Dynamic Ankle

by The Cyborgs

______________________
Danielle Gehron
_______________________
Michael Riddle
____________________
Madison Thompson

BE 390 Principles of Biomedical Engineering Design

May 20, 2016

Executive Summary
The two leading causes of lower limb amputations in children in the United States each year are
congenital defects and lawn mower accidents which account for over 1,400 children requiring
prosthetic legs1,2. Current lower limb pediatric prostheses on the market do not allow for any range
of motion at the ankle until the child reaches seven years of age. However, the proper motion of
the ankle joint while walking begins to develop at eighteen months of age. This deficiency presents
a serious problem for learning natural gait during childhood development. Additionally, current
prostheses must be replaced about once each year in order to match the growth of the child. The
Cyborgs designed an improved pediatric prosthetic foot and ankle called the Dynamic Ankle.
The Dynamic Ankle provides a solution to pediatric prostheses that not only improves foot and
ankle mechanics, but also adjusts as the child grows. This design can support a child between the
weights of 25 and 60 pounds to accommodate children between the ages of eighteen months and
seven years. The foot is able to extend from five inches to approximately seven and a half inches
in length. By allowing for range of motion at the ankle and length extension, the Dynamic Ankle
is able to provide a solution to current pediatric prostheses that permits a natural gait development
without compromising stability.
The Dynamic Ankle consists of an articulating housing, which acts as the ankle of the prosthetic,
as well as an aluminum foot that contains a heel and toe connected by a foot extension mechanism.
The articulating housing pivots around a pin joint in the heel. As the child walks, the articulating
housing oscillates between two rubber bumpers bolted to the heel which absorb and restore energy
to the articulating housing with each step. The bumpers can be adjusted in height by the tightening
of three bolts to accommodate the increase in body weight of the child. The foot extension is made
up of a bolt and two support pins. The bolt can be turned to move the toe farther away from the
heel. This allows for an increase in foot length as the child grows so that their prosthetic matches
the length of their opposite foot. The two support pins, inserted into the toe, prevent rotation of the
toe during adjustment. A universal adaptor is located on top of the articulating housing which
permits the Dynamic Ankle to connect to any prosthetic pylon shaft currently on the market.
The Dynamic Ankle allows for fifty-percent of the normal range of ankle motion, a considerable
improvement on currently marketed pediatric prostheses. In addition, the Dynamic Ankle is
adjustable to prevent the need for replacement for up to six years. The final building cost of the
Dynamic Ankle, including shipping and handling, is estimated at just below $200. This price is
significantly more cost effective than current prostheses, which are typically sold for thousands of
dollars. The Cyborgs are prepared to prototype the Dynamic Ankle and are requesting the
necessary funds to do so.

Facts about Upper and Lower Limb Reduction Defects. (2014, October 28). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ul-limbreductiondefects.html

Loder, R. T., Dikos, G. D., & Taylor, D. A. (2004). Long-term Lower Extremity Prosthetic Costs in Children With Traumatic
Lawnmower Amputations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(12),
1177-1181. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://jamanetwork.com/index.aspx

Table of Contents
I.

Design Scope ............................................................................... 1

II.

Design Concepts ........................................................................... 7

III.

Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................... 18

IV.

Design Concept Evaluation .......................................................... 23

V.

Design Project Specifications ....................................................... 27

Housing Subsystem ................................................................. 31
Bumpers Subsystem ................................................................ 32
Foot Extension Subsystem ......................................................... 32

VI.

Budget/Projected Costs ............................................................... 35

VII. Conclusions/Recommendations .................................................... 37

VIII. References ................................................................................ 38
IX.

Appendices ................................................................................. 40
Appendix A Calculations ......................................................... 40
Appendix B Dimensioned Drawings ........................................... 43

X.

Personnel and Responsibilities ..................................................... 51

I. Design Scope
Background
There are approximately 180,000 amputations every year in the United States for all ages [10].
Lawn mower traumas account for 600 to 650 children requiring lower limb amputations [9].
Along with lawn mower traumas, approximately 750 children are born with lower limb
reductions each year [4]. Children usually receive their first prosthetic at 7 months, but it is not
until 7 years old that the children receives a prosthetic with enhancements such as varied foot
attachments to further assist their interests and activities [11]. During child gait development,
ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion normally begin to occur at 18 months [16]. However, the
most common pediatric prostheses currently on the market have fixed ankles where a rubber
solid ankle cushion heel, or SACH foot is bolted into the bottom of either the socket or a pylon
shaft as shown in Figure 1 [12]. The rigid and inflexible design of the SACH foot consists of a
fixed ankle, which limits a childs ability to have natural gait motion (dorsiflexion and plantar
flexion). This ankle limitation makes them more prone to falling. Being unable to learn the
correct gait fundamentals can cause children with lower-limb amputations to exhibit improper
gait as an adult which requires more energy expenditure to walk. From shadowing experience at
Scott Sabolich Prosthetics and Research, improper gait is a common problem among adult
amputees. In addition, shadowing experience at Hanger Clinic has shown that children who are
more prone to falling may require the need to wear a protective helmet to prevent head injuries.

Figure 1. Commonly marketed pediatric lower-limb prostheses utilizing a solid core SACH foot, shaped
ankle block, and a bolt connecting the pylon to the foot [12]. The left prosthetic (A) is for a below-knee
amputation, the middle prosthetic (B) is for an above-knee amputation, and the right prosthetic (C) is for a
hip amputation.

Market Analysis/Benchmarking
Market analysis and benchmarking are useful tools in the design process to determine the
acceptable and desirable designs that meets the needs of the user. It is important to understand
the current products that are on the market in order to not only have a starting point for design
work, but to find features that can either be used or improved upon with new design concepts.
The desirable designs are purposeful in knowing what the ideal design concepts are in the
industry. These qualities identified by means of market analysis and benchmarking are desirable,
but unfortunately tend to be costly which must be taken into consideration during the design
process.
Patient-Specific Socket with spacer and SACH foot, Hanger Clinic
One of the most common childhood prostheses includes a custom socket with a foot bolted to the
socket. Figure 2 below shows two iterations of such a prosthetic from the Hanger Clinic. One
advantage to this design is that it is easy to adjust the height to match the childs normal leg
length. As the child grows, plastic or metal spacers are added to adjust to the height of the childs
prosthetic leg (K, Hall, personal communication, March 14, 2016). This type of prosthetic is
extremely easy and cheap to maintain at different stages of development by adding spacers for
height adjustments. The SACH foot alone only costs approximately $5 to manufacture [3]. The
main disadvantage of this type of prosthetic is that the child has no range of motion in the ankle
or foot which leads to improper gait and tripping of the child. As the prosthetic leg advances
from the pre-swing to the initial swing of the gait cycle, the rubber foot catches on the ground
and causes the child to fall forward (K., Hall, personal communication, March 14,2016).

Figure 2. Two prosthetic legs designed by the Hanger Clinic. The left prosthetic (A) is for a child from
14 months to 19 months. The prosthetic on the right (B) is for the same child at 19 months. The white
spacer in (A) was added as the child grew and will be used again for (B) throughout growth development
(K, Hall, personal communication, March 14, 2016).

Flex-Foot Junior, ssur

The Flex-Foot Junior, shown in Figure 3, can be integrated with a wide variety of leg
components due to the universal male pyramid connector. The layered carbon fiber active heel
allows for a spring during heel strike and push off, by absorbing shock from the childs gait [5].
The low profile of the foot component permits the use with common leg components due to the
minimal space allowed for an ankle. The Flex-Foot however, only has a weight range of 33 to
100 lbs, which would eliminate the market for children who weigh less than 33 lbs, or 1 to 3 year
olds [5]. Another disadvantage to the Flex-Foot is that it costs over $4,000 even without design
aspects that naturally emulate the function of muscle and tendons such as microprocessors or
motors like that of competitor products [6,14].

Figure 3. Flex-Foot Junior designed by ssur. The carbon fiber is layered to assist in heel strike and
heel off gait events, increased durability, and decreased attachment weight. [5]

K-3 VSC 8.0, GameChanger

Figure 4 shows the K-3 VSC 8.0 adult prosthetic foot that is designed for active lifestyles. The
polymer used for the foot is able to withstand forces well beyond typical human movement and
is water, chemical, and impact resistant [6]. This foot has a key component that spans from the
bottom of the shank to the top of the foot-plate which permits the restoration of energy and a
forward momentum to allow for the heel-off stage in the gait cycle of the prosthetic foot. The
heel component can be adjusted with a simple twist to match the gait of the contralateral foot [6].
While this design works well for adults, it would not work for most pediatric prosthetic legs as
there is not enough space from the bottom of the shank and the ground for this foot to be used.

Figure 4. Gamechanger K-3 VSC 8.0 adult prosthetic foot designed by Gamechanger. This foot allows
the restoration of energy for adults who have an active lifestyle. [6]

BioM Ankle, BionX Medical Technologies

Figure 5 shows the BioM Ankle designed by BionX Medical Technologies. The BioM Ankle
consists of microprocessors, hydraulics, and motors that enable ankle flexion. This ankle is
controlled via Bluetooth software to customize the amount of resistance, power, damping,
timing, and sensitivity of the ankle movements for each unique patient [7]. While this ankle is
extremely technical and advanced, it does cost $70,000 [14]. In addition, the battery life only
lasts between 4 and 6 hours at a time, or approximately 2,500 steps [14]. The BioM Ankle is 5.1
lbs which is anatomically correct for a 200 lb person [14].

Figure 5. BioM Ankle consisting of a microprocessor, motors, and hydraulic components. According to
BionX, these components emulate the function of lost muscles and tendons [14].

Summary of Research
In summary, the SACH foot and spacer product is the most relevant design to the problem
statement shown below. However, the ankle mechanics in the latter three products are ideal to
incorporate into the teams new design concept of the pediatric prosthetic ankle in order to allow
dorsiflexion and plantar flexion throughout the gait cycle. A common design aspect for the
products with a functional ankle includes an active heel that absorbs energy from the heel-strike
and releases it to propel forward for proper heel-off. In addition, these same products are made out
of either carbon fiber or a composite material in order to have flexible and spring-like properties
during gait to assist with the propelling of the heel. While the BioM ankle allows for the greatest
5

walking velocity, its high functioning components, short-term battery life, and heavy weight
compromise the amount a child could walk daily.
Problem Statement:
Design a solution to improve current pediatric foot and ankle mechanics in lower-limb
prostheses that will support between 25 and 60 pounds and allow a more natural gait during
development without compromising stability.

II. Design Concepts

There are five design concepts that were developed to meet all of the clients needs -- Bumper,
Resistance Bands, Damper, Spring, and Rocker Ankles. Each design concept is explained with
descriptions, advantages, disadvantages, and detailed drawings.

Bumper Ankle
The Bumper Ankle (Figure 6) is made from a material that allows the absorption and release of
energy with every step taken. This material has close to the same properties as a rubber ball. In
order to compensate for a childs growth, the bolts which hold the bumpers to the foot can be
tightened by the prosthetist to lower the heights of them, thus altering the amount of plantar and
dorsiflexion allowed. The ankle portion of the foot is able to mate with any universal adapter to
connect to a pylon shaft. The composite foot is also able to adjust in length as the child grows
due to expanding the foot and inserting leaves into the foot like that of an adjustable dining room
table.
The primary advantage of this design is that there are no costly additional mechanisms such as
motors, springs, or hydraulics that would need maintenance over time. Additionally, the bumpers
can be tuned to resist flexion to varying degrees, which allows the device to adjust as the child
grows by tightening/loosening a bolt that adds/relieves preload tension of the bumper. The foot
portion is also expandable to provide a larger surface area to contact the ground in order to match
the size of their real foot. A disadvantage of this design is that the bumpers could wear down
over time and need to be replaced when they visit their prosthetist. However, this replacement
would be fairly quick.

Latch that closes to keep

the foot from expanding
Leaf that can be added to
increase the length of the
foot as the child grows

Adjustable
bumpers that
restore energy with
each step
-A bolt that
connects the
bumper to the foot
can be adjusted
from the bottom to
increase or
decrease resistance
to plantar
/dorsiflexion.

Universal Adaptor
Removable pin
connecting the
ankle to the foot

Composite foot that

is size adjustable

The foot can be

expanded, using a geared
slide, to add leaves to
allow the foot to increase
in length as the child
grows.

Figure 6. The Bumper Ankle design allows for variable resistance of plantar and dorsiflexion by adjusting two bumpers between the
foot and the articulating ankle. The composite foot is adjustable to increase in size of the foot as the child grows.

Resistance Bands Ankle

The Resistance Bands Ankle (Figure 7) has a universal adapter to attach to the pylon and
socket portion of the amputees prosthetic leg. The upper part of the ankle that is directly
attached to the leg is rounded and articulates on the indent of the lower ankle like a ball-andsocket. The foot has raised sides in order limit excessive inversion and eversion by preventing
the ankle to move in these directions. Resistance bands are anchored to the foot and the upper
ankle on all sides of the joint. There is a wrapping mechanism on the upper ankle that when
turned applies more tension to each band. When the child grows, the tension in the resistance
bands are adjusted in order to compensate for the weight gain. This tension allows for the proper
adjustment for range of plantar flexion up to 50 and dorsiflexion up to 20 of the ankle for each
patient. The ankle portion of the foot is able to mate with any universal adapter to connect to a
pylon shaft. The composite foot is also able to adjust in length as the child grows due to
expanding the foot and inserting leaves into the foot like that of an adjustable dining room table.
The primary advantage of this design is that it allows for a large range of motion in the ankle. It
also permits plantar and dorsiflexion as well as eversion and inversion of the foot, which
encompasses all four types of range of motions at the ankle. The Resistance Bands Ankle
contains a foot extension system that allows length adjustment of the prosthetic throughout its
use. A drawback is that the resistance bands can fail due to fatigue or wear, but the replacement
would be inexpensive. Another disadvantage of this design is that it may allow for too large a
range of motion, which may pose a tripping hazard for the child and result in falling.

Raised side walls to limit

inversion and eversion

Resistance bands to
resist motion.
Different bands can
be used to have
more/less tension

Latch that closes to keep

the foot from expanding

Universal adaptor

Ball and socket

connection
between foot and
ankle

Leaf that can be added to

increase the length of the
foot as the child grows

Composite foot that

can be adjusted

Figure 7. The Resistance Bands Ankle design allows for variable resistance of plantar and dorsiflexion by switching out the resistance
bands between the artificial ball and socket joint of the foot and ankle. The composite foot is adjustable to increase the size of the foot
as the child grows.

10

Damper Ankle
The Damper Ankle (Figure 8) uses hydraulic damper cylinders to resist plantar and
dorsiflexion of the prosthetic foot. Due to the geometric constraints imposed on the design, such
as maximum height between the ground and the shaft, there are limitations on stock hydraulic
springs that can be utilized for this design. The use of pressure-control valves allows an upper
limit of pressure to control the amount of flexion. The ankle is pinned to the foot and allows
rotation around that point to the normal limits of the human ankle. The hydraulic cylinders attach
to the front and back of a short metal rod that is connected to the shank on one end and to the
foot on the other to resist the motion of the foot. The ankle portion of the foot is able to mate
with any universal adapter to connect to a pylon shaft. The composite foot is also able to adjust
in length as the child grows due to expanding the foot and inserting leaves into the foot like that
of an adjustable dining room table.
The primary advantage of this design is that the hydraulic cylinders can easily be adjusted to
resist motion more or less as the child grows. This prevents the prosthetic from needing to be
replaced frequently thought the development of the child. A drawback to this device would be
fact that the two cylinders stick out around the foot, which may pose a problem when wearing
shoes. In addition, the hydraulic springs may cause noise disturbance so the mechanical benefits
would have to outweigh the disadvantage of noise if this design is used. Ideally, lightweight and
silent hydraulic springs would be used in this design to mitigate this concern.

11

Hydraulic spring
which can be
adjusted to increase
or decrease
resistance to
plantar/dorsiflexion
.

Universal adaptor
Latch that closes to keep
the foot from expanding
Leaf that can be added to
increase the length of the
foot as the child grows
Removable pin
connecting the
ankle to the foot
Adjustable length
composite foot

Figure 8. The Damper Ankle design employs hydraulic cylinders to control the resistance to plantar/dorsiflexion of the foot. The
composite foot is adjustable to increase the size of the foot as the child grows.

12

Spring Ankle
The Spring Ankle (Figure 9) features four springs which are located on the anterior, posterior,
medial, and lateral sides of the ankle joint. The springs are constrained by two small plates which
attach to a universal attachment for the pylon shaft. The springs are also contained in a flexible
housing that protects the springs, yet are able to move along with the springs while in motion. In
order to adjust the range of flexion for various body weights, the springs are adjustable via a bolt
on top of each spring. The tighter the bolt, the higher the stiffness in the spring. The ankle
portion of the foot is able to mate with any universal adapter to connect to a pylon shaft. The
composite foot is also able to adjust in length as the child grows due to expanding the foot and
inserting leaves into the foot like that of an adjustable dining room table.
A primary advantage of this design is that not only do the anterior and posterior springs allow for
dorsiflexion and plantar flexion, but the medial and lateral springs allow for inversion and
eversion. By having the capability for four types of ankle motion, this design allows for easier
walking on uneven terrain. This design could be uniquely calibrated for each patient by adjusting
the resistance of the springs. A disadvantage of this design is that the spring and plate
mechanism is bulky and may be both heavy and inconvenient while wearing long pants.

13

The amount of resistance the springs can resist

can be adjusted by tightening/ loosening the
bolt that determines the preload on the spring.

Latch that closes to keep

the foot from expanding
Leaf that can be added to
increase the length of the
foot as the child grows

Universal adaptor
Springs that can be adjusted
(by tightening/loosening a
bolt) to increase or decrease
resistance to flexion.
Adjustable length
composite foot

Figure 9. The Spring Ankle design allows for variable resistance for plantar and dorsiflexion by adjusting the anterior and posterior
springs as well as eversion and inversion by adjusting the medial and lateral springs. The composite foot is adjustable to increase the
size of the foot as the child grows.

14

Rocker Ankle
The Rocker Ankle (Figure 10) features a semi-circular shape and a hinge that together allows
the natural ankle motions of plantar flexion and dorsiflexion. The anterior resistance band
prevents the ankle from excessive plantar flexion when not walking. The foot has two bumpers
placed near the forefoot and rearfoot which can be moved to adjust range of motion. For
example, for a smaller range of plantar flexion, the bumper would be bolted to the most anterior
portion of the foot. Likewise, the posterior bumper could be moved in order to adjust
dorsiflexion. The top of the rocker design is able to mate with a universal adapter in order to
connect to the pylon shaft.
The primary advantage to this design is the fact that the design is simplistic since there is one
continuous foot, rather than two parts connected by a foot lengthening mechanism. The curvature
of the foot helps with the natural heel-strike to toe-off gait cycle events. However, a challenge to
this design would be the procedure as to how to adjust the amount of plantar flexion and
dorsiflexion as the child grows. In order to change the amount of flexion in the ankle, bumpers
are added to the foot itself to act as stoppers to limit the range of motion. Due to the potential
difficulty of this task, the patient may eventually require the assistance of a prosthetist. In
addition, the foot is not length-adjustable for age like that of all the other designs presented
because of its unique shape.

15

Spring to
keep the
foot from
going limp

Universal
Adaptor
Composite
foot

Movable bumper
that determines the
range of motion of
the foot

Bolt
Removable pin
that connects the
foot to the ankle
Figure 10. The Rocker Ankle design featuring a hinge and a rounded shape to allow ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion. The
movable bumper allows the range of motion to be adjusted as needed.

16

Summary
Once the five design concepts were generated, feasibility and merit criteria were selected in
order to determine if these concepts not only solved the problem statement, but also provided the
best solution. The next section, Evaluation Criteria, will explain the rationale for the feasibility
and merit rankings for each of the design concepts.

17

III. Evaluation Criteria

In order to determine which design concept is the best, feasibility and merit criteria were created.
These criteria allow for an objective comparison between the five design concepts. Feasibility
criteria are the requirements and constraints that are essential to the final design. They are
important to the design process because designs that do not meet these minimum criteria fall
short of solving the problem statement and should not be considered. Merit criteria are additional
features and options to the design. They are not essential for the device to address the problem
statement, but make the design more desirable. Merit criteria are used to select the best feasible
design option. Four feasibility criteria were developed in order to determine which designs
would address the problem statement and be considered as viable solutions. In addition, four
merit criteria were selected in order to determine which of the initial designs would be most
desirable to the client. Below, these criteria are listed and explained in detail.
Feasibility Criteria
1. Some degree of plantarflexion and dorsiflexion of the ankle joint
The final design must have sufficient ankle biomechanics that allows for plantar flexion
and dorsiflexion. Without this range of motion, the prosthetic pylon and/or socket are
locked at a perpendicular angle to the foot, not allowing proper heel-strike and toe-off
gait events. A proposed design must incorporate a mechanism that will allow ankle
flexion to meet this feasibility criterion.
2. Maximum manufacturing cost of $1,000
The final design must not cost greater than $1,000 to manufacture. This cost value was
based off of the cheapest prosthetic ankle found in the market research, which sold for
$4,000 and the consideration that production costs half the price of the market value [5].
The goal of the design team is to lower the cost by at least fifty-percent of the estimated
manufacturing cost of the currently marketed products which is $1,000. This is a major
consideration due to expensive medical bills and prostheses. Also, pediatric prostheses
are replaced more often than adults. Minimal prosthetic costs will help to ease the
financial burden throughout this process. A proposed design must cost less than $1,000 to
manufacture in order to meet this feasibility criterion.

18

3. Weight adjustable
The final design must be able to adjust as the child grows. One of the biggest complaints
of pediatric amputees is that they must replace the entire prosthetic every 6-9 months as
the child rapidly grows, which gets very expensive and demanding. A new design for the
ankle/foot must have features that adapt to a growing child to last for at least 9 months
without having to replace the whole unit. Features such as resistance bands, springs, or
dampers will be adjustable to allow correct degrees of flexion for a respective amount of
weight.
4.

Universal attachment
Toddlers currently have their prosthetic foot/ankle bolted to a custom-made socket. When
the child reaches elementary school age, there is a pylon shaft inserted between the
socket and ankle/foot. The ankle/foot is no longer bolted, but uses a specialized stud
instead. Since there are many different prosthetic legs the ankle/foot can attach to as the
child grows, it is a necessary feature to have a universal attachment from the ankle/foot to
the prosthetic leg. It is important to keep cost down for families and having a universal
attachment would allow the ankle/foot to be used throughout the childs growth with
several different prostheses. The final design will be able to attach to a standard
prosthetic leg without the need for a special adaptor.

Merit Criteria
1. Adaptable for children between 25 and 60 pounds.
Description: A more desirable device can last without having to be completely replaced
due to growth. Therefore, designs that are adjustable for a larger range of weights will
have higher merit.
Weight: This criterion is weighted at 45%. This was chosen as the most important merit
criterion due to the fact that the goal of the final design is to be compatible for 25-60
pounds. An adjustable prosthetic would be a much greater investment if it could last for
almost 5 years, rather than repurchasing a new device every six to nine months.
Metric: Range of weight the device can support without requiring replacement.
Scale: Each scale interval represents a change in age by one year. For example, the scale
of 100 represents the weight of a child between 18-72 months. The next scale of 80
represents the weight of a child between 18-60 months, and so forth down the scale. [15]

19

100

Adjustable for 25-60 pounds

(does not need to be replaced)

80

Adjustable for 25-54 pounds

60

Adjustable for 25-47 pounds

40

Adjustable for 25-41 pounds

20

Adjustable for 25-36 pounds

Adjustable for 25-31 pounds

2. Maximum plantarflexion and dorsiflexion of the ankle joint

Description: The final design may have sufficient ankle biomechanics that will allow full
range of plantarflexion and dorsiflexion motion like that of same-aged, non-amputated
individuals. Without a full range of ankle motion, the prosthetic does not allow proper
heel-strike and toe-off gait events. The average full range of motion is 70 which consists
of 20 of dorsiflexion and 50 of plantarflexion from the neutral angle (foot 90 relative to
femur) [1]. A proposed design may incorporate a mechanism that will allow full range of
ankle flexion to meet this merit criterion.
Weight: This criterion is weighted at 35%. This is the second most important criterion to
the client. Full range of motion is not quite as important as adaptability, but considerably
more important than the other merit criteria.
Metric: The degree the foot can bend towards and away from the body in degrees of
motion. (D = dorsiflexion, P = plantarflexion) The angles are measured from the neutral
position of the ankle (90). Dorsiflexion is a positive angle from the neutral position as the
toe points superiorly. Plantarflexion is a positive angle from the neutral position as the toe
point inferiorly.
Scale: The normal range of dorsiflexion motion is 20 from neutral position and plantar
flexion motion is 50 from neutral position which is optimal for the prosthetic design. The
scales were divided into equal increments for each type of flexion, except for the optimal
scale. It is ideal to have close to maximum flexed angles within at least 1 of dorsiflexion
and 4 of plantarflexion. Under and over flexion were taken into consideration since
deviations either way would compromise correct gait.

20

100

D (19-20)
P (46-50)

75

D (11-18) or (21-23)
P (31-45) or (51-53)

50

D (6-10) or (24-27)
P (16-30) or (54-57)

25

D (28-31) or (28-31)
P (2-15) or (58-61)

D (1) or (>32)
P (1) or (>62)

3. Minimal maintenance check-ups

Description: For pediatric amputees, it is normal to receive a new socket at least once a
year, as well as regular evaluations every 6 months. In order to lessen both monetary and
timely costs at the prosthetists office, the final design may have mechanisms that do not
require extensive amount of maintenance and/or repair.
Weight: This criterion is weighted at 15%. It not as important as weight adaptability or
maximum range of plantar and dorsiflexion considering the patient already has annual
appointments that could be used for maintenance.
Metric: The amount of time spent on maintenance and/or repair. A higher rating is
indicated by maintenance that is capable of being completed without the need of a
prosthetist. A lower rating is indicated by the time needed for a prosthetist to complete
the maintenance.
Scale:
100

Maintained at home

75

Maintained in 30 minutes by prosthetist

50

Maintained in 1 hour by prosthetist

25

Maintained in 2-8 hours by prosthetist

Maintained in 1 business day by prosthetist

21

4.

Locked plantar flexion capability

Description: The final design may have the capability to lock the ankle in the plantar
flexion motion. For many pediatric amputees, the prosthetic foot rests at a 90 degree
angle, rather than in the natural plantar flexed state. Foot position is an indicator that a
lower-limb is missing because of the lack of flexion while sitting, and the person may
become self-conscious. To help provide confidence for amputees, a temporary locking
mechanism may be added to accommodate natural foot position.
Weight: This weight criterion is 5% because it is not a functional feature for the
prostheses especially for young toddlers. It is a more desirable feature to have in
prosthetic legs for older children.
Metric: The degree the ankle/foot can deviate from the neutral position (90) in
plantarflexion and lock into place.
Scale: The normal range of plantar flexion motion is 50 from neutral position which is
optimal for the prosthetic design [1]. The scales were divided into 15 increments except
for the optimal scale, which ideally will be within 4 of the desired flexed angle.
100

(46-50)

75

(31-45)

50

(16-30)

25

(1-15)

(0)

Summary
Merit and feasibility criteria were developed to determine which design concept meets the
problem statement the best. The feasibility criteria are to have a universal adapter, weight
adjustability, ankle range of motion, and low cost. The merit criteria include optimal weight
adjustability and ankle range of motion, as well as minimal maintenance and fixed plantar
flexion capability. The next section, Design Concept Evaluation, discusses how each design
concept is ranked accordingly to all of the feasibility and merit criteria.

22

IV. Design Concept Evaluation

Each of the five design concepts were evaluated based on the four feasibility and four merit criteria.
This analysis is contained in tabular form at the end of this section in Table 1. The feasibility
analysis is included first as it was necessary that each design concept meet all four of these criteria
to be considered. Once the feasibility of the designs was established, all five design concepts were
ranked based on the merit criteria in order to determine the best design concept to proceed with.
Feasibility Analysis
After consideration of each of the designs, it was determined that all of the proposed designs meet
the feasibility criteria, as seen in Table 1.
Bumper Ankle
This design meets all of the feasibility requirements. Plantar and dorsiflexion is allowed by the
propulsion from the energy-absorbing material and the hinge point at the ankle joint. This design
is manufacturable for less than the maximum cost of $1,000 with the use of low cost metals and
stock parts. In order to be weight-adjustable, the energy-absorbing material is compressed by
tightening a bolt. The increased compression allows a larger range of plantar and dorsiflexion to
compensate for the childs change in weight. This design incorporates the universal attachment
which allows it to be used with any standard prosthetic leg without the need for a special adaptor.
Resistance Bands Ankle
This design meets all of the feasibility requirements. The ball-and-socket joint allows for a large
range of motion during dorsiflexion and plantarflexion, and resistance bands are used to help
stabilize the joint. This design could be manufactured for less than the maximum cost of $1,000
with the use of low cost metals and stock parts. The resistance bands can be replaced to
accommodate the increased weight as the child grows when more force is needed to propel
forward. This design incorporates the universal attachment which will allow it to be used with
any standard prosthetic leg without the need for a special adaptor.
Damper Ankle
This design meets all of the feasibility requirements. The hydraulic springs in conjunction with
the hinge point at the ankle joint will allow for plantar and dorsiflexion. This design could be
manufactured for less than the maximum cost of $1,000 with the use of low cost metals and
stock parts. The ankle can be adjusted to support a variety of weights by changing the amount of
damping in the hydraulic springs using pressure-control valves. As the child increases in weight,
more damping would need to be provided to support the childs weight. This design incorporates
the universal attachment which will allow it to be used with any standard prosthetic leg without
the need for a special adaptor.

23

Spring Ankle
This design meets all of the feasibility requirements. With every heel strike, the springs released
energy will propel the foot forward. The forefoot and rearfoot springs will be set at different
stiffnesses in order to allow the respective amount of plantar and dorsiflexion in each direction.
This design could be manufactured for less than the maximum cost of $1,000 with the use of low
cost metals and stock parts. The springs stiffness could be adjusted for various weights by the
tightening of bolts. The higher the childs weight, the stiffer the springs. This design incorporates
the universal attachment which will allow it to be used with any standard prosthetic leg without
the need for a special adaptor.
Rocker Ankle
This design meets all of the feasibility requirements. Plantar and dorsiflexion will be allowed by
the propulsion from the rearfoot and forefoot bumpers and the hinge point at the ankle joint. This
design could be manufactured for less than the maximum cost of $1,000 with the use of low cost
metals and stock parts. The distance between the bumpers as well as the size of the bumpers could
be adjusted for maximum amount of flexion given the childs weight. This design incorporates the
universal attachment which will allow it to be used with any standard prosthetic leg without the
need for a special adaptor.
Merit Analysis
Adaptable for children between 25 and 60 pounds
Both the Bumper Ankle and Damper Ankle were determined to be adjustable for the whole range
of weight (25-60 pounds), meaning that the device would not need to be replaced as the child
grows. Because of this, these two designs rated at the top of the scale for this merit (100 points).
The Spring Ankle would allow for a large range of weights, but would likely need to be replaced
with stronger springs when the child approaches 60 pounds, and was thus received a merit score
of 80 points out of 100. Similarly, the Resistance Bands Ankle would permit a large range of
weights, but may not support over 50 pounds. This design received a rating of 60. The Rocker
Ankle is adjustable for a small range of weights and thus was only rated 20 points for this merit
criteria.
Maximum plantarflexion and dorsiflexion of the ankle joint
Both the Bumper Ankle and the Damper ankle were found to allow the natural amount of both
plantar flexion and dorsiflexion without going beyond the desired limit and thus received the
highest score of 100 points in this category. A merit score of 50 points was awarded to the
Resistance Bands, Spring and Rocker Ankles. The Resistance Bands Ankle has a ball and socket
ankle joint held in by resistance bands. It was concluded during scoring that this design would
allow for too much dorsiflexion and plantar flexion since there are no hard stops. The Spring
Ankle received a merit score of 50 points due to more dorsiflexion and plantar flexion than 20
and 50, respectively. The Rocker Ankle was awarded with the same score of 50 points due to
the ankle joint only being constrained by resistance bands. This allow for too much dorsiflexion
and plantar flexion.

24

Minimal maintenance check-ups

None of the design concepts received a perfect score in the minimal maintenance criterion. The
main concern for most of the devices was the expanding foot. There is a possibility that the
mechanism can break, and this translated into reduced scores. The Bumper Ankle rating of 75
points was the highest out of all the designs. The articulating housing of the ankle can be easily
detached from the foot in order to adjust or change the bumpers, which are held by bolts. The
adjustment of the foot can be done quickly by a prosthetist. The Resistance Bands, Spring, and
Rocker Ankles all received a merit score of 50 points. The resistance bands on the Resistance
Bands Ankle may need to be changed out frequently due to fatigue and requires a large amount
of time for tuning. Likewise, the Rocker Ankle takes more time to maintain by a prosthetist. The
Spring Ankle also requires a large amount of the prosthetists time tuning each spring.
Fixed plantarflexion capability
The Bumper and Damper Ankles received a merit score of 100 points. Since there is no resistance
in the housing and there is more weight on the forefoot in the Bumper Ankle, the prosthetic would
have a natural (50) plantar flexion position while sitting. The Damper Ankle uses hydraulic
springs to perform the motion of the ankle joint. The hydraulic springs cease motion without force
applied which allows the ankle to stay fixed in plantar flexion while sitting, thus being awarded a
score of 100 points. The Rocker Ankle received a merit score of 25 points out of 100 due to the
fact that heavier weight of the forefoot may permit a natural plantar flexed position. The Resistance
Bands Ankle was a awarded no points since the resistance bands kept the ankle at 90 without
forces applied. The Spring Ankle also received 0 points out 100 due to the springs keeping the
ankle at 90.
Summary of Design Concept Evaluation
The best concept chosen was the Bumper Ankle with a merit criteria of 96.25 (Table 1) while
meeting all feasibility criteria. The top two final merit scores from the Bumper and Damper
Ankles were 11 points apart from each other and may be considered a close victory. However,
the Bumper Ankle was deemed the winner due to its simplicity and cost effectiveness design.
These additional features solidified the merit results. The Bumper Ankle will now be referred to
as the Dynamic Ankle. The next section, Design Project Specifications, will provide an design
overview as well as details of each subsystem making up the Dynamic Ankle.

25

26

V. Design Project Specifications

The design overview explains the overall purpose and function of the Dynamic Ankle. The
Dynamic Ankle is designed to meet all of the clients needs. An overview of each subsystem as
well as subsystem details are presented to understand how the Dynamic Ankle functions.
Design Overview
Introduction
The Dynamic Ankle (Figure 11) serves as a functional ankle for pediatric lower-limb amputees.
It consists of three subsystems: housing, bumpers, and foot extension. The prosthetic ankle
allows for 25 of plantar flexion, as well as 10 dorsiflexion as shown in Figure 12. During heelstrike in the gait cycle, the foot is in dorsiflexion (Figure 12A) and is propelled forward from the
release of energy of the posterior bumper. During heel-off in the gait cycle, the foot is in plantar
flexion (Figure 12B) while preparing for mid swing from the release of energy of the anterior
bumper. The alternating contact between articulating housing and the two bumpers allows the
absorption and release of energy. In order to attach to any prosthetic pylon shaft, a universal
adapter is incorporated as a mating component onto the articulating housing. The foot is also able
to grow with the child in length up to 7.5 due to the foot extension subsystem, which permits
the prosthetic foot to match the length of the contralateral foot.

27

Figure 11. 3D model of the Dynamic Ankle. The housing subsystem is shown in blue, the bumpers subsystem is shown in red, and the foot
extension is shown in green.

28

Figure 12. Bumper Ankle in 25 plantarflexion (A) and 10 dorsiflexion (B).

Meeting the Clients Needs

The Dynamic Ankle design will allow for plantar flexion and dorsiflexion with the use of a pin
joint (Fig. 12, G) and an articulating housing (Fig. 12, A) of the housing subsystem. The
articulating housing also incorporates a universal attachment (Fig. 12, J) in order to connect to
several different prostheses. The posterior (Fig. 12, H) and anterior (Fig. 12, B) bumpers will be
height adjustable by the tightening and loosening of the bumper bolts in order to meet the need
of weight adjustable. This will allow for the same amount of energy absorption and release of
energy regardless of bodyweight. Lighter children will need higher bumpers, whereas heavier
children will need shorter bumpers to each receive the correct amount of energy absorption and
release. The prosthetic will also be length adjustable to correlate to age and weight of the child
due to the foot extension mechanism (Fig. 12, C, D, K, L). Due to material and componentry

29

decisions, the manufacturing cost will not exceed $1,000. After consideration, the Dynamic
Ankle design will not be maintained at home as it was anticipated; however, maintenance should
not require more than 30 minutes by the prosthetist at regularly scheduled appointments every 6
months. Maintenance is foreseen as the adjustment of the foot extension bolt to lengthen the foot
or replacing broken screws, pins, or extension bolt.
Subsystems
The three subsystems making up the Dynamic Ankle design are referred to as the housing,
bumpers, and foot extension subsystems. Each subsystem was determined by similar function
and can be seen in Figure 11.
The housing subsystem is shown in blue in Figure 11. This subsystem consists of articulating
housing (Fig. 12, A), as well as the heel (Fig. 12, F) and toe (Fig. 12, E) . The purposes of this
subsystem are to connect to any pylon shaft, serve as a rotation point for ankle range of motion,
absorb and release energy from the two bumpers, and act as a foot segment. The articulating
housing of this subsystem contains an universal adapter (J) that allows connection to pylon shafts
to mate with any leg prostheses. In order to serve as a rotation point, a pin joint (Fig. 12, D) goes
through the articulating housing and the heel. This mechanism permits the articulating housing to
move relative to the foot. In addition, the articulating housing rotates until coming into contact
with either the posterior or anterior bumper which allows absorption and release of energy. The
dimensions of the foot segment permits the prosthetic to be inserted into a prosthetic foot shell or
a regular shoe.
The bumpers subsystem is shown in red in Figure 11. This subsystem consists of an anterior
(Fig. 12, B) and posterior bumper (H), as well as bolts that connect each bumper to the housing
subsystem and adjust the amount of compression relative to the childs weight. The purpose of
this subsystem is to control the resistance to plantar flexion and dorsiflexion of the prosthetic
foot. This subsystem prevents the ankle from flexing too far in either direction to more naturally
model the flexion of a healthy ankle.
The foot extension subsystem is shown in green in Figure 11. The purpose of the foot extension
is to accommodate for the childs foot length as they grow and to match the size of their
contralateral foot. There is a separation point between the heel and toe that will allow increases
in length. There is a bolt (Fig. 12, C) welded to a nut (Fig. 12, K) through the toe that can be
adjusted to increase this width of separation, ultimately increasing the foot length. The foot
extension also has two additional support pins (Fig. 12, D) to help support the subsystem. The
foot extension subsystem is connected to the heel through the use of a back plate (Fig. 12, L).

30

Subsystem Details
For all calculations referred to in this section, the body weight (BW) used was set at 60 lbf
because the feasibility criteria states that the prosthetic must withstand the weight of a 7 year old.
According to a study by Hollander et al., the maximum ground reaction force in a cushioned
shoe for a 6-9 year old child is approximately 216% BW [8]. Given this data, the team used
324% BW (or 194.4 lbf) as the maximum force by implementing a factor of safety of 1.5.
Housing Subsystem
The housing subsystem has many functions such as serving as a connection to any prosthetic
pylon shaft, a rotation point for ankle range of motion, and a foot segment, as well as that it
absorbs and releases energy from the bumpers subsystem. The housing subsystem consists of an
articulating housing which acts as the ankle (Figure 11, A) and a heel (Figure 11, E) and toe
(Figure 11, F) which act as the foot. Collectively, the housing is important because it is the basis
for the design. Without the housing subsystem, there is neither a foot nor an ankle.
In order to attach to any pylon shaft, a universal adapter (Figure 11, J) was embedded into the
articulating housing. This connection is necessary for compatibility with currently marketed
prostheses. Due to the pin joint (Figure 11, G), the articulating housing moves with each step,
coming into contact with the bumper subsystem in order to release energy and propel forward
during the gait cycle. Refer to Appendix B1 for a dimensioned drawing of the articulating
housing and Appendix B for a dimensioned drawing of the #10-24 threaded pin used for the pin
joint.
The foot segment resembles the natural foot. However, an optimal foot design would include
features such as the arch and various toe lengths. The Dynamic Ankle focuses to keep the
anterior portion of the foot segment the same length on both sides so that the prosthetic can
function as either a left or right foot instead. The foot segment can be inserted into a marketed
prosthetic foot shell to eliminate the need for distinguishable right and left toes. Refer to
Appendices B3 and B4 for a dimensioned drawing of the toe and heel, respectively.
The housing subsystem contains two critical weaknesses that could result in potential failure: the
pin joint itself and the mating of the foot extension bolt (Figure 11, C). Both of these areas are
prone to shear stresses, therefore, correct material properties and pin diameter were essential to
prevent failure from shear stress. Refer to Appendix A1 for the pin joint free-body diagram and
double shear calculation used to find the minimum pin diameter needed to prevent failure, which
was found to be 0.08. Ultimately, it was decided to incorporate a 0.30 diameter to fit #10-24
screws and to use 304 Stainless Steel. In order to determine the material used for the rest of the
housing, 60% of 6061 Aluminum yield strength was estimated as its shear strength [13]. Since
this estimated shear strength (24 ksi) was more than the shear forces at the pin joint (2.4 ksi) and
the extension bolt in the foot extension subsystem, 6061 Aluminum was used for the articulating
housing, heel, and toe.

31

Bumpers Subsystem
The bumper subsystem serves two main purposes, to limit plantar and dorsiflexion of the ankle
to the natural limits and restore energy to the individual with each step. The bumpers subsystem
contains two bumpers, the anterior bumper (Figure 11, B), the posterior bumper (Figure 11, H),
and six bolts (Figure 11, I) which attach the bumpers to the foot and control the amount of reload
on the bumpers. This subsystem is essential to the natural gait cycle of the amputee and prevents
the foot from extending too far in either plantar or dorsiflexion.
Each bumper in the subsystem is attached to the heel of the housing subsystem by three bolts
which can be adjusted by the prosthetist to control the initial height of the bumpers to change the
amount of compression initially on the bumpers. This adjustment is essential to the adjustability
of the design, which is required by the user. As the child increases in weight, the bolts can be
tightened to alter the amount of force required to compress the bumpers. The bumpers also fulfill
the requirement of the design to allow for some range of motion. They are designed to allow for
the full range of both plantar and dorsiflexion, while preventing the foot from extending beyond
the natural range of flexion. A fully dimensioned drawing of both the posterior and anterior
bumpers can be found in Appendix B5 and Appendix B6, respectively.
Two critical weaknesses of the bumpers subsystem are the threaded holes that allow the bumpers
to attach to the foot and the potential for fatigue failure due to cyclic loading. The threaded holes
both limit the contact area with the articulating area, thus decreasing the amount of stress that the
bumpers can withstand and decrease the structural integrity of the bumpers, though the bumpers
are designed to withstand much greater stress than will be applied, and the material, high
strength neoprene rubber, has a fatigue life within the natural number of cycles that will be taken
in the projected lifespan of the device (25 - 60 pounds is approximately 4.5 years for a normal
child) [17]. If the child is more active than average, there is the potential for failure by fatigue.
Calculations to determine the minimum size the bumpers needed to be to support the weight of a
60 lbf child were determined using the UTS of ultra-high-strength neoprene rubber, the material
selected to construct the bumpers from were performed. It was determined that the bumpers were
capable of withstanding stresses six times that of a 60 lbf child. These engineering calculations
can be seen in Appendix A2.
Foot Extension Subsystem
The foot extension subsystem is important to the overall design because it accommodates the
growth of the child. The length of the prosthetic foot must be able to match the length of the
opposite foot. The foot extension subsystem is located between the heel and toe components of
the housing subsystem (Figure 11). The main function of the foot extension subsystem is to
increase the foot length by the turning of a bolt threaded into the toe which then slides down the
bolt away from the heel. The toe has the ability to extend up to 2.25 from the heel.
The foot extension subsystem is comprised of two main components, a stock steel extension bolt
(Figure 11, C) with welded nut (Figure 11, K) and two support pins (Figure 11, D). The head of
the bolt is seated into the heel (Figure 11, F) with a slightly loose fit which allows the bolt to
rotate in the hole as it is turned. The toe (Figure 11, E) has a threaded hole and moves down the
extension bolt. The extension nut has holes drilled in the center of every other side for

32

adjustment. The extension bolt is rotated in the loosening direction with the use of a tool that is
inserted into the extension nut holes. Support pins, on either side of the extension bolt, are used
to prevent the toe component from rotating during the adjustment process and distribute the force
from the bolt during prosthetic use. A back plate, welded to the heel, secures the top of the bolt
and the two pins to the heel. A fully dimensioned extension nut and back plate with support pins
can be found in Appendix B7 and Appendix B8.
The major weakness of the foot extension subsystem is that the bolt or pins can bend from the
weight of a larger child especially at heel-off. Engineering calculations (Appendix A3) were
performed in order to find the smallest diameter of the screw and pins in the worst case scenario,
which is if all the body weight is on the toe, the foot is fully extended and only the screw is used
in the subsystem. According to Dadashi et al., this event occurs at an average heel-off pitch angle
of 24.4 [2]. The smallest diameter that will not fail due to bending stresses, based on a grade 5
steel yield strength of 92 ksi, was found to be 0.365. It was concluded a 0.5 bolt can be used
for the extension bolt because the diameter is large enough to reduce bending and shear stresses.
Construction Plans
Housing Subsystem
In order to manufacture the housing subsystem, two #10-24 screws, one 6061 Aluminum square
bar, and a 304 Stainless Steel rod must be purchased. The Aluminum bar will be cut into two
sections, one that is 2x 1.5 x 2 to act as the heel and another that is 2 x 1.5 x 2.5 to act as
the toe. The 304 Stainless Steel rod must be cut down to a 2.5 long rod to act as the pin joint. In
addition, threads must be inserted inside the rod in order to fit #10-24 screws on both the medial
and lateral sides of the foot. The top face of the heel must also have two cuts that are each 4 x
1.4 x 0.05 to provide indentations for the bumper system. Refer to Table 2 for the projected
cost.
Bumpers Subsystem
In order to manufacture the bumpers subsystem, 2 by 36 strips of ultra-high-strength neoprene
rubber stock must be cut down to 1.5 by 0.5 sections. The bottom of each bumper will be
machined to take off 0.05 of the perimeter in order for the bumper to be seated in the heel
indentation. Three 0.31 diameter holes will be drilled in the top of the bumpers at a depth of
0.10 for the head of the bolts to sit in to prevent them from contacting the articulating ankle of
the housing subsystem. Through the remainder of the depth of the three holes #10-24 threads will
be added for the bolts to screw into and hold the bumpers to the heel. Refer to Table 2 for the
projected cost.
Foot Extension Subsystem
In order to manufacture the foot extension subsystem, a 0.5 Grade 5 steel bolt and a steel nut must
be welded together in order to eliminate independent rotation of the nut down the bolt during foot
extension adjustment. Holes on each face of the steel nut must be drilled in order to fit a tool to
allow rotation of the extension bolt. An aluminum plate will be cut to 1.8 x 1.25 x 1/16 with a
0.5 hole drilled in the center of the plate for the extension bolt to loosely slide through the plate
when assembled. Finally, there are two support pins welded to the plate on opposite sides of the
center hole.

33

During assembly of the foot extension, the head of the extension bolt is placed into the
corresponding hole of the heel component of the housing subsystem and placed through the center
hole of the back plate. Then, the heel and back plate faces are flush and welded together around
the edges of the plate. Finally, the toe component of the housing subsystem can be attached to the
foot extension subsystem by turning the extension bolt in the threaded hole of the toe and the
support pins moving down their respective toe holes. Refer to Table 2 for the projected cost.

34

VI. Budget/Projected Costs

The projected cost of The Dynamic Ankle is shown in Table 2. The budget is divided into the
housing, bumpers, and foot extension subsystems. Miscellaneous fees are included for unexpected
costs that may result such as additional shipping or part replacement. Labor fees are not included.
Table 2. Projected budget for all components making up the Dynamic Ankle design. Budgets are
divided into the housing, bumpers, and foot extension subsystems.
Housing Subsystem
Part #

Part Name

Vendor

Unit

Cost/Unit

Quantity

Shipping/
Handling

Total

90910A247

10-24 Torx
Machine
Screw

McMaster-Carr

1 pack of 50

$7.78

$0.78

$8.56

08663825

6061
Aluminum
Square Bar

MSC Industrial Supply

2 x 2 x 12
Co.

$25.24

$0.00

$25.24

$0.00

$17.15

52417433

304 Stainless
Steel Rod

MSC Industrial
Supply Co.

$17.15

Subsystem 1 Housing Subtotal

$50.95

Bumpers Subsystem
Part #

Part Name

10-24
Stainless Steel
90666A011
Socket Head
Cap Screw

Vendor

Unit

Cost/Unit

Quantity

Shipping/
Handling

Total

McMaster-Carr

1 pack of 10

$11.74

$1.17

$12.91

McMaster-Carr

1 Strip
(2 x 36)

$26.54

$2.65

$29.19

McMaster-Carr

1 Strip
(2 x 36)

$16.09

$1.61

$17.70

thick High1294N17

Strength
Neoprene

thick High1294N15

Strength
Neoprene

Subsystem 2 Bumpers Subtotal

35

$59.80

Foot Extension Subsystem

Part #

Part Name

Vendor

Unit

Cost/Unit

Quantity

Shipping/
Handling

Total

McMaster-Carr

1 pack of 10

$10.23

$1.02

$11.25

McMaster-Carr

$1.54

$0.15

$1.69

McMaster-Carr

1 pack of 50

$7.23

$0.72

$7.95

McMaster-Carr

1.25 x 0.063
x 6

$1.06

$0.11

$1.17

-13 Grade
2865A722

8974K22

5 Steel Cap
Bolt

Aluminum
Rod

-13 Grade
94846A523

8975K198

5 Steel Hex
Nut
6061
Aluminum Bar

Subsystem 3 Foot Extension

Subtotal

Miscellaneous Expenses

$22.06

$50.00

Overall Total $182.81

36

VII. Conclusions/Recommendations
Throughout the design process, decisions were based off of feasibility and merit criteria. It was
most important that the Dynamic Ankle contains a universal adapter, be weight adjustable, allow
for range of motion at the ankle, and be low cost. The Dynamic Ankle does have a universal adapter
on top of the housing in order to attach to any marketed prosthetic pylon shaft. Weight adjustability
is achieved through the adjustment of the bumper height as well as the foot extension mechanism.
As compared to currently marketed prostheses with no ankle range of motion, the Dynamic Ankle
allows for 10 dorsiflexion and 25 plantar flexion. The Dynamic Ankle is estimated to cost $183.
In addition to the feasibility and merit criteria, there was a factor of safety of 1.5 implemented into
all engineering calculations, with respect to the forces due to the childs body weight, in order to
ensure the safety of the device for children.
While the Dynamic Ankle met all feasibility criteria, there are still weaknesses present. The
Dynamic Ankle currently allows for 25 plantar flexion and 10 dorsiflexion, however this range
of motion is half of the maximum range that was desired. The optimal range of motion could be
achievable by changing the shape of the housing system. The heel could be manufactured shorter
in order to allow the articulating housing to move in its full range of motion. Not only does the
housing shape need to be adjusted to fit the need of the client, but it also could be reshaped in order
to look more appealing to customers. Additionally, the slimmer the foot, the lighter the foot would
be and the easier it would be able to fit into a rubber foot shell. Since this product is marketed
towards children, the design should include coverings around the pin joint and foot extension
subsystem to prevent injuries such as pinching.
We request permission to proceed with the design to build and to deliver this design to the client
as detailed in this Preliminary Design Document.

37

VIII. References
[1] American Academy of Orthopedic Authors. (2012). Averages-of-ROM.pdf. Retrieved April
11, 2016 from https://www.fgc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/averages-of-rom.pdf
[2] Dadashi, F., Mariani, B., Rochat, S., Bla, C., Santos-Eggimann, B., & Aminian, K. (2013).
Gait and Foot Clearance Parameters Obtained Using Shoe-Worn Inertial Sensors in a
Large-Population Sample of Older Adults. Sensors, 14(1), 443-457.
doi:10.3390/s140100443
[3] Ertis, S., Kearns, J., & Maniskas, S. (n.d.). Design and Testing of a Low Cost Prosthetic
Foot. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=mesp
[4] Facts about Upper and Lower Limb Reduction Defects. (2014, October 28). Retrieved March
15, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ul-limbreductiondefects.html
[5] Flex-Foot Junior. (2016). Retrieved March 16, 2016, from
http://www.ossur.com/prosthetic-solutions/products/junior-solutions/flex-foot-junior
[6] Game Changer Feed. (n.d.). Foot Models. Retrieved March 14,2016, from
http://gamechangerfeet.com/foot-models/
[7] Han, Z., Barnhart, C., Garlow, D., Bolger, A., Herr, H., Girxzon, G., McCarthy, J. (2012,
October 11). Patent US20120259430 - Controlling powered human augmentation
devices. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120259430
[8] Hollander, K., Riebe, D., Campe, S., Braumann, K., & Zech, A. (2014). Effects of footwear
on treadmill running biomechanics in preadolescent children. Gait & Posture, 40(3),
381-385. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.05.006
[9] Loder, R. T., Dikos, G. D., & Taylor, D. A. (2004). Long-term Lower Extremity Prosthetic
Costs in Children With Traumatic Lawnmower Amputations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(12), 1177-1181. Retrieved March 20,
2016, from http://jamanetwork.com/index.aspx
[10] McGimpsey, G., & Bradford, T. (n.d.). Limb Prosthetics Services and Devices.
Bioengineering
Insitute Center For Neuroprosthetics, Worcester Polytechnic Institution.
[11] Ottobock. (n.d.). Developmental Staging of Componentry. Retrieved March
15, 2016, from http://www.ottobockus.com/prosthetics/info-for-newamputees/prosthetics-101/finding-the-best-foot-for-yo

38

[12] Otto Bock HealthCare LP. (n.d.). [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from
http://sunshinepando.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ottobock-pediatric-leg-prosthetic
-brochure-sunshine-prosthetics-and-orthotics-nj.pdf u/
[13] Porreco, A. (2011, October 11). Calculating Yield & Tensile Strength - Portland Bolt.
Retrieved April 15, 2016, from http://www.portlandbolt.com/technical/faqs/calculatingstrength/
[14] The BiOM Advantage. (2016). Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
http://www.bionxmed.com/patients/the-biom-advantage/
[15] U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. (2012, October). Anthropometric Reference Data
for Children and Adults: United States, 2007-2010. Retrieved April 11, 2016 from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf
[16] Willacy, H., M.D., & Lowth, M., M.D. (2014, December 8). Gait Abnormalities in
Children. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from http://patient.info/doctor/gait-abnormalities-in
children
[17] Woo, C., Kim, W., & Kwon, J. (2008). A study on the material properties and fatigue life
prediction of natural rubber component. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 483484,376-381. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2006.09.189

39

IX. Appendicies
Appendix A1 - Housing subsystem engineering calculations

Figure 13. Pin joint free-body diagram used for double shear calculation to find minimum pin
dimeter through the housing subsystem to prevent failure.
FW = 60lbf 3.24 = 194.4lbf
F
FR = 2W = 97.2lbf
=

FR

Eq. 3

43,920 psi =

Eq. 1
Eq. 2

97.2 lbf

= . "

40

d2

Appendix A2 - Bumpers subsystem engineering calculations

In order to determine the minimal size the bumpers needed to be in order to support a child at the
weight limit of 60 lbf, the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of high-strength neoprene (2500 psi),
the material selected for the bumpers, was used. This can be seen in equation 4.
A=

60 lbf3.24
2500 psi

= .

Eq. 4

Once the minimal area was determined, the bumpers were designed to exceed this area. The final
area was used for both bumpers was 0.333 in2 (Figure 4). The maximum stress that this area
could sustain was then calculated (Equation 5) to ensure it was above the stress that would be
applied by the child.

Figure 4. Top view of bumper showing the area upon which the force of the person will be
applied to the bumpers.
=

F
=
A

60 lbf 3.24
(1.4 .4 in)2 3 (

41

.31 in2
2

=
)

Eq. 5

Appendix A3 - Foot Extension subsystem engineering calculations

Figure 5. Free body diagram of extension bolt in the worst case scenario (toe-off) used to
calculate the smallest diameter to prevent failure from bending and shear stress.
+ Fy = 0

Eq. 6

R y = 194.4 cos 25 = .
+

Eq. 7

Fx = 0
R x = 194.4 sin 25 = .

Eq. 8

+ Maround R = 0
MR = (176.2lbf) (2.5in) = .
My
I
d
(440.5lbf in) (2 )
=

= 92000 psi
4

(d)
64
= .

40.5 in

VQ (176.2lbf) ( 3 ) (
=
=
0.5 in 4
It
(
)
2
(
)
4
42

0.5 in 2
)
2

Eq. 9
=

Eq. 10

Appendix B1 Dimensioned drawing of the articulating housing of the housing

subsystem.

43

Appendix B2 - Dimensioned drawing of the #10-24 pin of the housing subsystem.

44

Appendix B3 - Dimensioned drawing of the toe of the housing subsystem.

45

Appendix B4 - Dimensioned drawing of the heel of the housing subsystem.

46

Appendix B5 - Dimensioned drawing of posterior bumper for the bumpers subsystem.

47

Appendix B6 - Dimensioned drawing of anterior bumper for the bumpers subsystem.

48

Appendix B7 - Dimensioned drawing of support rods and back plate.

49

Appendix B8 - Dimensioned drawing of extension nut.

50

X. Personnel and Responsibilities

Table 3. Design personnel and their responsibilities for the design of the Dynamic Ankle.
Personnel

Responsibility

Madison Thompson

Housing

Michael Riddle

Bumpers and Housing

Danielle Gehron

Foot Extension

Housing Subsystem
Madison Thompson was the lead designer for this subsystem. She worked closely with the other
designers to ensure this subsystem would properly connect to both the bumpers subsystem and the
foot extension subsystem. Madison was in charge of determining both the material and dimensions
of the foot and pin portions of this subsystem. Michael Riddle also worked on this subsystem to
design the articulating housing of this subsystem.
Bumpers Subsystem
Michael Riddle was the lead designer for this subsystem. He worked with Madison to ensure the
bumpers would fit properly in the heel portion of the housing subsystem. Michel was in charge of
determining the dimension of the bumpers, the proper material to withstand the weight and walking
life of the child, and how they would attach to the heel.
Foot Extension Subsystem
Danielle Gehron was the lead designer for this subsystem. She worked closely with Madison to
ensure the foot extension subsystem would interact properly with the foot of the housing
subsystem. Danielle was responsible for determining the materials and dimensions required to
withstand the weight of the child.

51