DEVELOPING SPINE CURVATURE MEASURING

MACHINE (SCMM)

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

DEBOJIT TALUKDAR [Reg No: RA1511002010318]

SHREYANSH GHARDE [Reg No: RA1511002010323]
M. R. ASIF [Reg No: RA1511002010379]

Under the guidance of

Dr. S. MURALI
(Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering)

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

in

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

of

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

S.R.M. Nagar, Kattankulathur, Kancheepuram District

APRIL 2019
 SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY
(Under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956)

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report titled “DEVELOPING SPINE

CURVATURE MEASURING MACHINE (SCMM)” is the bonafide
work of “DEBOJIT TALUKDAR [Reg. No: RA1511002010318],
SHREYANSH GHARDE [Reg. No: RA1511002010323], M. R. ASIF
[Reg. No: RA1511002010379]”, who carried out the project work under
my supervision. Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge the
work reported herein does not form any other project report or
dissertation on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an
earlier occasion on this or any other candidate.

SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE
Dr. S. Murali
Dr. S. Prabhu
GUIDE
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
Associate Professor
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

Signature of the Internal Examiner

Signature of the External Examiner
 ABSTRACT

A full grown human body is made up of 206 bones. These bones form the skeleton
system of the body, which gives the structure and rigidity to the body. Spinal column
which consists of 3 major curves namely- Cervical, Thoracic and Lumbar is one of
the important parts of the body. To detect the deformity, diagnose other spine related
problems and rehabilate the patients, data of Spine curvature are required. Many
countries in the world have started collecting spine data for more than 5 decades, but
our country India is lagging in this field. Other countries have also developed many
instruments to collect the data but they still seem inaccessible to Indian markets. An
instrument which can collect the data is very much required as it has application in
vast fields like products developed on ergonomic principles.

The aim of this project is to develop a Spine Curvature Measuring Machine

(SCMM) or instrument to get accurate and precised coordinates of human spines
curvatures. The coordinates can be later used to form the curve of the spine using
different modeling software. The curves hence found, vary from person-to-person
and can be later used to produce different Ergonomic instruments, example: Chair,
Mattress, Pillow, Rehabilitation templates, Armour etc.

The model is completely built in the university laboratories using conventional

machines like Lathe machine and drilling machine. The instrument is completely
operated manually and doesn’t require any power source. Low cost, Light-weight and
easy operations are some of the standout features of the SCMM. The instrument was
validated by comparing the data from CMM and FARO Arm machines. The
statistical analysis of T Test was also performed to validate the data. It was found that
there was no significance difference between the data from SCMM and CMM & Faro
Arm. It was then used to examine the spinal curvatures of 6 human subjects to
determine the accessibility of the machine. Statistical significant difference (P<0.05)
was found among the spine angle of subjects.

The major aim of the project was to develop cheap and affordable instrument with
accuracy at par with already available expensive instruments like 3D Laser scanner,
X-Ray scanners etc. and the aim was achieved successfully.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We owe thanks to the following people who helped and supported us in the
preparation of the project. We would like to thank our
Director, Dr. Muthamizhchelvan, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, SRM
Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai.
We would like to express our deep sense of gratitude to Dr. S. Prabhu, Professor
and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science
and Technology, Chennai, for giving us the opportunity to take up this project. We
would like to express our deepest gratitude to our guide Dr. S. Murali, Associate
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and
Technology, Chennai, for his valuable guidance, timely help, consistent support and
encouragement, which greatly contributed towards the successful completion of the
project. He has been a pillar of support to us throughout.
We would also like to pay our regards to all the lab heads, lab in-charges and faculty of
mechanical department for helping us throughout the project, especially the Lab Head of Basic
Engineering Workshop (Mr. A Thirugnanam), Lab Head of RPT & CMM lab
(Mr. Gujjari Bala Siva Krishna), Lab Head of Basic Civil & Mechanical workshop
(Mr. S. Dinesh) and Mr. J. Daniel Glad Stephen for their unconditional help and providing us
with the unlimited resources of SRM Laboratories. We would also like to acknowledge our
Project reviewers, Dr. A. Arul Jeyakumar and Mr. N. Karthikeyan for their ever helping
advices for the possible improvements in the project.

We would also like to extend our gratitude to our parents for their continuous sup-
port, encouragement and motivation without which the completion of this project
would be impossible.
Debojit Talukdar
Shreyansh Gharde
M.R. Asif
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATION & NOMENCLATURE x

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 LITERATURE SURVEY 6

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 13

4 DESIGN AND FABRICATION 21

5 VALIDATION OF SCMM FROM STANDARD MACHINES 33

6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 45

7 CONCLUSION 60

8 REFERNCES 62
 LIST OF TABLES

1.1 CLASSIFICATION OF VERTEBRAE ACCORDING TO REGION . . . . . . 1

4.1 COST ESTIMATION OF MODEL ON SLIDING MECHANISM . . . . . . . 22

4.2 COST ESTIMATION OF MODEL ON GEAR MECHANISM . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.3 COST ESTIMATION OF THE BASIC MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.1 ERROR PERCENTAGE IN DATA FROM SCMM FOR SIDE 1 . . . . . . . . 42

5.2 ERROR PERCENTAGE IN DATA FROM SCMM FOR SIDE 2 . . . . . . . . 42

5.3 DATA FOR CONDUCTING T TEST BETWEEN CMM & SCMM . . . . . . 43

5.4 DATA FOR CONDUCTING T TEST BETWEEN FARO ARM & SCMM . . . 44

6.1 PARTICULARS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS SELECTED FOR SCMM

MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6.2 READINGS OBTAINED USING SCMM DURING EXPERIMENTS . . . . . 52

6.3 SPINE ANGLES AS OBTAINED FROM SCMM READINGS . . . . . . . . 53

6.4 CALCULATION OF MEANS FOR ANOVA TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.5 CALCULATION OF S FOR ANOVA TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 DIFFERENT CURVES IN SPINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

1.2 DIFFERENT ANGLES IN SPINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

2.1 ANGLE MEASUREMENT FROM INCLINOMETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 SPINE CURVE MEASUREMENT USING FLEXICURVE . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 SPINE CURVE MEASUREMENT USING ARCOMETER . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4 SPINE MEASUREMENT USING ELECTROMAGNETIC TRACKING DEVICE . . 9

2.5 SPINE MEASUREMENT USING SPINE APPARATUS IN KNEEL DOWN POSITION. 11

2.6 SPINE MEASUREMENT USING SPINE APPARATUS IN LAY DOWN POSITION. . . 12

3.1 WOOD CUTTING MACHINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2 LATHE MACHINE .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3 GRINDING MACHINE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

3.4 DRILLING MACHINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.5 COORDINATE MEASURING MACHINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

3.6 FARO ARM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.1 COMPRESSED AND EXTENDED ARRANGEMENT OF SLIDER MECHANISM. . . 21

vii
4.2 ASSEMBLED MODEL WITH RODS ARRANGED ON MANNEQUIN. . . . . . . . . 22

4.3 MODEL GOVERNING MOTION ON GEAR MECHANISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.4 SIDE VIEWS OF MODEL 2 WITH MANNEQUIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.5 ENLARGED VIEW OF ROLLER & GEAR MECHANISM FOR MODEL 2. . . . . 24

4.6 BASIC MODEL WITH RODS ATTACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.7 BASIC MODEL WITH RODS FIXED TO MANNEQUIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.8 DIMENSIONS OF THE MODEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4.9 WOODEN MEASURING ROD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.10 RAW WOOD LOG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.11 WOODEN STICKS BEFORE TURNING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.12 TURNING OPERATION BEING PERFORMED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.13 FINISHED RODS AFTER TURNING . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4.14 MAIN STRUCTURE WITH COVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.15 WOODEN COVER WITH HOLES DRILLED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.15 ASSEMBLED SCMM FOR VARIABLE HEIGHTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.1 SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE SPINE AND TEMPLATE USED. . . . . . . . . 33

5.2 MEASUREMENT OF SIDE 1 OF TEMPLATE USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . 34

5.3 MEASUREMENTS OF SIDE 2 OF TEMPLATE USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . 35

viii
5.4 TEMPLATE PROVIDED WITH MARKERS FOR CMM. . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.5 TEMPLATE BEING MEASURED USING CMM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.6 OUTPUT OF POINTS FROM CMM. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.7 ANGLES CALCULATED ON POINTS OBTAINED FROM CMM. . . . . . . 38

5.8 TEMPLATE PROVIDED WITH MARKERS FOR FARO ARM. . . . . . . . .. 39

5.9 TEMPLATE BEING MEASURED USING FARO ARM. . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.10 OUTPUT OF TEMPLATE FROM FARO ARM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.11 ANGLES CALCULATED ON POINTS OBTAINED FROM FARO ARM. . . . . . .41

5.12 COMPARISON OF ANGLES OBTAINED FROM 3 INSTRUMENTS

FOR SIDE 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 41

5.13 COMPARISON OF ANGLES OBTAINED FROM 3 INSTRUMENTS

FOR SIDE 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6.1 MEASUREMENT OF SPINE OF SUBJECT 1 USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.2 MEASUREMENT OF SPINE OF SUBJECT 2 USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.3 MEASUREMENT OF SPINE OF SUBJECT 3 USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.4 MEASUREMENT OF SPINE OF SUBJECT 4 USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.5 MEASUREMENT OF SPINE OF SUBJECT 5 USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.6 MEASUREMENT OF SPINE OF SUBJECT 6 USING SCMM. . . . . . . . . . . 51

ix
6.7 RELATIVE HUMAN SPINES OF ALL SUBJECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

x
 LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATION AND
NOMENCLATURE

CMM Coordinate Measuring Machine

RPT Rapid Prototyping
SCMM Spine Curvature Measuring Machine
TK Thoracic Kyphosis angle
LL Lumbar Lordosis angle

⁰ Degrees
∑ Summation
α Alpha
µ Micro
√ Square root

xi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The human body is made up of various kinds of organ system. Out of which, the
system which comprises of bones etc. is known as Skeletal System. This system is
made up of Bones, Ligaments, Cartilages, Tissues etc. and forms the basic structure of
the human body which provides the shape, size and rigidity to it. The skeleton can be
classified into two, namely, Axial Skeleton and Appendicular Skeleton. The vertebral
column, the rib cage, the skull and other associated bones are together called as Axial
Skeleton. Similarly, the Shoulder girdle, the pelvic girdle and upper and lower limb
bones are together called as Appendicular Skeleton.
The Vertebral Column or Backbone or Spine is one of the important parts of Axial
Skeleton. The Spinal column is a strong but multi-functional structure. Its main aim is
to protect the spinal cord which starts from brain, runs through the column and then
branches out to all the parts of human body. The spinal column is made of 33 distinct
bones named as Vertebrae which exists from Skull to Pelvis. The Vertebrae are
stacked one over other and the distance gap between two consecutive vertebrae is
known as inter-vertebral distance. The complete Vertebral column is divided into 5
different parts, namely, Cervical, Thoracic, Lumbar, Sacrum and Coccyx
Sembulingam K et al [1]. Each part has distinct number of Vertebrae as mentioned
below.

Table 1.1: CLASSIFICATION OF VERTEBRAE ACCORDING TO REGIONS

TERM NO. OF VERTEBRAE BODY AREA ABBREVIATION

Cervical 7 Neck C1-C7

Thoraci 12 Chest T1-T12

c

Lumbar 5 or 6 Low Back L1-L5

Sacrum 5 (fused) Pelvis S1-S5

Coccyx 3 Tailbone None

1
The normal curvature of spine when viewed from side has four curves, namely,
Cervical Curve, Thoracic Curve, Lumbar Curve and Sacral Curve. The curves can be
seen from the image below. For a healthy normal spine, the thoracic spine should
have a natural Kyphosis angle of 20⁰-45⁰ Kathleen J Wilson et al [2], whereas, the
normal Lordosis angle should be around 39⁰-53⁰.

Figure 1.1: DIFFERENT CURVES IN SPINE

Figure 1.2: DIFFERENT ANGLES IN SPINE Tailor et al [3]

According to a study published online with PMID number 28874980 and cited on the
official website of NCBI, dated 07 August 2017, 90% of Post-Graduation students
and IAS aspirants were found to be the victim of Back Pain. The sample selected for
study contained the persons of age group 25-30 years who were not exposed to any
physical strains rather had the constraints of remaining seated for long period of time
of around 10 hours a day. It was found that none of them had ergonomically
 2
supported chair or other equipment to support their body and their body remained
exposed to conventional chairs. The study concluded their result that the pain can be
due to History of Spine problems, Strenuous exercise, Monotony, Stress and
Hereditary problem. The solution to these types of problems can be found by
developing ergonomically supportive structures for each unique spine (I.e. separately
for each person). The ergonomic instruments hence require the proper shape and
curve of the spine to be used as the reference to produce such instruments Katarzyna
et al [4]. Hence, SCMM is made with keeping in view the aim of achieving the
accurate spine curves of human under test.

As referred to already publish papers, it is observed that most of the

medical practitioner including doctors and physiotherapists decide their medication
technique, especially related to the spine; on the basis of the spine curvatures
Grabara M et al [5,6,7]. Hence, even a small deviation in the curvature measured
from any instrument can lead to drastic changes and the whole medication can go
wrong Borek R et al [8,9]. Therefore, it was required to make a system which can
give accurate results and also remain cheap so as to facilitate even an ordinary
physiotherapist to afford it Aleksandra Truszczynska et al [10,11]. It has been seen
that the measuring curvature of spine is the easiest among all the body parts, and
hence number of instruments (not available in India), are available Zemp R et al [12].
But every instrument has its advantages and disadvantages, for example, Inclinometer
is cheap and affordable, but not accurate, whereas, Photogrammetry is accurate but
costly. Therefore, there is a need to develop something accurate and affordable
Sundstrup et al [13-15].

The curvature of spine is very important part as the main strength to the
spine and the body comes from the curvature. It is also seen that mostly the
disfunctioning of the upper body part of the body is closely linked with the postural
deformity Jackson JA et al [16]. It is also observed that human spends most of the
time sitting, and while sitting he distorts the most of the curvature, there by
introducing more loads on the surrounding muscles and vertebrae, and hence there is
a dire requirement of ergonomic chairs, cushions etc., to prevent this distortions from
ruining the health of nation Barbara J Norton et al [17-19].

3
 For most of the spine problems for the kids below 15 years of age, it has
been deduced from some previous studies that they can be cured if the proper
medication is provided before a stipulated amount of time D’Angelo MD et al
[20,21]. It is observed among the kids of age group between 10 to 16 year olds, 2 to
4% of them suffer from the Scoliosis defect of the spine Frobin W et al [22-24]. This
deformity which is common in younger age, is very big issue and problematic once
the kid is fully grown Reamy B V et al [25,26]. Hence, for the early diagnosis of
such defects among kids, a spine curvature measuring instrument is required which is
accurate in measuring and affordable for every parent Rigo M Patient [27,28]. The
model of SCMM is made keeping in view all these factor, to serve the society in
becoming a better and healthier one.

As we have seen in elders, as they grow older there is a fall in the upper
back. Survey has determined that this fall of the upper back is recurrent every year.
Also it has been hypothesized that due to this fall of the upper back the center of
pressure gets displaced towards the limit of the stability and therefore affects the
balance which makes elders get bedridden. The researchers have linked this fall of the
upper back to the improper postural control by the individuals C. Johnson [29].
Hence the study of the different spine curvature is necessary to determine the back
shape or posture that causes the unbalance. So that the elders can be put through
proper treatment with strengthening or balance exercises to improve balance and
posture and hence reduce the risk of the fall of the back.

In the current generation, as the technologies have improved over the years
the physical work of the people has reduced to a greater extent because of which the
required work that has to be given to the spine to keep it away from any pain has been
affected. As a result the number of people fighting with the back pain is increasing
significantly. And also the back pains can be due many reasons like slouching while
sitting, due to lifting heavy weights, twisting uncomfortably and overstretching Azin
Fathi et al [30]. Surveys show that 5-10% of the sick cases are related the back
problem and these stats show the economic expenses involved in this issue Lothar
Paul et al [31].

4
 After considering the above reasons to study the spinal curvature, scholars
worked out some sophisticated methods to study the spinal curvature. One such
method is the radiographic assessment which is very expensive and highly skilled
labor is required to operate the machine. But above that the major drawback of this
machine is the radiation emitted from the machine which can cause other health
issues to the individual under repeated study Anne F et al [32]. So even though we
are able to study the spine curvature but this can be only at some risk. So now we
have to start developing a method which can get us the values as accurate as the
values from the radiography assessment. So we need explore methods which can
operated either manually or mechanically with the ease of usability and also should
be easily accessible.

5
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY

Before starting the design of SCMM, a lot of research papers were read and referred.
The main aim was to get the complete overview of the methods available in the field
of ergonomics and spine defects and deformities. The literature survey also went
through contents to quantitative analyses required to validate the data to achieve the
proper inference
The measurement of spinal curve has always been a difficult task. Over the
years many researchers from different disciplines and from different countries have
been trying different possibilities to measure the spinal curve. And over these years
many approximate methods have been developed with different objectives. Out of the
many developed methods the group has referred few of them according to the
problem statement and objective to get an idea to proceed with the project. And since
all the methods that have been developed were not low on cost and also needed
highly skilled labors, the started developing a design which satisfied above
mentioned factors. The already developed methods to measure the spinal curve are as
follows:

2.1 INCLINOMETER M A Adams et al [33]

Inclinometer works on the optoelectronic circuit, which gives output as voltage
proportional to angles between flat face and vertical. Main components of the device
are small metal cylinders with flat base and tiny pendulums. The device is used only
to measure the lumbar curvature. The output is given as 2 angles when the device is
stuck to the skin. Sum of the 2 angles give the lumbar curvature. 2 channel transient
recorder is used to store the digital output which is in form of electric signals.

6
 Main objective of the researchers was to develop a method with accurate &
dynamic device without hindering the subjects.. So they used an electronic
inclinometer to measure the lumbar curvature. They attached two inclinometers on the
skin of the back. The output from the device is first stored and then gives lumbar
curvature against time after processing the electric signals. Results showed that
measurements from inclinometer were reproducible and was correlated with the
readings from the X-rays. And they concluded that the technique was accurate for the
measurements of lumbar curvature and the angles both in static and smooth dynamic
movements.

Figure 2.1: Angle measurement from Inclinometer M A Adams et al

7
2.2 FLEXICURVE Tatiana Scheeren de Oliveira et al [34]

Flexicurve was developed in pursuit to measure the spinal curve. This device was also
capable of measuring the angle of Thoracic and Lumbar curvatures using
mathematical equations. Flexicurve is actually a flexible metal ruler covered in plastic
that can take the shape of the spine. The flexicurve is placed on the spine and is
pressed against the back of the person to mold it according to the curves of the spine.

The researcher’s objective was to check the validity and reproducibility of

the flexicurve in measuring the angles of the Thoracic and Lumbar curvatures. So they
took 47 subjects which were first sent to the non-contact method of x-ray scanning to
measure the curvature and to find the respective angles and then they used the
flexicurve on the same subjects to trace down the curvature and this part was done by
three different evaluators to check the reproducibility. And as to find the angles of
curvature using flexicurve they used third order polynomial equation. The researchers
found that there is no significant difference in the values taken from x-ray scanning
and flexicurve.

Figure 2.2: Spine curve measurement using Flexicurve Tatiana Scheeren de

Oliveira et al

8
2.3 ARCOMETER Fabina O Chaise et al [35]

Arcometer is an instrument whose fundamental principle was to measure the skeletal

parts. This is basically an instrument which measures the distance between fixed
points. It used a metal rule which can be fixed to the base and then can be moved in
horizontal direction to determine the distance of different points in spine from the
fixed reference. Working of SCMM closely resembles the Arcometer but with slight
modifications. In the modified version of Arcometer free movement of the rods are
provided both in vertical and horizontal planes with a spirit level attached to the main
shaft, to improve the accuracy.

The group of researchers wanted to develop an instrument which can

measure the Lordosis and Kyphosis angles without exposing the subjects to constant
radiation. So they developed the arcometer and validated it by comparing it with X-
rays scanning for respective spine curvature. For the validation of the instrument few
subjects were selected with different variations and measured their thoracic and
lumbar curvatures by both X-rays and arcometer. Arcometer was validated by
comparing the angles from both the methods. To calculate the angles from the
arcometer makers used trigonometry functions.

Figure 2.3: Spine curve measurement using Arcometer Fabina O Chaise et al

9
2.4 ELECTROMAGNETIC TRACKING DEVICE Manuel Gonzalez-Sanchez et al
[36]

In this device, spinal curvature was measured by tracking electromagnetic waves.

This device works with a sample frequency of 120 Hz and a static accuracy position
of 0.76mm for the X, Y, or Z position and a static accuracy orientation of 0.15 RMS.

To analyse and compare standing thoraco-lumbar curves in normal

weighted participants with participants with obesity, using an electromagnetic device
and to analyse the measurement reliability. This method allows the analysis of
curvature in both coronal and sagittal plane. The reference points were used to
perform the analysis in both the planes. A transformation from the global coordinate
system was performed and the curvature was adjusted by fifth order polynomial
equations. As a conclusion it was found that in the coronal plane there was no
significant difference, however in the sagittal plane there was significant difference
between the two groups of people.

Figure 2.4 Spine measurement using Electromagnetic tracking device Manuel

Gonzalez-Sanchez et al

10
2.5 SPINE APPARATUS Lawrence DelPe et al [37]

This is an apparatus designed to detect and measure dysfunctional discs. The

apparatus contains a spinal contact member which is a roller that rubs against the
spine and rolls from disc to disc with the roller being mounted on a vertical calibrated
rod. Additional means are provided to vary the pressure applied to the rod.

The apparatus contains a spinal contact member with the disc to obtain the
position of the contact member in its unstressed position and again the same disc is
contacted with the contact member under an elevated increased standard force to get a
second position of the contact member and then the two positions are compared to
determine the state and condition of the disc.

Figure 2.5: Spine measurement using Spine apparatus Lawrence DelRe et al kneel
down position

11
 Figure 2.6: Spine measurement using Spine apparatus in lay-down position

CONCLUSION

Let us start with the method which uses X-rays to measure the spinal curvature
(Electromagnetic Tracking device). It can be considered as the conventional method to
measure the curvature. This method also has its disadvantages like, the subject has to be
exposed to the continuous radiation while measuring, which is very harmful to the
individual and while considering the whole setup the cost is very high and also it
requires highly skilled person to operate.

As the study of spine curvature got essential in the medical and ergonomics
field the development for a cheap and easy method was required. So in the pursuit for
developing an instrument which is of low cost and which requires low skilled labours we
found few methods satisfied with our objective. One is arcometer which is very similar
to our model, was able to get the angles of the thoracic and lumbar curvatures but the
drawback was, with this instrument we can’t get the whole curvature of the spine which
is very much important in ergonomics field.

Another developed and tested method is flexicurve which can trace down the
whole curvature of the spine and can also give the angles. But again the disadvantage of
this method is that while removing the strip from the back of the individual the traced
shape can be disturbed and there is a chance of getting wrong values. So after carefully
reading many papers and after studying about different methods and getting ideas from
these developed methods we interfused and constructed our own idea to develop a
design which satisfied our objective.

12
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The material used for the model is basically wood, but a variety of wood are used for
different parts of the model depending upon the properties of the material required for
that part. The main structure, including the wooden platform and the outer cover are
made up of Teak wood, as it is strong in nature and can bear a good amount of load
without failing. The disadvantage of Teak wood is that, it is heavier and sums up to a
good self-weight.

The measuring rods are made up of Silver Wood, as this wood is

comparatively weaker to the teak is low in weight. This property of the Silver Wood
certainly complemented the required conditions of the model, as the requirement for
the measuring rod is a lighter wood, so that it doesn’t produce much bending force on
the main column and even a weaker wood do the job for rod, as it is not exposed
directly to any load.

The manufacture of the model required many machine and operations for
its completion. All this machining were done in Institute laboratories. Operations
included- Cutting, Turning, Hemisphere forming, Slotting and Drilling. Once the
model was made and was ready for experimentation, the data obtained from it is
validated with the standard machines available. The machines used for validating the
data included CMM and Faro Arm (3D Laser Scanning). Specifications of machines
used are discussed below:

3.1 CUTTING MACHINE

The standard wood available in market is of length 3 feet with rectangular cross
section 60mm×30mm. For making rods of diameter 10mm, this log was required to
be cut into 12 pieces. The machine at Carpentry lab was used to cut the wood.
Specifications of that machine are as follows:
13
  Make- Indian Electrical type

 Class type- E

 Current required- 0.5 Amps

 Output Horsepower- 1 HP

 Revolving Speed- 1440 RPM

 Output Voltage- 440 V

 Drive type- Belt type (supported by chain)

 Table adjustment- using bevel gear

 Maximum thickness of wood which can be cut- 1.5 inches

Figure 3.1: Wood Cutting Machine

3.2 LATHE MACHINE

After cutting the wood into 12 equal pieces from the wooden log available, the sticks
are then sent for the turning process. The turning was performed in Basic Civil and
 14

Mechanical workshop. The specification includes:

Components of Headstock-

Spindle thread nose, 3 jaw chuck, Bull gear, Plunger pin, Cone pulley, Cone gear,
Spindle gear, Tumbler gear, Ender mitter gear, lead screw and lead screw gear

Components of Tailstock-

Spindle, Spindle lock nut, Spindle hand wheel, offset screw, Tailstock lock nut and
lever

Components of Carriage-
Tool post, Compound rest, Cross slide, Saddle, Apron box, Thread chasing dial,
Offset engaging lever

Figure 3.2: Lathe machine

 15
Components of Bed-
Inner guide ways, Outer guide ways, Rack & Pinion, Ribs

Tools provided-
Chuck key, Tool post key, Single point cutting tool, Drill chuck with key, Revolving
centre, Dead centre, Carbide tipped tool, 14-15 double head spanner

Specifications-

 4 Direct and 4 Indirect speed ratios available

 Direct speeds- 800 rpm, 600 rpm, 400 rpm and 200 rpm

 Direct speeds are used for light duty purpose requiring low load condition

 For heavy duty and high load conditions, indirect speed ratios are available

 Indirect speed- 250 rpm, 100 rpm, 90 rpm and 50 rpm.

3.3 GRINDING MACHINE

Grinding machine was used to give the smooth finish to the rods produced from the
Lathe machine. Hemispherical curve was also provided at the tip of the rod, so as to
remove the sharpness and prevent the pricking on subjects by the spine.

Figure 3.3: Grinding Machine

 16
3.4 DRILLING MACHINE
The sensitive or bench type drilling machine of Basic civil and Mechanical laboratory
was used to make holes on the outer cover of 10mm diameter at 30mm centre
distance. This work required huge precision as the rods would fix in these holes, and
any error in these holes may eventually vary the overall accuracy of the machine.

The specifications of the Drilling machine used in the project are as follows:

 Light duty machine used in small industries or educational institutions.

 Gear arrangement gives 2 types of speeds- Direct speed and gear speed

 Direct speed for light duty purpose (making holes 12mm or less)

 Gear speed for heavy duty purpose (making holed 13mm or more)

 4 pulley setting available

 Morse Taper 3 (MT3) spindle.

 Drill chuck and key with separate holding

 2 Shanks provided- straight shank for holes less than 12mm and Taper shank
for holes 13-25mm

 Rack and pinion mechanism provided on column and pillar for up-down
motion of the holding tray.

 360⁰ rotary type table supported by work holding vice.

 Feed lever to give feed to the drill

 Supported base to absorb the vibration and keep the machine stable.

Tools and accessories include-

 Drill chuck with key, Straight shank drill bits, Taper shank drill bits, Centre drill
bit, Reamer, Counter sink drill, Counter bore drill bit, Taping

17

Figure 3.4: Drilling Machine

3.5 COORDINATE MEASURING MACHINE (CMM)

Once the manufacture of model was finished, it was ready to be experimented. But,
the group felt the requirement to validate the data. At that point, the group decided to
take the measurements of the CMM as the reference. Hence, the template which was
carved out on the plywood was used to take the data on both the machine and then,
the obtained data was compared to validate the instrument. On the obtained data, T
Test was also implied to further test the validity statistically.
 Figure 3.5: Coordinate Measuring Machine
18
The specifications of CMM include:
 Model: Contura G2
 Manufacturer: Carl Zeiss
 Cost: 35 lakhs
 Measuring range: 700mm (x axis) × 700mm (y axis) × 600mm (z axis)
 Maximum work piece weight: 500kg
 Work volume: 920mm×1041mm×665mm
 Sensor: Single point passive scanning
 Measuring rate: 2.5 sec/point
L
 Length measuring error: 1.8+ microns
300
 Probing error: 1.8 microns
 Acceleration: 1000mm/s2

3.6 FARO ARM

Faro Arm is a machine which uses non-contact method to determine the external
shape, geometry and figure of any physical body. It uses a laser beam to target the
body, which then gets printed on display screen. The process is also known as laser
3D Scanning. In this project, the data from SCMM model was validated with the data
from the Faro Arm. The data was compared according to angle as well as to T Test.
Some of the specifications of the Faro Arm are:
 Make: Faro
 Model name: Fusion Faro Arm
 Measuring range: 1.8m
 Weight: 9.5 kg
 Single point repeatability: 0.046mm
 Volumetric accuracy: 0.064mm
 Axis: 7
 Accuracy: 35µm
 Repeatability: 35µm
 Points per line: 640 points/line
19

Figure 3.6: Faro Arm

20
 CHAPTER 4

DESIGN AND FABRICATION

Before reaching to the final design, a lot of designs were made on SolidWorks and their
feasibility was determined to reach the final design. All the designs had different
advantages and different disadvantages, ranging from time required materials
accessible, ease of manufacturing and total cost incurred for the model. Different types
of materials were also surveyed including Mild Steel, Aluminum, Stainless Steel and
even Wood.

4.1 SLIDING MECHANISM WITH MEASUREMENT IN TWO DIRECTIONS

The first design was made of slid-able columns which were fixed with one another
using roller bearings on the guide ways which allows a free motion of column over one
another. This feature allows increasing the height of column thereby, extending the
range of persons whose spine can be measured. The column has slots in the middle
portion so as to allow the measuring rods to move freely in the two directions- one
perpendicular to the column surface and other in lateral direction so as to allow the
spine deformity also to be measured (also known as Scoliosis).
Major parts of this type consist of Mounting Base, Middle column, Guide
way, Guide Insert and measuring rods.

(a) Compressed column (b) extended column

Figure 4.1: Compressed and extended arrangements of sliding mechanism
21
Working of the model can de depicted as, making the person stand on the platform
and then placing the setup in such a way that the lower edge of the setup aligns with
the hip of the person. If the height of the person extends the height of the setup, then
the second half of the column can be pulled up so as to double the height of the
column. Now, the measuring rods will be inserted through the holes in such a way that
they touch the distinct Vertebrae of the person. The coordinates hence achieved in the
two perpendicular coordinate axes will be noted down (in three perpendicular
coordinate axes in case of spinal deformity), and late will be used to form the curve.

Figure 4.2: Assembled model with rods arranged on Mannequin

The advantages of this model include the flexibility of measuring persons of varied
height ranges and provision of measuring the spine deformity along with the spine
curvature measurement. Disadvantages include high cost, decreased level of
manufacturability and high time consumption.

Table 4.1: Cost Estimation of model on sliding mechanism

S. NO. PART NAME DIMENSIONS WEIGHT QUANTIT AMOUNT
(L×B×H) (IN MM) (IN GRAMS) Y (IN INR)
1 Middle Part 220×40×50 3000 2 8000
2 Middle Pole 40×40×150 500 2 1650
3 Side Pole 40×40×100 320 4 2350
4 Aluminum 350 mm strip - 4 2000
Extrusions
MACHINING 6000
COST
TOTAL 14000
AMOUNT

4.2 MOVABLE SINGLE ROLLER WITH GEAR MECHANISM

The second type which is thought of is the single roller pointer instead of multiple
measuring rods. The roller is attached with a compressive spring so as to give the
freedom to move axially. On the other side of it, is attached a marker which moves
according to the movement of the roller, and traces the curve hence travelled by the
marker on white board provided. The rear side of roller is connected to a pinion gear
meshed properly with a human size rack which is erected upright. The arrangement is
provided with a handle which is an extended end of a worm gear. Worm gear is used
here as it can be rotated in one direction only and not in the opposite direction, hence, it
acts as self-locking mechanism and gear doesn’t falls to the ground in the vicinity of the
Gravity.
The major parts of the model includes Rack gear, Pinion gear, Worm gear
with handle, compressive spring, gear casing, roller and marker holder

(a) Full view (b) Enlarged View

Fig 4.3: Model governing motion on Gear mechanism
22
The working of this model is governed by making the person stand in front of the
apparatus in such a way that the roller touches the lumbar portion of the person. The
measurement is then started from the bottom end of the Lumbar region. The roller is
slowly and gradually lifted towards the cervical region by rotating the handle
manually provided at the end of the worm gear. As the roller moves upwards, due to the
curvature of spine the rod (attached to the marker) moves laterally, while maintaining a
constant contact with the spine due to the compressive force acting on the spring
connected. The marker thus traces the curve as travelled by the roller on white board
and precised curve is achieved.

(a) Left side view (b) Right Side view

Figure 4.4: Side views of model 2 with Mannequin

Figure 4.5: Enlarged view of roller and gear mechanism for model 2
23
The advantage of this model is a continuous curve is obtained unlike other models
where only coordinates is obtained. This also increases the accuracy of the instrument,
and makes the analysis of curve less time taking. The operation of this model is very
easy and doesn’t require any expert supervision. The disadvantages include high
manufacturing cost due to sophisticated design. Moreover, the manufacturing of gears
requires high precision and is very time taking as the gear calculations are very
complex. Selection of material is also a constraining point.

Table 4.2: Cost Estimation of model on Gear Mechanism

S. NO. PART NAME QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 5mm Steel plate 600mm×600mm 800
2 Rack & Pinion pair 1 1500
3 Steel hollow tube 2100mm×50mm 500
4 Steel solid rod 450mm×30mm 500
5 Steel solid rod 200mm×10mm 200
6 Spring 1 100
7 Rectangular hollow tube 400mm 500
8 Miscellaneous - 1000
9 Machining Charges - 3000
Total Amount 8100

4.3 BASIC MODEL WITH MEASUREMENT IN ONE DIRECTION

The third type of model which was put in the consideration was the basic model with
measurement in only one direction. This model has the constraint of measuring spine
curvature only and not the spine deformity. The model consists of an L-shaped structure
with a slot on the vertical portion. The model also has a hollow cover with holes of
10mm diameter on it at a regular distance of 30mm. The measuring rods constructed for
the purpose of measuring the vertebrae distance from the reference goes through the
hole. The outer cover is fixed with the rigid structure using the Aluminum rods. Hence,
this design provides with 3 variable height adjustments to cover the persons of varying
height ranges.
24
 Figure 4.6: Basic model with rods attached

Figure 4.7: Basic model with rods fixed to Mannequin

25
The major parts of this model consist of Main structure, wooden cover with holes,
Measuring rods and Al restricting pieces.
The working of this model comprises of making the person stand on the
wooden platform upright and straight. The outer cover is then adjusted according to
the height of the person. After that, the rods are inserted in the holes throughout the
length of the spine. The rods are then pushed outwards so as to touch the Vertebrae.
The distance travelled by each rod is then calculated by noting down the number of
slots travelled from the reference plane. The coordinates points hence obtained are
used to form the curve on any of the designing software.
The advantages of this model include simple and cost effective design which
is very easy to manufacture. The model has very less moving parts and doesn’t require
any external power source to operate. The operation is very easy and doesn’t require
any expert supervision. The disadvantage of this machine is its low precision. Its
accuracy in horizontal direction is 5mm and in vertical is 30mm, which may or may not
touch the Vertebra.

Table 4.3: Cost Estimation of the basic model

S. NO. PARTICULARS QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 Wood for structure 10 4000
2 Polishing - 2000
3 Clamp 2 500
4 Wood for rod 12 300
5 Machining charges - 500
TOTAL COST 7300

After going through all the designs and checking their feasibilities on the basis of time
required, material required, cost for manufacturing and ease of manufacturing, the basic
model with measurement in one direction is finalized for the manufacture and further
proceedings. By selecting this model, the advantages of cheaper production well within
the time were incorporated whereas the accuracy, precision and sophistication of
project were compromised to some extent.
26
Figure 4.8: Dimensions of the model

27
Fabrication is the process of copying the design in reality. If the part is manufactured
exactly like the design that means all the parameters has been followed properly. The
fabrication or manufacturing of a part perfectly requires some steps to be followed:
 Design for Manufacturability (DFM).
 Identifying the machining processes required.
 Using jig and fixtures to produce the part and
 Comparing the fabricated part with the design after every stage.

The project involved the manufacturing of a lot of parts. The first part was Wooden
measuring rods.

Figure 4.9: Wooden Measuring rod

The wooden rod members of 10mm diameter and 400mm length are made out of
standard wood logs available of rectangular cross section 60mm×30mm and length of
914 mm (i.e. 3 feet long). These wood logs were first marked into 6 different sticks of
20mm×15mm each. The log was then cut in Carpentry shop of the Basic Engineering
Lab (BEL). The 457mm wood sticks hence obtained were then turned to circular cross
section of 10mm for the length of 400mm, remaining 57mm being fixed inside chuck.
This process was also carried out in Basic Engineering Lab under the supervision of
Technicians. Once the members were ready, the extra portions were
cut and the ends of rods were given smooth hemisphere, so as to prevent the sticks
from pricking the person under test. All the process ranging from Cutting, Turning,
Finishing and Hemisphere forming were done by the members of the group and no
outsourcing was done.
After the rods of required length were made, the marking for slots were
done. 100mm from the edge, at every 5mm, markings were made. The slots were then
made using hand saw at these marking points, but due to the reduced strength of the
28
 Figure 4.10: Raw Wood log

Figure 4.11: Wooden sticks before turning

Figure 4.12: Turning operation being performed

29
 2
Figure 4.13 Finished rods after turning

part, it started breaking. The group then decided to cut the slots at every 10mm and
keep the markings at 5 mm as it is. The measuring rods with required size and
markings were hence obtained.
Other major part of the project was the main structure. The wood used for
rods was silver wood whereas, for structure was Teak wood. Teak wood was chosen
for structure as it good in strength and can keep the vertical portion of the structure
upright and straight. The silver wood was selected for the rod as it is cheap and readily
available.
For making the structure, the platform and vertical column are made
separately. The dimensions of the platform are 460mm×460mm×60mm. It is a hollow
part made up of teak wood of thickness 20mm. The dimensions of the vertical column
are 1240mm×120mm×30mm. A slot is provided at the center of this column as to
provide free motion to the rods. The width of the slot is 30mm and is 1000mm long,
which starts 20mm from the top. For providing 3 fixed height positions, 2 through
holes of 12mm diameter each are made in the column at the distance of 300mm, the
first hole being at a distance of 415mm from the topmost edge. The column is fixed
with the platform using 2 huge L-clamps made up of Mild Steel. The clamp run
throughout the width of the platform and extends to a height of 300mm in the vertical
column. The main aim of using such a big clamp is to restrict the column completely
without any chance of getting the column bend or sag due to the Gravity
30
 Another important part of the model is the outer cover. This part allows the
length of the machine to be increased or reduced and hence, provides with great range
of measurement. It a hollow part closed from the top surface. The dimensions of the
part are 1050mm×160mm×70mm. The part is provided with holes in a straight line
along the overall length, made to house the rods. The holes are of 10mm diameter,
each at 30mm apart, starting at 55mm from top. Hence, while taking the readings of
different subject, the two consecutive points can be measured at 30mm only and
therefore the least count in vertical direction is 30mm. Similarly, since the marking on
the rods are at 5mm distances, the least count in horizontal direction is 5mm.

Figure 4.14: Main Structure with cover

Figure 4.15: Wooden cover with holes drilled

31
 (a) Bottom-most position (b) Top most position

Figure 4.15: Assembled SCMM for variable heights

Overall fabrication process completed within 3 weeks in the campus. The

manufacture of rods took the maximum of time as during the turning process, due to
small diameter of the rod and excessive length, it went through rigrous vibrations and
even some of the rods got broken during the turning process itself. For providing a bit
of asthetic look, polishing was done on the structute once it was made from the
professional carpenter. All the screw head, nail heads etc were blocked during
polishing so as to give sleek, smooth surface finish.

After completing the fabrication part, all the parts were once again
compared with the finalized design. All the parts closely resembled their designs with
error percentage less than 5%.

32
 CHAPTER 5

VALIDATION OF SCMM FROM STANDARD

MACHINES
Once the instrument was fabricated as per the design dimensions, it was ready to
be used to measure the spine curves. To increase the extent of measurement of
the instrument both human and artificial curves were used for test, it was
required to get it first validated. The group first thought of conducting the
experiment on any original spine (which is found in Medical Colleges or
Hospitals). But later this plan was dropped, as it was assumed that if the
instrument achieves to measure the curvature of any random curve, then it can
easily measure the curve of Spine. Therefore, along with the human subjects,
artificial spine was also used for conducting the validation experiment.
For artificial curve a template/specimen was chosen which exactly
depicts the human spine curve. It had two curves on opposite directions through
the length which closely resembled the Kyphosis and Lordosis curvatures of
human spine.

(a) Human Spine (b) Template used

Figure 5.1: Similarity between the Spine and Template used

The template was carved out of plywood. It had no perfect dimensions and was
33
randomly made. The template was rigidly fixed with the base platform using
clamps so as to restrict its motion while taking the measurement as this minute
deviations could affect the overall curve adversely. When observed closely, it
was found that the two sides were not exactly parallel to each other and hence
the angles on both the sides were different. Therefore, the measurement for both
the sides were taken separately and compared with the standard machines
available in the college campus. The measurement of template was later
compared with the data obtained from the Coordinate Measuring Machine
(CMM) and Faro Arm 3D laser scanning. For both these processes markers were
attached to the sides of the template.

Figure 5.2: Measurement of side 1 of template using SCMM and readings

obtained (below)

TK

L
From the coordinates hence obtained from the SCMM in X and Y directions,
Spline was formed in the SolidWorks modeling software. This gives us the curve
of side 1 of the template. The tangents were then drawn on the two curves
formed. The angles between these tangents were calculated from the SolidWorks
software. The angles hence obtained were:
Thoracic Kyphosis angle: 164.47⁰
Lumbar Lordosis angle: 168.83⁰

Similarly, the side 2 of template was also measured by SCMM.

Figure 5.3: Measurement of side 2 of template using SCMM and readings

obtained (below)

TK

35
The side 2 of template was measured similarly as it was done for the side 1. The
angles hence found for the side 2 are:
Thoracic Kyphosis Angle: 162.98⁰
Lumbar Lordosis Angle: 169.86⁰

The accuracy of the angles obtained by coordinates measured from SCMM was
compared and then validated using two of the already existing non-contact
methods for measuring the curves. The methods thus employed were, CMM i.e.
Coordinate Measuring Machine and the other is Faro Arm i.e. 3D Laser
scanning. Both the methods were performed in the university in CMM and RPT
laboratory of Mechanical Department.
CMM is a machine used for determining the outer geometry of the
physical objects by measuring the coordinates of each discrete point on the
surface of the machine. The method employed by the CMM is a contact type
method, as a sensitive probe touches the surface at distinct points and then
displays the coordinate points from a reference in the display monitor.
The specification of the CMM available in the university which was
used to compare the data with the SCMM is as follows:
 Model: Contura G2
 Manufacturer: Carl Zeiss
 Cost: 35 lakhs
 Measuring range: 700mm (x axis) × 700mm (y axis) × 600mm (z axis)
 Maximum work piece weight: 500kg
 Work volume: 920mm×1041mm×665mm
 Sensor: Single point passive scanning
 Measuring rate: 2.5 sec/point
L
 Length measuring error: 1.8+ microns
300
 Probing error: 1.8 microns
 Acceleration: 1000mm/s2

Both the sides of the templates were used for determining the curve angles, as
there were minute differences between the 2 sides. For performing experiment in

36
CMM, markers were required to be attached on the surface which was to be
measured. Hence, small circular markers were used to determine the points, whose
coordinates were then obtained from the in-built software of SCMM.

Figure 5.4: Template provided with markers for CMM

The data obtained from the SCMM, consisted of random points in space. There points
were then imported into the SolidWorks software and then the curves were formed by
joining all the point using free spline feature. The curve hence formed is again given
with the tangents at the curve. The angles between these tangents were obtained,
which then compared with the angles obtained from SCMM following the same
procedure.

Figure 5.5: Template being measured using CMM

37
 Figure 5.6: Output of points from CMM

TK

Figure 5.7: Angles calculated on points obtained from CMM

Another machine which was used for comparison of angles obtained was Faro
Arm. It is a machine which follows the principle of non-contact method. A beam
of laser is emitted by the Laser gun which strikes the surface kept on the fore
drop of any smooth wall or floor. The specimen needs to be kept in the range of
machine for proper scanning. Faro arm is an 8 axis robot arm whose applications
are spread across many fields including 3D measurement, imaging and
realization. It provides with faster, accurate, compelling and usable 3D data
through its in-built software, which acts as an interface between the user and
machine. Some of the specification of the Faro Arm available with the university
includes:
38
  Make: Faro
 Model name: Fusion Faro Arm
 Measuring range: 1.8m
 Weight: 9.5 kg
 Single point repeatability: 0.046mm
 Volumetric accuracy: 0.064mm
 Axis: 7
 Accuracy: 35µm
 Repeatability: 35µm
 Points per line: 640 points/line
 Scan rate: 19200 points/sec
In Faro Arm also, both the sides of template were measured separately. This machine
also required the markers on the surface of the scanned side so as to get the points
when the surface is imported into ant other software. In Faro Arm, different kind of
marker was used. In this machine, thick rectangular markers were used so as to
clearly distinguish the point with the surface measured.

Figure 5.8: Template provided with markers for Faro Arm

39
The data provided from the in-built software of the Faro Arm was just a surface with
extruded parts where markers were placed. This surface was then imported into the
SolidWorks software and then, at the centre of each extruded portions, points were
marked. These points are then joined together to form a continuous curve using
Spline feature of the SolidWorks. The curve hence obtained is again provided with
the tangents at the curves. The angles between these Tangents were obtained and then
compared with the angles of the curves obtained from the SCMM.

Figure 5.9: Template being measured using Faro Arm

Figure 5.10: Output of template from Faro Arm

40
 TK

Figure 5.11: Angles calculated on points obtained from Faro Arm

Once the angles were obtained from all the three instruments, they were ready to be
compared. Both the sides were compared separately for all the 3 instruments.

TK
TK
TK

L
L
L

Figure 5.12: Comparisons of angles obtained from the 3 instruments for side 1

41
 TK TK

TK

L
L
L

Figure 5.13: Comparisons of angles obtained from 3 instruments for side 2

Table 5.1: ERROR PERCENTAGE IN DATA FROM SCMM FOR SIDE 1

REFERENCE CMM REFERNCE FARO ARM
ERROR ERROR %GE ERROR ERROR %GE
KYPHOSIS
0.68⁰ 0.415 1.21⁰ 0.733
ANGLE
LORDOSIS
0.97⁰ 0.577 2.04⁰ 1.22
ANGLE

Table 5.2: ERROR PERCENTAGE IN DATA FROM SCMM FOR SIDE 2

REFERENCE CMM REFERENCE FARO ARM
ERROR ERROR %GE ERROR ERROR %GE
KYPHOSIS
2.2⁰ 1.33 2.34⁰ 1.44
ANGLE
LORDOSIS
4.25⁰ 2.57 0.6⁰ 0.35
ANGLE

42
 After comparing the measurements of SCMM from CMM and Faro Arm, it was
found that the data obtained were more or less same. The values obtained had
negotiable difference, with 0.60⁰ being the smallest error and 4.25⁰ the biggest
difference in the angle. The error percentage varied from 0.35% to 2.57%.
After analyzing the data it was inferred that the produced instrument is very
accurate in the give constraints with measurements at par with the instruments worth
lakhs. The template being compared and evaluated, gave the satisfaction of
achievement of the aim, hence it was found fit to be used on human subjects. The
group decided to cross check the model by performing the statistical analysis on data
obtained from the SCMM and other machines.

T TEST
Here the data obtained from the SCMM, CMM and Faro Arm are evaluated
mathematically.
Let’s assume 2 hypotheses
Null Hypothesis, H0: there is no significant difference in the measurement
Alternate hypothesis, H1: there is a significant difference in the measurement

Table 5.3: DATA FOR CONDUCTING T TEST BETWEEN CMM & SCMM
S. NO. CMM SCMM DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE SQUARE
1 163.79 164.47 -0.68 0.4624
2 167.86 168.83 -0.97 0.9409
3 165.86 162.98 2.2 4.84
4 165.61 169.86 -4.25 18.0625
∑ = 3.7 ∑ = 24.3058

Level of acceptance (α) = 0.05

Number of terms, N = 4
Tstatistical = ¿
−3.7
=
5.27
= -0.707
Now taking the value of Tcritical from the standard value charts
Tcritical = -3.182
43
Since Tcritical < Tstatistical , we will accept the first hypothesis and we find that there
is no significant difference in measurements between SCMM and CMM.

Similarly, performing T Test for SCMM and Faro Arm

Table 5.4: DATA FOR CONDUCTING T TEST BETWEEN FARO ARM & SCMM
S. NO. FARO ARM SCMM DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE SQUARE
1 165 164.47 0.53 0.2809
2 166.79 168.83 -2.04 4.1616
3 160.64 162.98 -2.34 5.4756
4 170.46 169.86 0.6 0.36
∑ = -3.25 ∑ = 10.2781

Let’s assume 2 hypotheses

Null Hypothesis; H0: there is no significant difference between the
measurements
Alternate hypothesis; H1: there is significant difference between the
measurements
Level of acceptance (α) = 0.05
Number no terms, N= 4
Tstatistical = ¿
−3.25
=
3.191
= - 1.01
Now taking the value of Tcritical from the standard value charts
Tcritical = -3.182
Since Tcritical < Tstatistical , we will accept the first hypothesis and we find that there
is no significant difference in measurements between SCMM and Faro Arm.
Hence, after conducting T-test, it was concluded that there is no significant
difference among measurements from SCMM, CMM and Faro Arm, and this
instrument is ready to be used for human subjects.

44
 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

After validating the data for wooden templates from CMM and Faro Arm, the
instrument was ready for human subjects to be measured. The human subjects
were selected such that a huge range of heights is obtained so as to test the
instrument’s capabilities. Hence, the subjects selected had the height ranging
from 5 feet 4 inches to 6 feet 2 inch. The table below shows the particulars of the
subject selected.

Table 6.1: PARTICULARS OF HUMAN SUBJECTS SELECTED FOR SCMM

MEASUREMENTS
S. NO. HEIGHT (IN CM) WEIGHT (IN KG) GENDER
1 187.9 74 Male
2 182.88 74.5 Male
3 177.8 84 Male
4 170.18 74 Male
5 162.56 50 Male
6 157.48 59 Male

The method for measurement of human subjects undertaken is same as that of the
method used with wooden templates. Since, the persons were not compelled to
remove the Shirts, Pants, Belts etc., the curvature here found may vary with the exact
curvature. Once the coordinates were found from the SCMM, the points were used to
form the regular continuous curve in SolidWorks software using the spline feature.
The tangents were drawn at the Kyphosis and Lordosis curves and the angle between
the tangents were obtained to determine the angles of both the curve. When the angles
obtained for all 6 subjects were noted and compared among each other, it was found
that there is significant difference between the angles of spines as the overall height
of the person changes. Hence, it requires a proper statistical analysis to determine whether
the overall height of person affects the Kyphosis and Lordosis angles.
45
 TK

Figure 6.1: Measurement of Spine of Subject 1 using SCMM

Thoracic Kyphosis Angle: 152.2⁰ ; Lumbar Lordosis Angle: 148.16⁰

46
 TK

Figure 6.2: Measurement of Spine of subject 2 using SCMM

Thoracic Kyphosis angle: 153.32⁰ ; Lumbar Lordosis angle: 166.05⁰

47
 TK

Figure 6.3: Measurement of Spine of subject 3 using SCMM

Thoracic Kyphosis angle: 168.58⁰ Lumbar Lordosis angle: 171.60⁰

48
 TK

Figure 6.4: Measurement of Spine of subject 4 using SCMM

Thoracic Kyphosis angle: 159.95⁰ ; Lumbar Lordosis angle: 145.92⁰

49
 TK

Figure 6.5: Measurement of Spine of subject 5 using SCMM

Thoracic Kyphosis angle: 166.31⁰ ; Lumbar Lordosis angle: 166.12⁰

50
 TK

Figure 6.6: Measurement of Spine of subject 6 using SCMM

Thoracic Kyphosis angle: 153.13⁰ ; Lumbar Lordosis angle: 146.03⁰

51
 Table 6.2: READINGS OBTAINED USING SCMM DURING EXPERIMENT

S. SUBJECT SUBJECT SUBJEC SUBJECT SUBJEC SUBJECT TEMPLAT TEMPLATE

NO 1 2 T3 4 T5 6 E SIDE 1 SIDE 2
.

1 85 75 100 85 70 90 120 115

2 75 55 95 75 75 75 105 130

3 60 35 85 65 70 60 90 135

4 50 40 80 60 70 55 90 140

5 45 35 75 70 60 50 85 145

6 40 35 85 65 80 40 85 145

7 45 30 75 65 70 40 85 140

8 50 25 80 75 75 40 85 135

9 50 30 80 70 80 40 85 135

10 60 30 80 70 90 45 90 130

11 60 35 80 70 90 45 95 125

12 75 30 80 70 100 60 95 120

13 80 35 85 80 105 50 100 115

14 90 40 85 82 110 75 105 110

15 95 40 90 95 105 70 107 110

16 95 45 80 100 90 55 110 108

17 100 45 80 90 80 35 111 105

18 90 40 75 85 70 115 105

19 80 30 70 65 70 112 105
20 65 25 60 110 105

21 65 108 110

22 102 112

23 100

Table 6.3: SPINE ANGLES AS OBTAINED FROM SCMM READINGS

SUBJECT HEIGHT WEIGHT THORACIC LUMBAR

KYPHOSIS LORDOSIS
(IN CM) (KG)
ANGLE ANGLE

1 187.9 74 152.2⁰ 148.16⁰

2 182.88 74.5 153.32⁰ 166.05⁰

3 177.8 84 168.58⁰ 171.6⁰

4 170.18 74 159.95⁰ 145.92⁰

5 162.56 50 166.31⁰ 166.12⁰

6 157.48 60 153.13⁰ 146.03⁰

53
 SUBJECT COLOUR

1 Green

2 Black

3 Pink

4 Brown

5 Red

6 Blue

Figure 6.7: Relative human spines of all subjects (Overlapped)

After conducting the experiments and successfully obtaining the coordinates points,
the curve were drawn in SolidWorks and by marking the tangents at curves, angles of
the Thoracic Kyphosis and Lumbar Lordosis were detected. After getting all these,
the group decided to execute the statistical analysis on the data obtained and ANOVA
analysis was performed on the data obtained from human subjects to determine if
there is significant difference among the spinal angles of the subject tested.
First the means of all the data was calculated.

Table 6.4: CALCULATION OF MEANS FOR ANOVA TEST

SUBJECT SUBJEC SUBJECT SUBJECT SUBJECT SUBJECT

S. NO.
1 T2 3 4 5 6

1 85 75 100 85 70 90

2 75 55 95 75 75 75

3 60 35 85 65 70 60
 4 50 40 80 60 70 55

5 45 35 75 70 60 50

6 40 35 85 65 80 40

7 45 30 75 65 70 40

8 50 25 80 75 75 40

9 50 30 80 70 80 40

10 60 30 80 70 90 45

11 60 35 80 70 90 45

12 75 30 80 70 100 60

13 80 35 85 80 105 50

14 90 40 85 82 110 75

15 95 40 90 95 105 70

16 95 45 80 100 90 55

17 100 45 80 90 80 35

18 90 40 75 85 70

19 80 30 70 65 70

20 65 25 60

21 65

MEA
69.5 37.75 80.24 76.68 82.11 54.41
N

After taking out the mean, following formula was used to find S
S = (∑x – mean x)2
 55
After taking out the S value for each data, summation of S is calculated for each
subject. Then Grand total of all ∑S is taken out.
SSW = ∑(∑S) = 21195.91
Now, difference between total number of terms and number of samples is taken out
n - k = 116 – 6 = 110
MSSW = SSw / (n – k)
MSSw = 192.69
After this, total mean of all the values is calculated
Total mean = (∑ all terms)/116
Total mean = 67
Table 6.5: CALCULATION OF S FOR ANOVA TEST
SL.NO SUBJECT 1 SUBJECT 2 SUBJECT 3
Coordinate S Coordinates S Coordinate S
s s
1 85 266.2 75 1537.47 100 430.56
2 75 39.89 55 369.04 95 248.06
3 60 75.42 35 0.62 85 33.06
4 50 349.1 40 17.73 80 0.56
5 45 560.94 35 0.62 75 18.06
6 40 822.78 35 0.62 85 33.06
7 45 560.94 30 33.52 75 18.06
8 50 349.1 25 116.41 80 0.56
9 50 349.1 30 33.52 80 0.56
10 60 75.42 30 33.52 80 0.56
11 60 75.42 35 0.62 80 0.56
12 75 39.89 30 33.52 80 0.56
13 80 128.05 35 0.62 85 33.06
14 90 454.36 40 17.73 85 33.06
15 95 692.52 40 17.73 90 115.56
16 95 692.52 45 84.83 80 0.56
17 100 980.68 45 84.83 80 0.56
18 90 454.36 40 17.73 75 18.06
19 80 128.05 30 33.52 70 85.56
20 65 13.57 25 116.41 60 370.56
 21 65 203.06

Mean 69.5 37.75 80.23

∑S 7108.31 2550.62 1644.31

SL NO SUBJECT 4 SUBJECT 5 SUBJECT 6

Coordinate S Coordinates S Coordinate S
s s
1 85 77.05 70 163.27 90 1266.52
2 75 1.49 75 60.49 75 423.88
3 65 125.93 70 163.27 60 31.23
4 60 263.15 70 163.27 55 0.35
5 70 38.71 60 518.83 50 19.46
6 65 125.93 80 7.72 40 207.7
7 65 125.93 70 163.27 40 207.7
8 75 1.49 75 60.49 40 207.7
9 70 38.71 80 7.72 40 207.7
10 70 38.71 90 52.16 45 88.58
11 70 38.71 90 52.16 45 88.58
12 70 38.71 100 296.6 60 31.23
13 80 14.27 105 493.83 50 19.46
14 82 33.39 110 741.05 75 423.88
15 95 352.61 105 493.83 70 242.99
16 100 565.39 90 52.16 55 0.35
17 90 189.83 80 7.72 35 376.82
18 85 77.05 70 163.27
19 85 77.05 70 163.27

Mean 76.68 82.10 54.41

∑S 2224.16 3824.38 3844.12
 57
Now, T is calculated for all the subjects,
T = n (subject mean – total mean)2
Therefore, T1 = n1 ( mean1 – meantotal)2
T1 = 2694.63
T2 = 36.44
T3 = 1615.15
T4 = 1949.36
T5 = 4725.16
T6 = 3151.31
SSB = ∑T = 31736.45
k–1=5
Therefore, MSSB = SSB /(k – 1)
MSSB = 6347.29
Now, the formula is used to get the F value, which is then compared with the F value
of the standard chart
Fstat = MSSB / MSSW
Fstat = 32.94
From standard table, at k – 1 = 5,
Fcritical = 2.31

Since, Fcritical > Fstat

Therefore, H0 is rejected
Hence, H1 is accepted
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted
Hence, there is a significant difference in the spinal curves as compared with the
variation in total height.

So, it can be concluded from the ANOVA test that there is a significance difference
in spinal curve on the variation of height, whereas from T Test, it is concluded that
there is no significant difference is the values measured by the three instruments
(SCMM, CMM and Faro Arm).

58
LIMITATIONS

As the aim was to develop an instrument which is simple, manually operable, and
accessible, the group was able to achieve the aim. But still the instrument has some
limitations like the measuring process is very tedious and time taking, as the
measuring rods have to be moved manually with great care every time, which makes
the model inconvenient for measurements in large numbers. Another limitation is the
measuring environment, where the subjects under study wear different dresses which
can give small errors in the readings and in turn deviates the angles calculated from
the data and hence there needs to develop some standard costume to be worn while
taking the readings.

FUTURE SCOPE

As mentioned above, the group produced the model with limited resources using
conventional machines. Hence the model is considered as a first generation model
which can be automated further using sensors and other electronics making it more
accurate and effective. Future researchers can take an idea from this model to produce
and develop it to another level.

59
 CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION

The project involved the development of Spine Curvature Measuring Machine

(SCMM) which was carried out in several stages. The project started after coming
through one of the biggest medical problems faced by the youths worldwide. The
project work started after referring different biology books, websites, research papers,
journals etc. containing information about past developments in the field of
ergonomics especially related with the spine curvature and deformity. The group then
brainstormed through various designs and finalized the best design according to the
feasibility and other parameters. The project also involved rigorous manufacturing of
different parts, assembled together to make the best out the possible. All the
manufacturing was done by the group members in the college itself. After completing
the fabrication, all sorts of experiments were done both with the wooden template as
well with the human subjects. To validate the data, measurements were compared
with standard machines of both contact and non-contact type. The data were also
statistically analyzed to determine if there was any significance difference between
the measurements from the 3 instruments also, if there is any impact of human height
on spinal curvatures and their angles.

It was found that, there is no significant difference among the

measurements from SCMM, CMM and Faro Arm. But, there was a significant
difference in the spine curvatures and angles based on the total heights of the person.

After comparing the 3 instruments, it was concluded that the SCMM is at

par with the two standard machines with error percentage of maximum 2.57%.

Looking at results the project can be termed as successful and it can be

used for various applications in daily life such as diagnosing Kyphosis and Lordosis

60
 defects at the early stages of birth (3-10 years). It can also be used to determine the
recovery achieved by any patient going through any Spine recovery medication. The
curve found can be used to develop various ergonomic products ranging from Chair,
Mattress, Pillow, Neck rest etc.

The group also concludes this project as one of the starting steps towards
ergonomics research. Though the project has been completed successfully, but there
remain a lot of things to be improved on ranging from design to manufacturing to
aesthetics to accessibility. Using modern technologies like 3D printing can not only
make the product light but also increase the precision in manufacturing. The group
hopes that this project will act as torchlight for the future researchers working in this
field.

KEY OUTCOME:

 Instrument of simple design, cheap and accessible produced with conventional

machines.

 Can be used for people of various age groups and heights.

 Can give accurate data without any risk to the subject under study.

 The instrument is validated with the standard machines available.

 Can contribute to collect the anthropometric data of India size.

61
 CHAPTER 9

REFERENCES

1. Essentials of medical physiology by K. Sembulingam and P. Sembulingam,

Jaypee brothers medical publishers, New Delhi.

2. Anatomy and physiology in Health and Illness by Kathleen J. W. Wilson, Churchill

Livingstone, New York

3. Physiological basis of medical practice- Best and Tailor, Williams & Wilkins Co.
Riverview, MI, USA.
4. Katarzyna Walicka-Cupryś et al (2017), “Concurrent validity of photogrammetric
and inclinometric techniques based on assessment of anteroposterior spinal
curvatures”, published in European Spine Journal.
5. Grabara M (2014) et al, “Comparison of the posture between young female
handball players and non-training peers”. 27:85–92
6. Walicka-Cupryś K et al (2015) “Influence of the weight of a school backpack on
spinal curvature in the sagittal plane of seven-year-old children”. BioMed Res Int.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/817913
7. Drzał-Grabiec J et al(2015) “Effects of the sitting position on the body posture of
children aged 11 to 13 years”. Work 51:855–862

8. Borek R et al (2006) “Assessment of relationship between measurement data

uncertainty and statistical inference results regarding distribution of examined
anthropometric characteristic”, vol 233, pp 81-88

9. Glista J, Pop T, Weres A et al (2014) “Change in anthropometric parameters of the

posture of students of physiotherapy after three years of professional training”.
BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/719837

10. Aleksandra Truszczynska et al (2015), “Measurement of spinal curvatures during

62
 sitting on a rehabilitation ball versus stool”, published in Poland with DOI:
10.5606

11. Adams MA. Biomechanics of back pain. Acupunct Med 2004;22:178-88.

12. Zemp R, Taylor WR, Lorenzetti S. (2013) “In vivo spinal posture during upright
and reclined sitting in an office chair”. Biomed Res Int ;2013:916045.

13. Sundstrup E et al (2012) “Ball abdominal crunch with added elastic resistance is
an effective alternative to training machines”. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2012;7:372-
80.

14. Kim K, Kim YH, Lee S (2010) “Shear force allowance in lumbar spine under
follower load in neutral standing posture”. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2010;12:49-53.

15. Li M, Wong MS, Luk KD, Wong KW, Cheung KM (2014) “Timedependent
response of scoliotic curvature to orthotic intervention: when should a radiograph
be obtained after putting on or taking off a spinal orthosis?” Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2014;39:1408-16.

16. Jackson JA, Banerjee-Guénette P, Gregory DE, Callaghan JP (2013) “Should we

be more on the ball? The efficacy of accommodation training on lumbar spine
posture, muscle activity, and perceived discomfort during stability ball sitting”.
Hum Factors 2013;55:1064-76.

17 Barbara J Norton et al, “Comparisons Among Noninvasive Methods for

Measuring Lumbar Curvature in Standing”.

18. Bryan JM et al, (1959) “Investigation of the flexible ruler as a noninvasive

measure of lumbar lordosis in black and white adult female sample populations”. J
Orthop Phys Ther. 1989;10:3–7.

19. Bryant JT, Reid JG, Smith BL, Stevenson JM (1989)“Method for determining
vertebral body positions in the sagittal plane using skin markers”. Spine.
1989;14:258–265.

63
20. D’Angelo MD, Grieve DW, Pereira LF, Watkinson T (1987) “A description of
normal relaxed standing postures”. Clin Biomech. 1987;2:140–144.

21. During J, et al (1985)“Toward standards for posture. Postural characteristics of

the lower back system in normal and pathologic conditions”. Spine. 1985;10:83–
87.

22. Frobin W, Hierholzer E (1982)“Analysis of human back shape using surface

curvatures”. J Biomech. 1982;15:379–390.

23. Gross C, Neuwirth M, Graham J, Pugh J (1982)“Three dimensional lordosimeter.

A device for the nonradiographic assessment of spinal configuration”. Bull Hosp Jt
Dis Orthop Inst. 1982;42:151–171.

24. Maria Takacs et al (2018)“Comparison of spinal curvature parameters as

determined by the ZEBRIS spine examination method and the Cobb method in
children with scoliosis” published in Hungary in 2018.

25. Reamy B V, Slakey JB, “Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current
concepts”. Am Fam Physician. 2001; 64: 111±6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(94)90572-X PMID: 11456428

26. King HA, Moe JH, Bradford DS, Winter RB (1983) “The selection of fusion
levels in thoracic idiopathic scoliosis”. J Bone Joint Surg Am.; 65: 1302±13.
Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654943 PMID: 6654943

27. Rigo M. Patient (2011) “Evaluation in idiopathic scoliosis: Radiographic

assessment, trunk deformity and back asymmetry”. Physiother Theory Pract.; 27:
7±25. https://doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2010.503990 PMID: 21198403

28. Hong J-Y et al (2013), “Clinical anatomy of vertebrae in scoliosis: global analysis
in four different diseases by multiplanar reconstructive computed tomography”.
Spine J.; 13: 1510±1520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.047 PMID:
23992938

64
29. C Johnson, JA Bettany Salikov, J Ling (2014), ‘’ An investigation into the
relationship between spinal curvature and postural sway in asymptomatic healthy
young adults ’’ Published in OA Musculoskeletal Medicine.

30. Azin Fathi, Kevin Curran (2017), ‘’ Detection of spine curvature using wireless
sensors ‘’ Published in ScienceDirect.

31.Lothar Paul, Heiko Tober, Gunther Hegewald (2010), ‘’ Innovative 3D spine

analysis and paramaetrization of scoliosis, lordosis, kyphosis and malposition with
TERGOSKOP ‘’ Presented in international conference on 3D body scanning
technologies.

32. Anne F. Mannion, Katrin Knecht, Gordana Balaban, Jiri Dvorak, Dieter Grob
(2003) ‘’ Anew skin-surface device for measuring the curvature and global and
segmental ranges of motion of the spine: reliability of measurements and
comparison with data reviewed from the literature. Published in Original Article.

33 M A Adams, P Dolan et al, “An electronic inclinometer technique for measuring

lumbar curvature”, printed in Great Britain.

34 Tatiana Scheeren de Oliveira et al, “Validity and reproducibility of the

measurements obtained using the Flexicurve instrument to evaluate the angles of
thoracic and lumbar curvatures of the spine in the sagittal plane”, published with
article ID 186156

35 .Fabiana O Chaise, Claudia T Candotti et al (2011), “Validation, repeatability and

reproducibility of a noninvasive instrument for measuring thoracic and lumbar
curvature of the spine in the sagittal plane”, ISSN 1413-3555

36. Manuel Gonzalez-Sanchez et al, (2014) “Spine curvature analysis between

participants with obesity and normal weight: a biplanar electromagnetic device
measurement”, article ID: 935151

37. Lawrence DelPe et al, United States patent named “Method and apparatus for
testing a spine”, registered with patent no. 5101835.

65