When we first received this final project and saw both the original LUCIA and the works of previous students, the very first goal I wanted to achieve was to reduce the number of separate parts to put together whenever a pelvic frame model had to be assembled for instruction. As such for this redesign we wanted to add a hinge mechanism for the front and back panels to rotate up when it needs to be used, or lay down for storage.

Initial Sketches
As a start I sketched some potential ideas after looking through some previous pelvic frames. Since this piece in essence is meant for underserved communities, we wanted to avoid overcomplicating the mechanism too much since that would require more iterations and higher manufacturing costs. The main mechanism for the hinge works by sandwiching 3 plywood panels, with the middle containing a cut to act as a hole, and combining this with an angled stand with a small rod the size of the plywood hole. The other mechanism was integrating a stand at the back to hold the panels up when in use. After some sketching I later modeled the parts into Solidworks to make the Version 1 assembly.

Version 1 CAD
The main processes for assembling this LUCIA frame throughout all versions are 3D printing the hinges/feet, panel stands and cervix holder, and laser cutting the base and panels in plywood. Parts meant for 3D printing were exported in STL format and sliced accordingly, while laser cut parts were first exported as DXF files. DXF files can be opened in Adobe Illustrator (the units just need to be set accordingly and the file will open with the vectors in the exact position and size), but for them to be printable on the Epilog Pro laser cutter they need to be saved in Illustrator format (the other benefit is that this also makes it possible to add in designs for engraving (which will become important in later versions). Afterwards we fabricated and assembled the parts for Version 1.

Version 1
Upon fabricating Version 1, we immediately saw some adjustments that could be made for designing the next iteration. These are listed below:
- Geometry and mechanism needs to change such that the stand can stand taller than the panel to sit perpendicular to the base
- There is difficulty properly aligning the two panels the correct distance. Making the feet one part on each side would take care of that problem.
- Add fasteners to keep the feet from falling off from the base
- The cervix holder is not properly aligned to the panel due to overhangs
With these notes in mind, Version 2 was then made with some key changes. one is redesigning the stand to be both capable of rotating and sliding to adjust height. This required adding a recess in the back layer of plywood to house the stand, and a wider and longer width in the middle layer to enable sliding. The caveat of this strategy is that due to more space being consumed for the mechanism, the stand had to be redesigned to be thinner. Other changes include reducing the hinge parts into two parts instead of four and adding screw holes with countersinks to fix the hinge to the base.

Version 2
After a design review, we consolidated the critiques to pinpoint some key issues. One is that the cervical model holder needs a redesign since it is unable to effectively hold a model. During the design review we saw another group who used a draft to allow the cervical model to enter through the back and fit through the front for viewing while still leaving the space accessible for switching. We planned to integrate this idea into our design. Besides this, our main issue with this version is the difficulty in locking and aligning the panels to fit the PVC piece simulating the vaginal canal, a redesign had to be done. After some thinking and playing around with Version 2, an idea was thought up based on this orientation.

Version 3 Concept
Geometrically since both panels are perpendicular to the base (which is sloped), the panels will lock into place parallel to each other if there is a bar parallel to the base connecting the tops of the panels. The initial design for Version 3 involved using a hinge but this shifted into a simpler design for Version 4. Rather than design a third hinge, the base can be used to house a separate bar shaped key underneath when not in use.

Version 4
With this proof of concept confirmed, a final version was fabricated with small adjustments to further refine the design. They are listed as follows:
- Switching fasteners from pan head to flat head and adjusting the fabricated holes accordingly.
- Engravings in plywood pieces to signify the use of the key as well as adjust the fitting of the key on the panels.

Example of engraved signage. This indicated the storage area for the key in the base
- The cervix holder was redesigned to use the draft to fit cervical models from the back, and also made to be fastened with two screws instead of hung from the top.

Final 3D printed parts
Overall, the change between Version 2 and the final prototype also allowed for simplifying both the manufacturing and assembling of the LUCIA frame. The number of 3D printed parts was reduced from 5 to 4, screws were reduced from 17 to 14, the base plywood was further maximized in the final prototype by adding an additional function of housing for the key, and stability was improved with a new locking mechanism.

Final Prototype

Final prototype when not in use
There are still changes I wish I could fine tune in another iteration but for this concept, I am very satisfied with this LUCIA’s ability to easily set up and put away while still maintaining functional use for its intended purpose.

Clean workspace
Total Prototyping Cost
| Cost Type | Item | Cost | Source | Quantity | Total |
| Materials | PLA Filament | $19.99 / kg | Bambu Labs | 0.32351 kg | $6.46 |
| Basswood Sheathing Plywood (2 ft × 2 ft) | $8.00 / sheet | Home Depot | 5 | $40.00 | |
| Stainless Steel Screws (10-24, 3/4”) | $7.58 / 100 | McMaster-Carr | 14 | $1.06 | |
| Stainless Steel Hex Nuts (10-24) | $4.63 / 100 | McMaster-Carr | 14 | $0.64 | |
| Overhead | Facility Cost (Including Solidworks and Adobe Licenses) | $1.04/hr | TX/RX Labs | 21 hrs | $21.84 |
| Labor | 3D Printing Engineer (CAD + print setup) | $41 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 8 hrs | $328 |
| Laser Cutting Engineer (setup + cut) | $46 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 8 hrs | $368 | |
| Assembly (Engineering labor) | $41 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 5 hr | $205 | |
| TOTAL | $971 | ||||
| Average cost per Version Prototype | $242.75 |
Final Prototype Cost
| Cost Type | Item | Cost | Source | Quantity | Total |
| Materials | PLA Filament | $19.99 / kg | Bambu Labs | 0.06839 kg | $1.37 |
| Basswood Sheathing Plywood (2 ft × 2 ft) | $8.00 / sheet | Home Depot | 1 | $8 | |
| Stainless Steel Screws (10-24, 3/4”) | $7.58 / 100 | McMaster-Carr | 14 | $1.06 | |
| Stainless Steel Hex Nuts (10-24) | $4.63 / 100 | McMaster-Carr | 14 | $0.64 | |
| Overhead | Facility Cost (Including Solidworks and Adobe Licenses) | $1.04/hr | TX/RX Labs | 3 hrs | $3.12 |
| Labor | 3D Printing Engineer (CAD + print setup) | $41 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 1.5 hrs | $61.50 |
| Laser Cutting Engineer (setup + cut) | $46 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 1 hrs | $46 | |
| Assembly (Engineering labor) | $41 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 0.5 hr | $20.50 | |
| TOTAL | $142.19 |
Mass Production Assumptions (based on Final Prototype – 100 units)
- Fasteners per unit: 14 screws + 14 nuts
- Screws & nuts purchased in packs of 100
| Cost Type | Item | Cost | Source | Quantity | Total |
| Materials | PLA Filament | $19.99 / kg | Bambu Labs | 6.839kg | $137 |
| Basswood Sheathing Plywood (2 ft × 2 ft) | $8.00 / sheet | Home Depot | 78 sheets | $624 | |
| Stainless Steel Screws (10-24, 3/4”) | $7.58 / pack of 100 | McMaster-Carr | 14 packs | $106.12 | |
| Stainless Steel Hex Nuts (10-24) | $4.63 / pack of 100 | McMaster-Carr | 14 packs | $64.82 | |
| Overhead | Facility Cost | $1.04/hr | TX/RX Labs | 3 hrs | $3.12 |
| Labor | 3D Printing Engineer | $41 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 16.7 hrs | $684.70 |
| Laser Cutting Engineer | $46 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 33.3 hrs | $1531.8 | |
| Assembly (Engineering labor) | $41 / hr | ZipRecruiter | 25 hrs | $1025 | |
| Overall Prototyping Cost | $971 | ||||
| TOTAL | $5147.56
($51.48/unit) |
||||