We were tasked with designing a safe, interactive, toy for a child with learning disabilities who enjoys science, creativity and sensory stimulation.
The aim of this project was to create a device for a child that struggles with emotional control, specifically one that helps when he is overstimulated and/or overwhelmed with school and/or his siblings. One of the design requirements is to make it identify as his, due to his struggle with sharing things between his siblings. The device must also include his enjoyment of science, creativity, learning and his love for superheroes. Our original scope for the project was very expansive. Part of the design phase involved narrowing down approaches and ideas in order to focus in on what we can reasonable do. Overall, we plan to present a device that the child can call their own, explores their interest, and is fun.
Design Specifications include:
While all of these concepts and ideas were derived by our team, we did look up other ways to include sensory toys with our designs.
Sensory Lab Cave Concept
For this concept, the child would be able to play inside of the “Lab” area. Activities, such as switches, buttons, etc. would also be included inside for the child to play with. This space could be opened or closed for whether the child wants to be alone or with siblings.
Why this is important?
The child desired a space that they could call their own. The cove would allow them to choose whether or not they want to share it with others (ie siblings). Parent also mentioned portability which the cove could be folded up and transported.
Tabletop Potion Lab Concept
For this concept, the child would be able to play with the water features on the tabletop in order to experience more tactile sensory input. The child has an interest in science and creativity, and a mud kitchen would allow for all of these things.
Why this is important?
The parent desired a space for the child to explore his interests. This concept also allows for them to play, learn, and engage with their younger siblings. The playset, while bulky, could also be moved inside due to weather.
The Gobby Glider Concept
For this concept, the child would be able to be active gliding across a zipline. In order to appeal to his interest, the glider would be Spider-Man themed (based on his favorite character, Green Goblin). We would modify an existing zipline in order to make it safe for them by adding a seat, handles, and safety restraints.
Why this is important?
The child has ADHD so this would be a safe space for him to burn off extra energy. This concept would also allow for interaction and play with their younger siblings. The glider would be built in a way where it could be used as the child grows and develops to fit their future needs.
After discussing our ideas with the whole team and the parent, we ultimately decided on Concept Design 1: The Sensory Lab Cave from our decision matrix.
Our team selected the sensory tent based on our decision matrix and family feedback, as we believe the child would enjoy this design the most. We will add toys and activities inside to better fit the child’s interests and secure the bubble tube with straps to help prevent it from being removed and thrown.
The sensory tent will provide a 47 × 47 × 47 inch interior space for the child to relax and play. A 35 × 35 × 3 inch pad will sit at the bottom of the tent for added comfort.
A bubble tube will be placed near the back and secured with straps to help prevent the child from removing and throwing it. An adult can release the straps and remove the tube for transport. The sensory board will have a flat profile, allowing the tent to fold up so the family can take it with them.
We will select additional toys and activities to match the child’s interests, using family feedback to guide the setup.
For Engineering Analysis One, we decided to calculate the deflection of the top of the tent. Some assumptions and simplifications were made including neglecting the frame of the tent (only looking at the top) and assuming a uniform pressure being applied to the complete area in order to make the calculations more manageable. Several constants were taken from US Air Force Data to calculate the stress and deformation. Ultimately the deflection was found to be smaller than the tent material’s elastic limit meaning that it is safe under these specific conditions.
For Analysis 3 we calculated the tipping and sliding to determine is the tent was stable under its own weight.
Scenario 1 simulates a push on the side of the tent; the sliding analysis was done on multiple surfaces and on all it is likely the tent would slide. for this scenario it was assumed the child could exert about half his body weight at about his torso.
Scenario 2 simulates a child hanging from the top of the tent. The calculation showed that the tent would likely tip in this situation.
To resolve this issue, we plan to use wall anchor to secure the tent in place.
