| Literature DB >> 29062762 |
Anand Mhatre1,2,3, Joseph Ott1,2,3, Jonathan Pearlman1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the adverse environmental conditions present in less-resourced environments (LREs), the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that specialised wheelchair test methods may need to be developed to support product quality standards in these environments. A group of experts identified caster test methods as a high priority because of their common failure in LREs, and the insufficiency of existing test methods described in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Wheelchair Testing Standards (ISO 7176).Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29062762 PMCID: PMC5645576 DOI: 10.4102/ajod.v6i0.358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Afr J Disabil ISSN: 2223-9170
FIGURE 1Different caster designs used on wheelchairs.
FIGURE 2Caster assembly failures witnessed in the field.
FIGURE 3Multi-drum test (left) and curb-drop test (right) without test dummies.
Caster assembly failure modes and corresponding quality-affecting factors as seen in the field.
| Failure modes | Outdoor factors | Factor inclusion status in ISO 7176 |
|---|---|---|
| Broken and bent caster parts | Impacts and loads, fracture loads, oblique impacts. | Yes (ISO 7176 – 8), but MDT and CDT do not reproduce complex load conditions that occur in LREs. |
| Corrosion in bearings and on metallic parts | Corrosion because of high humidity environments. | Not in ISO 7176 |
| Worn out tires | Abrasion because of rougher terrains. | Not in ISO 7176 |
| Tire puncture | 1. Rocky surfaces. | Not in ISO 7176 |
| 2. Poor air retention capability of the tube in tire. | ||
| Parts degradation | Accelerated aging because of ultraviolet light (UV), high temperatures and rough surfaces. | Not in ISO 7176 |
| Fluttering caster | Caster flutter on rocky surfaces at high speed. | Seen on MDT but not tested for. |
| Worn out bearings | 1. Poor lubrication, seal design & quality. | Not in ISO 7176 |
| Dirt and dust in bearings | 2. Heavy impacts. | |
| High rolling resistance | Design of caster parts not applicable to LREs. | Not in ISO 7176 |
| Caster caught in obstacles | Design of caster parts not applicable to LREs. | Not in ISO 7176 |
Source: Authors’ own work
MDT, multi-drum tests; CDT, curb-drop tests; LREs, less-resourced environments; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; UV, ultraviolet.
FIGURE 4Caster test methods reported in the literature.
FIGURE 5Caster testing drum equipment with wheelchair manufacturers.
Design concepts evaluated by the ISWP-SWG experts.
| Concept description | Advantage | Disadvantage | Selected for development |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Weighted caster(s) mounted on a treadmill with bumps and rough surfaces. | Reliable system for exposure to different load conditions. | Durability concerns with the treadmill belt; it is difficult to retain rough surfaces and bumps on a rotating belt over time. Like MDT, stem bearings may not be tested as casters do not swivel about stem axis. | No |
| 2. Weighted caster(s) tested on a reciprocating table with bumps and rough surfaces. | Change in direction is useful for testing the stem bearing assembly of the caster. | Testing multiple casters with reciprocating movement (at a speed of 1 m/s) would require a larger surface area. | No |
| 3. Weighted caster(s) rolling on a heated drum (like MDT) with rough surfaces and slats (bumps). The caster is exposed to acidic, salt spray and UV light while running on drum. | Concept to incorporate different test factors at same time. Reliable system for testing. | Attaching different surfaces to drum’s surface is difficult. Replacing surfaces quickly during testing can be difficult and will require more time. Heating the drum is a mechanism. Salt spray and UV exposure affects strength of the test equipment. | No |
| 4. Weighted caster(s) turning in a circle like a carousel over different rough surfaces and bumps on a table. The casters are mounted on arms that are attached to the centre shaft (see | Different surfaces and loads can be switched during testing. Speed and direction of the shaft changes. | Heavy weights on rotating casters at 1 m/s may be unsafe. The behaviour of a revolving caster after hitting a bump depends on speed, moment of inertia around the stem axis and load. The caster can swing out abruptly after impacts, which may not be representative of outdoor behaviour of casters. | No |
| 5. Concept #5 is similar to #4; in this concept, the casters are stationary and the table rotates (see | Advantages are similar to concept #4. As casters do not revolve, they may swing out moderately. | Exposure to several test factors like humidity, UV and high temperature may be difficult with this setup as it can possibly degrade the equipment. | Yes |
| 6. Concept #6 is similar to #4 above but the entire assembly is enclosed in a drum at an angle and partially filled with water. | Advantages are similar to concept #4. Consistent exposure to moisture. | Disadvantages are similar to that of concept #4. Weight on top of the caster will not be same at different points of travel and the caster may swing inward/outward (based on position) because of gravity after hitting bumps. Casters can remain wet throughout the test, which is not typical outdoors. | No |
Source: Authors’ own work
ISWP-SWG, International Society of Wheelchair Professionals Standards Working Group; MDT, multi-drum tests; UV, ultraviolet.
Design recommendations by ISWP-SWG for turntable test design.
| Design features | Recommendations |
|---|---|
| 1. Turntable | Larger area to accommodate four large size casters (about 8-inch diameter). Able to change the surfaces on the turntable immediately. Mount the drive motor on top of the turntable to avoid any water or dirt exposure from testing. |
| 2. Caster arm | Weight on the caster = 30% – 35% of user weight. Variable length of suspension arm so that caster is mounted at wheelbase length of the wheelchair. Measure angle offset to the vertical and mount the caster at an angle on the arm accordingly. Clamp the rod holding the caster arm assembly on the pillars of the equipment. Use sensors to detect the descending arm following fracture of any caster assembly. |
| 3. Design considerations for environmental test factors | Use UV lamps for aging the casters. Test the aging of rubber tires. Include gravel for testing and employ a shaker underneath. Maintain continuous agitation and level the gravel consistently. Include dirt ingress testing as per standards. Develop a tank around the table that can contain water for humidity exposure. |
| 4. Test suggestions | Increase number of test cycles compared to multi-drum tests. Increase the height of bumps (i.e. multi-drum tests slats on drum) for testing casters. Introduce damping to eliminate caster bounce. |
| 5. Precautions | Monitor temperature of the casters and avoid overheating them. Conduct an inspection of the casters at specific intervals. |
Source: Authors’ own work
ISWP-SWG, International Society of Wheelchair Professionals Standards Working Group.
FIGURE 7Turntable design concept.
Specifications of multi-drum tests and new caster assembly test design.
| Feature | Multi-drum tests | New caster assembly test design |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | 1 m/s | 1 m/s |
| Test cycle | One rotation of the drum | One rotation of the turntable |
| Minimum number of test cycles | 200 000 | 101 600 ≈ 100 000 |
| Number of slat hits per revolution | 1 | 2.02 ≈ 2 |
| Weight on each caster | Varies between 19.5% and 35% for different wheelchairs | 30% of the ISO 7176 Section 11 dummy weight = 30 lbs |
| Nature of caster impacts | Casters are subjected to straight/vertical impacts from slats. | Casters will be subjected to straight/angular impacts. |
| Wheelbase length | Varies between 15 and 23 inches for wheelchairs. | The caster arm design allows for variable positioning on the turntable. Maximum length = 28 inches. Will not accommodate wheelbase length of three wheeled chairs. |
| Ability to change surface | Not applicable | The turntable is equipped with eight pie-shaped pieces, which can accommodate patterns that simulate different surface types. |
| Number of casters tested simultaneously | 2 | 4 |
Source: Authors’ own work
FIGURE 8Final caster test equipment drawing for fabrication (includes only one of four possible caster support arms).
FIGURE 9Controller box of the caster test system (left) and LCD display (right).
FIGURE 10Turntable assembly with pie-pieces (only one slat mounted to pie-piece).
FIGURE 11Initial design (left) and revised design (right).
FIGURE 12ISWP Caster Assembly Test.
FIGURE 13Caster assemblies tested in initial testing phase.
FIGURE 14Results from initial testing of caster assemblies.
FIGURE 15Caster assemblies tested in preliminary testing study (Model A is not shown).
FIGURE 16Preliminary testing results with different caster designs.