Washington University in St.

Louis
Washington University Open Scholarship

Mechanical Engineering Design Project Class Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science

Fall 12-6-2019

Board Erasing Device

Mark Fernandez
Washington University in St. Louis

Christopher Sheffels
Washington University in St. Louis

Joshua Miller
Washington University in St. Louis

Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mems411

Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Fernandez, Mark; Sheffels, Christopher; and Miller, Joshua, "Board Erasing Device" (2019). Mechanical
Engineering Design Project Class. 126.
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mems411/126

This Final Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science at
Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mechanical Engineering Design
Project Class by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information,
please contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu.
FL19 MEMS 411 Mechanical Engineering Design Project Automatic

Whiteboard Eraser
The Board Erasing Device is a portable automatic device designed to streamline
a university lecturer’s board writing process by automatically erasing whiteboards
while they are writing notes on adjacent boards. Our goal during this project was
to design, build, and test a portable, automatic, and aesthetically pleasing device
compatible with most standard whiteboards on Washington University in St. Louis’
Danforth campus. To that end, with a budget of $400, we created a prototype
device to accomplish just that. Our prototype includes a felt eraser, pressed into
the whiteboard via magnets. The eraser piece spans all eight feet of width on a
standard white board, and a winch system which sits atop the whiteboard pulls the
eraser up along the height of the board. For portability, the eraser is split into three
segments, with hinges that allow it to fold into a more compact shape for transport
and clasps to keep the piece rigid while it is erasing. The winch system consists
of two spools attached to stepper motors, with a circuit box in between. Cables
run from the spools on the winch and attach to the eraser piece itself, allowing the
device to be pulled up the board at the press of a button.

FERNANDEZ, Mark
MILLER, Joshua
SHEFFELS, Christopher
Contents

List of Figures 2

List of Tables 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Problem Understanding 4
2.1 Existing Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Codes & Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 User Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Design Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6 Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Concept Generation 13
3.1 Mockup Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Functional Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Morphological Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Alternative Design Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Concept Selection 23
4.1 Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 Concept Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4 Engineering Models/Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5 Concept Embodiment 27
5.1 Initial Embodiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2 Proofs-of-Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

6 Working Prototypes 37
6.1 Initial Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Final Prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

7 Design Refinement 39
7.1 FEM Stress/Deflection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.2 Design for Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.3 Design for Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.4 Design for Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

8 Discussion 46
8.1 Project Development and Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8.2 Design Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.3 Team Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1
Bibliography 49

List of Figures
1 Auto Whiteboard Eraser(Source: Illinois Institute of Technology) . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 iBoardBot: the internet controlled whiteboard robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 Automatic Magnetic Whiteboard Eraser CAD Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 Patent Image for chalkboard erasing apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5 Patent Images for automatic blackboard eraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6 Gantt chart for design project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7 Mockup 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Mockup 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 Mockup 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10 Function tree for Board Erasing Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11 Morphological Chart for Whiteboard Eraser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12 Initial sketches of Whiteboard Sweeper concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13 Sketches of Whiteboard Sweeper concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14 Initial sketches of Gravity Wipe concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15 Final sketch of Gravity Wipe concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16 Preliminary Sketches for 2 Pass concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
17 Final Sketches for 2 Pass concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
18 Final Sketches for 2 Pass concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
19 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine scoring matrix weights . . . . . . . 23
20 Weighted Scoring Matrix (WSM) for choosing between alternative concepts . . . . . 24
21 Worked out model of the pressure applied to the board per unit depth [1] . . . . . . 25
22 Worked out model for center of gravity for the eraser and housing [1] . . . . . . . . 26
23 Worked out model for battery life [2] [3] [4] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
24 Force model for design rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
25 Assembled projected views with overall dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
26 Assembled isometric view with a bill of materials (BOM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
27 Exploded view with callout to the BOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
28 The first proof-of-concept mounting to the side of the whiteboard and using horizontal
powered motion to traverse the board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
29 The first proof-of-concept attempting to use springs to apply pressure to erase the
whiteboard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
30 The second proof-of-concept drawn vertically along the board by fishing line. . . . . 36
31 Initial prototype of the board erasing device mounted to a whiteboard . . . . . . . . 38
32 Final prototype of the board erasing device mounted to a whiteboard . . . . . . . . 39
33 Stress heat map from the FEA of the side eraser arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
34 Deflection heat map from the FEA of the side eraser arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
35 Risk Heat Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
36 Draft analysis of spool component before and after modifications for injection molding 44
37 DFMXpress analysis for drill and mill operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
38 DFMXpress analysis for injection molding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2
List of Tables
1 Interpreted Customer Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Target Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3
1 Introduction
The objective of this project is to design, build, and test a device that can automatically erase the
entirety of a whiteboard. This device should be portable, quick, and aesthetically pleasing for use
in lecture and classroom scenarios. This device will be compatible with most standard white boards
on Washington University’s Danforth campus. The plan is to erase one board while the lecturer
fills a second board. That way, the first board will be ready for use by the time the lecturer finishes
writing on the second board, and the lecturer can then transfer the eraser to the second board and
repeat the process. This device will aid the efficiency of lecturers and professors by reducing the
time they ordinarily spend erasing.

2 Problem Understanding
2.1 Existing Devices
2.1.1 Existing Device #1: Auto Whiteboard Eraser

Figure 1: Auto Whiteboard Eraser(Source: Illinois Institute of Technology)

Link: https://youtu.be/86IpsZpvZfQ
Description: The Auto Whiteboard Eraser appears permanently fixed to the whiteboard, and uti-
lizes some sort of automated motion to move a vertical eraser spanning the length of the board in
a single sweeping motion across the white board to clear it. This erasing motion is triggered via
pressing a button fixed to the side of the whiteboard. Visually, it seems that the device operates
via motors and some sort of chain drive or rack and pinion system to move the eraser along an
upper rail fixed to a piece of plywood on which the whiteboard is fixed. The device then operates
the motors in the opposite directions and sweeps back to the left side of the board to reset before
it can be run again.

4
2.1.2 Existing Device #2: iBoardBot

Figure 2: iBoardBot: the internet controlled whiteboard robot

Link: https://bit.ly/1QoHDfc
Description: The iBoardBot is a kickstarter funded device with an attached whiteboard which
both writes and erases said whiteboard based on wirelessly received commands. The device utilizes
stepper motors, pulleys, and aluminum bars to move a marker and eraser assembly along the 2d
axis of the whiteboard. To draw on the board, the user opens an application on their phone which
allows them to draw in 2d space on a virtual representation of the physical whiteboard. Using this
data, the app pinpoints where to write on the board, causing the stepper motors the move the
marker and eraser assembly to the necessary location, and then put the marker in contact with the
board to write. A similar function can be triggered by erasing within the application.

2.1.3 Existing Device #3: Automatic Magnetic Whiteboard Eraser

Figure 3: Automatic Magnetic Whiteboard Eraser CAD Drawing

5
Link: https://www.instructables.com/id/Automatic-Magnetic-Whiteboard-Eraser/
Description: The Automatic Magnetic Whiteboard Eraser is a device which is placed on a standard
whiteboard and attached magnetically. Once attached, the device will use an infrared sensor and
Arduino processor as well as servo motors and an accelerometer, which are paired with wheels to
drive the device along the board, erasing as it goes. The infrared sensor will pick up if there is
something written in front of the device and inform the Arduino, which will tell the device to drive
over that spot in order to erase it. The device is powered by a 9v battery and runs autonomously
after being placed on the board and turned on.
2.2 Patents
2.2.1 Automatic chalkboard erasing apparatus
(US3731335A)
This apparatus has a body which spans the board vertically, with bearings running along the top
and the bottom. A notable feature is its plurality of individual circular eraser pads mounted in the
body. These pads are driven by a belt which winds back and forth among the pulleys, rotating the
erasers in alternating directions. The motor is located at the bottom of the body and drives the
rotation of the erasers and traversing of the board. [chalkboard˙erasing˙apparatus]

Figure 4: Patent Image for chalkboard erasing apparatus

6
2.2.2 Automatic Blackboard Eraser
(US3858265A)
This automatic blackboard eraser uses an elongated carriage mounted on the blackboard, extend-
ing its full height, made for longitudinal movement. Inside the carriage, there is a brush to erase the
surface of the board, driven by the motor which concurrently drives the movement of the carriage
across the board via an interconnected drive assembly. [automatic˙blackboard˙eraser]

Figure 5: Patent Images for automatic blackboard eraser

2.3 Codes & Standards

2.3.1 Sharp Edge Test
(16 CFR 1500.49)
This safety standard dictates the technical requirements for determining the puncture risk of a
sharp edge in a toy or other product intended for children under age 8. While for our project
the users will all either be lecturers or at least college age students, the techniques for deter-
mining the danger that a sharp edge poses remains relevant even for older age groups. In order
to have a solid and readily desirable product, it behooves us to ensure it is unlikely to lacerate
anyone.[sharp˙edge˙test]

7
2.3.2 Industrial Robots and Industrial Robot Systems - Safety Requirements
(ANSI-RIA R15.06)
The key provisions of the standard include conducting a risk assessment of the device operation
which considers the severity of injury, exposure to hazard, avoidance of hazard, and resulting risk
level. The functional safety requirements are correlated with the risk levels. Functional safety
requires an understanding of the components and proper integration. The risk assessments that we
will conduct shall inform how we approach making our device safe and ensuring that it can operate
without incidental harm.[robot˙safety˙standard].
2.4 User Needs
The needs of the customer are the foundation of the design process, a device that does not meet
the user’s needs is not useful. As such, the needs of the customer are ascertained in an interview and
assigned relative importance on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest perceived importance.
Finally, several design metrics are established to quantify the success of the device in meeting the
established needs.

2.4.1 Customer Interview

Interviewee: Chiamaka Asinugo
Location: Jolley 110, Washington University in St. Louis, Danforth Campus
Date: September 6th , 2019
Setting: We met with the customer for ∼40 minutes in front of the whiteboards in Jolley 110 to dis-
cuss the current problems with erasing whiteboards and various qualities of a board erasing device
(BED) that would improve the experience of lecturing with whiteboards. Much of the interview
focused on how whiteboards are currently used, and how to best facilitate lecturing by automating
the time normally spent erasing boards.

Interview Notes:
What is currently the number one trouble or annoyance when it comes to erasing whiteboards?
– It takes time away from class and is inefficient. I have to stop and erase a board before I can
proceed.

How portable does the BED need to be?

– It should be portable enough that I don’t have to worry about carrying too much in my hands.

So it would be ideal if it could be carried in some kind of bag?

– If it fits in a bag that would be great.

When it erases, is there any reason it should avoid erasing everything? For example: to save a
diagram so it does not have to be redrawn.
– I hadn’t thought about that. I feel like if there were something I didn’t want to erase I would
use a projector.
Do you imagine using this for both whiteboards and blackboards?
– Yes, they seem similar enough that one device should be able to erase either type of
board.

8
Seeing as the boards around campus are sized differently, is there any particular size that the
BED should work on?
– Ideally it would be adaptable to any size, but if that’s not possible then a standard size
would be acceptable.

What degree of upkeep would be acceptable to you to maintain the BED, both smaller items
like changing an eraser, and on a larger scale like the lifetime of the BED?
– I’d like it to be very easy to remove and replace parts as needed. It should be able to
handle being jostled inside a bag. As for the overall lifetime, I’d expect it to last longer
than a semester, but I could imagine buying it every year.

How many times do you think you would use the BED in a given day?
– As an upper limit, it could be used as much as 20 times a day, 4 times per lecture.

Would having the BED be powered from a wall outlet be acceptable?

– I don’t think it would be helpful for it to plug into a wall because it might limit how
much I use it.

Is there any particular way you would want it to erase? Perhaps in a way that would let you
start to write on the board before it is done erasing.
– I imagine it as erasing while I write on another board or wait for it to be done. Writing
while erasing is not necessary. Efficiency is number one, but if you can find a fun way
do do it, that would be a plus.

What method of control would work better for you, a manual toggle to start and stop, or simply
pressing a button and having it automatically run?
– Having it run to completion with only one button to start it is the better option, and in
addition it does not have to be remote controlled.

What is the maximum allowable time for the BED to erase a board?
– The most time it should take to erase a board completely is 5 minutes.

As the intention is to use this during lecture, how concerned are you with the noise the BED
makes?
– It should definitely be quiet, and if not then be easy to ignore, like the sound of a fan.

What would an acceptable set up time look like for you?

– I’d like to be able to mount it to a board, not affix it. I plan on mounting it to the first
board, write on the board, then have it erase while I work on the second board. When
the second board is full I’d like to be able to switch the board it is mounted on and have
it erase the second board as I switch back to the first board.

Do you have any aesthetic preference between plastic or metal?

– No, whatever makes it functional. That said, it would be nice if it looked cool.

Do you foresee the BED needing to be weatherproof ?

– No, I would treat it like an electronic device and not leave it exposed.

9
 Is it acceptable to alter the boards in any way to mount the BED?
– Maybe, it would depend on the extent and cost of the alteration.

Are there any boards on campus where the height could pose a problem for potentially reaching
a mounting point?
– If the BED is mounted at the top of a board there could be some boards that are too
tall for me to reach.

Are there any other features or characteristics that you would want a BED to have that has
not already been addressed?
– Not really, although perhaps it would be nice if it could hold some markers for easy
access.

Are there any products that come to mind that you think do a good job of completing a similar
task?
– The only device that comes to mind is a set of windshield wipers.

2.4.2 Interpreted User Needs

The interpretation of user needs is based off of several factors. The most prominent of the factors
is the phrasing, tone, and frequency of occurrence.

Table 1: Interpreted Customer Needs

Need Number Need Importance

1 The BED is portable 5
2 The BED quickly erases the entire board 5
3 The BED’s power source is self contained 4
4 The BED continues to function after one year of use 2
5 The BED withstands jostling during transportation 3
6 The BED is safely secured to a board while in use 5
7 The BED has storage space for markers or other materials 1
8 The BED’s replaceable parts are easily accessible 3
9 The BED is aesthetically pleasing in form and motion 1
10 The BED can be easily removed and mounted 5
11 The BED is quiet while operating 3
12 The BED works on a variety of boards 4
13 The BED functions autonomously once started 5

2.5 Design Metrics

The target specifications in Table 2 gives an overview of the design metrics being taken into
account.

10
 Table 2: Target Specifications

Metric Associated
Metric Units Acceptable Ideal
Number Needs

1 1 Total weight lb < 14 <7

2 2,12 Range of horizontal motion ft >5 >7
3 2,12 Range of vertical motion ft >3 >4
4 2,10,13 Time to change boards and erase min <5 <2
5 4 Number of cycles before failure integer > 3500 > 10, 000
6 5 Functions after 5 minutes of violent P/F Pass Pass
shaking by hand
7 6 Force applied directly away from the lbf >2 >5
board on the BED without removing it
8 8 Time to replace an eraser s < 120 < 30
9 11 Noise level while running dB < 60 < 40

2.6 Project Management

The Gantt chart in Figure 6 gives an overview of the project schedule.

11
 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4

Design Report

Problem Understanding

Concept Generation

Concept Selection

Concept Embodiment

Design Refinement

Peer Report Grading

Prototypes

Mockup

Proofs of Concept

Initial Prototype

Initial Prototype Demo

Final Prototype

Final Prototype Demo

Prototype Expo

Presentations

Critical Design Review

Final Presentation

Figure 6: Gantt chart for design project

12
3 Concept Generation
3.1 Mockup Prototype
Description of Mockup’s Influences on Device Thoughts:
Through the process of making a mockup, we had several discoveries which influenced how we are
approaching our device. Taping 4 small magnets to the sides of the eraser were enough to keep it
from falling off the board, but not provide sufficient force to fully erase test scribbles when pushing
it only from the side. The addition of spring force made the pressure applied sufficient to fully
erase the test scribbles. When we first tried out the springs we found that the springs bent as we
dragged the eraser along the board, so we added a section of foam to the side for further support.
The pressure applied to the board dropped off when the eraser unit was not vertical. In a similar
vein, the eraser unit was very unstable, and the string was not attached close enough to the center
of gravity of the unit for it to proceed straight across unless the string was kept taut. The strict
attention to keeping the various mechanisms level or perpendicular to planes is carrying over into
how we generate concepts for the device.

Figure 7: Mockup 1

13
Figure 8: Mockup 1

Figure 9: Mockup 1

14
 3.2 Functional Decomposition
Figure 1 shows our function tree, generated by the application of functional decomposition. We
delved into the basic functions of our device from the larger objective of fully erasing a whiteboard
once it is switched on. The goal of a function tree is to be specific enough to describe functions
that can be performed by a single component, but general enough that there are several possible
mechanisms that could fulfill that function. The possible mechanisms for performing these smaller
functions will be outlined in the morphological chart.

Figure 10: Function tree for Board Erasing Device

15
 3.3 Morphological Chart
The purpose of the morphological chart is to generate several ways to preform a specific function
of the device. These concepts are mostly interchangeable within each function, and compatible
when combined to serve every function. Several concepts for the whole device are made from the
morphological chart by combining different solutions to the same set of functions, several concepts
for the whole device can be made from the one chart. These concepts may share some solutions
to the functions, but are made distinct concepts based on where the solutions differ and on the
implementation of each solution.

Figure 11: Morphological Chart for Whiteboard Eraser

16
 3.4 Alternative Design Concepts
3.4.1 Whiteboard Sweeper

Figure 12: Initial sketches of Whiteboard Sweeper concept

17
 Figure 13: Sketches of Whiteboard Sweeper concept

Solutions from morph chart:

1. Anchor to Sides

2. Circuit Control

3. 1 Pass

4. Weight force

5. Rechargable Battery

6. Magnetic Mounts

7. Limit Switch

Description: When the button is pressed, spools coupled to DC motors on the far side of the board
activate, pulling the wiper across the board. These spool-motor contraptions are secured to an
L-bracket attached to a powerful magnet mounting the assembly to the side of the board. To keep
pressure on the board, strategically placed large batteries help both weigh down the wiper and keep
it in contact with the board, as well as power the DC motors. When the wiper reaches the end
of the board, it will trip a limit switch, stopping the wiper and prepping the device to return the
other direction when affixed to a new board.

18
3.4.2 Gravity Wipe

Figure 14: Initial sketches of Gravity Wipe concept

19
 Figure 15: Final sketch of Gravity Wipe concept

Solutions from morph chart:

1. Device hangs above the board

2. Physical release

3. Single erasing pass

4. Spring force

5. Driven by gravitational potential

6. Lifts off of brackets

7. Accelerometer

Description: When the latch is released, the erasing beam descends due to gravity acting on its own
weight. This fall is moderated by the counterweight being lifted, and friction between the board
and erasers. The erasers are actively pressed up against the board by torsion springs. When the
beam reaches the length of the cable, and also the bottom of the board, the accelerometer on the
pulley system senses there is no more rotation, and signals the motor to wind the pulley back up.

20
3.4.3 2 Pass Eraser

Figure 16: Preliminary Sketches for 2 Pass concept

Figure 17: Final Sketches for 2 Pass concept

21
 Figure 18: Final Sketches for 2 Pass concept

Solutions from morph chart:

1. Anchor to Sides
2. Programmable
3. XY Passes
4. Magnetic Force
5. Rechargeable Battery
6. Suction Cups
7. Proximity Sensor
Description: The 2-Pass design concept will erase the board in two passes, first the top half, then
the bottom half. The eraser unit will span half the height of the board, and the erasers will have
magnetic backing in order to apply sufficient pressure to the board for full erasure. The left and
right sides of the board will each have a slotted wall unit, a motor, and a spooling pulley. The
spooling pulley slots into the slotted wall unit, and interfaces with the motor through a gear on its
top side farther from the board. Each motor will have rechargeable batteries and a switch, as well as
a programmable control unit. The programmable control unit will connect with the lowering lever
that allows each motor and pulley assembly to slide down through the slot, friction-tight enough to
be a slow fall, preparing the device for its second pass. The slotted wall units will be attached to
the wall via suction cups. The control device will also get input from the proximity sensor mounted
on the erasing assembly.

22
4 Concept Selection
4.1 Selection Criteria
The analytic hierarchy process is used to establish relative importance of each design criteria
from comparisons of each pairing of criteria. Figure 19 contains the relative importance by pair
of criteria, and the weighted importance for each criteria balanced to a sum of 100%. The weight
assigned to each criteria is used to evaluate each concept while taking into consideration that some
aspects of the design are more important.

Figure 19: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine scoring matrix weights

4.2 Concept Evaluation

The three original concepts are evaluated by a score of 1 to 5 based on how well they are an-
ticipated to fulfil a given criteria. The ratings are then weighted based on the analytic hierarchy
process, and the scores are summed to give a single quantitative score for the concepts. The concept
with the highest score is used as the basis for further development.

23
 Figure 20: Weighted Scoring Matrix (WSM) for choosing between alternative concepts

4.3 Evaluation Results

The Gravity Wipe is evaluated to be the best concept of the three, although the Sweeper is a
close second. Despite not scoring as well in portability, the Gravity Wipe makes up by scoring
better for remounting and for several less important criteria like volume and speed. By virtue of
being mounted from above the board, the Gravity Wipe is anticipated to be easier for one person
to remove and remount compared to the side mounts of the other two concepts. The Gravity Wipe
is rated best for volume, as it is least dependent on motors, which are the primary noise concern.
Both the Sweep and Gravity Wipe are designed to operate in one pass, which significantly reduces
the operating time. The Gravity Wipe is rated slightly higher than the Sweep as its motion is
aligned with gravity, and it’s anticipated to move more smoothly downward than if the eraser is
dragged sideways.
The fact that the top two concepts are so close indicates that a hybrid between the two could be
even more successful, and that some of the solutions used by the Sweeper may be incorporated as
the design is refined through prototyping. The 2-Pass is evaluated to be the easiest to manufacture,
but based on the total score it sacrifices too much functionality by comparison to the other concepts.

24
 4.4 Engineering Models/Relationships
4.4.1 Model 1: Applied Pressure

Figure 21: Worked out model of the pressure applied to the board per unit depth [1]

This model for the pressure applied to the board could be helpful in dialing in several aspects of
the design without having to iterate over several specifications to see if the combination of variables
will be effective at erasing. As an example, this model can be used to gauge if the magnetic force
between the device and the board is sufficient, or if the given magnet strength will require that the
device be mounted at an angle to press firmly enough into the board to erase. There are many
assumptions to this model to make it reasonable to evaluate, but it does exclude cases such as
non-zero acceleration, or any driving force besides gravity.

25
4.4.2 Model 2: Center of Gravity

of Gravity.jpg

Figure 22: Worked out model for center of gravity for the eraser and housing [1]

This model for the center of gravity of the board will be helpful in determining the strength of
fixation required to avoid a moment on our eraser piece. This model can be used to gauge where
to apply fixation points for the whiteboard so as to avoid creating a rotating moment which would
bring the eraser out of contact with the plane of the board and worsen its erasing capability.

26
4.4.3 Model 3: Battery Life

Figure 23: Worked out model for battery life [2] [3] [4]

This model is for the required battery life of the batteries which will drive the motor which resets
the eraser. This model will help our group select appropriate capacity rechargeable batteries for
the device and an appropriate quantity of such batteries. Thus, we can ensure that the chosen
batteries provide enough cycles to meet the user’s needs. With the assumptions made above, in
Figure 23, that would be 3 9V rechargeable batteries, but with more knowledge of our device’s
amperage drawn, those details will change.

5 Concept Embodiment

27
 5.1 Initial Embodiment
5.1.1 Design Rationale

Figure 24: Force model for design rationale

1. Magnets: The rationale behind including magnets was that, due to the back of the board
being magnetic, we could attach the eraser to the board via magnetic attraction. The magnets
thus hold the eraser in contact with the board, ensuring good erasing as the eraser moves along the
board. The magnets also allow the board to slide in the X-Y directions of the plane of the board,
as they provide a stronger attractive force at their face which is directed into the board, without
strongly opposing and other normal forces with any force beyond friction. This attraction is from
the Lorentz force, Fb whose equation is shown below:

Fb = qE + qv × B (1)
Where q is the charge, E is the electric field strength, v is the velocity of the eraser, and B is the
magnetic field vector

2. The Wooden Board: The board makes up the bulk of the eraser piece. In addition to
providing weight to help drag the magnets down the board, the board houses the magnets, as well as
providing all fixation points for the guide-wires, additional weights, and felt. The primary rationale
behind the board being wooden was both about convenience of obtaining wood and the ease of
working with the material. Its shape and size also allowed for numerous magnet configurations.
The weight of this component is modeled by the force of gravity, Fg in the equation below:

Fg = mg (2)

28
where m is the mass, and g is the gravitational acceleration.

3. Felt: Felt makes up the erasing part of our eraser. In addition to the cloth being easy to
move, its rough surface helps to effectively scrub the surface and remove dry erase marks. Felt is also
cheap, easily interchangeable, and doesn’t pick up dirt as quickly as many materials. Furthermore,
its multitude of available colors allowed us to choose colors which would not become visibly dirty
after numerous runs of erasing, as that would be aesthetically damaging to the device. The force
governing the friction between the felt and the board is Ff , shown below:

Ff = µFn (3)

Where µ is the coefficient of friction, and Fn is the force normal to the board.

29
 5.1.2
2 1
4.000
4.200

B
CAD Embodiment

24.020

28.000
30
18.923

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: NAME DATE

Group Q
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DRAWN
TOLERANCES: A
FRACTIONAL CHECKED TITLE:
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
ENG APPR.
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL MFG APPR.
Board Erasing Device
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC Q.A.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TOLERANCING PER:
COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MATERIAL
DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SIZE DWG. NO. REV
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY
REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE FINISH
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF NEXT ASSY USED ON A ASSEMBLY
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS
PROHIBITED. APPLICATION DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SCALE: 1:10 SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1
ITEM
NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY.

1 Wooden Board Drilled with holes for 1

magnets
Erasing material
2 Felt stapled to wooden 1
board
Permanent disk
B 3 Magnet magnets 43 B
Sheet metal bent to
4 Weight Holder Bracket fit weight pkgs 1

5 Top Connection Rod Rod connecting 1

pulleys

6 Top Bracket Sheet metal bent to 2

fit over whiteboard
7 3099T34 Pulley 2
8 9496T19 Eyebolt 4
9 Weight Package 57g of Weight 4

31
Connecting top rod
10 Rope to wooden board 1

11 90315A501 18-8 Stainless Steel 12

Oval-head Screw

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: NAME DATE

Group Q
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DRAWN
A TOLERANCES: A
FRACTIONAL CHECKED TITLE:
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
ENG APPR.

Figure 26: Assembled isometric view with a bill of materials (BOM)

TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL MFG APPR.
Board Erasing Device
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC Q.A.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TOLERANCING PER:
COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MATERIAL
DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SIZE DWG. NO. REV
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY
REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE FINISH
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF NEXT ASSY USED ON A ASSEMBLY2
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS
PROHIBITED. APPLICATION DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SCALE:1:6.5 SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
 2 1

9
11

11
B 4 7 B

8 6

1 5

3 10

32
11

Figure 27: Exploded view with callout to the BOM

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: NAME DATE
Group Q
DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES DRAWN
A TOLERANCES: A
FRACTIONAL CHECKED TITLE:
ANGULAR: MACH BEND
ENG APPR.
TWO PLACE DECIMAL
THREE PLACE DECIMAL MFG APPR.
Board Erasing Device
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC Q.A.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL TOLERANCING PER:
COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MATERIAL
DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SIZE DWG. NO. REV
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE>. ANY
REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE FINISH
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF NEXT ASSY USED ON A EXPLODED
<INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE> IS
PROHIBITED. APPLICATION DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SCALE: 1:20 SHEET 1 OF 1

2 1
5.1.3 Parts List

Cost
Part Quantity Source
[USD]
.625” plywood 28”x4” Jolley 110 $0.00
Black felt 32”x6” Joann’s Fabrics $9.00/yard
Magnets 43 X-Bet Magnets $16.00/100
Steel sheet metal 50 in2 Jolley 110 $0.00
Particle board .5”x.5”x23” Jolley 110 $0.00
Pulley 2 Jolley 110 $0.00
Eyebolt 4 Jolley 110 $0.00
Weight (socket) 3 Jolley 110 $0.00
Rope 10’ Jolley 110 $0.00
Screws 12 Jolley 110 $0.00

5.1.4 Prototype Performance Goals

1. Board erasing device (BED) erases a 4’x8’ board in less then 5 minutes.
2. Before and after images of a marked and erased board will have an area difference of less
than 20% as analyzed with the paint.net magic want with a tolerance of 80%.
3. Time to mount and dismount the BED is less than 1 minute.
5.2 Proofs-of-Concept
Many aspects of the initial prototype were explored in the proofs-of-concept prototypes and
refined in the concept generation and construction processes. The first proof-of-concept, depicted
in Fig. 28 and Fig. 29, did not end up contributing much to the initial prototype so much as
dissuade the development of a horizontally traversing eraser, and highlighting the impracticality of
supplying pressure to the eraser with springs. Figure 30 shows the second proof of concept, which
heavily influenced the design of the initial prototype, primarily in the idea to anchor to the top of
the whiteboard, and slide vertically using string or cables. The second proof-of-concept also has
an influence in how the initial prototype is designed to be calibrated with additional weight, even
though the proof-of-concept sought to use weight to apply pressure and the initial prototype ended
up using weight to control the decent down the board.

33
Figure 28: The first proof-of-concept mounting to the side of the whiteboard and using horizontal powered motion
to traverse the board.

34
Figure 29: The first proof-of-concept attempting to use springs to apply pressure to erase the whiteboard.

35
 36
Figure 30: The second proof-of-concept drawn vertically along the board by fishing line.
 There were also many design changes between the selected concept and the initial prototype. The
biggest change was the reduction in size of the eraser, which is reduced to one fourth of the total
width and consequently excludes the folding component. This change was made in an effort to make
the initial prototype more focused on the method of moving the eraser across the board and making
an eraser capable of erasing without a person to apply pressure. One motivation for this focus
was the idea that the eraser design using magnets as a source of pressure would be extensible and
so a smaller eraser could demonstrate the design efficacy without spending as much of the budget
on magnets. This arrives at another difference between the concept and the prototype, the force
against the board is generated by magnets instead of springs, which was informed by the the first
proof-of-concept and shown to be less practical than originally conceived. The remaining difference
is the intention to retract the eraser back to the starting position with a motor and detect when
the eraser reached the end with an accelerometer. This portion of the design was left out during
the construction process after it was clear that the rest of the design needed further refinement and
the inclusion of the powered reset would require sacrificing some of the basic functionality of the
prototype to have enough time to fully implement it. That said, the counterweight used to control
the decent and make it easier to reset was included. Going forward, many of these changes will be
reversed, but were useful simplifications to make the initial prototype more informative to the key
aspects of the final product.

6 Working Prototypes
6.1 Initial Prototype
The initial prototype was composed of an eraser unit, a top bracket, and connecting cables with
a counterweight. The eraser unit was made of a 4” x 28” segment of 5/8” plywood with drilled out
pockets for magnets and wrapped in felt. The top bracket was a .5” x .5” x 24” piece of wood with
a metal c-brackets at each of the two ends, with a pulley attached to each c-bracket. This top unit
was mounted by angling the two prongs behind the wall and the top of the whiteboard. The eraser
unit was placed initially at the top of the board, and the counterweight connected to the cables
working with gravity dragged the eraser down across the full height of the board. Since it did not
span the entire width of the board, we tested its ability to erase the full width by manually moving
it across the board. The figure below shows this initial prototype mounted on the board.

37
 Figure 31: Initial prototype of the board erasing device mounted to a whiteboard

At the initial prototype demonstration, we met our goal of mounting the device in under a minute,
accomplishing the task in around 30 seconds. We also met our goal of erasing 80% of the markings
on the board, by erasing a whopping 95% of the markings. Unfortunately, our third goal, to erase
the board in under 5 minutes, was not reached, as the eraser took a full 55 minutes to complete the
erasure of the board. This was due to the eraser being too light compared to the strong friction
created by our magnets, causing the eraser to merely inch down the board.
6.2 Final Prototype
The final prototype consists of two main parts, the eraser and the whiteboard mount, connected
by steel cables. The eraser section is comprised primarily of three three-foot lengths aluminum U-
channel. Holes are drilled in the middle segment of the U-shaped profile to fit an array of magnets,
which is supported on the interior of the U-channel by ribbed polycarbonate sheet, and secured
with epoxy resin. All three lengths have holes drilled in the arms of the U-shaped profile to affix
the felt to the U-channel with bolts such that it would be between the magnets and the whiteboard.
The felt has grommets put in it so that it is able to have bolts run through it without pulling the
felt structure apart. The three segments o the eraser are attached in series by hinges, and can be
latched together while the eraser is in use for extra rigidity. The middle segment has two holes
drilled in the top face of the U-channel for the steel cable to be run through and secured from the
other side.
The whiteboard mount is based on aluminium L-channel to which other components are affixed.
The whiteboard mount is symmetrical, with sheet metal brackets on the ends to grab onto the top
edge of the whiteboard, stepper motors and spools to wind up the steel cable and a 3D-printed
electronics box to house the electrical components required to operate the stepper motors. The
figure below shows the final prototype spanning a whiteboard with the eraser component on the
bottom and the whiteboard mount clipped onto the top.

38
 Figure 32: Final prototype of the board erasing device mounted to a whiteboard

The motors of the final prototype were unfortunately dysfunctional at the time of demonstration,
and so the performance of the final prototype was based on what could be accomplished with
human-powered movement. The broad erasing device managed to erase 88.5% of the markings on
the board, clearing the goal of erasing 80% of the markings on the board, but the automated run
time could not be measured and compared to the goal of five minutes due to the motor failure.
Even without the motors working, the device could still be taken off and replaced on the board
within one minute, clearing the third performance goal. In addition to the quantitative goals the
device is evaluated for, there were other considerations that factored into the design, namely that
the device be portable. This was demonstrated on several occasions when the device was carried
by one person between Jolley 110 and the first floor of Jubel Hall.

7 Design Refinement
7.1 FEM Stress/Deflection Analysis
The refined design for the side eraser arm is used for FEM stress and deflection analysis because
it is the least supported section of the eraser, and while it is not expected to yield due to stress,
the contact the eraser can make with the board is known to be affected by deflections in the
bar like warps and bends. Due to the size of the part, a very fine mesh is not very practical,
so a semi-fine mesh is used to adequately capture the stress and deflection behavior around the
holes, without consuming too much processing power. For this analysis, the side eraser arm is
treated like a cantilever beam, fixed rigidly to the center segment of the eraser. While this is not
a perfect representation as the center is also subject to motion and deflection, it is a reasonable

39
approximation for this analysis. The side eraser arm is subject to loading under its own weight and
the force required to move the magnets across the board at speed. This analysis is for a plausible
worst case scenario, where the eraser is being moved at speed in the same direction as gravity with
only the reaction forces at the interface with the center segment to counteract those forces. This
loading configuration is not what is expected for normal use of the eraser, but in passing a more
extreme case, it’s reasonable to assume that the normal use case is also acceptable.

Figure 33: Stress heat map from the FEA of the side eraser arm

Figure 34: Deflection heat map from the FEA of the side eraser arm

The Von Mises yield criteria relates the yield strength of a material, 6061-T6 aluminium in this
case, to its maximum equivalent stress, which is 4.001 MPa from the FEA analysis. 6061-T6 has
a yield stress of 240 Mpa, so the factor of safety for this part is around 60. This is more than
acceptable and does not spur any required design changes.
The deflection of the erasing face could cause the eraser to miss some parts of the board, es-
pecially towards the extreme ends where the magnitude of deflection and twist are the greatest.
From the FEA analysis, the side eraser arm deflects by about .2 mm, or .008 in. From previous
experimentation, it’s known that the design can tolerated deflections of at least .05 in in some areas
before the eraser does not erase completely. Comparing the two, the deflection due to loading alone
would not be able to cause a significant problem.

40
 7.2 Design for Safety
The primary aspect of design for Safety (DFS) is evaluating the risks associated with your device,
as well as the severity of those risks and their probability of occurring. To that end, we have listed
five different potential risks for our Whiteboard Erasing Device, and evaluated the severity of each
risk as well as its probability of occurring.

7.2.1 Risk #1: Falling Objects

Description: The Board Erasing device could be dropped during setup, or fall off of the white-
board it is attached to.
Severity: Marginal. While this is possible, the scenarios in which the device falls will likely not
lead to anything more than minor injury.
Probability: Occasional. The device may be dropped once or twice by the user, but as long as
they stick to best practices, there are very few scenarios in which the device should fall and hit
them, especially since the cables should catch the device if the top mount is attached.
Mitigating Steps: This risk can be mitigated by employing the strong magnets on the device to
attach the board erasing device to the whiteboard during setup. Additional steps taken to mitigate
this risk is the existence of cables which will prevent the device from falling in the first place.

7.2.2 Risk #2: Sparks and Electrical Malfunctions

Description: Electrical components could spark due to use of jumper cables and non-soldered
pieces. The device is also not at all waterproof, and thus if the electrical box comes into contact
with water, the circuit will likely short out and cease to function.
Severity: Marginal. While sparks would pose a minor fire risk, it is far more likely that the circuit
simply malfunctions and ceases to work, than it causing a spark.
Probability:Likely. The non-soldered nature of our circuit board means it is decently likely that
some wires will fall out with significant jostling.
Mitigating Steps: We will use an electronics holder box to try to keep things in place. We can
also seal this box to make the device less susceptible to the elements. The circuitry would also be
permanently soldered together.

7.2.3 Risk #3: Pinch Points

Description:Hinges and locking mechanisms between the device’s arms provide the opportunity
for fingers or other appendages to be caught and pinched during setup or removal.
Severity: Negligible. If the device pinches, it will no pinch hard enough to cause reasonable injury,
nor is it particularly easy to put a finger in the hinge as to set it up your hands are likely far away
from the hinged areas.
Probability: Occasional. While it is certainly possible to catch a finger in the hinges, in normal
use it will not occur often, especially if the device is unfolded on the whiteboard itself.
Mitigating Steps:We can round or soften the corners at the hinge locations mitigate damage po-
tential, we can use a layer of felt as a soft buffer to keep fingers out of the gap, and we can instruct
users to only unfold the device while it is attached to the board.

41
7.2.4 Risk #4: Swinging Arms
Description: During setup, the device arms could swing our and hit someone if they are extended
while not in contact with the board.
Severity: Marginal. The device is mean to be unfolded on the board, so this would be a misuse
by the user and actually a less efficient way to set up the device. Additionally, even if the arms do
swing out, their lightweight aluminum construction is unlikely to do major harm to the user and
those around them.
Probability: Likely. Because the arms do not lock into each other when folded closed, there is a
decent chance of this happening at some point, but proper use can avoid this. Additionally, the
easiest way to carry the device is with it under the user’s arm, so the carrying method that may
lead to an arm swinging out is still not ordinary.
Mitigating Steps: We will instruct the user to only unfold the device on the board. We can also
include a locking mechanism for when the device is closed to avoid swinging of the arms.

7.2.5 Risk #5: Damage to nearby electronics

Description: The magnets in our device produce a strong magnetic field at close proximity to the
device surface. As such, if the device comes into direct contact with an electronic storage device
such as a hard drive, the memory on that device may be corrupted.
Severity: Marginal. While this interaction with electronics could certainly be inconvenient, it is
nothing more. No physical harm will come to the user, only harm to a device put in direct contact
with the board erasing device.
Probability: Seldom. The board erasing device’s size makes it unlikely to be carried in the same
luggage as portable electronic devices. Furthermore, even if our device is in the same container as
electronic devices, only direct contact with the magnetic face of the device will cause damage to
electronics.
Mitigating Steps: Keeping the device away from electronics and those with pacemakers. Addi-
tionally, we can construct a carrying case to ensure it is not in contact with personal electronics

42
 Figure 35: Risk Heat Map

According to the heat map seen in Figure 35 above, the risk that should be prioritized most is
a tie between Sparks/Electrical malfunctions and Swinging arms. As these are the most likely to
occur and tied for the most damaging among all the risks, they should be addressed first. Of the
two, the electrical malfunctions issue should be given a slightly higher priority, as it is easier to fix
and there is a clear path to mitigating that risk, whereas the issue of swinging arms would require
an entire redesign to eliminate completely. Next highest in priority is addressing the risk of the
object falling, followed by risk to electronics and pinch points.This order makes sense as it addresses
the more damaging issues associated with the device at the highest priority.
7.3 Design for Manufacturing
The first aspect of design for manufacturing (DFM) considered here is the draft on the sides
of a component that could be altered to make it easier to manufacture with injection molding.
This is done with the draft analysis feature of SolidWorks. This analysis is done on a relatively
simple component that could be viable for mass manufacturing. Another component of DFM in
consideration for this project uses the SolidWorks DFMXpress tool to apply a set of rules a part
would follow to be easily manufactured with a given process, and identifies features that would
make the manufacturing process difficult.
The draft analysis is used on one half of a spool that is threaded onto a metal tube with another
half to form the complete spool. This analysis tool highlights features that are parallel to the
demolding direction, and as such could form a tight seal when removing the part from the mold.
Modifications are then made where possible to draft the features such that they would form a gap

43
between the part and the mold as the part is removed, instead of creating a suction seal. This
part was modified to include a draft of 3 degrees on the outer ring and ouside wall of the central
cylinder. For this particular part, the threading on the interior prevents it from being drafted, and
the threads themselves would not be conducive to injection molding. The more likely scenario if
these were to be manufactured with injection molding is that the part would be molded without
threads and then tapped.

Figure 36: Draft analysis of spool component before and after modifications for injection molding

The part chosen for analysis with DFMXpress was the side eraser arm. This part was first
examined for manufacturing with mill and drill operations only. The rules Solidworks uses to
evaluate the part for this process are primarily concerned with the ratio of the depth of a feature
to its width, as a deep narrow feature is more difficult to mill and drill. This part passed all but
one rule for this analysis, which concerned the relative size of channels. The second DFMXpress
manufacturing process is injection molding. This analysis had very few rules, and were concerned
with wall thicknesses being either too thin or thick. Surprisingly this DFM guideline check does
not include a rule concerning draft. The part did not pass this analysis as well, many of the walls
were thicker than the recommended maximum wall thickness.

44
Figure 37: DFMXpress analysis for drill and mill operations

Figure 38: DFMXpress analysis for injection molding

45
 7.4 Design for Usability
Considering the usability of the board erasing device in the context of various impairments is
important both for the ability of each user to use the device to its full extent, but also for the
potential to increase the usability for users without impairments through the curb-cut effect. To
this end, the design will be considered in terms of vision, hearing, physical and control impairments.
Vision impairment could have some influence on the use of this device, as the control button may
not be obvious to someone with color blindness or far-sightedness. To improve the usability of the
device we could recolor the button to have high contrast with its background, or possibly emit light.
These improvements would make the button easier to locate, even with impaired vision.
Hearing impairment is not expected to have a significant influence on the use of the device. As
it is currently, the device incorporates no audio cues as a part of its function that someone who is
hearing impaired could miss. In fact, it is meant to be quiet so as to not interrupt a lecture while
operating.
Physical impairments would have a major influence on the usability of the device. Transportation
and mounting of the device to a board both require mobility and some degree of strength, and so the
device would be difficult to use. The device could be improved to account for physical impairments
by making the installation of the device permanent to a single whiteboard, or with the inclusion of
a attachment of some kind to reach the top of the whiteboard and mount the device without the
user themselves reaching the full height. The activation of the device could also be made easier to
access if the button were on a remote control.
Control impairments could have a small influence on the usability of this device in terms of
remembering to activate the device so that the board is erased by the time it is needed. Beyond
that, the automation of the erasing process enables the board erasing device to be used despite
limitations on the user’s control.

8 Discussion
8.1 Project Development and Evolution
Does the final project result align with its initial project description?
– Yes! The initial project description was honestly rather spartan saying only ”whiteboard writ-
ing/erasing machine: Build a portable device that can automatically draw lines and shapes,
or erase a large complete area of the board.” Since our final project result was to build an
automatic (had it been fully-functional) whiteboard eraser, for erasing a full 4’ x 8’ board,
they align quite well.
Was the project more or less difficult than expected?
– This project was more difficult than expected because it was not clear from the outset where
the difficulty would spring from. Mounting to the board was one of the things that we initially
thought would be one of the most difficult aspects, but ended up being fairly straightforward.
The reverse case was the mechanism required to drive the device. We expected it to be a
straightforward process to run motors to spool cables, but this ended up being a challenge
right at the end of fabrication that we were not able to entirely overcome.
On which part(s) of the design process should your group have spent more time? Which parts
required less time?

46
 – The electronics troubleshooting part of the design process definitely needed more time than
we gave it, since we ultimately had it as a wall at the end of the project. No parts definitively
needed less time than we gave them, since the concept generation and mock-up phases all
added value and were given a reasonable amount of time.
Was there a component of the prototype that was significantly easier or harder to make/assemble
than expected?
– The electronics of the prototype were difficult to assemble and make, fairly consistent with
our expectations, but slightly worse. On the other hand, the aluminum C-channel portion
of the eraser was straightforward to fabricate once we had the material and access to the
machine shop, thanks to the degree of experience one of our group members had with the
milling machines and writing programs for them.
In hindsight, was there another design concept that might have been more successful than the chosen
concept?
– Not obviously, no. There might have been, but not one that definitely would have been
better than our selected concept. It seems fair to say that our prototype is a more portable
whiteboard eraser than the products we found that already exist, although may not be as
good at erasing at its current level of refinement.

8.2 Design Resources

How did your group decide which codes and standards were most relevant? Did they influence your
design concepts?
– Our group selected codes and standards without a great sense of which would be most relevant
to a whiteboard eraser, so we went with fairly generic ones, since we believed they would
definitely be applicable, if not the most helpful. They did not have a great influence over the
design concepts.
Was your group missing any critical information when it generated and evaluated concepts?
– No, we don’t think so. It felt like we were thoroughly informed.
Were there additional engineering analyses that could have helped guide your design?
– A more exacting conception of the magnetism between our eraser magnets and the whiteboard
could have helped us with spacing and placement, but our fairly experimental-based design
evaluation worked pretty well.
If you were able to redo the course, what would you have done differently the second time around?
– Definitely make more progress faster during the three weeks between initial prototype demo
and final prototype demo. Due to outside academic and extra-curricular influences some group
members couldn’t put in as much additional time until much closer to the final prototype demo
than would have been helpful.

– It would have been nice to choose a project with more structure around it. Many projects had
rule sets or clear designs to base the prototypes on from the outset. That is not to say that
those projects were easier, just that the difficulty of designing something completely original
with little structure is different than trying to design a new solution to a problem that is
already well known and attempted.

47
Given more time and money, what upgrades could be made to the working prototype?
– With additional resources the working prototype could be made with fully functional electron-
ics, in addition to some minor upgrades to the spool construction and quality of the eraser
hinge/locking mechanisms. With even more time and effort, the working prototype could even
be redesigned slightly to work on more whiteboards with different mounting configurations or
lack of magnetic backing.

8.3 Team Organization

Were team members’ skills complementary? Are there additional skills that would have benefited
this project?
– The team members’ skills were fairly complementary, with some robotics experience, and some
advanced machine shop skills, and decent 3D printing experience. Additional skills with elec-
tronics would have definitely benefited this project since that was the primary knowledge/skill
hurdle we came up against.

Does this design experience inspire your group to attempt other design projects? If so, what type of
projects?
– This experience does not necessarily inspire the group to attempt other design projects to-
gether, but one of the group members is very excited about re-purposing the magnets to make
a rolling magnetic sweeper for picking up screws.

48
Bibliography
[1] R. C. Hibbeler. Statics and Mechanics of Materials. 2016.
[2] metroSolarMatics. Common 12V DC Appliances Guide. 2011. url: https://www.metrosolarmatics.
com/applliance-wattsamps-calculator.html.
[3] Lund Instrument Engineering. Notes for Design Engineers: How to calculate how much battery
capacity you need. url: https://www.powerstream.com/battery-capacity-calculations.
htm.
[4] TechLib. Battery Capacity. url: http://www.techlib.com/reference/batteries.html.

49