You are on page 1of 21

05/07/2013

Elements of Design
LOYOLA
MARYMOUNT
UNIVERSITY
ASME STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION
2013
FINAL DESIGN REVIEW
Hopper, Derek
Ibarra, Jorge
Lee, Chris
Rodriguez, Jason
Introduction
Eight students were assigned to two groups of four in order to participate in the 2013 ASME
student design competition. The task is to design a remotely-controlled, proof-of-concept
vehicle for inspection purposes. The vehicle must be able to negotiate around obstacles, both in
getting to the inspection points and in bringing the sensor back to the designated return area.
The vehicle must then return to its starting location, ready for another run. ASME (2013)

Background: Due to the tragedy that happened at the Fukushima nuclear facility after the
March 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, the nuclear industry has issued a Request for
Proposal (RFP) to design and build a small, remotely-controlled inspection vehicle. The purpose
of the vehicle is to determine the level of radioactivity at specified locations and inspect for
damage. This vehicle will protect the human operator from absorbing a high dose of radioactive
contamination. There is information that could be gained by the inspection vehicle that could
inform the plant operators so that they may avert an accident or begin repairs. ASME (2013)

Vehicle Requirements ASME (2013)
1. The vehicle must be powered by rechargeable batteries.
2. The device must be controlled through a wireless transmitter/receiver radio link. The
following requirements pertain specifically to the device controller:
A radio transmitter may have its own batteries rechargeable or non- rechargeable.
The transmitter/receiver radio link may be any commercially available model
controller.
During the trial, the device must be completely controlled via the radio link no other
contact, interaction or influence is permitted.
One team member must control the device throughout the trial.
All radio controllers will be impounded and shut off during the competition, except
during the teams run.
The operator will be behind a protected barrier in an operator area without a direct
visual view of the course. The barrier will be a curtain to separate the operator from
the course.
A camera system will be employed to provide the only visual recognition of the
course for the operator. The team must supply their own visual equipment.
Team members will not be allowed to communicate with the operator once the
competition begins. No other visual equipment, such as mirrors, will be allowed.
Each operator will be brought to the course, without viewing the course, and placed
in the operator area. The operator must surrender all means of communication
while sequestered.
3. All devices must have a readily accessible and clearly labeled master shut-off switch.
Course Description
The test course will consist of a flat, level section of floor (the surface of the floor will not be
specified and may be any typical flooring type) marked off with masking tape. The rectangular
course will be 5-m by 7.75-m in size. There will be barriers within the course. The barriers are
not defined nor are their placements defined. The judges at the competition will place the
barriers to create the pathway to the tasks. Note that the barrier construction methods could
be of many variations. The vehicle will not be required to go over the barriers there will be a
path to go around the barriers. You will be required to inspect a simulated contaminated area.

Task to complete:
1. Navigate around simulated obstacles.
2. Inspect the area and locate the digital pressure gage and report the reading. See
drawing for location.
3. Go to a simulated control panel and push a button that initiates a simulated cooling
pump. See drawing for location. The simulated button will be a 25-mmred button on a
white 100-mm by 100-mm white background. The button will be vertically oriented so it
can be actuated with a horizontal push.
4. Pick up a simulated remote radiation sensor and return the sensor to home. The
simulated sensor is made from 25.4-mm diameter by 50.8-mm high cylindrical wooden
dowel. The 50.8-mm dimension will be parallel to the vertical direction.
5. Drop off a simulated remote radiation sensor at a specified location. See drawing for
location. The simulated sensor is made from 25.4-mm diameter by 50.8-mm high
cylindrical wooden dowel. The 50.8-mm dimension will be parallel to the vertical
direction.
Contest Operation
At the start signal the vehicle must proceed down the course, retrieve the sensor, inspect the
gage and push the button. Time stops when all tasks have been completed and the vehicle is
once again stationary inside the parking area and in its starting configuration. A maximum of
five minutes is allowed to complete the tasks. Unless you have completed all the tasks, you will
receive the full maximum time (300 seconds). The vehicle may not be touched or altered in any
way during the run. Remember, the retriever is operating in an environment that is hazardous
to humans.
Scoring and Penalties
Correctly reporting the gage reading is worth 1000-points, the sensors are worth 2000-points
each (if one is placed in the designated drop area and the second sensor is returned to the
starting point) and pushing the button is worth 3000-points.
The winning device will have the highest score S where:
S = (R) 10*s 200*T
R = task score
T = Times device touches border tape
s = seconds to complete task, maximum 300
Any vehicle that leaves the course must re-enter the course at the point of departure
without being intentionally repositioned by anyone.
Any damage to the course will result in an immediate disqualification.
Any device not meeting the device requirements will be immediately disqualified.
If you touch the device you receive maximum time and 0 R score


Preliminary Design
Design was mostly influenced by performance capabilities with respect to tasks assigned.
Simple goals stated were a high maneuverability, stable stance, and simple operation. Many of
the preliminary designs were built with pre-existing devices in mind. Many hobbyist remote
control, R/C, cars were one point of inspiration, providing a versatile range of pre-existing
systems. Military E.O.D. robots were also studied for their reputation as being rugged,
maneuverable, and as well as having integrated manipulator systems. These parameters were
used to organize a performance requirements chart, refer to appendix [1].
Parameter Storage
Capacity
By the ASME statement of work our design must include cameras, a
functional crane, rechargeable batteries, a wireless radio link, and a master
shut-off switch. By design fulfilling these requirements are within our
means.
Run Time By the ASME state of work requirements the course must be completed in 5
minutes. A self-imposed requirement of a 2.5min completion time was
instated to leave room for contingencies. Necessary acceleration
calculations were completed from there.
Mass A self-imposed requirement of 1.5-3kg mass was imposed to help comply
with run time and minimum acceleration requirements, see appendix.
Minimum
Acceleration
Course dimensions were known with relative task destinations, from there a
required distance to travel was calculated and contingencies for navigating
obstacles were added. A minimum acceleration was calculated with this
data and a necessary motor torque was calculated to be 0.10 N-m for use
with wheels of 3 diameter. Testing later changed this value.
Stability A major point of concern was the crane tipping the car when in use. Analysis
was completed to make sure this would not happen, see appendix. The
battery being one of the heavier parts of the car is being mounted on the
rear of the car to act as a counter weight to ensure tipping does not occur.
Dimensions Original designs measured the car to be 10x8 however after watching
previous competition videos the design was downsized to 8x6. These
smaller dimensions help minimize the mass of the vehicle and improve
maneuverability.

Ultimately it was decided that the best option would be a skid-steer robot with 3 wheels on
each side placed at staggered heights. The remainder of the frame would be a simple
rectangular shape built from aluminum. Originally hollow aluminum bars were selected for a
frame material. Wheels and hubs were selected to give sufficient vertical height as to allow
climbing. A strong motor would drive each side of the vehicle, with chain and sprocket setups to
deliver power to all 3 wheels. Control would be handled by a simple controller board, placed
on-board. Batteries, wiring, and a vision system would all be assigned positions later after
determining final layout of the chassis.
After initial design reviews it was ultimately found that using welded aluminum bar would be
difficult and costly, so T-Slot aluminum (80/20 brand) was selected. A meeting with a R/C
hobbyists at Hobby People in Lawndale, CA informed designers that it was unlikely that motors
fitting requirements would be available from hobby shops. Battery life was also a concern,
although this was based off of consumption values found on high-performance racer R/C cars.
System Design
At this point a re-evaluation of the design was necessary. Video footage of previous
competition robots also showed generally smaller designs. It was decided that the chassis
design would change from 3 wheels per side to 2 wheels, with some variation of a direct-drive
system. Design dimensions were reduced from a 10x10 stance to an 8x6 stance to allow
tighter turning. Also, to compensate for lower-than-expected motor torque, 1 motor per wheel
(rather than 1 motor per 3 wheels) was assigned. Brackets were also added to allow integration
of the manipulator arm and supports into the chassis frame.
Unfortunately oversight of motor dimensions (which are much smaller than expected) caused
mounting systems to become an issue. Wheel hub dimensions required more axle length than
selected motors contained, and alternative motors fitting specifications were not in affordable
financial range. Redesign of intermediate systems between the motors and wheels became a
primary issue. Originally a sleeve or alternate axle extension was considered, but due to small
fabrication size, as well as unknown material strengths, this option was eliminated.
Design consensus was to build some type of intermediate system between the wheels and the
motor shaft to transmit torque through another axle. This secondary axle would handle
shearing loads and provide simple mounts for the wheel hub. A 1:1 gearing system was
considered, but long design times did not allow full system design. After doing some initial
prototype fabrication, it was found that the final mass would likely be below expectations,
meaning a reduced stress on the motor shaft.
The ultimate solution was to find alternative wheels that would approximately fit specifications.
Wheels built for use with selected motors were found, as well as motor mounts. To allow
fitment to the frame, a single piece of polycarbonate was selected to fit on the bottom of the
frame. This polycarbonate would allow the motor mounts to have a strong attachment to the
frame, as well as giving area to mount electronics and reduce the amount of aluminum
required for frame reinforcement. Specific controller (Arduino controller with motor
microcontroller) placement was also determined, as well as battery placement.)


Assembly Component Descriptions
Ref Component Purpose
1 T-Slot Aluminum Frame for the chassis 8 x 6
2 L-bracket (4) Designed specifically for T-slot aluminum support
3 L-bracket (2) DELETED Mounting support for crane. DELETED
4 Wheels (4) Allow vehicle to move 70mm Diameter
5 Polycarbonate plate Serves as mounting surface for motors, microcontroller and motor
controller
6 Battery Provides power to controllers, motors and crane. 7.2v 5000mAh
7 Arduino Microcontroller Receive input from wireless radio link to control the 7 motors on the
robot.
8 Motor controller Intermediate device between battery and microcontroller. Receives
input from microcontroller and provides adequate power to motors
9 Motors (4) Rotate wheels to accelerate the vehicle
10 Motor Mounts (4) Secure motor to chassis

Fabrication Process and Evaluated changes
The success of the polycarbonate and excess material led to it replacing the mounting brackets
located on the interior of the frame, part ref. #3. This change allowed for greater stability and a
simpler design with fewer components.

The polycarbonate material that acts as motor/circuit mounts was given to machinist John
MacClennan to perform precision cutting and drilling operations; remaining material was
provided to the arm team for new mounting purpose. Using the polycarbonate to test
dimensions of the aluminum frame it was ultimately found that parts did not align, which was
found to result from the previous cutting process (performed via band saw) which left uneven
edges. Re-machining of aluminum bars to more exact specification (3 decimal tolerance +-
0.001) allowed fitment of poly-carb plate to the frame. Motor mounts were fixed to the plate to
prove fitment, and allow observation of motor stress under moderate load. Basic observation
showed no noticeable buckling of motors or motor mount casings as well as no noticeable
deformation in the plastic plate. Early observations of frame with the attached plate showed a
high rigidity with no movement of components when light forces were applied. Effects of
repeated loading and vibrations due to movement were evaluated later using a rolling
prototype.

With a ready chassis, work on the controller system began. Standard 22 AWG wire was stripped
and crimped with the proper fittings, 16 AWG wire was used for those carrying a greater power
load. White wires were used for communication between the Arduino micro controller, serial
motor controller and serial servo controller. Green wires were used for communication
between the Lynxmotion PS2 controller radio receiver and the microcontroller. All major power
wires between the battery controller and motors are red (positive) and black (negative). Wiring
and connections were completed as expected.

Once wiring was complete respective libraries written in C++ language were found for
integration between the Arduino Uno rev3 microcontroller, Pololu Qik 2s9v1, and Pololu Serial
Servo controller. A demo program was loaded and confirmed working with individual
components, running the four motors to full speed forward then full speed reverse and
separately running through the full motion of the three servos being used for the crane arm.
Next step, integration and proper programming for the Lynxmotion PS2 controller was
completed.

Initial programs proved difficult to master. Many issues with the program language and
electronic compatibility were met initially not allowing the motors to reach full speed forward
or full speed reverse causing jittery response. Issues were resolved by correcting the 7-bit
translation functions of the PS2 joysticks, ranging 0-255, with the accepted motor inputs of,
-127 to 127, as well as adding a buffer zone in the programming to only activate the motors
when input values of greater than positive 10 or less than negative 10 were received. This
reduced the surge loads created by the motors switching from forward to reverse. The extra
precaution of adding a larger capacitor to the motor controller was also taken to further
decrease the frequency in which a motor controller error may occur. As integration continued
another issue was observed when attempting to control the three servos while running the DC
gear motors. The Arduino did not have enough processing power in itself to refresh the servos
at the required 500ms intervals and run the DC motors causing the servos to move
unexpectedly while the other motors attempted to move the vehicle. The most cost-effective
solution, instead of re-writing the C++ libraries, was to add a Serial Servo Controller which
would take over the processing loads of refreshing the servos and was controlled via one I/O
pin on the Arduino with simple serial commands. Once completed, the control system was
running as expected.

Vision System and Revisions
The originally decided upon vision system consisted of a single 2.4 GHz spy camera with basic
A/V receiver. The camera is compact (approx. 1x1x1) and ran from a single 9V source, which
would ideally be integrated into existing power supply to fulfill competition requirements. The
receiver requires a standard 110V outlet and connects to a standard television A/V port. Early
tests showed good picture quality and minimal lag times. Depending on set manual focus,
images were clear in mid to high light at ranges varying from 2 (a book) to 10 (large text on a
wall). Broadcast range was found to be around 40m in clear air to 10m through 2 walls without
signal loss, which fulfills performance requirements stated by competition. Interference was
present however while operating the 2.4 GHz camera along with the 2.4 GHz PS2 controller. As
well, the spy camera required a television set on the receivers end with extra power supply
which was found out would not be provided during the competition.

Another system was acquired from the company Trek which composed of 3 Ai-Ball Wi-Fi
cameras. These cameras, when set to operate off a router, had a stated range greater than
acquired RF system, as well as support for running multiple cameras in parallel. Cameras were
received during testing phase, and implementation showed initial promise. Ranges during ad-
hoc connections were poor, but connections made in infrastructure mode through a router
were of fair quality out to maximum competition range. Distinct amounts of video lag became
present at farther reaches of the range, as well as when battery life became low. Battery life
also provided longevity issues, as the batteries (approx. $4 each) only provided reliable video
for an hour of use. They were successfully set up on 3 positions of the car: top of the claw, on
the front right shoulder, and a chase view setup on a cardboard post on the battery pack.
Changes to port numbers and router settings allowed a modest increase in performance.

Integration
Integration of the arm with the drive base and control systems began around April 15, 2013.
Mechanically, integration was simple: redesigns allowed the baseplate of the arm to be
mounted directly onto the t-slot aluminum frame using standard hardware. First impressions of
the integrated system allowed calibration of arm range to ensure that the arm would not
damage itself or the drive base during operation. Accurate milling of the plate ensured a stable
fitment between the plate and the aluminum.
The addition of the servos which control arm movement into the pre-existing control system
presented some of the problems, discussed above.






Risk Analysis



The Risk analysis matrix was the foundation for many of the analyses done prior to the
purchasing of parts, and construction of the vehicle. Reducing risk and limiting uncertainty
reduced cost and highlighted risk parameters during the design process. As you can see in the
Risk Matrix, the highest risk factors were the control of the vehicle and the range of the camera
system. Early on in the design process, acceleration, dimensions, and center of gravity were
accounted for. The specs on any equipment were carefully selected according to the needs of
the vehicle. The project requirements table that included the self-imposed specifications was
created in accordance with the risk matrix. In the appendix are calculations for tipping analysis
and the results of a SolidWorks simulation that tested the axle deflection on the motors. The
tipping analysis, when first done, determined that there needed to be design iterations to the
claw. Once those iterations were made, the tipping analysis accurately predicted that no tipping
would occur. That alleviated the risk factor. For the SolidWorks analysis on axle deflection, the
worst-case scenario was tested, which would mean that all of the weight was on one axle while
the motor was running at full power. The Factor of Safety was 1.06. The final high risk elements
that needed to be tested during the testing process were the control and the range of vision for
the cameras. The risk on the range of the vision of the cameras could not be limited due to the
budget, and uncertainty from the company that the cameras were purchased from.

Consequence
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

Low ML MH High
High




MH

Control Range of Cameras
ML
Center of gravity
Run Time
Range of Vision Tipping/Stability
Low Acceleration
Drive Train Axle
Deflection
Shutoff Switch
Testing and Further Changes
The purpose of testing the vehicle was to give us a final means of assuring quality. Our prior
means were mostly theoretical including SolidWorks stress analyses and hand calculations. The
analyses done were a tipping analysis, power consumption calculations, a dynamic analysis of
the motor; an axle deflection simulation was done in SolidWorks, and a center of gravity
analysis, see appendix. The risk analysis and design calculations were so comprehensive that
there were few factors that needed testing. Some of the factors that we did need to test were
the handling, speed, functioning of competition tasks, and vision.
First, we wanted the person handling the controls on the day of competition to gain
comfortable ability with the controller. We also needed to make sure the car accurately
preformed along the same lines the previous simulations and hand calculations described.
According to the calculations prior to testing, the vehicle should have been able to traverse the
course and complete all tasks. The most pertinent testing parameter was the electrical set up
and reduction of program errors from the controller. The obstacles our vehicle would have to
avoid were unknown, so a random course set-up was created that would test for sharp turns
and random objects. The following is the image of the test course:

Cameras were tested for range and clarity. The camera system worked fine when only one
camera was on, but when all three cameras were on at the same time, there was interference
causing lag in the vision. The rated range of the cameras also seemed to be much shorter than
advertised, ranging from 6 to 8 meters, well under the advertised 20 meters.
The one thing we did know about the course was that our vehicle would not have to climb over any obstacle.

Prior to the competition, the vehicle was running with minimal error, the power system was
working as expected, and the claw was working well with no signs of tipping. We saw that the
claw could pick up an object of the size and mass that the competition required, the controller
programming worked, the motor axle deflection was not an issue, the speed of the vehicle and
the turning radius were adequate. Derek and Chris were able to fix the problems with the
errors in the controls, however.
Competition
Competition Date: Saturday April 27, 2013
Location: CSULB
Scheduled Time for Competition: 2:00 p.m.

Competition: Issues and Resolutions
The ASME Student Design Competition was held in Long Beach, California. Teams were required
to sign in and received further information and competition details upon doing so. Then, ASME
moderators moved all of those who were responsible for controlling the car, in our case Chris
Lee and Derek Hopper, to a designated area. Meanwhile, the rest of the team was directed
towards the obstacle course to set up and make any necessary adjustments to the car
affectionately nicknamed Geoffrey.

Prior to our run those who were available turned the car on and made an attempt to establish a
controller and camera connection. Unfortunately, this is where our first issue arose. The
distance between Geoffrey and the controller when in the park location was a bit out of range
to get a stable connection. The trouble subsided, however, when the car was picked up and
brought closer to our control headquarters. With all apparent problems placed behind us, we
proceeded to telling the judge that we were ready. This is when our next issue was noticed.
When we were given the go-ahead, we realized the motor controller was giving an error. This
time our team was not allowed to fix the problem since any physical contact with the vehicle
would result in an automatic disqualification. As a result, we were unable to complete an
official run.

If given the opportunity, one of the changes we would have made is having a check-list of all
the cars functions that we can quickly look over to make sure everything is running how its
supposed to. If we were accommodated with a few weeks more to prepare, we could have
potentially avoided such circumstances. Needless to say, it was a great experience overall and
being able to do a practice run on the obstacle course afterwards was a good learning
experience.
Budget and Funds
An initial amount of 500 dollars was available at the beginning of this project. As a result of
unforeseen expenditures, we were obligated to seek further monetary assistance through LMU.
A detailed report of all expenses including parts purchased and cost is found in the appendix.

After exhausting the 500 dollars that were allocated from the Descartes Scholarship, funding
was renewed with the help of an LMU Science and Engineering fund. With this financial
assistance, we were able to complete further costs. The total expense amount for this project
was a grand total of $889.00.






$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
1
Capital vs. Expenses
Descartes
Scholarship
LMU Fund
Expenses
Schedule
SCHEDULE
Project Tasks Date of Completion
Completed CAD model with arm 29-Jan
Machined base plate 1-Feb
Updated Project Requirements 31-Jan
Delta CDR 5-Feb
Rolling Chassis 4-Feb
Working controller system 19-Feb
Assimilation of arm and vehicle 1-Mar
Completed product ready for testing 2-Mar
Product Testing 03/01-03/15
Test Readiness Review 19-Mar
Competition Registration 15-Apr
Camera & Motor Modifications 23-Apr
Mock Runs 25-Apr
Competition 27-Apr
Final Design Review 7-May














Appendix
Risk Management

Factor of Safety using the actual weight on one axle (2.305 lbsm), 0.812 lbf in of torque, and
fixed at the point of contact with the motor

RISK ANALYSIS: SolidWorks simulation of motor axle under maximum stress
Factor of Safety under 2.305lbsm: 1.62
FACTOR OF SAFETY

Factor of Safety using the entire weight of the vehicle (9.22 lbsm), 0.812 lbsf in of torque, and
fixed at the point of contact with the motor
In order to assess risk in terms of the amount of deflection that will occur in the axle connecting
the tires to the motors, we tested one of the motor rods to determine the factor of safety under
maximum stress conditions. The material was unspecified from the manufacturer, but under
further examination it appeared to be steel. So we sent an e-mail to the manufacturer and they
confirmed that the material was stainless steel. After even further examination and hardness
testing, the material, for SolidWorks simulation purposes, was assumed to be AISI 304. The
weight of the car, arm, and object amounted to be 9.22 lbsm. Therefore, there will be 2.305
pounds of force per tire. The maximum torque of the motor is 0.812 lbf in. Analysis of the axle
deflection was done because this was the highest risk factor left to analyze before assembling
the vehicle. Axle deflection was the highest risk due to the uncertainty of the material. Most of
the rest of the analysis will be done via testing. The results of the SolidWorks analysis were as
follows. Under maximum stress and torque conditions on one axle the factor of safety is 1.62.
For safety purposes we also simulated the entire weight of the vehicle on one axle. The factor of
safety is 1.06 if the entire weight of the vehicle for some reason was on one axle, which is the
worst case scenario. We can conclude that the axles of the motor will be able to carry the
maximum load while maintaining the maximum torque of the motor. The vehicle should work at
supreme capabilities with negligible axle deflection given that the advertised power consumption
factors are accurate. The next step is assembling and testing the vehicle.

Factor of Safety under 9.22lbsm: 1.06
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Quality Assurance
Motor torque testing was done with a physical test in a simple string and mass setup.
A mass of 0.44lbm was attached to a rod of length 2in in order to assure the rated motor
torque of 0.88 lbf-in was true. The motor was able to successfully lift the mass verifying the
motor torque to be true. However was installed onto the vehicle itself motors were seen to
experience greater resistance while attempting to turn as two diagonal wheels would work
against each other in skid steer requiring that slip occur between he wheels and the ground.
New motors were decided upon that would increase the torque from 12 oz-in to 30 oz-in and
max rpm from 120 to 320, they require 1600mA at stall up from 360mA.

Physical testing was done on the frame to ensure tipping would not occur due to the crane. The
frame was balanced on its center with a piece of wood attached to represent the crane. The
battery was placed on the opposite side as a counter weight. Mass was slowly added to the
wood at the same location the center of gravity of the crane would act, until tipping was
observed. This test observed the maximum allowable weight of the crane.



Tipping Calculations
Arm + Claw length = 11 inches = 0.28 meters
Arm mass = 0.5 kg
Object mass = 0.12 kg
Mass of Car = 3.5 kg
Mass of Battery = 0.508 kg
FBD










m = (0.5 kg)/2 + 0.12 kg = 0.37 kg
Mo = (0.37kg)(9.8m/s
2
)(0.28m) + (3.5kg/2)(9.8m/s
2
)(0.08m) (3.5kg/2)(9.8m/s
2
)(0.12m) = 0.33N m
*Need 0.33 N m force provided by the battery to balance the chassis
Force provided by battery
(.508kg)(9.8m/s
2
)(.12m) = 0.60 N m
Tipping Requirement is satisfied!

m
y
x
MAX ACCELERATION
Acceleration of the vehicle was determined using motor specs [1] and a sum of the masses
found in the vehicle frame and its components.
Mass 2.93 lbm
Motor Torque 1.875 in-lbf
Wheel Diameter 2.756 in.
Table 1: Total mass does not include mass of the ASME Bs arm. Torque is relevant to one
motor only.
The force produced by one motor was given by:
F = T/D (1)
Where T is the torque produced by one motor and D is the distance from the axle to the point
of surface contact of the wheel (1.37795 inches).
Force/wheel= 1.875 in-lbf/1.37795 in.= 1.3607 lbf
After force calculations were completed, they were multiplied by four to accurately represent
the four motors in the system.
4*1.3607 lbf= 5.443 lbf
Acceleration was ultimately found by the classic physics equation:
F= m*a (2)
Where F is the lbf produced by the motors and m is the mass. Solving for a (acceleration)
yielded the following result:
a= 5.443 lbf/(2.93lbm/32.2 ft/s2)
Acceleration 59.81 ft/s2
Table 2: Acceleration due to the four motors is given.
Once converted to metric units acceleration was 18.2 m/s2, well above the self-imposed
minimum acceleration.
POWER CONSUMPTION
The runtime of the motor will be calculated by determining power consumption.
1600 mA= Stall current for selected motor
4(1600 mA) 4 motors= 6.4 Amps
* Battery rated for 5 Amp-hours.
5 Ah / 6.4 A = 46.8 minute run-time