This document summarizes a project to design an improved waterproof knee brace for dogs. It outlines the background and need for the project due to the high cost and lack of water resistance of existing knee braces. A survey found over 80% of owners felt a brace was important and 50% would pay up to $500. The document reviews design requirements and different design options before describing a two-stage waterproof brace made of low density polyethylene, neoprene and closed-cell foam. Initial testing found the prototype passed for waterproofing and effectiveness but would need redesign for long-term durability. Next steps are to refine the structure, size and stability and conduct more extensive testing.

1. Project By: Jordan Williams, Alyssa Zillmer,
and Connor Griffin

2.  Background
 Problem Statement
 Problem Validation
 Survey Statistics
 Patents/Past
Solutions
 Design Requirements
 Choosing a Solution
 Sketches/Final
Design Sketches
 Prototype
 Materials
 Testing
 Redesign
 Next Steps

3.  Stifle joint is the most susceptible
joint in the dog
 Surgery is the number one
prescription for knee injuries
 Avg. $2000-$2500, can be $3500+
 Avg. knee brace $745-$945

4. Dogs have a plethora of knee injuries,
the steps to fix these injuries usually
requires surgery which is assisted by a
knee brace and sometimes
hydrotherapy. Knee braces are also used
as an alternative to surgery with
hydrotherapy. Most knee braces are not
water resistant which can be expensive
when replaced.

5.  Survey
◦ Importance of brace
◦ How much they would be willing to
pay
 Professional Opinion
◦ Main reason for earlier appointments
◦ Higher chance of other leg tearing

6.  Over 80% felt that it was important
 At least 50% would be willing to pay
up to $500

7. Pros:
 Comfortable
 Inexpensive
 Supports whole hind leg
Cons:
 Not water resistance
 Bulky

8. Pros:
 Comfortable
 Supportive
 Does not shift
Cons:
 Complex
 Not water resistant

9. Pros
►Effective
►Durable materials
►Water proof padding
Cons
►Expensive
►Not all water proof
►Shifts

10. Pros
►Water proof
►Moderately affordable
Cons
►Complex
►Air dry

11.  Water Proof
 Effective
◦ Restricts knee to normal movements
 Cost Effective
 Durable

12.  Created individual preliminary
sketches
 Choose best 5
 Composite design of previous ideas.
 Two stage brace.

25.  Low Density Polyethylene
 Neopreene
 Closed-Cell Foam

26. Criteria/Benchmark Description of data
needed
Quantitative or
qualitative
Degree of
accuracy
Waterproof
Amount of water
absorbed Quantitative +/- .25 lb
Effective as a knee
brace
Leg cannot shift in
unnatural directions. Qualitative N/A

27. Criteria/Benchmark Description of data
needed
Quantitative or
qualitative
Degree of
accuracy
Cost under $300 Total price. Quantitative +$50/-∞
Durable
Damage to
materials Qualitative N/A

28. Criteria/Benchmark Observations Pass/Failure Degree
of
accuracy
Waterproof
Given the materials used and
the design itself, unless due to
user error there would be little
to no water absorption.
Pass
+/- .25
lb
Effective as a knee brace
Given the design, movement
would be severely restricted in
all directions except for
forwards and backwards. Little
resistance would be applied
from knee wrap but not
complete resistance.
Pass
(Some
changes)
N/A

29. Criteria/Benchmark Observations Pass/Failure Degree of
accuracy
Costs under $300
Pass + $50/ -∞
Durable
Minor scuffs would be suspected.
Damage can be reduced with new
materials.
Short term
pass/ Long
term failure
N/A

30.  Structure
 Size
 Increase stability

32.  Use desired materials
 More extensive testing