Test Results

QUALITATIVE TESTING

The first form of data collected was qualitative. The wearable belt system consists of a neoprene belt with 4 IMU accelerometers and a box containing a battery pack, SD Card, and Arduino system. This belt underwent qualitative testing by Staci McGill, a UK BAE graduate student. Staci chose a few styles of impactful horseback riding (a trot and a canter), as well as jogging on foot, to wear the belt and provided us details about her experience. This qualitative review of the system allowed us to see whether the belt would withstand the conditions it was going to be under. This testing was successful due to the belt’s durability during running and riding. In the future, the breadboard wiring will be replaced with a printed circuit, allowing for the wearing of the device and collection of data during riding.

When asked about the experience with the belt while riding Staci said, "So the belt was very easy to wear, very convenient, it did ride up a little bit but I think that has more to do with my jacket being on than the belt itself, but it was very unobtrusive, I didn't even know it was there. Actually, it's a lot less than any of the equipment I would necessarily wear going out on cross country. So between the safety vests and everything else I put on that was nothing like any of that equipment that I would normally wear."

QUANTITATIVE TESTING

The second form of testing was tabulated quantitatively. Since the belt design does not yet collect data, we created a breadboard design to supplement for data. A student ran with the breadboard system, pictured below, and collected accelerations. The tabulated data for the 4 IMU accelerometers is provided in the tables below. The tables themselves only show a short timeline of accelerations points. The IMU accelerometers collected data in the X, Y, and Z directions. The signs indicate direction in that plane.

Lauren running while holding the breadboard system. Quantitative data is being recorded.

4 Accelerometer Readings.xlsx

Above is an example set of data taken from the MicroSD card after being collected on a runner. This data shows the accelerations in the x-, y-, and z-plane. The signs indicate direction in that plane.

The left shows the resultant acceleration with directions. It shows the average of 4 IMU's in the x, y, and z plane. Negative sign indicates left for x, down for y, and into the IMU for z.

The accuracy of these values was not tested, as literature does not yet exist showing a definite value range for running. To compare values, a published experiment was used and shows acceleration values of a college-aged healthy runner to be between 0.2 and 0.6. This article, “High Resolution MEMS Accelerometers to Estimate VO₂ and Compare Running Mechanics between highly Trained Inter-Collegiate and Untrained Runners”, by McGregor, et. Al., could be used to compare our values. However, the accelerometers used are not the same as ours, and could therefore, have a discrepancy factor. When compared to this article, our accelerations seem to be in the right range. The values across the four accelerometers should be similar or within a certain range. Because the runner alternates legs while running, the impact from the right to the left side could be different. This could account for the difference in our values. An average taken over time should be collected to develop an accurate reading of accelerations. In the future, accuracy of the belt system would be compared by comparing breadboard running values to the belt system running values.