it inconvenient and expensive to build if
the components are rare, but also difficult to repair.
Washable/weatherproof The glove must be able to withstand
inclement weather and be able to be
cleaned.
The glove should be able to be cleaned when it gets
dirty, so that it does not get the customers hand dirty
when he puts it on. It must be weatherproof because
it would have little value if the users opportunity to
wear the glove outside were to be determined by
uncontrollable weather patterns.
Automated The user should not have to go
through a series of steps in order for
the glove to open his hand; it should
be automatic.
Automation is necessary because it minimizes the
products interference with the users everyday life
and basic movement. An on-off button would
interfere with the simple tasks.
Feasibility of Design The design should be within reach of
the design teams abilities,
resources, and time constraints.
If the design team is unable to build the product, then
the customer is not helped in anyway shape or form.
25
Appendix E: Elasticity Strengths













































Table 9. Elasticity Strengths
Material
Number of
stretches
until Break
Maximum
Force (lbs.)
Thin rubber band

50 1-2*
Medium rubber band

85 9
Thick rubber band

120 10
White swim goggle elastic

94 7
Black swim goggle elastic

238 20
*Force too small to accurately be measured by device
26
Appendix F: Design Process


Table 10. Summary of Design Process and Iterations
Iteration Description Illustration
Elastic Pulley Lifting rubber band lift finger

Finger Caps
Interface between finger and
elastic

Alpha Prototype
Combining elastic and finger
cap concepts to create a
functional pulley system

Iteration I
Incorporating alpha prototype
into a glove; using the glove as
an anchor to maintain position
of the elastic

Iteration 2
Using goggle fasteners to
thread elastic and maintain its
position; introducing idea of
adjustability

27
Beta Prototype
Utilizing cord locks as
mechanism to anchor elastic
straps

Iteration 3
Incorporating rehabilitative
wrist guard to prevent glove
from bunching at the wrist

Iteration 4
Improving finger caps by using
more durable/sweat-proof
material

Iteration 5
Using a more durable glove
(made of leather and elastic);
using a glove that contains
Velcro reinforcement at the
wrist

Iteration 6
Improving comfort of cord
locks; testing different cord
locks for ease of adjustability,
size, color, and comfort

Iteration 7
Removing spring from cord
lock to ease adjustability

Iteration 8
Introducing knuckle strap to
maintain the position of the
elastic along the finger and
hand

28
Iteration 9
Improving concept of knuckle
strap by cutting holes directly
into glove to guide the elastic
bands through

Iteration 10
Utilizing strip of cardboard to
make adjustability easier;
holes in cardboard are just
large enough for elastic to
thread through, so pulling
cardboard tightens elastic
straps

Gamma Prototype
(Final Prototype)
Reintroducing cord locks to
reinforce adjustable
mechanism
























29
Appendix G: CAD Models
30





























31