Compression-Activated Mouth Release for Para Archery

By Running On Empty

____________
Cole Bechtold

____________
Brandon Bochat

____________
Trevor Nong

BE 390 – Principles of Biomedical Engineering Design

May 18, 2018

Executive Summary
Presently, archers with physical impairments, or para archers, do not have access to
commercially-available assistive devices. From the casual backyard archer to athletes of
Paralympic caliber, assistive archery devices are often custom fabricated. Shaun Anderson, of
Team South Africa, is ranked as the 77th best para archer in the world; he uses a custom system
comprising of a bike brake cable, a clothespin, and a stiff shoulder brace to draw his bow and
release his arrows. Solutions such as these are often fabricated specifically to a single user and
as such are expensive. Homemade solutions are also typically unsafe and difficult for the
common archer to utilize. The design team set out to address these issues by developing a
commercially feasible, safe, and durable release system that can be used by para archers with
impaired draw arm function below the shoulder.

The design is the Compression-Activated Mouth Release, a device that sits in the user’s mouth
along one side of the jaw, and allows the user to draw a bow and control the release of an arrow
by biting the device. The device consists of three components: a chlorinated polyvinyl chloride
(CPVC) housing, an aluminum release mechanism, and a CPVC bowstring attachment. These
three components interact with each other in a simple mechanical fashion, using a lever, the
force of the user’s bite, and the tension of the bowstring to achieve control of arrow release.

The structure is a rigid component that the user bites down on while drawing the bowstring; it
can be formed to the shape of the user’s own teeth to provide comfort and prevent the device
from slipping out of the mouth while in use. The bowstring attachment is a CPVC tab that is tied
onto the bowstring using a common piece of archery equipment called a D-loop. Once fixed to
the string, the opposite end of the attachment component is inserted into the CPVC housing.
Then it is locked into place by the user’s bite force applied to the aluminum release mechanism,
which fits into a hole in the attachment to lock it into place and prevent it from pulling free. The
attachment component cannot free itself from the release and the bow will not fire if the bite
force is not eased up on. When the archer wishes to shoot an arrow, they relax their jaw to ease
the bite force, allowing the release mechanism rotate into the unlocked position. Once unlocked,
the attachment component is free to slide out from the housing in the user’s mouth, releasing the
drawn bowstring.

The final cost of the Compression-Activated Mouth Release is estimated at $70. Considering the
general unavailability of standard archery releases on the market due to high cost, the product
price point is appealing to a broader range of users and can bring increased functionality to the
para archer community. The Compression-Activated Mouth Release is durable, safe, and viable
in a broad range of settings. As such, the design team is confident that prototyping the design
yields a practical solution for para archers everywhere and will improve user experience and
satisfaction when compared to current homemade devices.
Table of Contents
I. Design Scope ........................................................................................................................3

II. Evaluation Criteria ...............................................................................................................8

III. Design Concepts .................................................................................................................12

IV. Design Concept Evaluation ................................................................................................20

V. Design Project Specifications .............................................................................................26

Design Overview ..................................................................................................................... 26

Structure Subsystem ......................................................................................................28

Release Subsystem ........................................................................................................30

Attachment Subsystem....................................................................................................32

VI. Budget/Projected Costs ......................................................................................................37

VII. Conclusions/Recommendations .........................................................................................38

VIII. References ..........................................................................................................................39

IX. Appendices ..........................................................................................................................40

Appendix A – Attachment Subsystem .............................................................................40

Appendix B – Release Subsystem ..................................................................................42

Appendix C – Structure Subsystem .................................................................................44

X. Personnel and Responsibilities ...........................................................................................46

I. Design Scope

Background
Whether it be in hunting, warfare, or recreation, archery has been utilized by humans since
before recorded history. Modern archery, as it is practiced today, began as an Olympic sport in
1900 and is currently one of the largest sporting practices worldwide (Archery Facts, 2017).
From a Paralympic standpoint, the archery competition was featured in the inaugural Paralympic
Games held in Rome in 1960 and has remained a part of the games ever since (Archery, 2018).

Despite the global popularity of archery and the sport’s profoundly rich history, assistive devices
for athletes with various disabilities and impairments who wish to either recreationally or
competitively are relatively new to the archery scene. Even at the Paralympic level, recurve bow
athletes still use handmade or fabricated assistive releases, increasing the likelihood for injury or
underperformance. South Africa’s Shaun Anderson is ranked as the 77 para archer in the world
th

and uses the most common type of release for individuals with amputated arms, as shown below
in Figure 1, which consists of a clothespin tied to a bike brake cable. He then manipulates the
device with his mouth to loose the arrow (Archery, 2018).

Suboptimal solutions such as these raise questions within the para archery community; why
don’t users purchase a release designed for their disability? Simply put, there is a vast shortage
in commercial products in existence. As each competitor has slightly different needs and
preferences, commercial archery manufacturers are unable to provide affordable and effective
solutions to offer assistive devices to the public. This shortcoming limits the interest of the
numerous individuals worldwide that would participate in Para Archery but are unable to do so
due to a lack of resources or fabrication skills.

Figure 1. Shaun Anderson competing for Team South Africa in an Open Compound
Tournament using his custom-made brace and mouth release aid. Image from (Wells, 2016)

1
As each para archer grows and develops as a competitor, the lack of a widely-available,
manufactured assistive devices will require the individual to custom-make their own equipment
or pay to have it made for them. This leads to a very high baseline cost to the user which may
cause archers to give up the sport entirely if they are not able to afford a device. Those that are
determined to pursue the sport are likely willing to pay several hundreds of dollars for a viable
solution, as simply acquiring a competitive-grade recurve bow can cost anywhere from $1000-
$1500 (Olympic Bows, 2018).

The classic Olympic Recurve bow is the second type of product that the team analyzed. The
anatomy of a typical bow is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Annotated diagram of a typical Olympic Recurve. Image from (Yeow, 2015)

A third product that was utilized as a benchmark for the design is the current release aid for able-
bodied archers. The standard release aid consists of a nock point, a trigger, and a grip. The nock
point is where the device aids in holding the string of the bow, while the trigger and grip of the
device are provide the user with a place to holds the device. When the archer is ready to release
the arrow, the individual activates the trigger to open the nock point, loosing the arrow. A
commercially available release is shown on the next page in Figure 3. This release is sold by
Nock On for the price of $200 and serves as a performance and ease-of-use benchmark for the
team’s design.

2
Figure 3. A “Nock 2 It” release commercially available to the public via Nock On for the price
of $200 (Nock On, 2018).

Market Analysis/Benchmarking
The state-of-the-art equipment in the para archery field consists of custom-made products
specific to each para archer. However, there are several devices and products available
commercially for the able-bodied archer that the team can use as a benchmark for quality, price,
and performance. Performing an analysis of the current market is beneficial for the design
sequence as it clarifies the current customer preferences and identifies the types of solutions that
the potential user looks for in a product. Described below are a few of the relevant products on
the market that were analyzed throughout the benchmarking process.

NOCK 2 IT Release, Nock On:

An example of a current state-of-the-art release aid for able-bodied archers. The standard release
aid consists of a nock point, a trigger, and a grip. The nock point is where the aid holds the
string of the bow, while the trigger and grip of the aid is where the user holds onto the
aid. When the archer is confident in the line-of-sight, the individual activates the trigger to open
the nock point and loose the arrow. A commercially available release is shown above in Figure
3. This release is sold by Nock On for the price of $200. This product will serve as a
performance and ease-of-use benchmark for the design.

3
Easton Archery Chest Guard, Easton Archery:
As an archer, protection is a crucial component to a successful performance or shot. The desire
of the athlete to perform at the highest level possible brings several World Archery safety
regulations into play as well. The Chest Guard sold by Easton Archery (shown below in Figure
4) for $25 is a commercially available product that satisfies all World Archery regulations while
keeping the archer safe and focused on the competition at hand. This product is important for the
team to consider, as whatever product that is designed must keep safety at the forefront of the
design and not interfere with the archers ability to use a chest guard, if they so choose.

Figure 4. A commercially available chest protector sold from Easton Archery for the price of
$25. Image from (Easton, 2018)

4
Custom Mouth Tab:
One approach to this problem is to create a mouth tab to allow a para archer to draw the
bowstring using their mouth. These tabs are homemade, so there is high variability across each
device (Ex. shown below in Figure 5). Surprisingly, it seems that there are no commercially-
available mouth tabs on the market, as a mouth tab is generally made using paracord, which is
highly affordable. This solution is one of the most common approaches in the Paralympics, and
therefore it is an important device for the team to consider.

Figure 5. A homemade paracord mouth tab tied onto a bow string. Image from (Kumetz, R.
2017).

5
T.R.U. Ball Tru Nok D-loop, T.R.U. Ball Archery:
Once the archer acquires a release aid, the release does not simply attach to the
bowstring. Rather, the release aid clips to a D-loop that is tied/attached to the bowstring. This
method protects the bowstring from wear and allows the user to establish a consistent and
uniform nock point. This product is crucial to the resulting design, as whatever release
mechanism is utilized must be harmonious/compatible with the archer’s D-loop of choice. While
the product shown below in Figure 6 is an aluminum product, some archers choose to use a
simple paracord D-loop tied to the bowstring.

Figure 6. The T.R.U. Ball Tru Nok aluminum D-loop is a commercially available D-loop that is
sold for the price of $15 by T.R.U. Ball Archery. Image is from (T.R.U. Ball, 2018)

6
Shock Doctor Shoulder Support w/ Stability Control Strap System:
Shoulder braces and harnesses can be modified to be used in para archery. There are many
different braces out there, but the one the team found that could be heavily modified to be used
in para archery is the Shock Doctor Shoulder Support that can be seen below in Figure 7. This
brace costs about $60, which is a relatively expensive brace. Other braces are cheaper, so if this
is over budget there are many other options. The shoulder brace should be considered in the
project as a piece of equipment that gives another place for a release point in para archery.

Figure 7. The Shock Doctor Shoulder Support w/ Stability Control Straps is a commercially
available should brace for $60 at Dick’s Sporting Goods. Image from Shock Doctor Shoulder
Support w/ Stability Control Strap System. Image from (Shock Doctor Shoulder Support, 2018).

Problem Statement:
The design team seeks to design an assistive device for para archers that are unable to use their
typical draw arm beyond the shoulder. The finished design should be adaptable to any
compound bow, as well as suitable for both indoor and outdoor use. Additionally, this device
should be safe and durable.

7
II. Evaluation Criteria
The final design selected should satisfy all of the baseline requirements set forth in the problem
statement and contain additional features to improve the overall design result. These design
requirements were transferred into evaluation criteria and then sorted into two types of criteria
based on the necessity to the success of the design. Those criteria that were considered to be a
baseline, absolutely necessary requirement from the problem statement are referred to as
Feasibility Criteria, and those criteria that are additional design features are referred to as Merit
Criteria. Each of the designs generated will be compared to one another through a score on each
of the feasibility and merit criteria. Each criterion from both groups are outlined and discussed
further in the following sections.

Feasibility Criteria
Feasibility criteria are a set of criteria that have been determined to be absolutely paramount to
the design, and must be satisfied in the final design. After reviewing the goals of the design and
evaluating the various design inputs, three feasibility criteria were selected and are outlined
below.

Safety:
The first of the feasibility criteria is safety--in other words, the product (as well as the use of the
product) must not cause injury or impede respiration/circulation in the user. This is important to
the design, as safe alternatives already exist to the public, and therefore a dangerous product is
not desirable/reasonable. To satisfy this criterion, use of the product may not result in injury or
unreasonable harm to the user/client. In the scope of the problem, a potential injury may
manifest itself in neck pain, injury in the mouth/face region, or chest pain. Additionally, the
function of the device itself should not pose significant danger or risk to the individuals
surrounding the archer utilizing the device.

Adaptability:
Secondly, the design shall be adaptable to compound bow models; it must not impede the
nocking, drawing, and loosing of arrows with varying compound bow styles and models. This
criteria must be satisfied so that the client does not have to limit their shooting preferences based
on compatibility with the product. Achieving this adaptability to multiple models of bow also
broadens the potential customer base. The user must be able to utilize the device in conjunction
with their bow of choice without encountering any unintended setbacks or issues due to
limitations of the device itself. Failure to satisfy this standard will result in an insufficient
design.

Durability:
Finally, the ultimate design shall be durable. The design should not fail from repetitive proper
use as described in the instruction manual provided with the product. The device should be
resistant to water, heat, and impact. This criteria must be satisfied to provide a consistent and
reliable device for the archer to use on a day-to-day basis. The device cannot fail during use, as
this would result in archer injury and withdrawal from competition. To satisfy this criterion, the
product must suffer no failure, damage, or decrease in performance in response to 3000+ cycles

8
of use, submersion in water for 24 hours, material temperatures of up to 65 °C, and 100+ drops
from 6 ft. This should simulate a lifetime of wear caused by exposure to water or heat, due to
weather or storage conditions, fatigue due to use, and accidental impact due to misuse or jolting
of the equipment.

Merit Criteria
Merit criteria are a set of criteria that are a list of desirable features/additions to the design that
would enhance the final design. Merit criteria are not considered paramount to the design, and
shall not impede the final design’s ability to meet the feasibility criteria outlined above. The
merit criteria following will be implemented to help select a design for further consideration in
the selection process.

Ease of Use:
The primary merit criteria to consider is the ease of use of the device. Usability is very
important to this design; archers must be able to sustain prolonged use of this device without any
significant discomfort or pain. If the device is uncomfortable or difficult to use, potential clients
are unlikely to use the device regularly. Using the device shall consist of no more than five
steps/processes. Any device that requires more than ten steps will likely require too much time
to use in a competitive setting, and will therefore not be considered in the design selection
process. This merit criterion will be assigned a weight of 35%, because the client will simply
seek an alternative custom product to suit their needs if the device is too uncomfortable or
difficult to utilize. The device design will be evaluated on the number of steps/processes
required to use the device according to the instruction manual provided with the device. A
design with a few number of steps will receive a higher merit score.

Suggested Merit Score Steps for Use

0 > 10

25 5-10

50 3-4

75 2-3

100 1-2

Fire Rate:
In addition to ease of use, a second merit criteria is the fire rate of the device. The developed
design shall facilitate nocking, drawing, and loosing of an arrow in less than one minute. This is
important to the design because World Archery competitors have 4 minutes to shoot a total of 5
arrows. The fire rate criterion will be assigned a weight of 25%, because the competitive client
will need to satisfy the World Archery regulations outlined above. If the device takes a long
time to use, the client will be unable to shoot in the allotted amount of time for the competition
and will cease use of the device. The device design will be evaluated on the number of arrows

9
released in 4 minutes. A device with a high number of arrows release in 4 minutes will receive a
high merit score, while a device with a low number of arrows released in 4 minutes will receive a
low merit score. While no device will be prototyped in this design sequence, the number of steps
associated for use with each design will be estimated a time for use. The sum of the times will
indicate the number of arrows capable of being loosed in the four minute timespan.

Suggested Merit Score Arrows Released in 4 minutes

0 0-1

25 1-2

50 2-3

75 3-4

100 >5

Weight:
Additionally, the design will be evaluated on a merit criterion of total weight; in this case, the
ideal design will be lightweight. A lightweight design is crucial in the archery realm, as a heavy
release will increase muscle fatigue and tremor. When an archer experiences tremor and fatigue,
the ability to aim and hold full draw is impeded. The criterion will be assigned a weight of 20%,
because the archer will be unable to shoot accurately and effectively if the device is too heavy.
Due to the current lack of commercially available products on the market, finding a baseline
weight to compare the designs to is unlikely. However, most homemade custom release aids are
expected to weigh in the 1-2 lb. range. The device design in question will be evaluated on the
weight of the device in pounds. A device with a low weight will receive a high merit score,
while a device that has a high weight will receive a low merit score. When assigning scores to
the design, the ideal design will weigh between 1-2 lbs., as this range is reasonable for the
material and function of the design. An upper bound of 10 lbs. was selected, as this was
determined to be the maximum weight for an individual to lift/carry while minimizing a
consistently low amplitude of tremor. Any design above this limit will simply do more harm
than good in that is may cause discomfort or exacerbate the disability of the user.

Suggested Merit Score Weight of Device (lbs.)

0 > 10

25 5-10

50 3-5

75 2-3

100 1-2

10
Cost:
Finally, an additional significant merit criteria to consider is the cost of the design/device. The
problem statement specifies that the device shall be priced for less than $300, as this value is
comparable to the current state-of-the-art releases commercially available. This criterion must
be satisfied in order to ensure that the device is reasonably available to all potential clients. Any
price higher than this would likely be a significant barrier to clients, so the device will be
disregarded as a feasible solution to the problem. Cost criterion will be assigned a weight of
20%, because if a device is astronomically expensive, the client may just make a custom piece of
equipment. The device design will be evaluated on the cost of manufacturing in dollars. A
device that has a low manufacturing cost will receive a high merit score, while a design with a
high cost of manufacturing will receive a low merit score.

Suggested Merit Score Cost of Manufacturing

0 > $500

25 $300-500

50 $200-300

75 $100-300

100 $0-100

11
III. Design Concepts
The members of the team each individually developed early design concepts to provide a
solution to para archers that satisfied feasibility criteria but also addressed merit criteria. These
design concepts covered a wide range of possible disabilities, as the team had not yet narrowed
down a specific clientele to design a device for. After each member had developed several
design concepts, five designs, shown below, were chosen to advance to the next stage of
deliberation.

Tongue-Activated Mouth Release

Currently, the state-of-the-art mouth release is simply a piece of paracord tied to the bowstring
below the nock point. The archer bites down on the cord, uses their neck and arm strength to
draw the bow to full draw length, and then opens their mouth quickly to release the paracord and
shoot the arrow. While this is both cheap and effective, the paracord must be changed
frequently—as the wear from teeth is rapid and harmful. In addition, the motion of drawing
places unnecessary force on the lower neck, shoulder blade, and teeth.

The device described below is designed to address the faults listed above, bringing a
commercially available product to the archery market. The device is an aluminum-based
rounded tube coated in a soft rubber. This aluminum/rubber composition increases the design’s
ability to resist both indoor and outdoor conditions and satisfies the feasibility criterion of high
durability. A cable runs through the inside of the aluminum tube, ending with a quick-release
hook on one end of the cable. The other end of the cable turns through the portion of the tube
that is oriented at 90 degrees to the long tube, giving it an L-shape overall. This shorter portion
acts as a lever, and when it is pushed forward in the mouth with the tongue, it applies sufficient
tension to the cable via a lever-action to trigger the quick-release hook and activate the release of
the arrow. In other words, the shorter portion of the L-shape works as a miniature lever arm to
tension the cable throughout the device. A schematic of the unique L-shape design is shown
below in Figure 8. Note that the device is designed to be relatively small, with only a short
portion of the long leg of the L out of the mouth.

Using the design described above, the user is able to have a durable, multi-use device that
remains in their mouth between each shot. In addition to saving money and time on paracord,
the archer saves time between shots, allowing more time and energy to aim and focus on hitting
the target. The reduction in time between shots (due to a low number of usage steps) addresses
the primary merit criterion of ease of use. From a manufacturing standpoint, aluminum is very
lightweight and easy to machine, meaning that the device can be produced at a low cost and
provided to the consumer at a reasonable price point. A reasonably low price point works to
satisfy the merit criterion of manufacturing cost. However, there are several limitations of the
design that may hinder its success. For example, the bent portion of the ‘L’ is an inherent weak
point and may contribute to a high rate of failure. Further, the force required of the tongue to
push the short leg of the ‘L’ forward in the mouth may be significant--physical design testing is
required to further elucidate the feasibility of this mechanism.

12
Figure 8. Tongue-activated mouth release, demonstrating the mechanism by which the
bowstring is nocked and released utilizing the L-shaped design to fit into the mouth. The dotted
line is signifying the location of the cable running throughout the device.

Mouthguard Switch
One of the most significant dangers associated with the current state-of-the-art mouth tab is
damage to the teeth. To address this issue, the team developed a mouthguard-like design, similar
to one worn by boxers or football players. The formability of the soft rubber allows for the
device to be viable in a wide variety of clients, regardless of arm/chest physiology. In addition,
the rubber used is a lightweight material, resulting in a product that is extremely lightweight and
satisfies the merit criterion of weight.

To use the device, the archer simply molds the mouthguard to the shape of their teeth according
to standard mouthguard-molding procedures. Once this initial step is complete, the archer will
not have to repeat the molding process unless the fit is deemed unsatisfactory, in which case it
can be completed again. The mouthguard is shaped with a small gap in the front, allowing a
small metal lever to be mounted and protrude through the front of the mouthguard. One end of
the lever mechanism loops through a modified D-loop attached to the bowstring, and the other
end is manipulated by the tongue to trigger the release. This design should allow for quick and
efficient release movement that minimizes sway and enhances accuracy. This design aids in
damage mitigation the same way as a mouthguard would.

13
As the device is manufactured with rubber and small metal components, the total manufacturing
cost is mitigated. The only additional equipment needed is an adjusted D-loop which has a
second loop for the lever action. This design is safer than the current paracord option due to the
protection provided by the mouthguard and using the tongue instead of the teeth. This design is
also durable because it is made out of the same material that high performance mouthguards are
made of. The metal will also be made a strong piece of metal to mitigate bending of the lever.
This would also be one of the cheapest designs due to the availability and quantity needed for the
product.

Figure 9. Mouthguard Switch Device. The top and bottom surfaces of the device are a soft
rubber that can conform to the user’s specific mouth physiology. The lever is manipulated by
the tongue, and the external portion of the lever articulates through a modified D-loop.

14
Adaptive Archery Harness
The Adaptive Archery Harness (Figure 10) is a shoulder/back brace that allows an archer with a
draw arm disability to anchor the bowstring to the shoulder of the brace and then release the bow
by utilizing the muscles of the middle and lower back. A D-loop is used to attach the drawstring
to the anchor pin, which also functions as a quick release mechanism on the shoulder. A simple
lever mechanism on the shoulder can release the harness by pulling the pin out from the D-loop,
releasing the arrow. The lever will be oriented that a simple or accidental movement of the
shoulder will not trigger the release. The harness itself will be comprised of foam attached to
plastic plates to provide flexible support to the tension in the drawstring as it is drawn using a
twisting motion in the upper body. The plates will be adjustable with Velcro straps or a simple
adjustable clasp so as to fit the user’s body and provide some control over user comfort. The
composition of the foam plates and cloth straps will balance comfort with functionality in that
they must be stiff enough to prevent slipping and allow efficient transmission of forces, as well
as retain enough flexibility so as to not bruise the user or impede circulation and respiration.

This design will utilize parts that are both easily manufactured and relatively generic so as to
address the high cost of adaptive archery equipment, as shoulder and back braces must often be
custom made so as to be fitted to the user’s body. The modular design allows for a customizable
apparatus that requires minimal post-processing before it is ready for consumer use, addressing
the cost criterion by driving down cost. The system is also fairly lightweight (under 10 lbs.), so
it is easy to both store and transport. The device is not easily equipped or adjusted by the
intended users, so some assistance might be required, bringing down this device’s ease of use.
Other concerns include discomfort or impeding of respiration or circulation.

15
Figure 10. Schematic of the Adaptive Archery Harness from the front and back views. The
plate, adjustable straps, and pin release is shown. The pin release is pulled up by biting action,
freeing the D-loop.

Shoulder-Mounted Shoe Release

The Shoulder-mounted Shoe Release is a pulley system that consists of a rigid shoulder brace
upon which a pulley and release lever are mounted and a mount that fits over the user’s foot in a
stirrup-like manner. A cable is attached to the shoulder pulley and the foot pedal. The
drawstring is attached to the hook-shaped release lever by use of an adapted D-loop. When the
user lowers their heel, the cable is pulled over the shoulder and rotates the hook release in such a
way that it frees the D-loop, releasing the arrow. The device would address high costs by being
made of relatively cheap materials and having a generic, but adjustable design so as to be easily
manufactured en mass. Counter to that however, is that the device includes a pulley mechanism
in the form of the hook release, which may drive up manufacturing costs. Both of these design
aspects will impact product’s total cost. With adequate time to train with the device, fire rate and
ease of use will increase simply because the user will become more comfortable with the device.

16
There is some customizability in the design as the length of cable for the pulley mechanism as
well as the fit of the shoulder brace can be adjusted. The brace will be made of a hard plastic
with a foam back and light fabric straps so as to minimize the weight of the device. The design
is unique in that it provides a natural stance for the archer and does not confine them to shooting
from a wheelchair or stool. It also eliminates the entirety of the mouth release as the current
state-of-the-art utilizes, protecting the archer’s teeth and prevents back and neck overexertion.

Figure 11. Shoulder-Mounted Shoe Release. The pulley-pedal system is shown in

detail. Lowering the heel of the foot pulls the cable and articulates the hook so as to release the
D-loop on the string of the bow.

17
Compression-Activated Mouth Release
As previously outlined in Tongue-Activated Mouth Release above, the current state-of-the-art
mechanism of release for para archers is a braided piece of paracord tied around the bowstring
where the D-loop is typically located. The current mouth release systems involve the opening of
the mouth to loose the arrow, while the Compression-Activated Mouth Release is a modified
version in which the archer bites down harder on the release to loose the arrow. The device
consists of a seatbelt-like design, with one end that clips to a modified D-loop on the
bowstring. The other end consists of an aluminum portion that is coated in a soft rubber, similar
to a mouthguard (Figure 12). The rubber can be molded to the archer’s teeth according to
standard mouthguard molding procedures. This aspect contributes to the both the feasibility
criterion of safety (protecting the teeth) and to the merit criterion of ease of use. A release button
is embedded in the rubber, centered over molar 30 or 19 (see Figure 13 below) depending on the
handedness of the archer. The button size will depend on the availability of standard off-the-
shelf products--further reducing the cost of the product. This design provides the user with high
comfort, and the ability to bite hard enough to draw the bow without damaging the teeth. When
the archer is ready to loose the arrow, the archer simply relaxes the jaw slightly to relieve the
pressure on the button embedded in the rubber. The pressure release of the button activates the
quick-release in the seatbelt-like clipping action.

This device design is incredibly beneficial to the archer, as the release remains in the mouth and
utilizes a simple, quick mechanism. The device is water-resistant and reusable, and easily meets
the five arrows in four minutes criteria. However, where the device excels in ease-of-use and
repeatability, it may falter in cost of production. It is likely that the aluminum machining process
and rubber coating will drive cost up significantly.

Figure 12. A schematic drawing of the pressure-activated mouth release concept. This image
depicts the separate piece that would attach to a D-Loop. The release button is embedded in the
soft rubber coating of the device. When the button is relaxed, the smaller piece will separate and
loose the arrow.

18
Figure 13. Labelled diagram of the teeth. The release embedded in the soft rubber will be located
above the 30th/19th molar, depending on the handedness of the shooter.

19
IV. Design Concept Evaluation
Once the five most promising designs were picked from the design team’s pool of concepts, the
designs were evaluated for success or failure in feasibility criteria as well as performance in
merit criteria. Again, feasibility criteria represent the most important aspects of any design--the
challenges that the design must overcome--and merit criteria represent qualities that would be
ideal in the design. Given that, at this point, the designs were still in the conceptual stage, the
feasibility and merit criteria were judged on reasonable conjecture as to whether the intended
material and design could perform to specification.

Feasibility Analysis
Whether or not a device meets all feasibility criteria determines whether or not it is viable. At
this stage the design team began to reduce the levels of abstraction in each design concept to
arrive at a design with more specific parts, materials, and geometries.

Tongue-Activated Mouth Release:

The Tongue-Activated Mouth Release meets the feasibility criterion of safety as it is designed
with a rubberized coating that reduces the stress that must be placed on the teeth to pull back the
bowstring. It also does not feature any uncovered parts or joints within the mouth that may catch
or pinch any tissue; the hooking mechanism is placed on the distal end of the device so as to
keep it at a safe distance from the user’s mouth as well as put some distance between the user
and the path of the bowstring so as to prevent the string from slapping against the user.

This device is adaptable to different variations of compound bow models, as it simply interfaces
with the bowstring via D-loop, which can be consistently fitted to all models. As such, it
satisfies this feasibility criterion.

The criterion of durability is met by this device, as it is composed of strong materials that are
further encased in a rubber material so as to both distribute forces and prevent the frame of the
part from interfacing with user tissues and saliva.

Mouthguard Switch:
This device, the Mouthguard Switch, satisfies the safety criterion by being composed of
materials that are designed to safely interface with the user. The mouthguard portion is
comprised of a thermoplastic polymer that can be heated and then molded to the user’s geometry
by biting down on it and then cooling the mouthguard. The switch portion of the device will
simply be made of plastic with rounded edges. This design also limits the interfacing of the
user’s body and the bowstring.

The Mouthguard Switch is also adaptable to all models of compound bow, as like the previous
design, it only interfaces with a D-loop that is fitted to the string itself. This D-loop can be
applied to all bowstrings.

20
The thermoplastic polymeric structure of the mouthguard portion confers water resistance to the
device, and the specific polymer will be chosen such that the glass transition temperature is
above 65 °C. For the switch itself, a more robust polymer can be used. As such, the durability
criterion is satisfied by this design.

Adaptive Archery Harness:

This device satisfies the criterion of safety by utilizing foam padding as well as adjustable straps
that allow the device to be adjusted such that it fits snugly, but not too tightly, and distributes
forces over a wide area so as to prevent circulation and respiration from being impeded. Again,
the user’s interface with bowstring itself is limited by the placement of the attachment point as
the use of a lever release that is operated away from the attachment point.

The Adaptive Archery Harness is adaptable to all models of compound bow in that the interface
between the bowstring and harness is again mediated by a D-loop, which may be universally tied
around all bowstrings.

The criterion of durability is satisfied by this design through the use of materials--stiff plastic,
foam, cloth--that are resistant to prolonged exposure to both high temperatures and water. These
materials are also resistant to impact.

Shoulder-Mounted Shoe Release:

The Shoulder-Mounted Shoe Release meets the safety criterion by ensuring that the archer will
be balance throughout the draw and loose of the arrow. The feet will be planted while drawing,
and then slightly raised to release. It is critical to stay balanced throughout the whole shot in
order to ensure accuracy and the safety of the athlete and any others who may be near. The
interface between user and string is also offset from the user in order to prevent the bowstring
from slapping against the user.

This device meets the adaptability criterion by, once again, interacting with a D-Loop on the
bowstring. The same bowstring and D-Loop is drawn for all compound bows.

This device will be made of durable plastic materials, as well as a strong cable/string. This
ensures that it will not break, and that the elements will not have a negative effect on the
device. The strong cable/string is essential in the durability of this design.

Compression-Activated Mouth Release:

The Compression-Activated Mouth Release satisfies the safety feasibility criteria as it is also
covered in a rubber coating, similarly to the Mouth Activated Switch. This rubber coating
reduces stress on the teeth, as well as keeping the device from slipping out of the mouth. The
bowstring is again distances from the user, so as to prevent any injury caused by impact from the
bowstring. The piece that gets ejected from the mouth is safe, as it is located at the extreme
distal end of the mouth, ensuring that there is significant clearance during the release process.
This is further compounded by the fact that the string does not rebound, prevent the ejecting
portion of the design from bouncing back toward the user.

21
This device also meets the criteria of being used for all variations of compound bows. The
device attaches to the D-Loop on the bowstring, which is the same for every variation and model.

The durability criterion is for the most part met. The materials this device consist of are made of
strong metals and durable rubber. The button may have a tendency to break or crack from
repeated use and high pressure from the teeth, but without a physical model with which to
perform testing, we believe that the metal design will withstand the appropriate usage expected
of the product.

Merit Analysis
The design team then developed a scoring system for each merit criterion based on current
solutions as well as the performance of uninhibited archers. Initially, the design team
individually assigned scores to each device in each merit criterion. The team then gathered once
more to corroborate these scores and arrive at agreement on which score to assign to each device
in each criterion. This method provided a way to systematically determine the design that was
best suited to produce a solution which best addressed the problem statement.

Tongue-Activated Mouth Release:

The tongue-activated mouth release system was assigned a rating of 25 in the Ease of Use
criterion, as it was determined that the device would require six steps in order to operate as
intended. The time for each step involved in the utilization of the device was estimated and
totaled for the loosing of one arrow. The total amount of time for the tongue-activated mouth
release system was approximated to be around 20 seconds, allowing the user to fire roughly 12
arrows in the allotted four minutes. Therefore, this design was assigned a score of 100 in the
Fire Rate criterion. The design was assigned a rating of 50 in the Weight criterion, as the design
consists almost entirely of a lightweight aluminum and thermoplastic. This material allows us to
estimate that the device will weigh 3 to 5 pounds. As for the Cost criterion, the design earned a
rating of 50, as the materials and machining processes to create the design is likely to cost
between $200 and $300.

Mouthguard Switch:
The mouthguard switch device was assigned a rating of 50 in the Ease of Use criterion, as it was
determined that the device would require four steps in order to operate as intended. The time for
each step involved in the operation of the device was estimated and totaled for the loosing of one
arrow. The total amount of time for the mouthguard switch was approximated to be around 30
seconds, which would allow the user to fire roughly 8 arrows in the allotted four
minutes. Therefore, the mouthguard switch was assigned a score of 100 in the Fire Rate
criterion. The design was assigned a rating of 75 in the Weight criterion, as the design consists
entirely of a highly lightweight plastic material, with a small metal piece embedded in the
plastic. This material allows us to estimate that the device will weigh 2 to 3 pounds. In the Cost
criterion, the design earned a rating of 50, as the materials and machining processes to create the
design is likely to cost between $200 and $300.

22
Adaptive Archery Harness:
The Adaptive Archery Harness was assigned a rating of 25 in Ease of Use because would be
difficult for the intended user to equip the harness without assistance and would require 5 steps
to operate: the user must first put on the device, nock, draw, release, and then nock once more.
The time required for each step involved in the utilization of the device was estimated and
totaled for the loosing of one arrow. The total amount of time for the Harness was approximated
to be around 55 seconds, which would only allow the user to fire roughly 4 arrows in the allotted
four minutes. Therefore, the design was assigned a score of 75 in the Fire Rate criterion. For the
criterion of Weight, the device was awarded a score of 25, as the harness would have a
considerable amount of weight to it due to the use of several foam pieces and plastic plates, as
well as a firing mechanism that would likely be composed of a lightweight metal. The device’s
score in the criterion of Cost was also 25 due to the fact that it would require a significant
amount of assembling before it is suitable to be used as intended by the design; the total sale
price is estimated to be between $300-500.

Shoulder-Mounted Shoe Release:

The shoulder-mounted shoe release was assigned a rating of 25 in the Ease of Use criterion, as it
was determined that the device would require 7 steps in order to operate as intended. The design
was assigned a rating of 75 in the Fire Rate criterion because the total amount of time estimated
for the user to loose a single arrow with the device was approximated to be 75 seconds--which
only allows the user to shoot approximately three arrows in the allotted four minutes. The design
was assigned a rating of 75 in the Weight criterion, as the design consists entirely of a highly
lightweight plastic material, with a small metal piece embedded in the plastic. This material
allows us to estimate that the device will weigh 2 to 3 pounds. In the Cost criterion, the design
earned a rating of 50, as the materials and machining processes to create the design is likely to
cost between $200 and $300.

Compression-Activated Mouth Release:

The pressure-activated mouth release design was assigned a rating of 50 in the Ease of Use
criterion, as it was determined that the device would require four steps in order to operate as
intended. The design was assigned a rating of 100 in the Fire Rate criterion because the total
number of time estimated for the user to loose an arrow with the device was approximated to be
25 seconds--which is able to be repeated at least five times in the allotted four minutes. The
design was assigned a rating of 100 in the Weight criterion, as the design consists entirely of a
highly lightweight, formable plastic material that is typically found in a standard mouthguard,
with a small metal subsystem embedded in the plastic. This material allows us to estimate that
the device will weigh 1 to 2 pounds. In the Cost criterion, the design earned a rating of 50, as the
materials and machining processes to create the design is likely to cost between $200 and $300.
The plastic simply must be molded in a general casting process, as the user will form the device
to their specifications at home.

23
Summary of Design Concept Evaluation
The merit analysis identified the Compression-Activated Mouth Release as the device which,
overall, performs best in the merit criteria. This device’s design utilized materials that are light,
durable, and cheap; it also is simple to use and requires a low amount of steps to use, giving it
high potential for fire rate. Not far behind was the Mouthguard Switch, as this device also
satisfied all of these criteria to a high degree, but fell behind in weight, as it would be composed
of a rubber-like polymer as well as a stiff polymer that make up a larger, bulkier design. The
Compression-Activated Mouth Release utilized a simple button so as to increase ease of use and
firing rate in its release mechanism as well as a lightweight frame.

The process through which the design team analyzed the feasibility criteria involved reasoning
whether or not the device could theoretically perform well in each of the three categories. Each
device’s performance in these feasibility criteria was estimated with real-world comparisons to
products and materials that are commonly used in other products (For example, the durability of
a cloth strap was assessed with a comparison to the strap of a backpack). It was also assumed
that the design functioned as intended. The criterion of Durability was difficult to quantify and
compare, as it is difficult to theorize on how a component of unspecified dimensions and
materials would perform under testing of durability.

Compared to current homemade custom solutions, the Compression-Activated Mouth Release is

expected to have an increased life expectancy due to its high durability, as well as a better user
experience in both use and maintenance. Higher end custom solutions, however, might easily
outperform the device in accuracy and comfort, as they are often designed for a particular user.
The Compression-Activated Mouth Release, however, is available to a much wider audience due
to a low manufacturing cost and functionality across numerous bow types.

24
 Table 1. Summary of feasibility analysis for each design concept and merit analysis details for each design concept. The largest final
merit score indicates the design concept …
FEASIBILITY Compression-
Tongue-Activated Adaptive Archery Shoulder-Mounted
CRITERIA Mouthguard Switch Activated Mouth
Mouth Release Harness Shoe Release
Release
Safety Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

Adaptability Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

Durability Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

MERIT Weighting Rating Weighted Rating Weighted Ratin Weighted Ratin Weighted Ratin Weighted
CRITERIA (%) Score Score g Score g Score g Score
Ease of Use 35 25 8.75 50 17.5 25 8.75 25 8.75 50 17.5

Fire Rate 25 100 25 100 25 75 18.75 75 18.75 100 25

Weight 20 50 10 75 15 25 5 50 10 100 20

Cost 20 50 10 50 10 25 5 25 5 50 10
FINAL MERIT
100% 53.75 67.5 37.5 42.5 72.5
SCORE

25
V. Design Project Specifications
After each member of the design team arrived at an agreement on which design concept would
have performed best, the design concept was developed further. The system was broken into
three subsystems which were then assigned to a single team member. Each member was
primarily responsible for the development of their assigned subsystem and then collaborated with
the rest of the team to connect each part and bring the subsystems together as a whole. Material
selections for each component were chosen with consideration to merit criteria but primarily
based on engineering analyses that included a factor of safety of 1.5.

Design Overview
The Compression-Activated Mouth Release for Para Archery was selected for its low cost, light
weight, ease of use, and functionality. To use the device, the archer will initially heat the rubber
coating the structure of the device (the green portion shown in Figure 14 below) by placing the
entire structure in hot water to soften the rubber surrounding it, allowing the rubber to be
custom-fit to the archer’s teeth. Once this is completed, the archer places the structure into their
mouth and slides the attachment component (the blue portion shown in Figure 14 below) into the
structure. When the archer bites down on the structure to draw the bowstring back, the button is
compressed (the red portion shown in Figure 14 below), which holds the release mechanism
locked and prevents fire of the arrow. When the archer has aligned with the target and is ready
to release, the archer simply relaxes the jaw slightly, allowing the release mechanism to rotate
about its axis and free the attachment component. The attachment remains attached to the
bowstring and leaves the archer’s mouth upon release. Once the arrow has been shot and the
archer is ready to shoot again, the user will simply nock an arrow normally and then slide the
attachment component back into the structure of the device. The various components consist of
chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), aluminum, and rubber materials. It was determined to
be both safe and effective in resolving the issue presented in the problem statement

The design consists of three subsystems; Attachment, Release, and Structure. An exploded view
of the entire device is shown below in Figure 14, with each subsystem being its own color. The
three subsystems were selected as such because of the inherent segmentation between the three
within the design, and the lead designer for each subsystem was selected based on the designer’s
skill set.

26
Figure 14. Assembled and Exploded views of the Compression-Activated Mouth Release for
Para Archery, displaying the three subsystems Attachment (Blue), Release (Red), and Structure
(Green). The rubber material surrounding the Structure subsystem is not pictured to maintain
visual clarity. The attachment subsystem slides into the structure and is locked in place by the
release subsystem. When the archer relaxes the jaw, the release subsystem rotates about its axis
embedded in the structure subsystem and allows the attachment subsystem to slide out of the
structure, loosing an arrow.

27
Subsystem Details
Structure Subsystem (Housing)
The structure subsystem consists of the CPVC housing and rubber coating of the device. This
subsystem must cleanly house the other subsystems, be flush with all other subsystem
components, and be able to comfortably be used in the archer’s mouth while ensuring
functionality and design integrity. Without the structure subsystem, the remaining subsystems of
the design will be crushed and fail during use.

The structure subsystem is a stiff, rigid CPVC tray-like casing that will house and protect the
release subsystem, as well as the attached end subsystem. This CPVC is coated in a rubber
material, approximately ¼ to ½ inch thick that will be heated and formed to the user’s teeth.
This molding of the rubber coating allows the design to provide comfort and extra grip strength
when drawing the bow. The intended function of the design requires that the structure resist
failure under compression when subject to human biting force. The CPVC components were
designed with a factor of safety of 1.5 and dimensions to satisfy this requirement (dimensioned
engineering drawings are provided in Appendix C). The release subsystem sits within the hole
shown in Figure 15, and is held in place by the a pin that threads the release subsystem and the
holes in the structure subsystem labeled Attachment Holes. As such, it is critical that the button
opening sufficiently accommodates the release mechanism component and holds the release
subsystem in place.

28
Figure 15. Isometric (top) view and assembled (bottom) of Structure Subsystem with button
opening labelled. The button opening accommodates the release mechanism subsystem as well
as the attached end subsystem. The attached end subsystem slides into the structure, while the
release subsystem sits in the Attachment Hole.

The structure subsystem brings critical strength to the design that the other subsystem
components require to function appropriately. The stiff CPVC material resists compression of
the human biting force (100 lbf) with ease, and the additional consideration of a factor of safety
of 1.5 further ensures the integrity of the structure. Although the biting force of the user may not
be entirely equally distributed across the surface of the structure, it is likely that the force will be
relatively uniform (because of the flat, level nature of the human molars) and is assumed to be
equally distributed. The biggest weakness of the structure subsystem is the location of
attachment to the release subsystem--the Attachment Hole are where the pin of the release
subsystem will be inserted. The release subsystem was designed with this in mind, however, and
is previously discussed in the Release Subsystem section of Part II.

The dimensions of the subsystem were pre-determined, as the human mouth was a key
constraining variable in the conception of the design. For example, the length of the human
mouth can only comfortably fit a 2 inch object on the molar tooth surface, hence the length of the
plastic trays cannot exceed 2 inches. Additionally, the width and thickness of the device also had
to comfortably fit the archer’s mouth, without straining the jaw in excess. With the general
dimensions of the component determined, the stresses on the surface and force vector cross-
section were elucidated. From this confirmation of shear forces the material was selected. The
engineering analysis calculating the normal and shear forces on the surface of the structure is
shown in Appendix C.

The Structure subsystem satisfies the safety feasibility criteria as it utilizes a rubber coating
similar to standard football mouthguards to reduce stress on the teeth, as well as keeping the
device from slipping out of the mouth. As for durability, the CPVC components of the
subsystem were designed to ensure high compressive resistance after numerous uses. When

29
considering merit criteria, the structure is comprised of readily-available lightweight stiff CPVC
and rubber, saving significant cost and weight. Additionally, because of the plastic and rubber
nature of the design, the device can be cleaned by soaking in hot water. These considerations
contributed significantly to the design’s ultimate selection during the comparison process.

Release Subsystem (Button)

The release subsystem consists of a machined aluminum piece that rotates about an aluminum
pin which secures the release subsystem into the frame of the structure subsystem. The biting
surface of the release subsystem interfaces with the user’s teeth on the bottom jaw. When the
user bites down, articulating the bottom jaw up, the force of the bite produces a moment that
rotates the release subsystem up, toward the user’s top jaw.

The release subsystem also possesses a notch and catch. These features are specifically designed
to interface with the attached subsystem. The geometry of the notch and catch complement the
attached subsystem such that the action of inserting the attached subsystem into the structure
subsystem pushes against the notch, causing the part to rotate clockwise, inserting the catch into
the hole of the attached subsystem.

As the user continues to apply the force of their bite to the top surface of the release subsystem,
the catch then interferes with the attached subsystem such that it cannot pull itself free, securing
it into place. The user must then draw the bow by pushing it away from the mouth, transferring a
tensile force through the device that would pull the attached end subsystem out of the device if it
were not secured by the force of the user’s bite. Upon slightly easing the force of the bite and
allowing the release subsystem to slightly rotate counterclockwise, the interference between the
catch and the hole is relieved, allowing the attached end subsystem to be ejected from the device.

30
Figure 17. Isometric (top) and assembled (bottom) view of the release subsystem showing the
notch in which the attached end subsystem is secured, the catch with prevents the attachment
subsystem from pulling free, and the portion of the subsystem that interfaces with the user’s bite.

This subsystem must be able to withstand the pressure that is applied by the full draw of the
bowstring as well as the pressure that is applied by the biting action of the user. The pin can be
modeled as a beam fixed at both ends. It will undergo a bending moment due to the loading
from both the bite and the tension of the bowstring transmitted through the attachment
subsystem. Given that the rotating axis pin is the primary concern for failure, engineering
analysis was focused on the interface between the pin and the rest of the release subsystem, as
the pin and catch of the subsystem are subjected to transverse shear forces which might cause the
device to fail. As a result, the pin and catch must be dimensioned to withstand large quantities of
shear--the resulting design satisfies these shear forces. The calculations pertaining to these
shears can be found in Appendix B.

31
The subsystem meets the criteria of durability through its composition of solid aluminum. Safety
is accomplished as well, as the surface that interfaces with the user’s teeth, the lever, will be
coated in a rubber like polymer so as to insulate the user against the forces transmitted through
the device. The pin upon which the release system rotates is composed of aluminum, and thus is
able to withstand the amount of stress required.

Attachment Subsystem (Attachment to the D-Loop)

The attachment subsystem of the Pressure-Activated Mouth Release consists of two key areas;
the looped end that is attached to the D-Loop on the bowstring, as well as the CPVC tab (shown
in Figure 19, labelled as CPVC Tab) that is ejected by the release subsystem. This subsystem
must remain locked to the release subsystem throughout the draw and must slide out of the
structure subsystem when the user eases up on the pressure they apply to the release subsystem.

The attachment subsystem is an entirely CPVC component with a hole in one end and a loop on
the other. The large hole on the CPVC tab is where the release subsystem keeps this subsystem
locked in place--when the archer applies pressure to the release subsystem, the release is unable
to rotate and free the attachment subsystem. The CPVC loop is where the D-Loop on the
bowstring will be tied through, thus attaching the subsystem to the bowstring. All of these
features can be seen in and are labelled in Figure 19.

The intended function of the design requires the attachment subsystem to be able to withstand
the force of the draw, which we estimate to be 25 lbf. To meet this requirement, this subsystem
was designed with a factor of safety of 1.5 and dimensioned to ensure failure would not happen.
Another requirement of the attachment subsystem concerns the interface with the release
subsystem catch point. If the hole in the CPVC tab is not an appropriate size, the catch of the
release will not insert fully and result in a failure to shoot correctly.

32
Figure 19. Isometric (top) view and assembled (bottom) view of the Attachment subsystem with
key points of interest labelled as described above. The D-loop of the bowstring is tied through
the loop on the attachment subsystem and remains permanently affixed. The CPVC Tab inserts
into the structure, and the cutout in the CPVC Tab is where the release subsystem locks the
attachment subsystem in place.

This subsystem of the device is essentially free floating in the structure subsystem. The only part
that directly interacts with the structure is the back surface of the section labeled ‘Flush with
Structure’ in Figure 19, which rests against the face of the structure subsystem. The CPVC Tab
area of the attached subsystem is dimensioned to a thickness of 0.18 inches to fit inside the
interior of the structure with 0.01in freedom on both the top and bottom to allow for some free

33
movement. The width is dimensioned to a length of 0.5in to allow for 0.025in of free space on
either side within the structure.

Another critical area of this subsystem is the loop that is on the front end of the subsystem. The
attachment subsystem is attached to the bow via this loop. When a D-Loop is tied onto the
bowstring, the archer has to pass the D-Loop through the loop, and then finish tying the D-
Loop. Once it is tied on, it is ready to be used. This loop needs to be thick enough to withstand
the full draw strength of the bow without failing. This thickness was determined to be 0.15 in
diameter. This diameter was chosen because it makes the loop thick enough to withstand a lot of
stress, but still small enough to be able to fit the D-Loop inside of it. The analysis with this
dimension is shown in Appendix A.

With dimensions resolved, the next step was to determine what material will be needed based on
the stresses that this subsystem will be subjected to. The two most important areas in terms of
failure analysis are the opening on the tab where the release subsystem interacts and where the
bowstring D-Loop is tied through the loop on the attachment subsystem. The bow that the
device is designed for is expected to have a draw weight of 25 lbf; as such, 25 lbf will be applied
linearly to the cross section of the attachment subsystem, from which simple shear calculations
can be done. These calculations are shown in the Appendix A.

The attachment subsystem meets the safety criteria in several ways. Firstly, the component has
enough clearance to be expelled from the mouth without contacting any teeth or lips since it is
outside of the mouth. Additionally, the CPVC material selection gives the component the
necessary durability to withstand all expected shear forces exerted upon it by the
bowstring. This subsystem enhances the rate of fire criteria by minimizing the number of usage
steps being extremely intuitive in application and usability.

Construction Plans
Following the various engineering analyses performed, the materials of each specific component
had to be identified and each components’ machining/manufacturing process outlined. Below,
each specific subsystem’s material selection is described, as well as a representative flowchart of
the manufacturing and assembly processes.

Structure Subsystem:

The resulting forces calculated in the engineering analyses (see Appendix C for calculations)
were measured against the structural properties of common materials; such as aluminum, plastic,
steel, etc. and it was determined that CPVC satisfies the structural needs of the design while
providing a lightweight and affordable option. From a manufacturing standpoint, the
commercially available nature of the CPVC allows it to be obtained cheaply as raw material and
in bulk. Once acquired, the CPVC can be cut and milled to the desired shape, then assembled
with screws. Figure 16 below outlines the manufacturing, milling, and assembly process.

34
Figure 16. Manufacturing flowchart and assembly flowchart for the Structure Subsystem. The
horizontal portion of the graphic represents the milling of the stock material, while the vertical
portion represents the assembly stage of the product.

Release Subsystem:

An aluminum stock plate is to be machined into the release with dimensions specified by the
drawings in Appendix B. Probably manufacturing processes to be used would include water jet
or laser cutting for cutting the plate to shape, as well as milling to produce the detailed geometry
of the part. The aluminum pin is a dowel rod ordered from a 3rd party supplier. It is then
assembled for used as noted in Figure 18.

Figure 18. Process flow diagram of release subsystem manufacturing and assembly.

Attachment Subsystem:

Many different materials were considered for this design, including aluminum, steel, titanium,
and CPVC. Stiff CPVC was found to be able to support the shear stresses that the attachment
subsystem will be subjected to as found above, and it also presented as the cheapest option of
others considered. Due to the above determination of maximum allowable shear stress, it was
concluded that CPVC would be capable of withstanding said forces, and therefore will be used to
make the attachment subsystem.

35
Figure 20. Manufacturing flowchart for the attachment subsystem. No assembly is needed as it is
machined from a single piece.

36
VI. Budget/Projected Costs
The project budget is best presented in tabular form, with all relevant information,
including costs for shipping/handling. Part names and/or numbering (including raw materials for
machining parts) should match the details provided in the ‘Subsystem Details’ section of the
documentation. The budget is usually presented by subsystem, but your team should do what best
presents the information. Milestones #8 should be helpful for this part of the PDD.

Subsystem 1 – Structure
Part # Part Name Vendor Unit Cost/Unit Quantity Shipping/Handling Total
5 ft. long, 1 inch diameter MSC Industrial
52423423 1 32.20 1 0 32.20
CPVC Rod Direct
Subsystem 1 – Name Subtotal 32.20

Subsystem 2 – Attachment
Part # Part Name Vendor Unit Cost/Unit Quantity Shipping/Handling Total
5 ft. long, 1 inch diameter MSC Industrial
52423423 0 Leftover 0 0
CPVC Rod Direct
Subsystem 2 – Name Subtotal 0

Subsystem 3 – Release
Part # Part Name Vendor Unit Cost/Unit Quantity Shipping/Handling Total
6” x 6” x 0.375” Aluminum
2AVD7 Grainger 1 22.27 1 0 22.75
6061 plate
¼ inch diameter chamfered McMaster-
97325A310 1 13.88 1 0 13.88
aluminum dowel pin Carr
Subsystem 3 – Name Subtotal 36.63

Overall Total - $68.83

37
VII. Conclusions/Recommendations
As with any design, there are several areas of concern (both for the device and the user
interface) that the team has identified as potential failure modes of the design. As the mouth
release is primarily subjected to large tensile forces repetitively, it is crucial that the various
components of the device are designed with resistance to shear failure in mind. From this, the
team worked to minimize the instances of shear within the subsystems, and, where necessary, a
high factor of safety (1.5) was used to ensure integrity of the device. Despite the precautions
taken, there still remain a handful of features that are concerning to the team and may require
future re-evaluation to further mitigate the risk of failure.

Firstly, the D-Loop attachment loop on the Attachment Subsystem presents itself as a unique
location of potential failure; the loop must withstand the full force of the draw weight (25 lbf)
across a relatively small cross-sectional face. While the component has been engineered to
withstand forces in excess of 35 lbs. (FOS of 1.5), there still remains the potential for re-
evaluation and improvement in a future iteration of the design. Similar to the attachment loop of
the Attachment Subsystem, the Release Subsystem has a location in which the full brunt of the
draw weight will be borne. The catch point will be responsible for retaining and locking the
Attachment Subsystem in place during operation of the device.

When reviewing the device, the user’s experience was at the forefront of the design team’s
objective--in industry, post-market surveillance is critical to a product’s success. With this in
mind, the comfort of the user while using the device was paramount. Several steps were taken in
an effort to mitigate the concerns with the user’s comfort, including the inclusion of a soft,
moldable rubber surrounding the structure subsystem. The entire device is also comparatively
small in comparison to the mouth physiology, measuring only two inches in length. Despite these
mitigation efforts, we anticipate that there will be several post-market comments on the comfort
and user interface of the device. However, without a physical prototype on which to perform
testing, gathering user feedback prior to product release is difficult. As such, we request
permission to proceed with the design development process and to deliver the design to the client
as outlined in this Preliminary Design Document.

38
VIII. References

Archery - Paralympic Athletes, Photos & Events. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from
https://www.paralympic.org/archery.

Archery Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from

http://www.softschools.com/facts/sports/archery_facts/787/

Easton Archery Chest Guard. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from
https://www.3riversarchery.com/target-archery-chest-guard-by-easton.html

Kumetz, R. (2017 July & Aug.). Making An Easy Mouth Tab [PDF]. Archery Focus. Retrieved
March 13, 2018.

Nock 2 It Custom Release - Nock On. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from
https://www.nockonarchery.com/archery-gear/89-nock-on-custom-release.html

Olympic Bows - Olympic Recurve Archery - By Style. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from
http://www.lancasterarchery.com/by-style/olympic-recurve/olympic-bows.html.

Shock Doctor Shoulder Support w/ Stability Control Strap System. Retrieved March 14, 2018,
from https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/shock-doctor-shoulder-support-w-stability-control-
strap-system

T.R.U. Ball Tru Nok : Cabela’s. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2018, from
https://www.cabelas.com/product/2368296.uts?WT.tsrc=SOC&WT.mc_id=fblike

Wells, C. (2016, September 13). 6 assistive devices on the Paralympic archery field. Retrieved
March 14, 2018, from https://worldarchery.org/news/144239/6-assistive-devices-paralympic-
archery-field

Yeow, D. (n.d.). Getting Into… Archery | danielyeow.com. Retrieved March 14, 2018, from
https://www.danielyeow.com/2012/getting-into-archery/.

39
IX. Appendix
Appendix A – Attachment Subsystem
Dimensioned (In Inches) Engineering Drawing of Attachment Subsystem

40
Attachment Subsystem Engineering Analysis

41
Appendix B - Release Subsystem
Dimensioned Engineering Drawing of Release Subsystem

42
Release Subsystem Engineering Analysis

43
Appendix C - Structure Subsystem
Dimensioned Engineering Drawing of Structure Subsystem

44
Structure Subsystem Engineering Analysis

45
X. Personnel and Responsibilities

In this section, list the personnel and responsibilities by subsystem, with a clear
indication of the lead designer of each subsystem and other designers involved

The lead designers for each subsystem is as follows:

 Cole Bechtold designed the Structure Subsystem
 Brandon Bochat designed the Attachment Subsystem
 Trevor Nong designed the Release Subsystem
Further responsibilities in the design group were that Trevor created the assemblies and
animations in SolidWorks. Trevor also went through a lot of the paperwork and ensured that
everything was professionally written. Cole organized the group, collected all the returned work,
and outlined each document before work proceeded. Brandon thought of the design idea that
was pursued, and assisted the other members in their responsibilities whenever needed.

46