L3 Application 2014-2015

Long Distance Jumping Robot

By: Group 14
Members:
Po Ting Hei

00754869

Badal Loungani

00755700

Lionel Fernandez Alba

00756378

Venessa Bhagwat

00757482

Abdul Halim Ali Akbar

00757557

Dharani Kishore

00757560

Abstract
The aim of this project is to conceive, design, build and test a long distance jumping
robot weighing less than 30 g. This paper discusses the design, manufacture and
testing phase of the project. The initial robot design has an estimated jumping
distance of 1.45 m. However due to some unforeseen circumstances, a new robot
had to be designed and used for the jumping test. Unfortunately still, the new robot
did not jump.

Design Concept
The design concept was initially inspired by the jumping mechanism of multiple
animals such as squids, fleas and frogs. The main focus was narrowed down to frogs
and fleas as most of the kinetic energy for the jump is obtained from stored strain
energy in their joints, which allowed the jumping mechanism to be replicated easily
with the use of springs.
The primary ideas were based upon four existing lightweight robots designs, which
utilised springs. Compression spring designs were seen as the simplest, however the
release mechanism was deemed too complex. For a minimalistic design,
compressing a spring against the ground and releasing it seemed optimal. The
design of the release mechanism was problematic due to inefficiencies. A pulley
system was considered to load the spring but its release would have potentially
resulted in high friction losses.
In order to maximise the jumping distance, the use of wings was briefly considered
through gliding. However this would mean that extra mechanisms (possibly
actuators) would need to be designed for and this would only result in an increase in
weight. In addition, the wings would also need to be retracted after the jump as the
overall size of the robot was accumulated for in the metric performance.
Finally, it was decided to build a simplified and miniaturised version of the MSU robot
[1]. A pulley system is implemented rather than the ratchet and pawl found in the
original design. As the lever rotates, pushed along by the shaft, the upper body
descends compressing the springs. Beyond maximum point, the lever slips and the
springs are released resulting in a jump. With continued motor rotation, the lever
links again with the shaft and the springs are once more charged. Multiple jumps
could therefore be achieved.
Performance Prediction
Regarding the prediction of the performance, a jumping distance of 1.45 m based on
an initial velocity of 4 ms-1, an estimated drag coefficient of 1.3 and mass of 20 g
were estimated based on projectile motion theory done using fourth order solvers in
MatLab.
Further on, the force required to accelerate the robot to initial velocity was calculated
based on an estimated acceleration distance. Subsequently, the required spring
stiffness was calculated. In addition, the power required was obtained to select the
motor and battery. For the mechanical sector, the expected gear ratio for the final
configuration was 1:625. This ratio allowed the use of a lightweight motor while still
acquiring sufficient torque.
Finally, a structural analysis simulation of the robot showed that the stresses from
manufacturing processes, impact and activating the mechanism were substantially
below the materials yield stress.
Performance Characterization
In terms of performance characterization, it is important to note that the robot
satisfied the design size and mass criteria.
Also, impact testing for expected momentum and structural integrity was successful,
as expected from the structural analysis simulation conducted. In addition, the
components remained fixed in their respective positions after the test verifying the
success.

Prior to the integration of electronics, testing was performed by manually

compressing the springs. Jumping motion was achieved. The joint design facilitated
effective compression and loading this is observed from manual test.
However, several issues with the robot were identified after electronic integration,
which are explained in subsequent paragraphs.
The weight distribution was biased towards the upper section, which resulted in the
robots inability to support its own weight. To remedy this, an additional support was
added. Another issue was the jumping mechanism since it was not able to function
properly as expected initially due to a combination of various factors such as the high
stiffness of the springs, the gear configuration, the torque of the motor and the nylon
string.
The spring stiffness was dealt with by reducing the number of springs at no extra
cost. The gear configuration however, seemed more challenging since the incorrect
positings of these resulted in locking of the gears for which the number and
placement of these were modified to alleviate this problem. The motor torque was
insufficient but the new gear configuration also managed to solve this. Finally, the
nylon string was not sufficiently flexible and so sewing thread was used as an
alternative.
For the electronics, initially, an infrared (IR) circuit from a toy car was to be used.
However the circuit was too large both in mass and size. As a result, a new
transmitter and receiver were invested in to control a smaller motor. This provided a
substantial weight reduction of 62.9% (in the circuitry), however the transmitter and
receiver were unsuccessful in binding due to defective parts and the complexity of
soldering mini circuit boards.
Results and Improvements
Due to time constraints, the solutions suggested above were not able to be
implemented before the final jump test. Instead, the decision to manufacture a less
complex design was made. Some components from the original robot were reutilized. For this new and simplified robot design (Figure 2 in the Appendix), jumping
was to be achieved via the compression and release of a single, linear compression
spring.
To improve aerodynamic performance rounded edges were used. In addition, the
rounded edges has lower stress concentrations than sharp edges.
A reversible motor was to be used in conjunction with a spool to compress the linear
spring. Reversing the direction of the motor would then ideally decompress the linear
spring.
However, this motor provided inadequate torque. As a result, a high torque motor
with a built-in gearbox was employed. This motor was to be controlled via an LDR
circuit. Unfortunately, the one-way motor did not facilitate a spring release
mechanism and hence the new robot could not jump during the testing. A
comparison between the predicted and actual jump performance can be seen in
Figure 1 in the Appendix.
The new robot may have jumped if a two-way motor with sufficient torque was
obtained and implemented. This would have enabled the release mechanism to
function as planned. In addition, a Kevlar wire could have been used instead of Nylon
given that it is more flexible.

References
[1] Jianguo Zhao ; Jing Xu ; Bingtuan Gao; Ning Xi ; Cintron, F.J ; Mutka, M.W. ; Li
Xiao. (2013). MSU Jumper: A Single-Motor-Actuated Miniature Steerable Jumping
Robot. [Online] 29 (3), 602-614. Available from:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=6481459
[Accessed 20th February 2015].
APPENDIX I
Figure 1

Figure 1 - Comparison between predicted and actual jump performance

Figure 2

Figure 2 - Comparison between new robot (left) and original robot (left)