Senior Design Report

Final Design Report
The Claw
Team 15
Cole Levin
Alan Kinoshita
Joseph Lee
Daniel Sun
Betty Lam
Profs. Shaefer/Wilson
TA: Cavalier/Kang/Rai/Yasin/Shaffer
MAE-162E: Mechanical Product Design-II
Spring 2014
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Department
University of California, Los Angeles
June 13th, 2014
Group Picture
Figure 1: Group 15 Team Members Joseph Lee, Alan Kinoshita, Cole Levin, Daniel Sun,
Betty Lam
Abstract
This report outlines the development, fabrication and programming for our concept of the
autonomous transporter we call The Claw. We start by introducing the problem statement and design
requirements for this project. Our preliminary designs and concept development process are then
documented along with all iterations of our chosen design. Then the finalized rendition of the design and
its subsystems are explained in detail. All aspects of the design including weight, motor, and velocity
calculations and analysis are presented. Next we discuss the control system design of The Claw and
explain the electronic and programming choices we made. A detailed report of the fabrication process is
made, showing the mistakes and lessons that we learned throughout this process. The performance of the
completed product is then evaluated based on its runtime. Our work breakdown schedule and bill of
materials is also presented. Finally, we end the report with a discussion of how well our final creation
satisfied design requirements and personal goals.
Contents
Group Picture ...................................................................................................................................2
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................3
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................6
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................9
List of Symbols ............................................................................................................................... 10
I.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 11
I.1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 11
I.2
High-level Design Requirements ................................................................................................ 11
I.3
Prior State-of-the-art .................................................................................................................. 12
II.
Design Description ............................................................................................................... 14
II.1
Design Concept Development ..................................................................................................... 14
II.1.1
Three Original Design Concepts ......................................................................................... 14
II.1.2
Objectives Tree & Pairwise Comparison ............................................................................ 17
II.1.3
Design Concept Selection ................................................................................................... 19
II.2
Design Overview ......................................................................................................................... 19
II.3
Target Systems-Specifications..................................................................................................... 22
II.4
Overall Product Description ....................................................................................................... 23
II.4.1
Chassis ................................................................................................................................ 23
II.4.2
Lifting Mechanism (Crane & Claw) ................................................................................... 24
II.4.3
Powertrain ........................................................................................................................... 24
II.4.4
Electronics & Navigation .................................................................................................... 24
II.5
Mechanical System Operation .................................................................................................... 25
II.6
Control System Operation........................................................................................................... 27
III.
Subsystems Design Description ............................................................................................ 28
III.1 Lifting Subsystem ....................................................................................................................... 28
Description: ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Design requirements: .......................................................................................................................... 28
Subsystem CAD Model (exploded view) ........................................................................................... 29
III.2 Chassis Subsystem .......................................................................................................................... 29
Description: ......................................................................................................................................... 29
III.3 Electronics Subsystem ................................................................................................................ 30
Motor Drivers: .................................................................................................................................... 30
Sensors: ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Servos:................................................................................................................................................. 32
III.4 Drivetrain Subsystem ...................................................................................................................... 32
Description: ......................................................................................................................................... 32
4

IV.
Design Analysis .................................................................................................................... 34
IV.1 Analysis and Calculations........................................................................................................... 34
Motor Sizing ................................................................................................................................... 42
Calculations ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Step 1: ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Step 2: ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Step 3: ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Step 4: ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Step 5: ................................................................................................................................................. 44
Step 6: ................................................................................................................................................. 44
Step 7: ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Step 8 .................................................................................................................................................. 46
V.
Control System Design ............................................................................................................ 47

V.1
Motor Selection ........................................................................................................................... 47
V.2
Ball retrieving and Unloading Mechanism ................................................................................. 49
V.3
Sensors and Theory of Operation ............................................................................................... 50
V.4
State Diagram ............................................................................................................................. 52
VI.
Product Fabrication............................................................................................................. 58
VII.
Product Performance and Evaluation .................................................................................. 71
VIII.
Work Breakdown Schedule.............................................................................................. 72
VIII.1
Work Breakdown Diagrams .................................................................................................... 72
VIII.2
Production Timeline................................................................................................................ 75
IX.
BOM and Cost Analysis ....................................................................................................... 78
Exploded Views ....................................................................................................................................... 78
Bill of Materials ...................................................................................................................................... 80
X.
XI.
Design Requirement Satisfaction ............................................................................................. 84

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 85
XII. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 86

Appendix A: LabVIEW Code .................................................................................................................. 86
List of Figures
Figure 1: Group 15 Team Members Joseph Lee, Alan Kinoshita, Cole Levin, Daniel Sun, Betty Lam ... 2
Figure 2: Roomba Robot ............................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3: Design 1 - Scoop and Push Rod to Evacuate Ball; Independently Controlled Front Wheel Drive
.................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Design 2 - Lever Arm and Sliding Clamp Mechanism; Front Wheel Drive, Rear Wheel Steering
.................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Design 3 - Lifting Ramp; Rear wheel drive, front wheel steering............................................... 16
Figure 6: Isometric View of the Claw ......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 7: CAD model of drive motors and wheels ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: CAD Model of Lifting Mechanism ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 9: Rear view of the Claw with SB-Rio mounted and highlighted ................................................... 22
Figure 10: The Claw CAD Model, Isometric View .................................................................................... 23
Figure 11: Claw Mechanical System .......................................................................................................... 25
Figure 12: Driving System .......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Sensor Position Layout .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 14: Lifting Subassembly Exploded View ........................................................................................ 29
Figure 15: Motor Driver for Drive Motors ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 16: Sensors, IR (left) and Sonar (right) ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 17: Claw servos positioned in crane arm ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 18 : Drivetrain Subassembly Exploded View.................................................................................. 33
Figure 19: Dimensions of The Claw ....................................................................................................... 35
Figure 20: Minimum Required Friction Coefficient for distance of rear wheels ........................................ 36
Figure 21: Velocity Profile for One Full Cycle .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 22: Ramp Sections ........................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 23: Velocity Profile ......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 24: Torque vs. Speed curve for drive motors .................................................................................. 47
Figure 25: Wiring of motor controller to drive motors ............................................................................... 48
Figure 26: Assembled Claw, Lever, and Winch ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 27: Ultrasonic Sensor Circuit Diagram ........................................................................................... 50
Figure 28: Infrared Sensor Circuit Diagram ............................................................................................... 51
6
Figure 29: Statechart Region Schematic ..................................................................................................... 52

Figure 30: Find Ball Initial State Diagram.................................................................................................. 53
Figure 31: Spin to Find Ball State............................................................................................................... 54
Figure 32: Retrieve Ball States ................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 33: Find the Ramp States ................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 34: Ramp States ............................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 35: Completed claw parts; top claw piece has milled relief cut ...................................................... 59
Figure 36: Cracked claw piece .................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 37: Top view of robot with all components and RIO-board installed ............................................. 63
Figure 38: Detail of assembled claw ........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 39: Side view of robot ..................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 40: Rear wheels set collar ................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 41: Complete spindle on mill........................................................................................................... 65
Figure 42: Rear wheel mount ...................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 43: Back view of robot .................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 44: Rear wheel plate and set collar .................................................................................................. 66
Figure 45: Detailed view of corner mount, mid cross beam and lever arm ................................................ 67
Figure 46: Detailed view of motor mount ................................................................................................... 68
Figure 47: Detailed view of back without Rio Board ................................................................................. 68
Figure 48: Detailed view of right side rail and motor mount ...................................................................... 69
Figure 49: Team member assembling robot ............................................................................................... 69
Figure 50: Team member installing electronics .......................................................................................... 70
Figure 51: Main System Divisions.............................................................................................................. 72
Figure 52: Electrical System ....................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 53: Drive System ............................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 54: Ball Transport System ............................................................................................................... 73
Figure 55: Overall System Overview.......................................................................................................... 74
Figure 56: Gantt chart displaying predicted time for task completion ........................................................ 75
Figure 57: Gantt chart displaying actual time for task completion ............................................................. 76
Figure 58: Exploded view of fully assembly with part numbers ................................................................ 78
Figure 59: Exploded view of chassis subassembly with part numbers ....................................................... 79
7
Figure 60: Exploded view of claw and crane subassemblies with part numbers ........................................ 79
Figure 61: Distance Follow PI Controller ................................................................................................... 86
Figure 62: FPGA Inputs .............................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 63: FPGA Outputs ........................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 64: Sonar Sensor Filters................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 65: Statechart Inputs and Outputs .................................................................................................... 88
Figure 66: Waveform Chart Indicators for Data Viewing .......................................................................... 89
Figure 67: Wheel Velocity PI Controller Sub VI........................................................................................ 89
Figure 68: Wheel Velocity Calculator Sub VI ............................................................................................ 90
List of Tables
Table 1: Pairwise Comparison Chart .......................................................................................................... 17
Table 2: Objectives Tree ............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 3: Weight of Components ................................................................................................................. 34
Table 4: The Claw Dimensions ................................................................................................................... 35
Table 5: Calculations for tractive forces ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 6: Minimum Friction Coefficient Requirements for our specific device: ......................................... 37
Table 7: Velocity and distance for each ramp section ................................................................................ 39
Table 8: Force Calculations for Long Ramp ............................................................................................... 39
Table 9: Force Calculations for flat turn ..................................................................................................... 40
Table 10: Force Calculations for Straight Flat (16 in) ................................................................................ 40
Table 11: Force Calculations for straight flat (14in) ................................................................................... 41
Table 12: Key Dimensions.......................................................................................................................... 42
Table 13: Tabulated Velocity and Acceleration Profile .............................................................................. 43
Table 14: Tabulated Forces, Uphill............................................................................................................. 43
Table 15: Tabulated Forces, Downhill ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 16: Required Power .......................................................................................................................... 44
Table 17: Required Propulsion Torque ....................................................................................................... 45
Table 18: Load and Gear values for torque calculations............................................................................. 46
Table 19: Results of torque calculations ..................................................................................................... 46
Table 20: Drive Motor Specifications ......................................................................................................... 47
Table 21: Motor Driver Specs vs. Motor Specs .......................................................................................... 48
Table 22: Find Ball Initial States ................................................................................................................ 53
Table 23: Spin to Find Ball States .............................................................................................................. 54
Table 24: Retrieve Ball States ..................................................................................................................... 55
Table 25: Find the Ramp States .................................................................................................................. 56
Table 26: Ramp States ................................................................................................................................ 57
Table 27: Work Breakdown Dictionary ...................................................................................................... 77
Table 28: Bill of Materials .......................................................................................................................... 80
Table 29: List of Purchased Parts ............................................................................................................... 82
Table 30: Satisfied Design Requirements ................................................................................................... 84
9
List of Symbols
Symbol
Definition
Units
Angular acceleration of wheels rad/s
Reflected mass inertia
kg-m
Motor shaft inertia
kg-m
Motor gear inertia
kg-m
Load gear inertia
kg-m
Load inertia
kg-m
Gear ratio
n/a
Friction Force
Required Torque
N-m
mass
kg
radius
efficiency
n/a
Total distance
Total time
sec
Maximum velocity
m/s
Force
Friction coefficient
n/a
Rolling coefficient
n/a
Inertial acceleration
m/s2
Acceleration due to gravity
m/s2
Slope angle
degrees
Power
Efficiency
n/a
Torque
N*m
10
I.
Introduction
I.1
Problem Statement
We are tasked with designing device that can autonomously detect and retrieve a billiard ball
from an arbitrary location inside a square platform and deliver it into a loading bin connected to the
square platform by a curving, inclined ramp.
The device must be completely self-powered and require no additional input from the user
besides its initial position to perform its task. The device must be able to perform the above task in less
than ten minutes. The total cost of the vehicle must not exceed $375 and it must be completely fabricated
using tools and facilities located on the UCLA campus.
I.2
High-level Design Requirements
Testing Requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Place device anywhere on the platform and push the start button.
Device must be entirely within loading area.
10 min to complete single collection/transport/delivery run.
3 attempts to demonstrate device.
Competition Requirements:
1. 5 minutes to make as many round-trip runs as possible.
2. Perform autonomously throughout competition, includes all round trips.
3. All device motions must be powered by the installed batteries.
Device Requirements:
1. Fully autonomous
2. Device must fit inside an 11 x 11 x 11 box. (Dimensions can change after start of
operation)
3. 10 AAA, AA, C or D 1.5V batteries + 3 9V batteries (Disposable)
4. 12 1.2V + 3 9V batteries (Rechargeable)
5. There must be a readily accessible and clearly labeled emergency kill switch.
6. Cost $375/team
Path Platform Description:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3 platforms, 2 ramps, 2.5-3.5 safety wall on all sides.

Overall length of platform is 124 inches.
Pathway made of wood boards.
24 x 16 x 6 collection bin adjacent to ramp.
48 x 48 lower level platform.
Funnel installed to redirect billiard balls to the starting platform.
Only can unload when inside Unloading Area, marked on the top platform.
No devices or sensors allowed on or outside the pathway.
11
Bulk Material Requirements:

1. A single billiard ball placed on the starting platform.
2. Weight of ball: 0.2 kg, diameter of 2.25 in (5.72 cm)
Electric Power Requirements:
3. Cannot mix battery types.
No other sources of energy (electrical, pneumatic, chemical or muscle based
I.3
Prior State-of-the-art
There are other extant devices that perform similar autonomous navigation and finding tasks. One
of these is the Roomba, manufactured by the iRobot company. A picture of one of the many Roomba
robots available on the market today is pictured below.
Figure 2: Roomba Robot

Roomba is a vacuum cleaning robot that can autonomously vacuum a carpet or floor while the
user is absent. The Roomba has a large bump sensor on the front of the robot that detects when the robot
has encountered an obstacle and directs the robot to change course. Roomba has vacuum located on its
underside which sucks up dirt and debris from the surface below and stores it in a container.
Roomba has sensors that detect if the robot is approaching stairs and whether the surface
underneath it is carpet or bare floor. Some models utilize human-positioned sensors to mark the
boundaries of the room to clean. Some Roomba models can navigate back to their charging station to
recharge if it is cleaning multiple rooms.
12
Roomba is notable for its cleaning algorithm. Its algorithm allows it to clean rooms of arbitrary
shape and size despite not knowing the precise layout of the room or what furniture it contains. Roomba
uses a probability based cleaning method that estimates the length of time for a random path to have
covered the entire room. Roomba adjusts for larger rooms by cleaning for a longer amount of time.
Our proposed solution, the Claw, is similar to Roomba in that it is autonomously controlled and
navigates on its own without express knowledge of the environment. It will also utilize a mechanism to
recover a payload from the environment and transport it to another location. However, unlike Roomba,
the Claw locates its payload directly using ultrasound and IR sensors instead of using a probability based
sweep. This is an advantage because it is quicker than blindly traversing the platform looking for the
target object.
Additional sensors on the robot allow the Claw to have taken precise readings of its environment
and prevent collisions. The Claw's lifting mechanism is an important feature distinct from the low-to-theground Roomba because it enables our device to pick up the billiard ball and lift it over a two inch high
barrier.
13
II.
Design Description
II.1
Design Concept Development
At the beginning of the design process, we came up with three different preliminary design
concepts. In our Concept Development Report, we initially selected Design Concept 1 The Balldozer
as our original concept. However, we decided to abandon this concept a few weeks after
conceptualization in favor of the current The Claw design because we determined that the claw design
would have a higher chance of success. The following outlines the three preliminary design concepts
along with our methodology of initially selecting the concept of The Balldozer. Though we eventually
decided against these concepts, we include this section in the Appendix to document our previous work.
II.1.1 Three Original Design Concepts

Design Concept 1
Design Concept 1 takes into account two major subsystems of the robot: the steering system and
ball collection mechanism. For the steering, there are two large drive wheels in the front, and two smaller
wheels in the rear. Two separate motors are controlled by the IO board and will power the corresponding
driving wheels. This will allow for independent activation of each wheel. A simple speed differential
will allow the robot to steer, while keeping the wheels fixed rigidly to the chassis (unable to turn). The
rear wheels will be of smaller diameter and simply rotate and follow the drive wheels. They will be able
to swivel freely about the vertical axis. This steering design allows for high maneuverability as well as a
simple steering system.
Figure 3: Design 1 - Scoop and Push Rod to Evacuate Ball; Independently Controlled Front
Wheel Drive
14
The second major subsystem is the ball collection mechanism. This mechanism consists of three
main components. The first is the scoop. The robot will collect the billiard ball and hold the ball within
the scoop. The entire scoop will then elevate along the track connected to the robot vertically. A four bar
mechanism will control this linear motion and will be powered by a separate motor (not pictured in Figure
3). The robot will drive along the track with the ball contained in the elevated scoop. When the robot has
reached the end of the track, to deposit the ball the linear actuator will push the ball out of the scoop and
over the ledge.
Design Concept 2
Design Concept 2 has the same two major subsystems as Design Concept 1. However, the rear
wheels control the steering system while the motors are connected to the front wheels, which are fixed
and unable to steer. The two motors, controlled by the IO board, will power each of the front wheels with
equal speed. A servo will control the direction of the rear wheels and allow the robot to turn. In addition,
both the front and rear wheels will be of equal diameter.
Figure 4: Design 2 - Lever Arm and Sliding Clamp Mechanism; Front Wheel Drive, Rear
Wheel Steering
The ball collection system contains a lever arm and a mobile panel, which are both powered by
linear actuators. The lever arm can only move in the vertical direction and the panel can only slide along
the lever arm using a slot mechanism. Once the sensors find the ball, the lever arm will move downward
so that the end is behind the ball. The panel will then slide along the lever arm in order to clamp the ball.
The lever arm will then move upwards so that the ball does not drag along the floor. The robot will then
make its way through the obstacle course and hit the ledge with its wheels. Once it reaches this position,
the panel will slide back to its original position and release the ball into the box. The end of the arm and
the panel will be made of rubber in order to get a better grip of the billiard ball and carry it up the track.
15
Design Concept 3
The two major subsystems of Design Concept 3 are the driving and ball collection systems. The
drive system of the design is very similar to that of Design Concept 2. It consists of 4 identical wheels,
two for steering and two for driving. The IO board controls these wheels. However, unlike Design
Concept 2, in this design, the motors power the rear wheels for driving and a servo controls the front
wheels for steering.
Figure 5: Design 3 - Lifting Ramp; Rear wheel drive, front wheel steering
The ball collection system of this design is a ramp lift system controlled by a set of pulleys (not
pictured). The ramp slides along the ground, going underneath the ball and pushing it against the wall.
Then a set of pulleys connected to the front end of the ramp raises the ramp so that it rotates about the
rollers and the ball rolls onto the ramp. The robot will then carry the ball with the raised ramp to the
collection box. Once it reaches the box, a different set of pulleys connected to the rear end of the ramp
will raise the back end of the ramp. The rollers connected to ramp will be guided by tracks while the ramp
is being lifted. Once raised, the pulleys controlling the front end of the ramp will release. This allows the
ramp to slope downwards over the edge of the wall, letting the billiard ball roll off into the box.
16
II.1.2 Objectives Tree & Pairwise Comparison

In order to select the best design concept, compared the three concepts according to various
characteristics, such as Ease of Manufacturing, Ease or Programming, etc. We first created a Pairwise
Comparison Chart to properly weight each attribute.
Ease of
Manufacturin
g
Ease of
Programming
Asset
Maneuverabili
ty
10
7
8
3
10
5
2
5
10
3
6
5
7
8
5
7
8
6
6
8
5
6
8
5
10
10
9
7
6
5
Weight
Total
Speed
Aesthetics
Durability
Efficiency
Weight
Cost
Lifter Design
Maneuverability
Ease of
Manufacturing
Ease of
Programming
Table 1: Pairwise Comparison Chart
61
0.11
1
76
0.13
8
63
0.11
5
Lifter Design
10
10
73
0.13
3
Cost
10
53
0.09
6
Weight
10
49
0.08
9
Efficiency
10
54
0.09
8
Durability
10
46
0.08
4
Aesthetics
10
19
0.03
5
Speed
10
10
56
0.10
2
550
Total Sum:
17
After completion of the Pairwise Comparison Chart, we rated each design concept for each attribute in
the Objectives Tree.
0.111
Ease of
Programming
0.138
Maneuverability
0.115
10
Lifter Design
0.133
Cost
0.096
Weight
0.089
Efficiency
0.098
Durability
0.084
Aesthetics
0.035
Speed
0.102
Sum
6.089
5.509
5.867
Asset
Order of Merit
Design 3 - Lifting Ramp;

Rear wheel drive, front
wheel steering (Figure 5)
Design 2 -Lever Arm and

Sliding Clamp
Mechanism; Front Wheel
Drive, Rear Wheel
Steering (Figure 4)
Ease of
Manufacturing
Weight Factor
Design 1 -Scoop and Push

Rod to Evacuate Ball;
Independently Controlled
Front Wheel Drive
(Figure 3)
Table 2: Objectives Tree
Notes:
(1) Evaluation marks 0 - unacceptable, 1-3 still acceptable, 4-6 fair, 8-9 good, 10 very good
(2) Total sum of weight factor is unity
(3) Order of merit: 1 highest, 3 least
According to the Objectives Tree, Design 1 is the best design.
18
II.1.3 Design Concept Selection

The best design concept presented in this report is design concept one (figure 3). There are many
reasons why this design is deemed the best. The first is that the drive train and steering will be easy to
implement and program. This is due to the face that the front wheels are fixed in the forward driving
position. Differentiating the speed of each of the front wheels controls the steering. There is no need to
worry about physically turning each wheel to turn the robot with this device.
Another reason is that the large size of the scoop on the front of this robot will make it easy to
collect the randomly placed billiard ball. The robot will not have to be as precise as it would for design
concept two when locating and acquiring the ball. In addition, the push rod that ultimately dispenses the
ball into the collection box seems durable and likely to complete the task with small chance of failure.
Lastly, the design will be easy to build and relatively easy to program. This is a large component of the
design choice. There are only four controllable and moving parts; the two front wheels, the scoop, and the
push rod. We believe that a robot designed this way has the highest chance of success.
II.2
Design Overview
The following section presents an overview of our finished product and introduces the various subsystems
and how they function together.
Figure 6: Isometric View of the Claw

19
Our device is a three-wheeled vehicle that has a 5" metal claw attached to a small crane. The front
two wheels of the vehicle are driven by independent electric motors that allow the Claw to drive forwards,
backwards, turn and spin in place by modulating the motor speeds. The third wheel is a caster wheel that
merely pivots in place and prevents the chassis from dragging on the ground. (CAD models show a fourth
wheel that was removed)
Figure 7: CAD model of drive motors and wheels

The crane is controlled by a third motor that rotates a winch mechanism that raises and lowers the
crane as needed. The claw itself is controlled by a pair of electric servos that are mounted on the crane.
These servos control the position of the claws and allow the claws to "grab" objects by closing on them.
20
Figure 8: CAD Model of Lifting Mechanism
Various sensors are used to feed information about the environment to the Claw's microcomputer.
A set of ultrasound sensors are placed on the left and right sides of the robot just ahead of the front
wheels. An infra-red sensor is mounted on a servo in the front of the robot in order to detect far away
objects and a third ultrasonic sensor looks directly in front of the robot to measure the distance of objects
in front of the robot. The two drive motors have encoders attached to them that measure each motor's
speed, allowing the Claw to use a PID feedback controller to control movement.
21
Figure 9: Rear view of the Claw with SB-Rio mounted and highlighted
The Claw's microcomputer is an SB-Rio 9632 microcomputer (henceforth referred to as the SBRio or the Rio Board) designed and manufactured by National Instruments. The SB-Rio has an embedded
FPGA circuit that allows it to perform actions in parallel while operating. It runs on the programming
language LabView, also produced by National Instruments. The SB-Rio is optimized for real-time
applications and can be considered the brains of the Claw. A multitude of digital and analog I/O pins
allow the SB-Rio to receive input from the sensors and encoders as well as control the motor drivers and
servos. The SB-rio is mounted vertically in the middle of the robot.
All electronic components are attached to a soldered printed circuit board mounted on the mid
cross beam that interfaces with the motor drivers, power supply, encoders, sensors and servos. The
position of the circuit board is not explicitly shown in the CAD models.
II.3
Target Systems-Specifications
From the beginning, our guiding principle has been Simple is Better.
Simple Programming: The design solution should be one that emphasizes ease of programming
so that we can focus on writing good code instead of worrying about calibrating mechanical
devices.
Simple Mechanisms: A simple, reliable design is more reliable and is easier to troubleshoot,
which will end up saving us time and headaches in the future.
22
Along these guidelines, we want our transporter to have the following characteristics:
II.4
Be able to make 3 runs in 5 minutes.

Use separate motors to control steering.
Have a retrieval system that works for all ball placements including corners and next to walls.
Have the ability to use rechargeable and disposable batteries.
Be able to perform multiple trips without recharging.
Be hand-made as much as possible to reduce cost and complexity.
Have the ability to control speed and direction.
Have the ability to sense the location of the ball using sensors or by other means. (No Roomba
algorithms)
Overall Product Description
During the design phase, we identified four main subsystems of the Claw. The figure below
illustrates these four systems in different colors: Chassis (green), Crane & Claw (pink), Powertrain (blue),
and Electronics (red).
Figure 10: The Claw CAD Model, Isometric View

The following section outlines each subsystem and some of the engineering considerations that went into
each design.
II.4.1 Chassis
The chassis of The Claw serves to bear all of the structural loading and to provide mounting
locations for all of the other components. The chassis will be constructed of 0.125 aluminum.
Aluminum was chosen as the material because it is a lightweight metal but also strong enough to bear all
of the loads. Weight is very important consideration in the design since weight is one of the factors that
dictate motor power, robot acceleration, and robot speed. A lightweight chassis is essential to reduce the
necessary motor power, to increase acceleration, and maximize the robots top speed. The chassis is
assembled from numerous aluminum beams that are connected by a series of nuts and bolts. Each beam
23
was specifically designed so that it could be manufactured easily from stock aluminum angles or
aluminum plates. This will reduce fabrication time and allow us to manufacture each piece with
machines available in the UCLA Student Machine Shop, such as mill, lathe, and band saw.
II.4.2 Lifting Mechanism (Crane & Claw)

The Lifting Mechanism is accomplished by the Crane and Claw assembly. After the robot has
located the billiard ball, the Claw will grab and hold onto the ball until the robot reaches the drop off
location on top of the ramp. The opening and closing of the claw will be controlled via two servos that
are mounted on the crane. The purpose of the crane is to lift the ball once the claw has successfully
retrieved the ball. The ball must be elevated so that the robot can drop the ball off at the top of the ramp
over the ledge. The lifting of the crane is accomplished by fishing line and spool-motor system. At one
end, the fishing line will be attached to the crane; at the other end, the fishing line will be attached to a
geared motor by way of a spool. As the motor spins, the wire will coil onto the spool and lift the crane.
The crane and caw will be assembled from aluminum plates that are cut to size. Aluminum was chosen
again because of its low weight but also excellent strength.
II.4.3 Powertrain
The robot will be powered by a front wheel drive system. Because the center of gravity will lie
closer to the front of the robot due to the crane and claw assembly, front wheel drive will translate to
better power transmission and less chance for the wheel to slip. A simple speed difference in the front
wheels will serve as the steering system. A speed differential is a simple design for steering since the
robot will not need to change the angles of its wheels to turn. In addition, the motors will have encoders
installed so that we can more accurately control the wheel speed. The rear wheels will be small canter
wheels that are able to rotate freely. Caster wheels will not assist or inhibit the robots steering system.
II.4.4 Electronics & Navigation

The Claw will be controlled using the SB Rio Board that is supplied by the MAE162DE course.
One of the biggest design constraints is the need to mount the SB Rio. The SB Rio maximum width is
10.5; the maximum allowable size of robot is 11x11x11. Since this will only allow 0.5 of freedom,
we decided to mount the SB Rio on the rear of our chassis. This will allow the robot to remain within its
constraints and stay clear of the crane lifting mechanism.
Also, included in the electronics system is the robots navigation system. The robot navigation is
made possible through three ultrasonic distance sensors located on the sides and rear, and one IR distance
sensor mounted to a servo at the front of the robot. This totals to four distance sensors at the four sides of
the robot. The robot will then be able to navigate up and down the ramp by measuring its distance to the
walls or other obstructions. The IR sensor mounted on a servo will also be essential in initially locating
the ball on the starting platform. Since the IR sensor is mounted on a servo, the IR sensor will be able to
perform a 180 scan. Using this information, the robot will be to create a distance versus angle plot. A
spike in distance will indicate the balls location relative to its own position. The SB Rio will send the
corresponding signals for the robot to reorient itself and drive to retrieve the ball.
24
II.5
Mechanical System Operation
Figure 11: Claw Mechanical System

The top two pinchers of the Claw are powered by the two servos on the lever arm, each pincher is
powered individually by one servo. In addition, the top two pinchers are connected to the bottom two
pinchers by five 2 in #10-32 bolts and nuts, one of the bolts is used for the pivot point. Spacers are
placed in between the top and bottom pinchers in order to grab the ball correctly. This allows the Claw to
grab and release the ball at the designed times. The entire claw mechanism is powered by the motor that is
mounted to the top cross-beam and has a pivot point at the middle L-bracket of the chassis. A winch is
connected to this motor shaft by a set screw so that it is securely fastened. Fishing wire is then connected
to the end of the set screw and the lever arm of the claw, which lifts and drops the claw to the chosen
location.
25
Figure 12: Driving System

The driving system of The Claw is a front wheel drive (FWD) system that contains geared
drive for each front wheel. Additionally, there are two caster wheel in the back in order to stop the back of
the chassis from dragging. This allows the transporter to have great maneuverability, which is a very
important feature to obtain our goal. The shaft of the geared motor is connected to the wheels by a hub
spacer and set screw.
26
II.6
Control System Operation
The Control system uses four distance sensors to help the robot retrieve the ball and to drive up
the ramp. A layout of the locations of these sensors is below:
Figure 13: Sensor Position Layout

There are two sonar sensors located on the left and right. These sensor are used to track objects
on the sides of the robot, including during the ball finding operation and during the wall following while
on the ramp. These sonar sensors are purposefully mounted in front of the drive wheels since the robot
uses a wall following algorithm as it travels up the ramp. The position of the sensors allows the drive
wheels time to respond to the varying distance inputs as the robot drives up the ramp. We have found that
this substantially improves the response of the robots turning. Next, the front sonar sensor is used to find
the ramp, find the drop off box, and the find the ball. A short distance spike in the distance data indicates
the location of the ball. A short distance can also indicate the end of the ramp at the top platform. The
robot distinguishes between the ball and the top of the platform by referencing its current state. Lastly, the
IR sensor also tracks front distance. We use the IR distance sensor to precisely locate the ball since the
sonar sensor has significant signal noise.
This design also uses encoders on the drive motors. This allows the robot to use a PID controller
to precisely drive the robot. We determined the encoders, while not completely necessary, would greatly
ease the algorithm to find the ball. The encoders were incredibly beneficial to allow the robot to drive in
a straight line or at a desired speed.
The Robot uses a Single Board Rio 9632 from National Instruments as the controller and uses
LabVIEW as the programming language. All output signals to motors and servos come from the Rio
Board. All input signals from the distance sensors and encoders are sent to the Rio board for signal
processing.
27
III.
Subsystems Design Description
III.1
Lifting Subsystem
Description:
The Lifting Subsystem is comprised of three main components: the claws, the crane's lever arm and the
winch. The claws are four L-shaped pieces of metal, two to each side, that securely grip the ball during
pickup and transport. The claws are articulated by a pair of electric servos located on the crane's lever
arm, a thick .25" aluminum bar. The claws are attached to the winch by fishing line. The fishing line
wraps around a metal spool that is rotated to either raise or lower the lever arm. A 12v TETRIX motor
given to our group is used to turn the winch. The motor recieves power and input from a motor driver
separate from the drive motors. Further information about the winch's motor controller can be found in
the Electronics subsystems design description.
The lever arm is mounted onto the chassis using a pair of short L-Brackets. The motor is mounted to the
Mid-Cross Beam using a rectangular motor mount. The winch is attached to the drive shaft of the motor
using a set screw. Fishing line is tied onto the set screw and wrapped once around the spool before being
tied onto the claws.
All structural components are made of aluminum unles otherwise noted.
Design requirements:
1. The Lifting mechanism must lift a billiard ball over a 2" high wooden barrier.
2. The Lifting mechanism must be able to fit within the specified dimensions for the robot.
(11"x11"x11" cube)
3. The Lifting mechanism must reliably pick up the ball over many runs in a 10 minute span.
4. The Lifting mechanism must operate quickly (~ 3 secs. average time)
5. The Lifting mechanism must hold the ball securely and not release the ball accidentally.
6. The Lifting mechanism must have predictable operation over many runs ( at least 3 consecutive)
7. The Lifting mechanism's weight should not exceed five pounds.
8. The Lifting Mechanism must use electric power to operate.
28
Subsystem CAD Model (exploded view)
Figure 14: Lifting Subassembly Exploded View
III.2 Chassis Subsystem

Description:
The chassis is the main structural system of The Claw and it combines all of the subsystems. It consists
of L-brackets and #6-32 bolts and nuts in order to reduce the amount of weight. This allows our
transporter to work with weaker motors and requires less power consumption. The L-brackets are all
right-angles so it eases the manufacturability and assembly of the chassis. In addition, the L-brackets can
take on more load than the flat plates. All of the L-brackets are made of aluminum because the material
properties and cost are very desirable compared to other materials.
The important design requirement for the chassis was to have low weight and fit within the required box.
The mass that we originally aimed for was about 10 lbs but the actual weight of the chassis alone was
significantly lower. The CAD model was used adamantly for the length requirement of the robot to ensure
that the robot would fit within the project specification. This resulted in the actual length being close to
29
the desired length because the L-brackets were manufactured to the engineering drawings based on the
CAD model.

Refer to the BOM section below for the exploded view.
III.3
Electronics Subsystem
The electronics subsystem consists of the motor speed controllers, infrared sensors, sonar sensors,
and servos.
Motor Drivers:
The motor drivers act as a speed controller for the motors. On the claw robot we used two
different drivers. Each speed controller had the ability to drive two motors. One speed controller was
used to control both of the driving motors. The second motor controller was used to control the motor
attached to the crane mechanism. The motor controllers take an analog signal from the RIO board that
correlates to a duty percentage input to the motor. At max duty the driving motors spun the drive wheels
at 4.5 in/s. In addition to this, each motor controller acted as a di-pole, di-throw switch. This means that
each controller was capable of spinning each motor in reverse. This is essential to the operation of our
robot as the drive wheels must spin in reverse to spin the robot around and the crane motor must be able
to raise and lower the claw grabbing mechanism.
Both of the motor drivers we used were acquired blindly in the parts lottery. It was not until after
the lottery that we were able to confirm the controllers would satisfy our design requirements. The
important requirements were that one controller must be able handle the continuous current drawn by the
motors and have maximum and minimum operation voltages within the range of the motors. The
controller used for the drive wheels could handle a maximum and minimum voltage of 24V and 5V
respectively per channel. The motors operated on this controller used 12V so this was within our
requirements. The motor controller could run up to 30A at peak current. The motors stall current was
5A. Again, this met our requirements. The second motor controller used to power the crane had
maximum and voltage requirement of 4.5V and 13.5V. The crane motor operated at 12V so this was
within our operation limits. The second motor controller had a maximum current output of 3A. Our
motor stall current was approximately 5V, which exceeds this limit. However, the motor was never
operated near this threshold. It operated in the 300mA- 1A range, which met the specifications of the
controller.
30
Figure 15: Motor Driver for Drive Motors
Sensors:
The two kinds of sensors we used were infrared (IR) and sonar. Both of these sensors operate
with a 5V power input. They operated by sending a signal out and timing its return. Based on the time the
light or sound travels a voltage is sent back to the controller. The IR sensor shoots light in a perfectly
straight line while the sonar sensor sends sounds in a 15-degree area. Our robot used two sonar sensor
sensors on either side as well as one placed facing forward directly in the center of the robot. Originally
we had planned to use one sonar sensor in the back as well. However, we deemed this one unnecessary, as
we never had to drive backwards. The sonar sensor on the right side is used to initially locate the ball.
The IR sensor is used to line the robot up towards the ball more precisely. The forward facing sonar
sensor is used to get the robot the correct distance away from the ball in order to grab it with the claw.
The sonar sensor on the left is used to drive. Its reading is used in a PID controller to keep the robot
driving at a specified distance from the wall. The IR sensor voltage reading increased as the object
distance decreased. The sonar sensor voltage reading decreased as the object distance decreased.
The two requirements for the sensors is that they take readings frequently enough and the
distance range they read is broad enough for our needs. The sonar sensor had a range of 2cm 400cm.
This met our requirements because the largest distance our sensor would ever need to read on the track
was 48 inches (157 cm). The IR sensor had a range of 10cm-80cm. This met our requirements because
we made sure our ball placement was never more than 80cm away. Additionally, the sonar sensor took
readings every 60ms and the IR sensor took readings every 2ms. This rate was more than enough to
locate the ball accurately when moving.
31
Figure 16: Sensors, IR (left) and Sonar (right)

Servos:
Three servos were used on our robot. Two servos were placed on the lifting arm and were used to
close and open the claw grabbing mechanism. One servo was placed in the front right corner of the
frame. It was used to aim the IR sensor when ball finding and turn when driving to allow for clearance so
the robot could get close enough to the wall to drop the ball over the edge. The servos operated by
receiving a high and low pulse. The length of the high pulse was lengthened or shortened to turn the
servo left or right.
The two requirements of the servos are that they had enough torque to close the claw and grip the
ball without it falling as well as have enough range of motion to fully open and close the claw. The range
of motion required of the servos to fully open and close the claw was roughly 90 degrees. Each servo has
a range of 180 degree so they definitely met this requirement. Lastly, the servos had a torque of 49 oz-in.
This was more than enough torque to overcome the friction of the claw and hold the ball in place.
Figure 17: Claw servos positioned in crane arm
III.4 Drivetrain Subsystem

Description:
The main components of the drivetrain subsystem are the motors, motor encoders, motor mounts,
wheel hubs and wheels. Its primary purpose is to drive the vehicle as necessary around the
32
starting platform and the ramp. We used Metal Gearmotors with 64 CPR Encoders. The motor
mounts and hubs were fabricated from blocks of aluminum in the student machine shop.
For the drivetrain, the key requirement is power and torque delivery. The motors that we pick must be
able to provide enough power to move the robot. The weight of the robot and friction factor of the wheels
determine how much torque is required from the motors. By performing force and torque analysis, we
found the minimum motor torque necessary to drive our vehicle and purchased appropriate motors. In
addition to the motors, we also included encoders in our drivetrain subsystem. These helped us control the
speed and direction of the robot.
Figure 18 : Drivetrain Subassembly Exploded View
33
IV. Design Analysis

IV.1 Analysis and Calculations
In order to ensure that The Claw will satisfy the requirements of this project, it is important to
know its functions and physical features. The following section will give a detailed description of the
design, driving system and retrieving/depositing mechanism. In addition, there will be a list of
components, which contain the material and weight. These properties will then be used to calculate the
important structural and mechanical features such as the center of gravity and overall motion of The
Claw. The preliminary calculations will give an idea of how the automated robot functions, which in turn
will save money and time since alterations can be made prior to building the machine.
Table 3: Weight of Components

Component
Weight (lb.)
Subtotal
(lb.)
Qty
Chassis
Assembly
Electric Board*
1.2
1.2
1.57
1.57
Battery Pack*
0.45
0.45
Motor + Mount
Front Wheel +
Shaft
Rear Wheel
0.51
1.53
0.21
0.42
0.07
0.07
Bolts / Nuts
0.01
80
0.8
Crane Lever
0.4
0.4
Claw Assembly
0.18
0.18
Battery
0.32
0.32
TOTAL:
6.94
The center of mass and the individual component weights were calculated using the SolidWorks
Mass Properties. It takes the individual weights of each component in the assembly and finds the center
of mass. All structural members of the robot are 6061 Aluminum. The robot will likely be aluminum
since this metal is both lightweight and cost effective. The gears in the device are alloy steel. This may
change after further research about the gearing mechanism is found. The crane and claw mechanism are
also modeled as 6061 aluminum. The electronic weights for the Rio Board and its respective battery pack
were given in the MAE 162D website. The other battery alignment consists of 10 AA batteries and 3 9V
batteries. The battery weights were taken from Radio Shack's sales website. The wheels are modeled as
acrylic. We were unsure of the exact material make up for the wheels, but there are likely to be made of
predominantly plastic.
34
Table 4: The Claw Dimensions

Other Measurements
Measurement
Units
Wheelbase
6.98
in
CG - Front Wheels
3.66
in
CG - Rear Wheels
3.32
in
Track Width
8.23
in
CG Height
3.35
in
Max Width
10.5
in
Max Length
10.8
in
Max Height
10.3
in
Figure 19: Dimensions of The Claw

The center of mass is almost in the midpoint of the wheelbase. Since the robot will have a front
wheel drive system, this is an adequate location for the center of mass. Further development may
follow after this report to attempt to shift the center of mass closer to the front wheel.
1.
a. For the wheels we are considering, the wheel/plywood coefficient is 0.7. The wheel is made
of thermoplastic rubber.
b. Based on our device dimensions, we calculate the minimum required friction coefficient for
three different drive systems.
35
Minimum Required Friction Coeff.

1.6
Required Minimum Friction Coeff. ()
AWD
1.4
FWD
RWD
1.2
1
Device Dims:
L = 6.98 in
h = 3.35 in
= 14
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
Lc - Distance of CG from Rear Wheels (inch)

Figure 20: Minimum Required Friction Coefficient for distance of rear wheels
The graph allows us to compare how the minimum friction coefficients for different drive systems vary
with Lc. This aids us in choosing the optimum drive system for the particular Lc of our device. The graph
also helps us determine how to move the center of mass such that we reduce the required coefficient of
friction for our device.
c. The normal force between the rear wheels and the ground is:
FNR = 28.72 N
d. The normal force between the front wheels and the ground is:
FNF = 15.85 N
e. The total tractive force for our device concept is:
F = FTR + FTF = 17.83 N
f. Force from gravity acting along the slope is:
Fg, = 11.14 N
g. Comparing parts (f) and (g), we can see that the total tractive force for our device is greater
than gravitational force. This tells us that the transporter will be able to climb the slope.
36
Table 5: Calculations for tractive forces

Symbol
Value
Units
Wlbs
10.32
lbs.
4.68
kg
0.24
radians
0.7
6.98
inches
LC
3.32
inches
3.35
inches
Fg
45.94
Fg,
11.14
FNF
15.85
FNR
28.72
FTF
11.10
FTR
20.10
31.19
Table 6: Minimum Friction Coefficient Requirements for our specific device:
Symbol
Value
AWD
0.25
FWD
0.70
RWD
0.39
37
Velocity Profile (round-trip)

0.5
0.4
velocity (m/s)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
time (s)
Figure 21: Velocity Profile for One Full Cycle
Figure 22: Ramp Sections
38
Table 7: Velocity and distance for each ramp section

section
time(s)
distance (m)
average vel. (m/s)
1.24
0.25
0.48
0.16
0.41
0.10
0.48
0.16
0.41
0.10
0.48
0.16
0.36
0.09
Table 8: Force Calculations for Long Ramp

Acceleration required, a (m/s^2)
0.010
Force Weight, F [N]
45.766
Min. coef. of friction drive wheels to ground,
0.58
Maximum velocity (at end of move), v [m/s]
0.498
Power required, P [W]
15.89
Power per motor, w-m [W]
7.94
max, [m]
0.674
FWD
0.703
Inertial Acceleration [m/s^2]
0.25
Inertial Force [N]
1.16
Rolling Coefficient
0.001
Force Required [N]
31.91
39
Table 9: Force Calculations for flat turn

0.11
Force Weight, F [N]
45.766
0.58
0.161
10.34
5.17
max, [m]
0.674
FWD
0.703
0.080
Inertial Force [N]
0.38
Rolling Coefficient
0.001
Force Required [N]
32.16
Table 10: Force Calculations for Straight Flat (16 in)

0.05
Force Weight, F [N]
45.766
Min. coif. of friction drive wheels to ground,
0.58
0.203
6.53
3.267
max, [m]
0.674
FWD
0.703
0.10
Inertial Force [N]
0.47
Rolling Coefficient
0.001
Force Required [N]
32.16
40
Table 11: Force Calculations for straight flat (14in)

0.044
Force Weight, F [N]
45.766
0.058
0.18
5.72
2.86
max, [m]
0.674
FWD
0.703
0.080
Inertial Force [N]
0.38
Rolling Coefficient
0.001
Force Required [N]
32.16
For part c in the above tables the inertial force was estimated by determining how long it would take the
robot to reach the average velocity. For every part of the ramp it was assumed that it would take the robot
one second to reach its average velocity. The inertial acceleration was used to determine the inertial force
value. The combined forces were added together to calculate the required force.
= + + +
The rolling friction coefficient was assumed to be half of the wheel coefficient for the front wheels.
The ability to analyze a design is what separates engineers from mere artists. In the design process,
engineers are faced with a plethora of choices; some of them trivial, others crucial. In this regard, the
ability to effectively evaluate and estimate requirements for our system was extremely helpful. Simple,
yet powerful formulas were utilized to increase certainty and demonstrate the feasibility of our design.
The placements of the vehicle components were used to calculate the robots center of gravity using our
CAD model. The robot was found to fit within the prescribed bounding envelope and calculations were
done to find center of gravity. The wheel coefficients of friction are high, but not impossible for the wheel
material we have chosen. Lastly, our estimates of the tractive force and required power indicate that our
robot will be somewhat heavy due to the front wheel drive and require efficient power transfer and high
gearing ratios.
41
Motor Sizing
Properly sizing the motors for the task required is a crucial step in any mechanical project. Without
reliable estimates, waste is almost inevitable. Either the motor will be overdesigned for the task required
and cost too much, or the motor will be too weak to perform and be a complete waste of money. Our
motor sizing calculations are for the drive motors only and do not yet include the motor torque required of
the crane. In our calculations, a velocity profile was assumed for each of the sections of the ramp and
used to calculate required torque and power from the motors.
Calculations
Step 1:
Table 12: Key Dimensions
Length [in]
Width [in]
Height [in]
Wheelbase [in]
Wheel Diameter [in]
Weight [lb]
9.43
10.73
9.44
6.47
3.875
6.94
Step 2:
We estimate that the coefficient of friction for our wheels is 0.78. This is based on online sources citing
the coefficient of friction between wood and rubber.
Step 3:
In order to create the velocity profile, the ramp specifications were used to find the total distance and
slope angle of each segment. The time to complete each segment wasthen estimated based on reason.
Once both values were found for each segment, the maximum velocity was calculated by the equation
shown below.
= 1.5( )
[1]
The acceleration was calculated using the slope (dv/dt) of the velocity profile.
Velocity Profile (round-trip)

0.6
velocity (m/s)
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
10
20
30
40
50
60
-0.4
-0.6
time (s)
Figure 23: Velocity Profile

42
Table 13: Tabulated Velocity and Acceleration Profile

Ramp Segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UP
Vmax (m/s)
0.373
0.241
0.152
0.241
0.152
0.241
0.133
Acc (m/s^2)
0.075
0.080
0.038
0.080
0.038
0.080
0.033
DOWN
Vmax (m/s)
-0.178
-0.241
-0.152
-0.241
-0.152
-0.241
-0.373
Acc (m/s^2)
0.059
0.080
0.038
0.080
0.038
0.080
0.075
Step 4:
All of the forces that act on the transporter are the inertial force, weight force, friction force, and rolling
force. The inertial force is the force required to make the transporter start moving and it is based on the
mass of the transporter and the inertial acceleration. The weight force is the weight of the robot, the
friction force is the friction created while moving, and the rolling force is the deformation of the wheels.
= + + +
[2]
= + + ( + )
[3]
Where m is the mass of the robot, is the inertial acceleration, g is the acceleration due to gravity,
is the friction coefficient, is the rolling coefficient, and is the slope of the ramp. The propulsion
force is lower for the downward profile when the ramp segment is angled because the weight helps the
robot move in the desired direction.
Table 14: Tabulated Forces, Uphill

Ramp Segment Fi (N) Fw (N)
1
0.37
6.08
2
0.40
0.00
3
0.19
0.00
4
0.40
0.00
5
0.19
11.90
6
0.40
0.00
7
0.17
0.00
UP
Ff (N) Frol (N) Fprop (N)
37.96
0.05
44.47
38.26
0.05
38.71
38.26
0.05
38.50
38.26
0.05
38.71
37.12
0.05
49.26
38.26
0.05
38.71
38.26
0.05
38.47
The coefficient of friction used for the friction force calculation was estimated to be 0.78.
43
Table 15: Tabulated Forces, Downhill

Fi (N) Fw (N)
0.37
6.08
0.40
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.19
11.90
0.40
0.00
0.30
0.00
DOWN
Ff (N) Frol (N) Fprop (N)
37.96
0.05
32.30
38.26
0.05
38.71
38.26
0.05
38.50
38.26
0.05
38.71
37.12
0.05
25.45
38.26
0.05
38.71
38.26
0.05
38.60
Step 5:
The total power required to move the robot for each segment was calculated using the equation
, = , [4]
Table 16: Required Power

Required Power
UP
DOWN
Ramp Segment
Preq (W)
1 16.60
8.04
2 9.34
6.23
3 5.87
3.91
4 9.34
6.23
5 7.51
2.59
6 9.34
6.23
7 5.13
4.58
Step 6:
However, the efficiency of the motor must be accounted for in order to fulfill the requirements. Therefore,
the required propulsion torque is calculated using the equation

/
2
[5]
In this case, the drive system efficiency was estimated at 90%.
44
Table 17: Required Propulsion Torque

Required Propulsion Torque
UP DOWN
Ramp Segment Tprop (N-m)
1 2.43
1.77
2 2.12
2.12
3 2.11
2.11
4 2.12
2.12
5 2.69
1.39
6 2.12
2.12
7 2.10
2.11
Step 7:
The next step of the motor sizing calculations was to determine the required torque of the motor to
operation the robot at the desired speed and acceleration. The required torque is calculated with the
following equation.
Treq J t acc T f ( J refl J m J GM J GL M ) acc T f
[6]
Each inertia and friction torque calculation is explained by the following six equations.
J refl
Jm
J load
N 2
[7]
2
mshaft Rshaft
J GM
[8]
2
mmtorgear Rmotorgear
J GL M
J GL
N 2
T f Ff Rload
J load
1
2
mload Rload
2
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
For the torque calculation a gearing system was designed such that the gearing ratio, N, was 131. The
efficiency of the system was assumed to be 0.90.
45
Table 18: Load and Gear values for torque calculations

Item
Load
Shaft
Motor Gear
Load Gear
Radius [in]
1.938
0.065
0.200
0.600
Radius [m]
0.049
0.002
0.005
0.015
Mass [lb]
0.230
0.060
0.010
0.050
Mass [kg]
0.105
0.027
0.005
0.023
Table 19: Results of torque calculations

Jrefl [kg-m^2]
Jm [kg-m^2]
Jgm [kg-m^2]
Jgl-m [kg-m^2]
Tf [N-m]
Trequired_motor [N-m]
Trequired_prop [N-m]
Trequired_total [N-m]
5.63E-08
3.72E-08
1.47E-08
3.26E-09
3.03E-03
3.03E-03
2.69
2.70
The acceleration used in the torque calculations was determined by dividing the maximum velocity for
each ramp section by its respective ramp section length. The largest ramp section acceleration was used,
a value of 0.08 m/s^2.
Step 8
For the last step of this report, we must compare the torque of our motor to the required torque of the
robot. This was accomplished using the equation below.
Drive Torque = Motor Torque Gear Ratio Reducer Efficiency
[14]
The motor torque for the pre-geared 131:1 motor we will use is 1.76 N-m. The result was
multiplied by two because we will be using two drive motors. The combined motor torque was
determined to be 3.42 N-m. This is greater than the required torque value of 2.70 N-m.
This motor calculation was very important because it allowed us to determine the motor requirements we
will need to power our robot. Using the specifications of the ramp, velocities, and dimensions of the
robot we were able to calculate the required torque to meet our speed requirements. This required toque
is extremely useful because it will allow us to choose two drive motors that will be capable of powering
the robot. Another result of this section is that we were able to determine a gearing ratio that would suit
our motors needs. Lastly, and most importantly is that through these calculations we created an
extensive, easily updatable spreadsheet that will allow us to easily change specifications and adjust our
sizing requirements.
46
V.
Control System Design
V.1
Motor Selection
Based on our motor sizing calculations for the drive motors we required motors that had a
minimum stall torque of 1.35 Nm each. The motors we chose to use each had a stall torque of 250 oz-in,
which equates to 1.76 N-m. Our calculations for our motor requirements were slightly overkill and
therefore we knew these motors would meet and exceed our demands.
Table 20: Drive Motor Specifications

Gear ratio:
131:1
Free-run speed @ 12V:
80 RPM
Free-run current @ 12V:
300 mA
Stall current @ 12V:
5000 mA
Stall torque @ 12V:
250 oz-in
Torque - Speed Curve

300
250
Toque
200
150
100
50
0
0
80
Velocity
Figure 24: Torque vs. Speed curve for drive motors
The motor controllers for the drive motors were selected on their ability to handle the voltage and
current requirements of the motor. Additionally, one that had the ability to control two motors was
selected. The motor controller would be used to deliver a percent duty to each of the drive motors. In
addition, it would allow each motor to run in reverse.
47
Table 21: Motor Driver Specs vs. Motor Specs

Specifications
Motor Driver
Motor
Min Voltage
5V
6V
Max Voltage
24V
12V
Max Continuous Current
12A
5A
Max Peak Current
30A
5A
Figure 25: Wiring of motor controller to drive motors
48
V.2
Ball retrieving and Unloading Mechanism

This design uses one geared motor and two servos to retrieve and unload the ball.
Figure 26: Assembled Claw, Lever, and Winch

The geared motor is a Tetrix motor that we received in the draft. It has a 320 oz-in of torque and
a max speed of 152 RPM. By our calculations, these specifications were more than able to lift the claw.
Attached to the motor shaft is a winch. Fishing line is attached to the winch, and the line coils around the
winch as the motor spins. The other end of the fishing line is attached to the lever. The robot lifts and
lowers the motor by coiling and uncoiling the fishing line about the winch, respectively. In addition, by
experimentation, we found that the inherent torque within the motor was sufficient to keep the lever aloft
as the robot is traveling up and down the ramp. Therefore, we can turn off motor power once the lever
reaches its maximum height and the lever remains in that position.
The servos are mounted to the robots lever. Each servo is attached to one arm of the claw and
controls the arm motion via a thick metal wire. These two servos work in conjunction with each other to
open and close the claw.
When the robot is attempting a run, the actual ball retrieval and unloading mechanism occurs as
follows: after the robot detects the ball using a variety of sensors, the robot maneuvers itself so that the
ball directly in front of and centered of the robot. Then the robot drives forward until it reaches the
correct distance away from the ball so then the claw can lower directly on top of the ball. Then, the motor
lowers the lever to the platform. The ball is then within both arms of the claw. The servos close and grab
the ball. The motor reverses power, and then raises the lever to its original height. After the robot
reaches the top of the ramp, it simply opens the claw to release the ball into the box.
49
V.3
Sensors and Theory of Operation
The robot employs four distance sensors. Three are Parallax Ultrasonic Distance Sensors
(28015). The ultrasonic sensors have a range of 2 cm to 3 m.
Figure 27: Ultrasonic Sensor Circuit Diagram

Since the ultrasonic sensor uses echoes to detect distance, it also has a fan out range of about 15
degrees. The three ultrasonic sensors are located on the two sides of the robot as well as the front. The
robot uses the side sensors to maintain a set distance along the wall while traveling up the ramp. By using
the left sensor, the robot measures its distance from the ball. As the robot moves up the ramp, the robot
measures the error between the current distance and the desired distance. Using this feedback error, a
PID controller then adjusts its commands for the wheel drive motors accordingly. This allows the robot
to turn as it follows the wall up the ramp. The robot also uses the side sensors to detect the approximate
location of ball as it drives on the bottom platform. As the robot drives along the platform, a spike in the
distance measurement indicates that the ball is directly to the side of the robot.
The front sensor is used for many purposes including finding the ball, finding the ramp, and
locating the top of the platform. In the finding the ball algorithm, after a side sensor indicates the general
location of the ball, the robot spins to align itself to the ball. It first uses the IR sensor to precisely locate
the ball. Then for close distance, the robot uses the front ultrasonic sensor to drive and to allow the lever
to lower at the correct distance. Secondly, in order to find the ramp, the robot will spin until it measures a
distance that is greater than 3 m. A distance greater than 3 m indicates that the robot is aligned with the
base of the ramp. Lastly, the front sensor is used to detect the end of the ramp when it reaches a very
close distance. When the robot reaches this close distance, the robot releases the ball into the platform.
We found that the advantage of an ultrasonic sensor is that it is excellent in close range, within a
few inches. This is especially useful during wall following up the ramp and ball retrieval. They are also
good at long ranges and can detect nearly across the entire bottom platform. This feature is used when the
robot is locating the base of the ramp. However, the disadvantage of this sensor is that there is a
tremendous amount of signal noise. This gives many false readings. The sensor also displays the 15
degree fan out, which makes precise locating of the ball impossible with the sonar sensor alone.
50
Figure 28: Infrared Sensor Circuit Diagram

The other distance sensor is a Sharp Infrared sensor (GP2Y0A21YK0F), with a range of 10 cm to
80 cm. This sensor is used exclusively for finding the ball and is located on the front of the robot as well.
Since the IR sensor does not exhibit a fan out range, we use this sensor as our primary sensor when
precisely locating the ball. Due to the ball retrieval method with the claw, our robot must locate the ball
within a few inches of precision. This made our front ultrasonic sensor inadequate for the task because of
the fan out range. Therefore, the IR proved to be the better choice as it did not exhibit this problem. The
advantages of the IR sensor are its strictly linear distance tracking and its relatively low amount of signal
noise. After a side ultrasonic sensor locates the general position of the ball, and the robot spins to alight
itself, the robot uses the IR sensor to precisely locate the ball. When this occurs, the robot drives forward
to the ball. The disadvantage of the IR sensor is that it is unable to give accurate readings within 3 inches.
This forces the robot to revert to the ultrasonic sensor when the ball is very close to the robot. Since the
front IR and ultrasonic sensor are not aligned to each other, the robot must spin again and relocate the ball
using the ultrasonic sensor.
51
V.4
State Diagram
There are five major state regions the robot uses to perform its tasks. Each region contains many
states that break down each region into manageable actions the robot can perform.
Figure 29: Statechart Region Schematic

The five regions are Find Ball Initial, Spin to Find Ball, Retrieve Ball, Find the Ramp, and Ramp.
Once the robot completes the ramp region, it performs all regions again.
Find Ball Initial

This state uses the sonar sensors to initially locate the ball. The robot drives straight along the
bottom platform. When it detects the ball, the robot spins a predetermined amount to face the general
direction of the ball. The ball strictly uses sonar sensors in these states.
52
Figure 30: Find Ball Initial State Diagram
Table 22: Find Ball Initial States

State
Off
Straight, Search
Front/Left/Right
Spin Slight Right/ Spin Left
/ Spin Right
Action
Do Nothing
Drive straight. Use sonar sensors to determine
approximate location of ball
Spin towards direction of ball
Guard
User input Button
Detection of ball
Stop spinning after predetermined
count
Spin to Find Ball

Since the sonar sensors contain a lot of noise, this state uses the infrared sensor to locate the ball
precisely. The robot spins until the IR sensor finds the ball. It then drives straight. When the ball gets
close to the IR sensor, the robot spins again in order to use the front sonar sensor for close distances. The
robot drives straight again until the ball is directly below the suspended claw opening.
53
Figure 31: Spin to Find Ball State
Table 23: Spin to Find Ball States

State
Spin
Action
Robot spins at a set speed
Move Straight to Ball
Robot moves straight towards ball
Guard
Dectection of ball with IR Sensor
Ball recheases lower limit of IR range,
OR IR loses track of the ball and
returns to "Spin" state
Spin to alight
Robot Aligned
Sraight Again
Robot spins to align ball with front sonar sensor

Robot orients itself to ball
Robot moves straight towards ball
Ball is aligned with front sonar sensor

Robot is aligned with ball
Ball is directly below claw opening
Retrieve Ball
In the Retrieve Ball State, the robot grabs the ball. First, the lever is lowered so that the ball is
within the arms of the claw. The claw then grabs the ball. The lever lastly returns to its original
suspended height.
54
Figure 32: Retrieve Ball States
Table 24: Retrieve Ball States

State
Stop and Drop Claw
Wait for Claw to Finish
Going Down
Grab Ball
Lift the Ball
Done with Getting Ball
Action
Lever motor spins and claw is lowered
Guard
Claw reaches bottom
Wait for lever to fully descent for a specified time

Claw closes to grab ball
Lever lifts to suspend ball and claw
Ball is finished retrieving ball
Time expires
Claw grabs ball
Claw reaches original height
none
Find Ramp
The robot then executes its Find Ramp state. The robot uses a PI wall following state to alight
itself with a set distance to a wall side. This distance places the robot directly in the middle of two
parallel sides of the ramp. If the robot is aligned with the base of the ramp, the robot continues forward to
drive up the ramp. If the robot is not aligned with the base of the ramp, which is indicated by a small
distance from the front sonar sensor, the robot spins until it finds the base of the ramp. A large distance
reading from the front sonar sensor indicates the base of the ramp.
55
Figure 33: Find the Ramp States
Table 25: Find the Ramp States

State
Sraight to Wall
Spin
Action
Guard
Robot reaches base of ramp OR
Robot uses wall following to move to the center of the Robot reads a close distance with
platform. Robot drives forward until to reaches base front sensor and goes into "Spin"
of ramp.
State
Base of ramp is found when there is
a very large distance from the front
Robot spins until it finds the base of the ramp.
sonar sensor
Ramp
The Ramp state includes all action the robot performs while on the ramp. It first uses a wall
following state to go up the ramp. Then the robot unloads the ball. Then the robot performs a 180 degree
turn and returns down the ramp.
56
Figure 34: Ramp States
Table 26: Ramp States

State
Go Up Ramp
Slow
Drop Off Ball
Reverse
Spin
Go Down Ramp
Action
Use wall following with PI controller to navigate up
the ramp
Robot reduces speed
Claw opens and delivers ball to drop off box
Guard
Robot is near end of ramp at top
platform
Robot is at the very end of ramp
Ball is delievered
Robot reaches set distance away
from wall
Robot finishes turn
Robot reverses
Robot performs 180 degree turn
Use wall following with PI controller to navigate down
the ramp
Robot returns to bottom platform
57
VI. Product Fabrication

Lessons Learned
Fabrication was a major component of this project. Throughout the fabrication process,
we learned many lessons about manual machining and experienced the obstacles of turning a
computer model into a physical device.
Overall, the fabrication process of our robot was fairly slow due to the number of parts in
our design. We designed our robot to have parts with simple geometry, but we made each part
from large stock material instead of buying pre-cut sheets and channels. While the parts were
simple to machine, cutting the material ourselves greatly delayed our efforts. However, once the
parts were made, the assembly process was much easier.
Our design did not require very precise dimensions so most of our parts were cut to size
with a band saw and finished with a sander. A few parts that required higher precision were cut
with the mill or lathe. Many of the holes in our parts were clearance holes made using the drill
press. When we made holes for individual parts, we did not drill them until adjacent pieces were
correctly aligned. For example, there would be a starter piece with holes already drilled. The
adjacent pieces would be aligned, and then drilled to ensure that the holes lined up exactly. This
reduced assembly time because the holes would be adequately precise. We also used clearance
holes so that the bolts can go in even if the holes are slightly off. Several of our parts had holes
designed and drilled for electronic components. However, we later realized they were
unnecessary. Fortunately, all of our structural members are thick and rigid enough that the
superfluous cuts do not affect the structural integrity in any way.
Out of the many parts in our robot, we found the motor hubs and claw pieces to be the
most difficult parts to fabricate exactly. For the motor hubs, because our wheels came with a
very large shaft hole, we needed a set collar to attach the wheels and drive shaft together.
Making a motor hub that exactly aligns the center of the wheels, set collar and drive shaft was
extremely difficult. Although our final product is close, the wheels still oscillate slightly while
rotating.
The claw pieces were also technically challenging to fabricate. These parts were required
to be very accurate in order for our design to work. In order to fabricate the sharp, precise details
on the claws, we decided to use waterjet to cut the initial outline. This saved our team many
hours of machining because we could rely on the waterjet to cut multiple exact replicas out of the
sheet metal. A picture of the completed claw pieces is shown in figure 1 below.
58
Figure 35: Completed claw parts; top claw piece has milled relief cut
After cutting the initial outline, we also needed to make relief cuts on each of the claw
pieces. This proved to be difficult because the unique shape of the part made it difficult to
mount. The parts were also delicate such that when an operation was done too fast and in such a
way that the aluminum heated up hot enough the part would be compromised. While making a
relief cut on one of the claw pieces, the aluminum cracked near where it was clamped to the mill,
and rendered the part useless. Fortunately, we accounted for possible contingencies and cut six
claws instead of four required for our robot.
59
Figure 36: Cracked claw piece

From this process, we learned from that it is best to cut multiple thin layers rather than
trying to force a cut with a large depth through the material. This is especially relevant for
smaller, delicate parts. Additionally, cutting fluid is useful for improving heat transfer away from
the part and extending the life of the drill bits.
We also learned many important rules about general manual machining from this
fabrication process. Firstly, we learned to face all the sides of the part to the correct dimensions.
This step greatly reduces the amount of error present by facilitating the measurements of the
design. Another important tip is to make sure the starting piece is properly secured to the
machinery. For example, if the part is not properly secure to the vise, chuck, or clamp, it can
potential fly off of the machine, which can either damage other machinery or hurt other
machinists. Safety is very important in the machine shop and all accidents can be avoided as long
as machines are used properly. If the machinist does not feel comfortable at all during his task,
he should immediately stop and ask for help. In addition to the safety issues, the removal process
of the starting piece will not be precise assuming it is not properly secured. The angle of the cut
can be slight off due to the fact that small chips or other miscellaneous things could be present on
the securing device. Therefore, it is important to keep a clean environment while working. The
last tip is to take your time when machining. Again, safety issues can occur while rushing, but
keeping a steady pace will also result in a better finish.
60
Fabrication List
Part name
Side Rail Right
Side Rail Left
Part description
Main frame; structural
member used to mount other
components
Main frame; structural

member used to mount other
components
L-channel; Structural
Electronics Board Mount member used to mount Rio
Left
Board
L-channel; Structural
Electronics Board Mount member used to mount Rio
Right
Board
Mid Cross Beam
A wide aluminum bar that

rests underneath the Rio
Board. Mounting point for
lever arm.
Straight Bracket
Mounting point for Pulley

Motor, and Circuit board,
braces the the Electronics
Board Mount
An L-channel used to mount

the Straight Bracket on the
Straight Bracket Mount
Electronics Board.
Corner Mount
Front Cross Beam
Rear Wheel Mounts
Structural member used to

mount lever arm to mid cross
beam
Dimensions
Fabrication Method
9.5 x 1.5 x 2.0
Used bandsaw to cut to

dimensions and sand down
edges. Used drill press for all
clearance holes.
9.5 x 1.5 x 2.0
Starting with a L-channel, used

bandsaw to cut to dimensions
and sand down edges. Used drill
press for all clearance holes, mill
for servo holes.
8.5 x 1.0 x 0.5

clearance holes.
8.5 x 1.0 x 0.5

clearance holes.
8.6 x 2.0 x 0.125
Used bandsaw to cut sheet metal

to dimensions and sand down
clearance holes.
8.6 x 2.0 x 0.125

clearance holes.
Comments

1.75 x 0.75 x 0.75
clearance holes.
1.0 x 0.75 x 0.75
clearance holes.
A thin aluminum bar that is

mounted near the front of the
robot, underneath the claw. It 5.9 x 0.50 x 0.125
has an ultrasound sensor
mounted on top of it.

clearance holes.
An L-channel with holes

drilled in the bottom to
mount wheels.
Bent sheet metal into L-shape.

clearance holes.
3.0 x 1.0 x 1.5
61
Rear Sensor Mount
Front Sensor Mount
Motor Hub
A section of L-channel with

holes drilled in it to mount
sensors.
3.6 x 1.0 x0.125
New holes were made to

mount one rear wheel in
the center instead of
two.
A section of L-channel with

holes drilled in it to mount
sensors.

2.0 x 0.75 x 0.75
clearance holes.
A square made of aluminum

used to mount wheels onto
the motor shaft.
Used bandsaw to cut sheet metal Had to remake in order

to better balance robot
0.50 x 0.50 x 0.25
wheels
clearance holes.
Lever Arm
A thick aluminum bar used to

hold the claw. Has two
servos mounted on it.
6.0 x 1.5 x 0.25
Spool
An aluminum cylinder with a

groove cut into it to hold
fishing line.
.5 x 1.2
Four identical claw pieces

that form a double scissor.
Claw
Attaches motors to the robot

frame.
Motor Mount

clearance holes.
Cut bar to size using bandsaw,

then used mill to cut through
holes to mount servos
Used bandsaw to cut off a
section of metal cylinder and
turned profile using lathe
Used waterjet to cut outlines of

claws and used mill to cut relief
3.6 x 3.25 x 0.1875 channel.
Six claw pieces made in

total. One failed while
milling the slot. Cut off
handles of two of the
final claw pieces used.
Drilled 6 concentric holes to

mount motors and a center hole
for the drive shaft. Drilled
2.0 x 1.67 x 0.30
additional holes on bottom of
block to attack mounts to Side
Rails
Had to remake due to

hole inaccuracies using
drill press. Final motor
mount used mill to make
holes.
62
Pictures
Pictures of various fabricated parts and the complete assembly of The Claw can be found
below.
Figure 37: Top view of robot with all components and RIO-board installed
Figure 38: Detail of assembled claw

63
Figure 39: Side view of robot
Figure 40: Rear wheels set collar
64
Figure 41: Complete spindle on mill
Figure 42: Rear wheel mount
65
Figure 43: Back view of robot
Figure 44: Rear wheel plate and set collar
66
Figure 45: Detailed view of corner mount, mid cross beam and lever arm
67
Figure 46: Detailed view of motor mount
Figure 47: Detailed view of back without Rio Board

68
Figure 48: Detailed view of right side rail and motor mount
Figure 49: Team member assembling robot

69
Figure 50: Team member installing electronics
70
VII. Product Performance and Evaluation

In order to show the performance of The Claw, several run-times are tabulated below.
Run Time (seconds)
Section
Up-Trip
Unload
Down-Trip
Ball-Locating
Ball-Retrieval
Ramp-Locating
Total Run time
Run
1
26
3
22
7
4
15
77
Run 2
27
3
24
8
3
14
79
Run 3
25
3
22
7
3
14
74
Run 4 Run 5
28
26
3
3
23
21
9
8
3
4
13
15
79
77
Ave
26.4
3
22.4
7.8
3.4
14.2
77.2
Overall our data shows that we have relatively consistent runs. There are some deviations due to
different starting positions of the robot. However, the consistency in these data reflects the
smooth programming logic that we implemented with The Claw.
71
VIII. Work Breakdown Schedule

The Work Breakdown Schedule details all of the necessary actions that must take place in
order for Team 15 to have a fully functioning autonomous robot suitable for competition on June
12th. This section details the distribution of work for the drive system, the ball transport system
and the electrical system and various subtasks related to each large system. A Gantt chart is also
included to give an approximate scheduling for the various tasks as well as a budget estimate and
cost breakdown for various parts.
VIII.1 Work Breakdown Diagrams
The Claw
Drive System
Grab/Transport
System
Sensing and
Logic System
Figure 51: Main System Divisions
Electrical
System
Sensors
Motors
SB Rio
Board
Wiring
Selection:
Joe
Selection:
Joe
Selection:
Joe
Schematic:
Joe
Assembly:
Daniel
Assembly:
Daniel
Assembly:
Daniel
Assembly:
Daniel
Figure 52: Electrical System
72
Drive
System
Chassis
Wheels
Wheel
Mounts
Motor
mount
Gears/Gear
System
Fasteners
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
Fabricate:
Alan
Purchase:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Figure 53: Drive System
Grab/Transport
System
Claw
Lifting Arm
Clamping
Mechanism
CAD: Daniel
CAD: Daniel
CAD: Daniel
Fabrication:
Betty
Fabrication:
Betty
Fabrication:
Betty
Assembly:
Daniel/Betty
Assembly:
Daniel/Betty
Assembly:
Daniel/Betty
Figure 54: Ball Transport System
73
The Claw
Grab/Transp
ort System
Electrical
System
Drive System
Claw
Lifting Arm
Clamping
Mechanism
Chassis
Wheels
Wheel
Mounts
Motor
mount
Gears/Gear
System
Fasteners
Sensors
Motors
SB Rio Board
Wiring
CAD: Daniel
CAD: Daniel
CAD: Daniel
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
Selection:
Joe
Selection:
Joe
Selection:
Joe
Schematic:
Joe
Fabrication:
Betty
Fabrication:
Betty
Fabricate:
Alan
Purchase:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
Fabricate:
Alan
CAD: Alan
CAD: Cole
CAD: Cole
Assembly:
Daniel/Betty
Assembly:
Daniel/Betty
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Cole/Joe
Assembly:
Daniel
Assembly:
Daniel
Assembly:
Daniel
Fabrication:
Betty
Assembly:
Daniel/Betty
CAD: Alan
Assembly:
Daniel
Figure 55: Overall System Overview
For the most part the Work Breakdown Schedule was followed accurately. However,
there were some deviations that presented themselves throughout the production of our robot.
Electrical Systems:
The wiring schematic was completed by Joe and Daniel and the assembly was completed
and Alan and Cole. This is because Alan and Cole had prior experience with soldering.
Drive System:
Both Alan and Betty completed the fabrication of the chassis. Cole completed the
fabrication of the motor mounts, wheel mounts and fasteners. Additionally, no gearing system
was fabricated as the purchased motor already contained a gear system.
Grab/Transport System
Daniel fabricated the claw using the water je. Cole CADed, fabricated and assembled the
lifting arm. Cole also CADed, fabricated and assembled the clamping mechanism.
Overall, the CAD structure was not followed closely. The initial CAD model was created
with contributions from all team members. However, Alan and Betty completed the majority of
edits and redesigns of the model.
74
VIII.2 Production Timeline

The Gantt chart displayed below provides a planned time frame for design, production
and finalization of The Claw.
1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 3/31 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23
Concept Design
Design Requirements
CAD Parts
Component Requirments
Materiall Acquisition
FEM
Fabrication
Circuit Design
Mechanical Assembly
Electrical Assembly
Programming
Testing/Refining
Trials
Figure 56: Gantt chart displaying predicted time for task completion
The next Gantt chart shows the actual time of completion for each task.
75
1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 3/31 4/14 4/28 5/12 5/26 6/9 6/23
Concept Design
Design Requirements
CAD Parts
Component Requirements
Materiall Acquisition
FEM
Fabrication
Circuit Design
Mechanical Assembly
Electrical Assembly
Programming
Testing/Refining
Trials
Figure 57: Gantt chart displaying actual time for task completion
The actual timeframe for production of the robot deviated from the predicated timeframe.
Component requirements took one week longer than expected to complete. Material acquisition
occurred for much longer than expected. This is because materials needed for wiring and
assembly were not anticipated. Fabrication took one week longer than expected. This was due to
poor availability of the machine shop. The FEM analysis never occurred because it was dropped
from the requirements of the course. Lastly, circuit design took longer than expected because
after experimenting with using bread boards our team made the decision to solder the wires
permanently to multiple printed circuit boards.
76
Table 27: Work Breakdown Dictionary

WBS Element
The Claw
1. Concept Design
1.1 Mechanical Systems
1.1.1 Analysis
1.2 Electrical System
1.2.1 Analysis
2. Design Requirements
2.1 Dimensions
2.2 Budget
3. CAD Parts
3.1 Create Drawing
3.2 Materials
4. Material Acquisition
4.1 Bill of Materials
4.2 Prices
4.3 Purchasing
5. Fabrication
5.1 Machining
6. Circuit Design
6.1 Data sheets
7. Mechanical Assembly
8. Testing/Refining
8.1 Mechanical Parts
8.2 Electrical Components
8.3 Programming
9. Trials
9.1 Demonstration
9.2 Competition
Description
Project title
Design of carrier, full CAD model
Drive and delivery system
Force, torque, FEM analysis
RIO board, sensors
Circuit design analysis
Initial position is within the given dimensions
Calculate price of all parts, under $350
Create parts using CAD
Determine what materials to use
Get materials from the CAD models
Research the cheapest prices
Purchase the necessary materials
Machine all parts
Draw circuits by hand and on the computer
Look up electrical components
Assemble all parts
Test and replace broken parts
Test batteries, RIO board, connectors
Iterate programming to obtain best results
Successfully find the ball, deliver it to the box,
and return
Complete the most cycles of the demonstration
77
IX. BOM and Cost Analysis

The Bill of Materials is a list of each part of the detailed design of the claw. It also includes an estimate
of pricing. We have created several exploded views of The Claw in order to increase readability.
Exploded Views
Figure 58: Exploded view of fully assembly with part numbers
78
Figure 59: Exploded view of chassis subassembly with part numbers
Figure 60: Exploded view of claw and crane subassemblies with part numbers
79
Bill of Materials
Table 28: Bill of Materials
Part
Number
Part Name / Description
QTY.
UNITS
UNIT
COST
COST
Chassis Subassembly
1.1
Side Rail Right
FT
0.79
0.79
1.2
Side Rail Left
FT
0.79
0.79
1.3
Electronics Board Mount Left
FT
0.79
0.79
1.4
Electronics Board Mount Right
FT
0.79
0.79
1.5
Mid Cross Beam
FT
0.79
0.79
1.6
Pulley Cross Beam
FT
0.79
0.79
1.7
Pulley Cross Beam Mount
SQ FT
0.40
0.80
1.8
Corner Mount
FT
0.59
1.19
1.9
Front Cross Beam
SQ FT
1.20
1.20
1.10
Rear Wheel Mounts
FT
0.47
0.95
1.11
Rear Sensor Mount
FT
0.40
0.40
1.12
Sensor Mount
FT
0.40
1.19
1.13
Socket Cap Screw (10-32, 0.5")
28
EA
0.20
5.60
1.14
Hex Nut (10-32)
28
EA
0.17
4.76
1.15
Machine Screw (6-32, 0.5")
10
EA
0.18
1.80
1.16
Hex Nut (6-32)
10
EA
0.06
0.60
Robot Electronics (SB Rio Board)
EA
Front Wheels
3.1
Shaft
FT
3.2
Wheel
EA
Crane Subassembly
4.1
Lever Arm
SQ FT
1.20
1.20
4.2
Servo Mount
FT
0.40
1.58
80
4.3
Servo (Hitec HS-81)
EA
12.69
25.38
4.4
Spool
EA
1.20
1.20
4.5
Fishing Line
EA
1.45
1.45
4.6
Socket Cap Screw (10-32, 0.5")
EA
0.20
0.80
4.7
Hex Nut (10-32)
EA
0.17
0.68
Claw Subassembly
5.1
Claw
SQ FT
0.20
0.80
5.2
Claw Spacer
SQ FT
0.10
0.60
5.3
Claw Pin (10-32, 1.4")
EA
0.19
1.52
5.4
Hex Lock Nut (10-32)
EA
0.17
1.36
Batteries
6.1
Battery Pack (SB Rio)
EA
6.2
AA Batteries
10
EA
1.10
11.00
6.3
9V Batteries
EA
2.10
6.30
6.4
Rechargeable Batteries (9V)
EA
2.99
8.97
6.5
Rechargeable Batteries (AA)
10
EA
1.59
15.90
Motor Subassembly
7.1
Motor (131:1 Metal Gearmotor 37Dx54L

mm w/ encoder)
EA
39.95
119.85
7.2
Motor Mount
EA
0.99
2.97
7.3
Hex Bolt (10-32, 0.5")
EA
0.20
1.20
7.4
Motor Controller (DRV8825)
EA
Rear Wheel, Caster Wheels
EA
8.1
Hex Nut
EA
0.17
0.34
IR Proximity Sensor ( Sharp

GP2Y0A21YK)
EA
13.95
55.80
9.1
Mounting Socket Cap Bolts (10-32, 0.5")
16
EA
0.20
3.20
9.2
Hex Nuts (10-32)
16
EA
0.17
2.72
10
Additional Fasteners
81
10.1
Socket Cap Screws (10-32, 1")
EA
0.20
1.60
10.2
Hex Nuts (10-32)
EA
0.17
1.36
11
Other Parts
11.1
Servo (Hitec HS-81)
EA
12.69
12.69
TOTAL
243
$303.69
The total expected price of The Claw comes out to $303.69. However, the price
displayed in the BOM for metal and miscellaneous parts such as nuts and screws are
approximate values. Regardless, this estimation is well within our allocated budget, and will give
us some room for contingency in case parts break and we require replacement parts.
Table 29: List of Purchased Parts
Material
Cost
Multipurpose 6061 Aluminum, 1/2" Thick, 2" Width,
1' Length
15.14
Multipurpose 6061 Aluminum, 90 Degree Angle, 1/16"
Thick, 1" X 1" Legs, 1' Long
6.84
18.64
12.41
Aluminum scrap, wires, 6-32 nuts, bolts
21.8
Stainless Steel Machine Screw, Plain Finish, Flat
Head, Phillips Drive, 10mm Length, M3-0.5 Metric
Coarse Threads (Pack of 100)
5.37
Venom Tamiya Plug Set M/F 150mm
5.69
Stainless Steel Socket Cap Screw, Plain Finish,
Internal Hex Drive, 20mm Length, Fully Threaded,
M3-0.5 Metric Coarse Threads (Pack of 100)
5.89
2 x #136 Sharp GP2Y0A21YK0F Analog Distance
Sensor 10-80cm = 19.90
4 x #2144 Power HD Mini Servo HD-1711MG =
47.80
2 x #1446 100:1 Metal Gearmotor 37Dx57L mm with
64 CPR Encoder = 79.90
156.55
Fishing Line
3.26
10-32 Screws, 9/64 drill bit
5.1
Venom 20C 3S 2100mAh 11.1 LiPO Battery with
Universal Plug System
21.79
82
6-32 washers, double sided tape, velcro, epoxy, 19

gage steel wire
LiPo Battery Charger
All Electronics
2x PCB
Combo Lock
JCT connectors
Total
21.73
29.35
8.56
10.32
7.62
5.63
361.69
The BOM was not adhered to very accurately once production and purchasing began.
Instead of Hitec servos we purchased four Power HD Mini Servo HD-1711MG servos from
Pololu. Purchases not quoted in the BOM were fasteners such as Velcro and epoxy. Also, we
purchased two printed circuit boards. Rather than purchase multiple rechargeable and disposable
batteries we decided to purchase one lithium polymer battery and a charger to charge it. We also
purchased connectors from electrical components and wires. Only two motors were purchased as
one was obtained from the parts lottery. Even with the additional purchased and deviation from
the BOM our team finished under budget.
83
X.
Design Requirement Satisfaction
The following table is a summary of Design Requirements that were specified at the beginning of
the project and whether these goals were satisfied. Comments for some of the requirements are included.
Table 30: Satisfied Design Requirements

Satisfied?
Design Requirement
Make 3 delivery runs in 5 minutes
Use separate motors to control steering
Have retrieval system that works for all ball placements
Ability to use rechargable and disposable batteries
Perform multiple trips without recharging
Manually fabricated parts whenever possible
Ability to control speed and direction of travel
Ability to sense location of ball using sensors

Place device anywhere on the platform and push the start button
Device must be entirely within loading area
Complete single collection/transport/delivery run
Able to successfully complete a run within 3 attempts
Perform autonomously throughout competition including repeat trips
All device motions powered by installed batteries
Device fits inside an 11" cube.

Powered by no more than 12 1.2 V batteries and 3 9V batteries
Clearly accessible and labeled emergency kill switch
Total cost of materials and services under $375
Only unloads when inside unloading area marked on top platform
Uses no devices or sensors on or outside the pathway.
Lifts a single 0.2 kg, 2.25in diam. billiard ball (standard)
Does not mix battery types
Uses no pnuematic, chemical or muscle based energy.
Comments
Device algorithm requires specific conditions
Device is powered by 2 11.1V rechargable cells
84
XI. Conclusions
This report provides an in depth discussion of the design, fabrication and programming
processes our group completed in order to ultimately produce an operational autonomous transporter.
The various preliminary designs and choices that we made are documented in this report to show how
we progressed from simple ideas to a comprehensive product. Once we finalized the CAD model, it was
important for us to choose the right materials and electrical components to fabricate our robot. The
product fabrication then shows how we turned our computer model into a physical device. It shows the
difficulties we encountered that were not expected when working on a 3D model and how we altered
our design to work with these complications. After fabrication, we provide details of our statechart
diagrams to show the programming logic that we used in order to implement The Claw. In the end we
were able to fully satisfy all the design requirements of the project and produce a fully functional
transporter. As a result of this project, we learned valuable lessons about teamwork and design
processes and gain experience in various hands-on aspects of engineering.
85
XII. Appendix
Appendix A: LabVIEW Code
Below are snapshots of the LabVIEW Code impleted for The Claw.
Figure 61: Distance Follow PI Controller
Figure 62: FPGA Inputs

86
Figure 63: FPGA Outputs
87
Figure 64: Sonar Sensor Filters
Figure 65: Statechart Inputs and Outputs
88
Figure 66: Waveform Chart Indicators for Data Viewing
Figure 67: Wheel Velocity PI Controller Sub VI
89
Figure 68: Wheel Velocity Calculator Sub VI
90

Senior Design Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Senior Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Design Report

Subsystem CAD Model (exploded view) ........................................................................................... 33

Control System Design ............................................................................................................ 47

Product Performance and Evaluation .................................................................................. 71

Design Requirement Satisfaction ............................................................................................. 84

XII. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 86

Figure 29: Statechart Region Schematic ..................................................................................................... 52

Angular acceleration of wheels rad/s

Reflected mass inertia

Motor shaft inertia

Motor gear inertia

Load gear inertia

Acceleration due to gravity

High-level Design Requirements

3 platforms, 2 ramps, 2.5-3.5 safety wall on all sides.

Bulk Material Requirements:

Figure 2: Roomba Robot

Design Concept Development

II.1.1 Three Original Design Concepts

II.1.2 Objectives Tree & Pairwise Comparison

Table 1: Pairwise Comparison Chart

Design 3 - Lifting Ramp;

Design 2 -Lever Arm and

Design 1 -Scoop and Push

Table 2: Objectives Tree

According to the Objectives Tree, Design 1 is the best design.

II.1.3 Design Concept Selection

Figure 6: Isometric View of the Claw

Figure 7: CAD model of drive motors and wheels

Figure 8: CAD Model of Lifting Mechanism

Be able to make 3 runs in 5 minutes.

Overall Product Description

Figure 10: The Claw CAD Model, Isometric View

II.4.2 Lifting Mechanism (Crane & Claw)

II.4.4 Electronics & Navigation

Mechanical System Operation

Figure 11: Claw Mechanical System

Figure 12: Driving System

Control System Operation

Figure 13: Sensor Position Layout

Subsystems Design Description

Subsystem CAD Model (exploded view)

Figure 14: Lifting Subassembly Exploded View

III.2 Chassis Subsystem

Subsystem CAD Model (exploded view)

Figure 15: Motor Driver for Drive Motors

Figure 16: Sensors, IR (left) and Sonar (right)

Figure 17: Claw servos positioned in crane arm

III.4 Drivetrain Subsystem

Subsystem CAD Model (exploded view)

Figure 18 : Drivetrain Subassembly Exploded View

IV. Design Analysis

Table 3: Weight of Components

Table 4: The Claw Dimensions

Figure 19: Dimensions of The Claw

Minimum Required Friction Coeff.

Required Minimum Friction Coeff. ()

Lc - Distance of CG from Rear Wheels (inch)

Table 5: Calculations for tractive forces

Table 6: Minimum Friction Coefficient Requirements for our specific device:

Velocity Profile (round-trip)

Figure 21: Velocity Profile for One Full Cycle