You are on page 1of 146

Robotic Lunar Excavator

ME492 Senior Project Detailed Design Report

Mechanical Engineering

Milwaukee School of Engineering

Date: 25 February 2011

Team: Manatee Mining


Systems
Team Advisor: Dr. William
Farrow
Team Members: Rafael Arndt
Jonathan Block
Zachary Griffa
Michael Riley
David Swanson
Michael Varga
Ryan Waldmann
Eugen Zinn
The Manatee Mining Systems Team would like to extend
appreciation to our sponsors:
Executive Summary
Lunar regolith is a rich source of raw materials such as Oxygen Iron and Silicon. It
also contains Helium-3 which could be used in next-generation nuclear fusion power
plants on the moon, and here on Earth. Lunar regolith’s consistency allows for
relatively easy strip mining, making collecting the regolith more than feasible. The
only question is how? A lunar excavator is needed to collect lunar regolith and
transport it to a processing location. In the interest of gathering new and creative
ideas to build such a device, NASA has created the Lunabotics Mining Competition.
This competition pits universities against one another in an effort to build the best
lunar excavator and test it in a simulated lunar environment. The Milwaukee School
of Engineering has had teams participate in NASA hosted completions for the past
several years, with very promising performances. These teams usually consisted of
students in their senior level design course, but this year the offer to participate in
the robotics competition has be extended to anyone with an interest in robotics
enrolled at MSOE. This year’s design team selected the name Manatee Mining
Systems and consists of eight Mechanical Engineering students.

Some basic specifications regarding the overall design of the robot include:
• All apparatus included in the robot must be equal to or less than eighty
kilograms. (Rule #21)
• Robot must be able to maneuver to the excavation zone collect the regolith
and return to the collector within 15 minutes (Rule #3, #10)
• The technology incorporated into the design of the robot must be useable in a
lunar environment. No physical or fundamental processes that could not occur
on the moon will be used to aid in excavating regolith. (Rule #25)
• At the start of the competition attempt, the entire robot may not occupy any
location outside the footprint defined by Rule #24:
○ The area of a 1.5m by 0.75m square forming the cell adjacent to the
Collector.
○ No taller than a height of 2m.
• All systems do not need to be “space qualified” for the lunar vacuum,
electromagnetic, and thermal environments. (Rule #26)
• The robot must have a red emergency stop button of a minimum diameter of
5cm on the surface, which will kill all power and motion with 1 push. (Rule
#22)

The aforementioned specification helped give way to the design which was chosen
as the starting point during ME490, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The initial robot design chosen in ME490

Manatee Mining Systems Subgroups:


The team was divided into three sub-teams.

Sensors and Controls – David Swanson and Ryan Waldmann

Drive system and Excavation – Zak Griffa, Mike Varga, Eugen Zinn

Structure and Hopper –Rafael Arndt, Jonathan Block, and Mike Riley

The robot being built has six main elements to its design, the drive system, control
system, sensors, excavation, hopper and structure. Having worked exceptionally
the previous year, the drive system and control system will be rebuilt with the same
design. The design team however elected to redesign the other four systems.

Design for this project has been divided into three stages. The first stage was the
research and planning portion of the design process. During this stage it was
important to develop a base model of the design and determine the feasibility of
each part of the design using a qualitative perspective.. The second stage of the
design process was to take the base model from the previous part and build on it.
During this stage it was important to perform detailed design and modeling as well
as implement engineering analysis to determine whether the design could perform
quantitatively. The final stage will consist of creating the final design and vigorously
testing it before taking it to the competition.

Beyond just the design of the subsystems, there were several overall design
considerations: the stability, the weight, and the overall dimensions of the robot.
The Design:

Sensors:
Situational awareness was a major concern for the design team this year. Learning
from last year, it was determined that there had to be a minimum amount of
measurement done. Navigation of the robot was the primary concern, leading the
team to create network camera experiments to determine lag, vibration, settling
time, and range of vision. Last year, the hopper’s maximum load was exceeded,
causing the machine to break during unloading. To avoid this, Matlab coding was
written to determine if a spring/switch combination could be used for measuring the
weight of the hopper. Also, bump sensors were designed and created to test the
possibility of using switches to protect the robot from collisions. The proposed
sensor system includes 2 network cameras, one forward facing and one rear facing.
4 LED lights will be placed at the top of the structure to provide orientation from the
overhead cameras in the arena. A multi spring/switch mechanism is being built to
give the operator knowledge when specific weights have been reached in the
hopper. And lastly, bump sensors will be placed around the robot for
obstacle/collision avoidance.

Control System:
The excavator will be controlled remotely from a computer communicating via a Wi-
Fi link. Control systems will be implemented using a National Instruments sbRIO-
9623 controller board and LabVIEW Robotics software. This version of LabVEIW was
specially designed to offer programming functionality, movement subroutines, time
management, and speed control.

Drive System:
The 2010 robot drive system designed by the Lunar Baggers performed very well
during the competition, so well that The Manatee Mining Systems team has decided
to reverse engineer the track systems and modify them enough to fit the 2011
robot. The only modifications being that the gears used in the previous design are
no longer available for purchase this year.

Excavation:
Following the same route as our predecessors in 2010 and 2009, the Manatee
Mining Systems team has chosen to use a “Bucket-Chain” excavation system
primarily because of the simplicity and the quick excavation rate it can provide. The
design of the excavator this year consists mainly of “off-the-shelf” components,
from MISUMI. These components were analyzed and found to be sufficient for the
loading applied to the excavator during the excavation process. Other tasks
performed by the excavation team include determining the excavation forces on the
buckets, excavator, and transmitted to the frame due to the resistance of the
material. The torque loads on the shafts and the necessary gear ratios and motor
specifications were also calculated. Finally, the excavation rate was calculated to
determine whether the excavator would be able to fulfill the minimum requirement
of at least 10kg of simulant in 15 minutes. We found that with a reduction in gear
ratio, the excavator could fill the hopper (approximately 28kg) if necessary. A
complete model of the excavator can be seen in Figure 2, shown on page 5.

Figure 2: Complete model of the excavator.

Structure:
The primary task of the frame is to support the hopper and the excavation systems.
The frame mainly consists of ¾ inch steel tubing. The base is much like last year’s
design, with two small rectangular box frames resting on the drive system tracks.
The main supports of the frame connect to these using vertical and horizontal
members. The main supports will then be reinforced with gusset and diagonal
framework. The supports for the excavation system allow for manual adjustment of
the angle of attack of the excavation unit. To connect the excavation system and
the hopper to the main supports, two custom brackets were designed.

All potential high stress areas of the frame needed to be analyzed to determine any
possible modes of failure. The main supports were analyzed for buckling and
bending. The excavation system is largely supported using two pins on either side,
which needed to be analyzed for the maximum principal stress. Other components
that needed to be analyzed for the maximum principal stress were the custom
brackets, any fasteners in the system, and the excavator braces. Additionally, all
the small components needed a fatigue life analysis. The frame was designed to
have a factor of safety of 1 in an extreme worst case scenario, and a factor of safety
of 4 in a typical loading scenario.

Hopper:
The dumping hopper mechanism will consist of a hopper with 2 sidewalls, a movable
backwall and a flapgate. Two linear actuators, two ropes, a spring and two brush
seals are also part of the dumping system. The flapgate is connected via both ropes
to the backwall which is movable. The linear actuators are attached to the sidewalls
from outside and are able to open the flapgate. So if the linear actuators start to
open the flapgate, the regolith is falling out of the hopper. After a while the backwall
starts moving too, just in case that the regolith doesn’t slide itself into the collector
box. Attached to the movable backwall are on each side brush seals which have two
tasks. 1st they have to seal the gap between backwall and sidewalls and 2nd they
have to make sure the smooth movement of the backwall during dumping. The
spring which is attached at the bottom of the backwall is connected also to the
frame; its task is to pull the backwall back after dumping process is completed. The
amount of regolith that can be dumped is 30.5kg with fluffy regolith: ρ=0.75g/cm3
(73.3kg with compacted regolith: ρ=1.8g/cm3). It has to be dumped across a wall
with the height of 1m. The hopper will have a volume of 40715cm3(≈41 liters) and is
separated from the excavation unit. The hopper will hang on two horizontally
beams, one on each side, which are supported by vertical beams. Switches in
connection with springs or sensors, which will be attached to the supporting beams,
will be used to measure the weight of the hopper during excavation.

Final Thoughts:
Additional analysis may be performed between the printing of this document and
the final presentation on Friday, February 25th; therefore all values may be subject
to change. Additionally, during the building process some unforeseen factors may
alter the final design of the system.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................3
Manatee Mining Systems Subgroups:...................................................................4
The Design:..............................................................................................................5
Sensors:................................................................................................................5
Control System:....................................................................................................5
Drive System:.......................................................................................................5
Excavation:...........................................................................................................5
Structure:..............................................................................................................6
Hopper:.................................................................................................................7
Final Thoughts:........................................................................................................7
Table of Contents........................................................................................................8
Table of Figures.........................................................................................................11
Table of Tables..........................................................................................................14
Project Background...................................................................................................15
Project Statement..................................................................................................15
Design Specifications.............................................................................................15
Overall Specifications.........................................................................................15
Drive Train and Chassis......................................................................................16
Material Handling................................................................................................16
Controls/Power....................................................................................................17
Environment.......................................................................................................17
Maintenance.......................................................................................................17
Materials.............................................................................................................18
Ergonomics.........................................................................................................18
Finish..................................................................................................................18
Safety.................................................................................................................18
Design Time........................................................................................................18
Background Research............................................................................................19
Excavation..........................................................................................................19
Frames/Linkages.................................................................................................22
Sensors and Electronic Devices..........................................................................25
The Lunar Regolith..............................................................................................27
Conceptual Designs...............................................................................................29
Feasibility...............................................................................................................30
Detailed Design.........................................................................................................31
The Excavator........................................................................................................32
Nomenclature.....................................................................................................33
Introduction........................................................................................................33
Calculation..........................................................................................................36
Experimental Setup............................................................................................39
Experimental procedure.....................................................................................40
Excavator components list..................................................................................41
Forces on the components of the excavator.......................................................42
The Structure.........................................................................................................48
Frame.................................................................................................................48
Engineering Analysis...........................................................................................49
Hopper Support Posts Analysis...........................................................................51
The Hopper.........................................................................................................61
Moving backwall concept:...................................................................................76
Sensors and Other Electronics...............................................................................82
Experimentation:................................................................................................85
Current Design:...................................................................................................89
Possible Changes:...............................................................................................90
Detailed Budget........................................................................................................91
Environmental Impact...............................................................................................93
Materials Contained in the Design.........................................................................93
Track system:.....................................................................................................93
Excavation:.........................................................................................................94
Hopper:...............................................................................................................94
Electrical:............................................................................................................95
Structure:............................................................................................................95
Materials or chemicals to be used in the design....................................................95
Special handling instructions..............................................................................95
Special storage instructions................................................................................96
Disposal Instructions...........................................................................................96
Timeline....................................................................................................................98
Excavator Sub-team Time Line..............................................................................98
Structure Sub-Team Timeline................................................................................99
Appendix A..............................................................................................................100
Excavator Components........................................................................................100
Appendix B..............................................................................................................115
MATLAB Code for Hopper Spring/Switch Simulation.............................................115
Appendix C..............................................................................................................116
Bill of Materials....................................................................................................116
Structure...........................................................................................................116
Appendix D..............................................................................................................120
Material Safety Data Sheets:...............................................................................120
References..............................................................................................................124
References
Table of Figures
Figure 1: The initial robot design chosen in ME490.....................................................4
Figure 2: Complete model of the excavator................................................................6
Figure 3: Rotary Excavator........................................................................................19
Figure 4: Linear Excavator........................................................................................20
Figure 5: Bucket Conveyor........................................................................................20
Figure 6: Bucket Conveyor........................................................................................21
Figure 7: Apparatus for Collecting Soil (Patent Number: US005588230)..................21
Figure 8: Cross Sectional Area Styles........................................................................23
Figure 9: Tubular Frame............................................................................................24
Figure 10: Light Frame-Perpendicular Connections...................................................24
Figure 11: Frame-Panel Support................................................................................25
Figure 12: Diagram of the formation of Lunar Regolith.............................................27
Figure 13: The various shapes of lunar regolith........................................................28
Figure 14: Concept 1 - A bucket/ brush system with wheels.....................................29
Figure 15: Concept 2 - A bucket conveyor with tracks..............................................29
Figure 16: Concept 3 - A bucket wheel collector with a screw-drive mobility system
..................................................................................................................................30
Figure 17: A complete model of the excavator.........................................................32
Figure 18 failure wedge in soil in front of the blade (1)............................................34
Figure 19 excavation blade.......................................................................................35
Figure 20 forces act on blade (1)..............................................................................35
Figure 21 Excavation force vs. scoop angle..............................................................38
Figure 22 Excavation force vs. tool angle.................................................................39
Figure 23 Excavation force vs. digging depth...........................................................39
Figure 24 Experimental Setup...................................................................................40
Figure 25: Free body diagram of the excavator........................................................42
Figure 26: Finding the stress concentration factor due to the step in the shaft........44
Figure 27: Notch-sensitivity factors for steels. (From Shingely and Norton)............44
Figure 28: Moment diagram......................................................................................45
Figure 29: Upper and Lower Frame...........................................................................48
Figure 30: Rear Support Welds and Front Support Welds.........................................50
Figure 31: Parallel Fillet Weld Diagram.....................................................................50
Figure 32: T-Joint Weld..............................................................................................51
Figure 33: The typical loading scenario of the hopper..............................................52
Figure 34: The worst case loading scenario..............................................................52
Figure 35: The top view of the hopper given full capacity........................................53
Figure 36: Fixed-Fixed ends in terms of column analysis..........................................54
Figure 37: Side view of the excavator and its support post at full capacity:.............56
Figure 38: The excavator beam analyzed in Ansys...................................................57
Figure 39: The hopper support bracket.....................................................................58
Figure 40: The hopper support bracket as analyzed in Ansys...................................59
Figure 41:The excavator pin support as analyzed in Ansys......................................60
Figure 42: The pin for the excavator pin support in Ansys........................................60
Figure 43: Excavator side supports as analyzed in Ansys.........................................61
Figure 44: Hopper geometry.....................................................................................62
Figure 45: center of gravity (sideview).....................................................................63
Figure 46: Rough basic 3D-model.............................................................................64
Figure 47: Closed flapgate (storage position)...........................................................64
Figure 48: Start of dumping......................................................................................65
Figure 49: End of process..........................................................................................65
Figure 50: Hopper divided in sections.......................................................................66
Figure 51: Fg distribution..........................................................................................67
Figure 52: Triangle of forces.....................................................................................67
Figure 53: Supporting points.....................................................................................68
Figure 54: Cantilever theory.....................................................................................68
Figure 55: Fn distribution..........................................................................................69
Figure 56: Stress distribution....................................................................................69
Figure 57: Deflection of backwall..............................................................................70
Figure 58: Wall movement........................................................................................71
Figure 59: Angles definitions.....................................................................................71
Figure 60: Active and passive cases.........................................................................73
Figure 61: Stresses in the flapgate...........................................................................74
Figure 62: Forces acting on the flapgate...................................................................75
Figure 63: Deflection of flapgate...............................................................................75
Figure 64: Centroid of hopper backwall (side view)..................................................76
Figure 65: Distance of equilibrium point...................................................................76
Figure 66: Backwall in dumping position 1................................................................77
Figure 67: Backwall in dumping position 2................................................................77
Figure 68: Backwall in dumping position 3................................................................78
Figure 69: Backwall in equilibirum point...................................................................78
Figure 70: Isosceles triangle.....................................................................................79
Figure 71: Maximum dumping position of backwall..................................................79
Figure 72: Necessary stroke......................................................................................81
Figure 73: Center Aligned Switch..............................................................................86
Figure 74: Off-center switch......................................................................................87
Figure 75: Hopper loading switch..............................................................................87
Figure 76: Wire..........................................................................................................88
Figure 77: Plate.........................................................................................................88
Figure 78: Double-Switch Plate.................................................................................88
Figure 79: Spring Plate..............................................................................................88
Figure 80: Double-Switch Spring Plate......................................................................88
Figure 81: Alternative Double-Switch Spring Plate....................................................88
Figure 82: Horizontal Switch Support........................................................................89
Figure 83: Vertical Switch Support............................................................................89
Figure 84: Slotted Bracket Support...........................................................................89
Figure 85: Linksys Model WVC80N-RM Network Camera..........................................89
Figure 86: A Limit Switch..........................................................................................89
Figure 87: LEDs.........................................................................................................89
Figure 88: Hopper Closure Switch.............................................................................90
Figure 89: Rotary Encoder.........................................................................................90
Figure 90: Excavator Bill Of Materials.....................................................................100
Figure 91: Roller bearing designs complete with mounting apparatus. The excavator
will utilize the compact bearing design...................................................................101
Figure 92: Timing belt pulley used to transmit power between the gearbox and the
excavator drive shaft..............................................................................................101
Figure 93: Stepped drive shaft for the sprockets on both ends of the excavator....101
Figure 94: Idler sprockets used on the excavator...................................................102
Figure 95: Idler shafts used to add stability to the frame and also allow the idler
sprockets to function...............................................................................................102
Figure 96: Side Rail - Non motor.............................................................................103
Figure 97: Structural brace.....................................................................................104
Figure 98: Actuator mounting bracket....................................................................105
Figure 99: Driven shaft of the excavator assembly.................................................106
Figure 100: Excavator Bucket.................................................................................107
Figure 102: CIM Motor used in the excavator and the track systems......................108
Figure 103: P 80 gearbox used in the track system and the excavator..................109
Figure 104: P80 Gearbox.........................................................................................110
Figure 105: The engineering drawing of the lower frame.......................................116
Figure 106 The engineering drawing of the upper frame........................................117
Figure 107: The engineering drawing of the hopper support bracket.....................118
Figure 108: The engineering drawing of the excavator pin support........................118
Figure 109: The engineering drawing of the excavator side support......................119
Figure 108: The engineering drawing of the excavator side support
Table of Tables
Table 1: Elemental composition of the lunar regolith and two different lunar regolith
simulants...................................................................................................................28
Table 2 Material properties.......................................................................................38
Table 3 Excavation properties...................................................................................38
Table 4: MISUMI component list for the excavator....................................................41
Table 5: Equivalent Radial Load Factors for Ball Bearings........................................46
Table 6: Dimensions and Ratings for Single Row 02-series Deep-Grove and Angular
Contact Ball Bearings................................................................................................47
Table 7: Properties of 3003 Aluminum Alloy.............................................................63
Table 8: Force acting on backwall.............................................................................66
Table 9: Force acting normal on backwall and datasheet for circle function.............68
Table 10: Stresses in backwall..................................................................................69
Table 11: Values for deflection..................................................................................70
Table 12: Deflection data..........................................................................................70
Table 13: Variables for earth pressure calculations..................................................73
Table 14: Determined values....................................................................................73
Table 15: Determined stresses.................................................................................74
Table 16: Values for deflection..................................................................................74
Table 17: Determined deflection value.....................................................................75
Table 18: Sensor Hierarchy.......................................................................................83
Table 19: Bump Sensor Alternatives.........................................................................88
Table 20: Bump Sensor Mounting Alternatives.........................................................89
Table 21: Manatee Mining Systems robot design expenses......................................92
Table 22: Components included in the track assembly.............................................93
Table 23: Components include in the excavator assembly.......................................94
Table 24: Components included in the hopper assembly..........................................94
Table 25: Components included in the electrical system..........................................95
Table 26: Excavation Sub-team ME491-ME492 Timeline..........................................98
Table 27: Structure Sub-Team ME491 Timeline........................................................99
Table 28: Structure Sub-Team ME492 Timeline........................................................99
Table 29: CIM Motor specifications..........................................................................109
Table 30: Lower Structure BOM...............................................................................116
Table 31: Upper Frame BOM...................................................................................117
Table 31: Upper Frame BOM

Project Background
Project Statement
The Manatee Mining Systems Team is designing a robot capable of competing in the
Lunabotic’s Mining Completion hosted by NASA. This completion simulates an
actual mining mission on the moon. The surface of the moon is not like the surface
of Earth. Everyone can agree that the Earth is rich with life. This fact is true for
both above and below the Earth’s surface. The soil composition on Earth contains a
great deal of organic material. Even the term “soil” infers that there is organic
material in the composition. The moon does not have life, thus the surface material
of the moon is called regolith. This regolith is rich with useful elemental
components such as Iron, Silicon and Helium-3. If these materials can be collected
from the moon’s surface, then they can be processed and used to manufacture
components for space shuttles and stations in space. This would essentially solve
the biggest problem facing the space program today, gravity. Almost all energy
used by space shuttles is used to escape the Earth’s gravity and leave Earth’s
atmosphere. If the shuttle could start in a low orbit the energy needs would be
greatly reduced. This means larger ships capable of taking longer trips could be
used.

On a different note, the Helium-3 is thought to be a possible solution to the energy


problems here on earth. Some scientists believe that Helium-3 which could be used
in next-generation nuclear fusion power plants, but Helium-3 is very rare on earth.
By collecting it from the moon further research could be performed.

Design Specifications
The robot design the Manatee Mining Systems team has chosen will meet all
competition rules and requirements to avoid disqualification. The design of the
drive train and chassis will allow the robot to move across the lunar regolith. The
material handling apparatus will contain the equipment required to excavate,
convey, and dump the collected material; attempting to reach the goal of 10 kg
(minimum) of regolith moved in the 15 minute time limit. The control of the robot
will be semi autonomous and will contain on board power for all subsystems. All
labor and materials utilized to design and construct the final design will comply with
the specifications listed below and will comply with the NASA competition rules as
we know them. They are subject to change.

The robot will compete in a 7.38m long by 3.88m wide area filled with 1m of
compacted regolith stimulant. Three obstacles with dimensions of twenty to thirty
centimeters and a mass of seven to ten kilograms will be placed inside the
competition area. There will also be two craters of varying depth and width no wider
or deeper than 30cm. The drive train of the robot must allow for avoidance or the
displacement of the rocks by the robot in a way such that time and energy
requirements are minimized.

Overall Specifications
Based on the performance of the 2010 MSOE robotics team the following
specifications are feasible.

• All apparatus included in the robot must be equal to or less than eighty
kilograms. (Rule #21)
• Robot must be able to maneuver to the excavation zone collect the regolith
and return to the collector within 15 minutes (Rule #3, #10)
• The technology incorporated into the design of the robot must be useable in a
lunar environment. No physical or fundamental processes that could not occur
on the moon will be used to aid in excavating regolith. (Rule #25)
• The assembly and disassembly of the robot in the competition area must be
performed in less than ten minutes before the start and five minutes after the
conclusion of the completion to avoid disqualification/time penalties. (Rule
#9)
• At the start of the competition attempt, the entire robot may not occupy any
location outside the footprint defined by Rule #24:
○ The area of a 1.5m by 0.75m square forming the cell adjacent to the
Collector.
○ No taller than a height of 2m.
• All systems do not need to be “space qualified” for the lunar vacuum,
electromagnetic, and thermal environments. (Rule #26)
• The robot must be designed so that no part of the robot passes more than 15
cm beyond the confines of the outer wall of the Sandbox and the Collector
during normal operation.
• The robot will not be designed with the requirement of being anchored to the
regolith surface prior to the start of the competition attempt. (Rule #12)
• The robot shall not be designed such that it requires to be placed on the
regolith surface with more force than its own weight. (Rule #28)
• In the event that the robot excavates its way to the bottom of the Sandbox,
no part of the robot may use the bottom of the sand box for support. (Rule
#19)
• The robot must have a red emergency stop button of a minimum diameter of
5cm on the surface, which will kill all power and motion with 1 push. (Rule
#22)

Drive Train and Chassis


• The locomotion of the robot will be provided by a track design. The tracks
must provide sufficient traction to avoid getting stuck in the regolith
regardless of the mechanical properties of the regolith.
• The footprint of the drive train must not interfere with the addition of other
subsystems of the robot including but not limited to the regolith handling
devices, electrical components, and power supply.
• The drive train and chassis must support and transport the weight of the
robot and the additional weight of a hopper full of regolith.

Material Handling
• Target excavation requirement is 10 kg (qualification minimum) in 15
minutes.
• Excavation will be accomplished by means of a continuous bucket method.
• The Collector will be 0.48 meter wide, by 1.65 meter long, and the walls will
rise to an elevation of 1m above the Regolith surface. The excavation
hardware must be able to deposit material at this height. (Rule #15)
• The Collector will be placed so that it is next to the outer wall of one of the
Sandbox sides.
• The distance between the inner side of the Sandbox and the inside edge of
the Collector will be between 17 cm and 30 cm.
• Excavation Hardware may NOT excavate regolith located in the starting cell
at any time during the competition attempt. (Rule #17)
• Excavation hardware may not change the physical or chemical properties of
the regolith in a way that endangers the uniformity between competition
attempts. (Rule #27)
• The excavation hardware cannot use the walls of the Sandbox to accumulate
regolith. (Rule #18)
• The excavation hardware may not use explosives or other ordnance.

Controls/Power
• The robot control circuitry must be protected by a single fuse for safety.
• The excavation circuitry & hardware supply voltage will come from 2
batteries.
• The excavation control circuitry shall be powered by a separate power supply
apart from the hardware i.e. motors & some sensors.
• The telerobotic operator is only allowed to use data originating from the
excavation hardware. The telerobotic operator shall be visually and
auditorally isolated from the excavation site. (Rule #20)
• Any data communication between the excavation hardware and the
telerobotic operator must be communicated over the provided network link
that limits data transmission bandwidth to 5.0Mbps. (Rule #23)

Environment
• The robot must be able to drive and perform an excavation routine without
parts misaligning, disassembling, buckling, or fracturing.
• The robot may sustain only minor surface damage and wear due to contact
with the regolith surface, stones, and sandbox boundary. This surface
damage can not affect the operation of other components.
• Components of the robot that, during the course of normal operation, are
near material handling equipment or the drive base must be able to withstand
the impact of 10 kg stones in the event that one be accidentally excavated or
collided with.
• Rotating and sliding elements, such as bearings, linear actuators, or guide
rails, must be designed such that regolith build up is prevented. Build up will
cause excessive and premature wear on shafts, guide wheels, and other
precision components.

Maintenance
• Worn or damaged parts should be replaced rapidly and with ease without the
need for any specialty tools.
• Standard fasteners and assemblies should be utilized wherever possible, and
modular designs should be practiced where applicable.
• The robot must be able to operate normaly even when it is not completely
regolith free. Components that do need to be kept regolith-free should be
designed so that removal of the regolith can be done rapidly and easily with
minimal disassembly of the robotic assembly.

Materials
• The materials used in the construction of the robot must be easily fabricated,
readily available, and contain properties that sustain the necessary forces
determined for the component for which it will be manufactured to produce.
• Materials exposed to the regolith must resist rapid corrosion induced by the
coupling of the abrasive properties of the material and exposure to the
atmosphere and the oxidation process.

Ergonomics
• The robot must be light enough that it can be lifted and placed onto and off
the Sandbox surface with relative comfort and relative ease of two to four
individuals using a team lift technique.
• Critical components should be able to be accessed comfortably and with very
little physical effort.
• All control apparatus required to operate the robot through teleoperation
should be located such that it is comfortable and easily to accessed by the
“pilot”.

Finish
The robot is representing each of the students involved, the advisor,
Milwaukee School of Engineering, and all of the sponsors and corporate contributors
of the project. Therefore, the robots final configuration will be attractive and give
the impression of a quality, well engineered product. However, the functionality of
the robot outweighs the appearance of the robot, and the visual aspects of the robot
shall not interfere with the robot’s operation.
Safety
The process by which the robot navigates the Sandbox, excavates the
material, and deposits the material into the collector shall not pose a threat of
danger to person farther than 25 centimeters away from the device while in normal
operation.

Design Time
The Lunar Regolith Excavator Student Competition takes place May 25-28,
2011. A fully functioning robot will be completed by May 4th to allow two full
weeks of strategy deployment and testing of the systems’ integration.
Background Research

Excavation

Rotary Excavator
A plurality of sets of an excavating vessel and an associated soil discharging
plate are mounted on an endless rotary member in an excavator in such a manner
that said excavating vessel goes behind said associated soil discharging plate and
the free end is placed well into the excavating vessel. The free end can discharge
the soil at a predetermined position.

Figure 3: Rotary Excavator

Linear Excavator
An excavating apparatus having a prime mower with a longitudinal centerline
and a main frame with an engine, a ground drive system and an excavation boom
operatively attached thereto wherein the excavation boom has a first end and a
second end. 1st end is pivotally attached to the main frame along a main frame pivot
axis. Main frame axis is transverse to the longitudinal centerline of the prime mover.
A head shaft is attached to the 2nd of the boom. The excavation drum is mounted
onto the head shaft in a manner that the excavation drum cooperates with the
excavation chain and a fixed cutter pattern to stay in consistent alignment with the
fixed cutter pattern.
Figure 4: Linear Excavator

Bucket Conveyer
Bucket conveyor provided with a frame having upwardly inclined spaced
parallel guide rails which support the bucket for up and down movement along the
inclined guide rails.

Figure 5: Bucket Conveyor

Bucket Conveyer
Bucket conveyor comprises a drive pulley and at least one guide pulley with
endless traction cable means engaged over the guide pulley and the drive pulley. A
bucket member of a conveyor trough has an axle thereon each side and with a
pulley on the axle. In one embodiment the pulley is pivotal on the axle and in
another embodiment the pulley is fixed on the axle. In addition the construction
includes a guide pin on the trough on each side of the axle and the endless traction
cable is trained around each guide pin and has a loop engaged over the pulley
between the pins. Construction is applicable both for a fixed bucket in respect to the
traction cable or a bucket that pivots or swings in respect thereto and in which the
bucket pulley is rotatable on its bucket axle.

Figure 6: Bucket Conveyor

Apparatus for excavating soil


An apparatus for removing soil and other debris from around buried objects.
The apparatus comprises a movable frame which supports plurality of rotatable and
independently mounted brushes which are used to gently sweep across the soil to
remove soil and other debris from the covered objects. The soil is then transferred
to a collection box within the movable frame for subsequent removal. The moved
material is collected in the box right behind the brush. This principle is comparable
to that of the snow blower.
Figure 7: Apparatus for Collecting Soil (Patent Number: US005588230)

Frames/Linkages

Construction Machine
United States Patent No. 5,006,988, Construction Machine

While this patent was not related to an autonomous machine, it provided several
key points pertinent the framework of a mobile vehicle that is subjected to loads,
such as:

• The load is to be properly distributed throughout the frame


• The frame is to relieve stress from other parts of the machine that may not be
as strong, such as the drive train, etc.
• The frame, when loaded, behaves the same as it does when not loaded
• Some interesting design concepts were also featured:
• Fully rotational framework
• Linkages independent from vehicle body

Frame Design
There are countless options for frame designs. This research report will only be able
to scratch the surface. The two areas of frame design that will be focused on in this
report will be overall frame styles, cross-sectional areas of support rods, and
attachment methods.

Overall Frame Designs


Assuming the frame to be taller than it is wide, the frame will probably consist of
four corner posts stabilized using methods such as

• Vertical beam support


• Panel
• Hybrid of both (Fuselage or Space-Frame)

If the four corner post method is used then it will have to be stabilized by methods
such as

• Direct beam side supports


• Criss-crossing supports (on the side or top)
• Panels (on the side or top)

Attachment Methods
Methods to attach the perpendicular members of the frame include

• Welding
• Brackets with Bolts
• Socket
• Clamps
• Snap mechanism

Cross-sectional area of supports


Many different types of cross-sectional areas could be used for the supports such as

• beam
• Tube
• Rod
• Hollow shapes
• Solid shapes

Patent # 4,049,082 contains different cross-sectional area styles made from a thin
material. This patent was for strut or gusset supports, but could potentially be used
in any support rod on the excavator.
Figure 8: Cross Sectional Area Styles

Patent #2,546187 is for a window frame, but the tube style design could be useful,
and a light weight metal mesh might be able to add some axial structural support.

Figure 9: Tubular Frame

Patent #6,604,710 is for light aircraft frame, the method for connecting
perpendicular rods might be useful.
Figure 10: Light Frame-Perpendicular Connections

Patent #3,940,900 is a frame designed to support a panel in addition to other loads.


This might be a useful method to stabilize corner supports.

Figure 11: Frame-Panel Support


Journal Articles
Journal article research did not return very many results for frame design ideas, but
some articles about analysis might be useful.

➢ Approximate limit load evaluation of structural frames using linear elastic


analysis
➢ Structural system reliability considerations with frame instability

Sensors and Electronic Devices


Some preliminary research that was done for possible sensor includes a laser range
finder, and a load cell.

Laser Range Finder


• The range finder measures distance by firing a light pulse and measuring the
time it takes for the pulse to return. The optics at 13 serves to both focus an
outgoing light pulse into a beam, and to collect the scattered light of the
returning pulse.
• The light beam is focused on the photon detector at 15 to measure the time
delay.
• Distance can be read on the digital display at 17 through the viewfinder at18
(an analog display can also be used.
• The system could be connected to a telescope with the optical systems would
be connected through the beam splitter, 19.

The sensor could be very useful for the project, especially if incorporated into a
camera system.

Charlie W. Trussell, Jr [inventor], August 4, 1998, “Laser Rangefinder,” United States


Patent

5790241
Load Cells
A load cell generally uses a mechanical system, a strain gauge, and an electronic
amplification device. As force is applied to the mechanical system, it is then
transferred to the strain gauge. The strain can then be converted into an electrical
output and then amplified to tell how much force was originally applied.

The main location that a load cell could be used is in the measuring of the hopper.
As regolith is dumped into the container, the team needs to know when the
minimum competition requirements of weight have been met.

Shimazoe et al. [inventor], June 19 1984, “Load Cell,” United States Patent

4,454,771

The Lunar Regolith

How is it Formed?
The lunar regolith is formed as a result of tiny impact reactions. Microscopic
metirites impact the moon’s surface as such intense speeds the particles eventually
fuse together. This is why the surface material is said to behave much like glass
powder.
Figure 12: Diagram of the formation of Lunar Regolith

Unfortunately, because of the erratic impacting of the metirites on the moon’s


surface, the fused regolith doesn’t resemble any pattern. Each particle is unique in
shape. This irregularity is what allows the material to “grab” hold of anything, and
is what makes the material difficult to mine from the surface.

Health Risks
The Lunar Regolith is very fine and irregular shaped with very sharp edges. These
sharp edges allow it to stick to anything, including the inside of lungs. This also
gives the material very abrasive properties, as well as a health risk when inhaled.

Figure 13: The various shapes of lunar regolith


Table 1: Elemental composition of the lunar regolith and two different lunar regolith
simulants
Conceptual Designs
The design concepts shown below are capable of meeting all of the design
constraints. The Manatee Mining Systems Team has chosen the 2nd concept (Figure
15) as the primary design to move forward with.

Figure 14: Concept 1 - A bucket/ brush system with wheels

Figure 15: Concept 2 - A bucket conveyor with tracks


Figure 16: Concept 3 - A bucket wheel collector with a screw-drive mobility system

Feasibility
All of the concepts derived from the ME490 portion of the design process have been
found to be feasible. The concerns with concept lie mainly with the mobility system.
As seen in last year’s competition, wheeled robots were not able to perform as
effectively as their tracked counterparts. The wheels did not have enough contact
surface area so the shear force on the surface of the regolith overcame the amount
of force required to keep the regolith together. This resulted in much sliding and a
loss of traction. The concerns with concept 3 are also with the mobility system.
Last year’s team performed a large amount of engineering on the track system and
in effect pioneered the technology of track systems here at MSOE. Using a screw-
drive mobility system would require a large amount of resources to design and test.
The team has decided to use its resources on other aspects of the design so the
track system from last year was reverse engineered and will be used again this
year.

By going with concept 2 the team has chosen to build a robot very similar to the
robot used in last year’s design. The performance of the 2010 robot in the
competition was very promising, with a few major setbacks. The team this year
hopes to tackle those setbacks and build an award winning robot.
Detailed Design
The Manatee Mining Systems Team has chosen to build on the 2010 MSOE Robotics’
team design because of its proven ability in field last year. One element from the
2010 robot that will not be modified is the track system. This allowed resources to
be focused on the excavator, the structure, and the sensor systems associated with
the robot. One issue that did arise with the track system was the lack of
documentation left behind by the 2010 team, this lead to the reverse engineering of
the track system. A complete model of the robot can be viewed in Figures 2 through
5.
The Excavator
Just as in previous years, the excavator apparatus was chosen to be bucket-chain
system. This allows for a minimum amount of components, while retaining a quick
excavation rate. By using a bucket-chain excavator the need for an additional
conveyor or digging apparatus is negated. The bucket chain excavator is capable of
digging the regolith up, and conveying it up to the hopper. Two other excavation
methods were chosen as possible alternatives; a brush collection system, and a
machine using a bucket-wheel excavator in conjunction with a conveyor belt.

The 2010 team demonstrated that a bucket conveyor could quickly fill up a hopper
as large 32kg within a few minutes, so in the interest of weight conservation the
digging width of the excavator was reduced to approximately 350mm. This
reduction in width allowed the team to exchange the reduction in width for an
increase in the overall length of the excavator.
Figure 17: A complete model of the excavator.

Before researching in-depth what components and materials to use, it was


important to understand how the system should be modeled, and how the forces on
the components could be estimated.

Nomenclature
ah = blade acceleration in horizontal direction [m/s2]
ahR = horizontal robot acceleration [m/s2]
av = blade acceleration in vertical direction [m/s2]
an = radial acceleration [m/s2]
at = tangential acceleration [m/s2]
c = soil cohesion [N/m2]
d = depth of excavation [m]
Fside = side friction [N]
Fblade = friction on the blade [N]
g = gravitational acceleration [m/s2]
T = total excavation force [N]
q = surface surcharge [N/m2]
KPE = dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient
K0 = earth pressure coefficient at rest
LW = length of failure wedge at surface [m]
PP = passive earth pressure [N]
w = width of excavation blade [m]
W = tool length [m]
Wb = weight of excavation blade [N]
Ws = weight of soil wedge [N]
α = inclination angle of blade [°]
αp = inclination angle of failure wedge [°]
β = inclination angle of side friction [°]
β1 = external friction angle [°]
γ = unit weight of soil [N/m3]
δ = friction angle between soil and blade [°]
ϕ = internal friction angle [°]
φ = inclination angle of acceleration [°]
θ = shear plane failure angle [°]
ρ = mass density of soil [kg/m3]
ε = tool angle [°]
v = robot driving speed [m/s]
r = radius of motion of blade [m]
n = rotation speed of blade [1/min]
dmax = maximal digging depth [m]
ω = angular velocity [1/sec]
ϛ = scoop angle [°]

Introduction
For a scientific way of designing excavation machinery it is necessary to calculate
the resistive force of the material. To separate material, the excavation blade must
overcome the resistive force. Since the task is to excavate lunar regolith which is a
soil material the research was focused on force calculation models that are based on
soil mechanics.

Research has shown that there are different models available to calculate
excavation force but all of them were limited to specific application range and
excavation parameters. To get the most accurate result for the desired excavation
operation it was necessary to compare all of these methods and pick a model that is
most suitable for the own excavation operation.

For calculation of excavation force of the bucket chain system the Zeng Model
(Zeng, 2006) was picked since it was considered to be the most suitable Model for
the own realization of excavation.

The benefits of the Zeng Model are that it includes:


• dynamic earth pressure
• side friction
• surcharge
• blade friction
• weight of the blade
• blade acceleration

The Zeng model is the only one that takes the tool acceleration under consideration.
For a worst case calculation we have to consider an acceleration of the blade wile
excavating.
Figure 18 shows the excavation blade and the resulting failure wedge in front of the
blade.

Figure 18 failure wedge in soil in front of the blade(Zeng, 2006)

This model assumes that the soil in front of the excavation blade will form a triangle
during the digging process. The triangle represents the shape of failed soil wedge
depicted in Figure 18. According to this model, the excavation force T (Figure 20),
which is applied by the blade in the excavation process, is expected to face the
resistive force F (Figure 18).

This resistive force is defined by several soil parameters like the soil cohesion (c) or
the internal friction angle (ϕ), pressure of soil located within the failure wedge (γ), as
well as the soil above the failure wedge (q), which in means for this specific
excavation process is meant to be very small. The material dependent parameters,
for JSC-1A, have been already tested and defined by the company ORBITEC, which is
a leading subsystems integrator and high technology development company based
in Madison.

Since all excavation force calculations were developed for linear movement of the
blade it was necessary to accommodate the Zeng model to make it more suitable
for a rotational movement of the blade. Figure 19 shows the principal function
structure of the bucket chain system.
Figure 19 excavation blade

Because of rotational movement we have a radial acceleration of the blade.


Additionally we have to consider the case of vertical acceleration of the robot during
the digging process.

Figure 20 forces act on blade (Zeng, 2006)

All calculations were done for the worst case scenario to get a higher safety factor
against failure because of a to small predicted excavation force.
Calculation

Theory
For the horizontal robot acceleration of we assume that the excavation speed v is
reached after a specific time t.

ahR=vt (1)

Assuming a constant rotation speed for the excavation process means that
tangential acceleration of the bucket at = 0. The radial acceleration can be
calculated in the following way.

an=r∙ω2 (2)

The value of the vertical bucket acceleration is

av=an∙cosς+at∙sin⁡(ς) (3)

The horizontal acceleration is

ah=ahR+an∙sinς+at∙cos⁡(ς) (4)

Total bucket acceleration angle is

φ=tan-1ahg+av (5)

The critical failure surface is inclined from horizontal by an angle

αp=-φ-ϕ+tan-1tanϕ-φ+C3EC4E (6)

Where

C3E=tan⁡ϕ+φtanϕ+φ+cotϕ+α+φ1+tanδ-φ-αcotϕ+α+φ (7)

C4E=1+tanδ-φ-α∙tanϕ+φ+cotϕ+α+φ (8)

The length of the failure wedge at the surface is

Lw=d∙tanα+1tanαp (9)

The dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient is given by


KPE=cos2ϕ+α+φcosφ∙cos2δ-α-φ∙1-sinδ+ϕ∙sinϕ+φcosδ-α-
(10)
φ∙cosα2

The passive earth pressure can be calculated as follows

PP=0.5KPE∙1+avg∙γd2W+2cdW∙KPE+KPEqdW (11)

The horizontal and vertical components of the total excavation force are given by

Tx=-Fblade∙sinα-PP∙cosα-δ-Fside∙cosβ+Wbg∙ah (12)

Ty=Fblade∙cosα+Wb+PP∙sinα-δ+Fside∙sinβ+Wbg∙av (13)

Where the side friction force is

Fside=Lw∙cd+K0qd∙tanϕ+K0γ∙tanϕ∙d23 (14)

Since we have a movement in x direction in addition to the rotation of the blade we


can neglect the friction force on the blade Fblade without having much influence on
the calculation. Due to the movement in x direction the blade is moving away from
the soil behind the blade. Therefore the normal stress on the surface of the blade is
expected to be small and would result in a small friction resistance.

The total excavation force is calculated by knowing the horizontal and vertical
components of it

T=Tx2+Ty2 (15)

Results
All calculations were based on data for material parameters provided by ORBITEC(,
2007) or the Lunar Sourcebook(Heiken, 1991) and represent feasible values for the
lunar soil.

Table 2 Material properties

soil density (ρ) 1800 kg/m3

soil cohesion (c) 1000 N/m2

internal friction angle (ϕ) 45 °

soil-blade friction angle (δ) 20 °

at rest earth coefficient (K0) 0.573


Excavation parameters used for the calculations are listed in the further table.

Table 3 Excavation properties

tool angle (ε) 60 °


robot velocity (v) 0.775 m/s
1
radius of motion of blade (r) 0.085 m
maximal digging depth 0.036 m
scoop angle (ϛ) 0-50 °
width of excavation blade 0.326 m
(w)
tool length (W) 0.036 m
gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s2
(g)

Figure 19 shows, that the inclination angle (α) and the digging depth (d) are both
functions of the scoop angle (ϛ). Therefore the excavation force (T) is also a function
of the scoop angle.

This plot shows that the


highest excavation force
occurs at a scoop angle of
Figure 21 Excavation force vs. scoop angle
15°. The force reaches a
maximum value of 97.1N
when using material
properties from and
excavation parameters out
of table .

This plot shows the range


for an ideal tool angle (ε).
The lowest force occurs in a
Figure 22 Excavation force vs. tool angle
range between 60° and 75°.
The force over tool angle
was calculated for different
scoop angles to get a more
reliable result for the entire
scooping area.

This plot shows the linear


rising excavation force by
increasing the digging
Figure 23 Excavation force vs. digging depth
depth of the excavation
blade. For the worst case
calculation the entire
bucket length was used to
get the maximal possible
resulting force.

Experimental Setup
An experimental set up was developed, to prove the reliability of the analytically
calculated excavation force. The experimental measurement of the excavation force
should ensure that the accommodation of the Zeng model was made accurate
enough to provide reliable values. Figure 24 shows the 3D model for the test
apparatus.

Figure 24 Experimental Setup


The basic idea is to measure the torque is needed to rotate the shaft and push the
bucket through the regolith. To simulate the movement of the robot in vertical
direction a linear actuator was implemented in the design of the test apparatus.

Experimental test are planned for the first week of the Spring quarter 2011.

Experimental procedure
1 As a first step it is necessary to align the lowest bucket edge with the regolith
surface and set this position as the zero.
2 A measurement of the torque in the zero position is necessary to determine
the friction torque of the system.
3 Now the bucket can be lowered by a predefined value (5mm) to initiate the
next experimental run.
4 Power the actuator measure the torque while rotating the shaft preferably at
a constant velocity.
5 Plane the surface of the regolith to the zero value.
6 Repeat step 4 -5 (four times).
7 Now go back to step 3 and lower the bucket again by the predefined value
and repeat all further steps until you reach the final excavation depth of
35mm.
8 Average the values for the different digging depths.
9 Subtract the torque measured in the zero position from the averaged values.
10 Compare results to analytical calculated values for the excavation force.

Excavator components list


Nearly all of the components used in the design of the excavator were chosen from
MISUMI USA. MISUMI is an automation component supplier with custom machining
capabilities. A customer will pick one of their stock components and then specify
alterations that are desirable on the component. Even after choosing an alteration
to the component, the quoted lead time is normally less than a week. This makes
MISUMI USA a prime choice for a supplier in a project like this.

Table 4: MISUMI component list for the excavator

Component Item# Material


Sprocket BSP40B24-N-15 1045Steel
Drive Shaft KZCE15-400-P12-LA40-LB10-KA0-HA30-KC5-HC100-KD245-HD100 1045Steel
Driven Shaft KZCE15-370-P12-LA10-LB10-KC5-HC100-KD245-HD3 1045Steel
Bearings SBACA6801ZZ Steel
TimingBelt TBN160XL050 Rubber
TimingBelt Pulley U-ATP32XL050-B-S0.50 2017Aluminum
Idler Sprocket DRC40-13-12 1035Steel
Idler Shaft AETRS12-350-SC0 2017Aluminum
The overall load on the mounting locations of the excavator
In order to give the structure team an idea of the load requirements on the frame, a
force balance was used to determine the forces on the mounting locations. The
initial excavation force estimate was approximately 190N in the horizontal direction
and 100N in the vertical direction. These forces were used in the calculations.

Assuming a completely static structure, the following equations were used.

M=0

Fx=0

Fy=0

The force balances can be expanded to:

M=0=Fs)x1.178m-Fs)y0.208m-FA0.56m-W(0.06m)

Fx=0=Fs)x-FA)x-FB)x

Fy=0=FA)y+FB)y+Fs)y-W

Where Fs is the excavation shear force and FA and FB are the forces on location A and
B respectively, and W is the weight of the excavator.
Figure 25: Free body diagram of the excavator

Using the force balance the final forces were found to be:

Fa)x=364.9N ←

Fa)y=64.35N ↑

Fb)x=175.1N →

Fb)y=53.8 ↑

It is important to keep in mind that there are two sets of mounting locations at A & B
so the total force at each location is effectively cut in half.

Forces on the components of the excavator


The initial estimate of the excavation force was found to be a total of 215.325N.
This is the magnitude of the force that was used to determine the affects of fatigue
loading on the drive shafts and bearings of the excavator.
The Shafts
The two main shafts of the excavator assembly are stepped 1045 Steel shafts with a
major diameter of 15mm and a minor diameter of 12mm. Both shafts were tested
using fatigue loading calculations provided by Shingley and Norton. In order to
determine the expected life of the shafts for the excavator a few assumptions had to
be made; the biggest being that the driven shaft did not experience any torsion
loading.

The equation for the

Se=KaKbKcKdSe'

Sf=KaKbKcKdKeSf'

The surface factor can be found using:

Ka=aSultb

Noting that the surface of the shaft is machined, a = 4.51 and b = -0.265. Ka =
0.835.

The size factor Kb is found using:

Kb=1.24d-0.107 for (2.79≤d≤51mm)

Where d is the minor diameter of the shaft. Kb = 0.950.

From Shingley and Norton the bending load factor Kc is determined to be 1.

The temperature of the environment also plays a role in the failure of a steel shaft,
however for this case the temperature of the environment was assumed to be room
temperature or 23ᵒC. Kd=1

Another factor involved is the reliability factor. For this project an excavator
reliability of 99.9% was assumed. For this level of reliability, Ke = 0.753.

The shaft design requires that there be a step in the shaft. Because of the step
extra calculations must be performed. The stress concentration factor is found with:

Kf=1+qkt-1

Keeping in mind that the major diameter and the minor diameter are 15mm and
12mm respectively and the radius of the fillet is 0.2mm, Kt can be found using
Figure 26, Figure E-2 in Shingley and Norton.
Figure 26: Finding the stress concentration factor due to the step in the shaft

Figure 27 (Figure 6-36 in Shingely and Norton) is used to find q.

Figure 27: Notch-sensitivity factors for steels. (From Shingely and Norton)

Using the values from Figure 26 and 27, Kt = 2.9 and q – 0.55, Kf = 2.045.

Plugging all of the factors in yields Se = 173.2MPa and Sf = 101.3MPa.


The strength of endurance at 103 cycles is found using:

Sult)s ≅0.8(Sult)

Where Sult is the ultimate strength of the steel

Sm ≅0.90(Sult)s)

Using the modified endurance strength Sm, factors needed to calculate the life of the
shaft can be calculated.

b= -13logSmSe

loga=logSm- 3(b)

Both a and b are found to be 1004.06 and -0.127 respectively, and the stress in the
shaft can be found using the basic equation for bending stress in a beam:

σa'=32Maπd3(Kf)

Where the moment Ma is found using Figure 28 and the equation for the total
alternating moment, shown below Figure 28:

Figure 28: Moment diagram

Since the shaft is rotating, this moment is considered completely alternating. To


find the total moment, the minimum moment is subtracted from the maximum
moment and divided by two:

This yields an alternating moment of Ma = 39.78N-m.


The alternating stress is found to be approximately 245.5 MPa.

Now the life of the shaft can be calculated using:

SN=aNb

The expected life of the driven shaft was found to be approximately 66,000
rotations. With the expected velocity of the shafts being only 37rpm, the expected
life of the shaft is approximately 1800 minutes, or 120 competitions.

The Bearings
The estimated life of the bearings used in the excavator was calculated using the
loadings estimated using the Zeng model shown above. The equation for the
fatigue life of a bearing in millions of cycles is given as:

L=L10C10Pa

Where a = 3 for ball bearings and 10/3 for cylindrical and tapered bearings. The
maximum life, L10 is assumed to be 106 rotations and the equivalent force on the
bearing (P) is defined as:

P=XVFr+YFa

Where v = 1 because the inner ring of the bearing will rotate. Fr is the radial force
and Fa is the axial force. For this analysis the axial force on the bearings was
assumed to be negligible. The X and Y components are both found using Table 5
shown below.

Table 5: Equivalent Radial Load Factors for Ball Bearings

Since the axial load is zero, the value for Fa/C0 will also be zero resulting in X = 1
and Y = 0.

P=11215.325N+00= 215.325N
C10 is a characteristic of the bearing. The bearings have a bore of 12mm and a C10
of 6.89kN as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Dimensions and Ratings for Single Row 02-series Deep-Grove and Angular Contact
Ball Bearings

L=106cycles6.89kN215.325N3=3.276×1010cycles

Using the same velocity estimate that was used with the shafts (approximately
37rmp) yields a life of 1684.67 years. This confirms that the bearings will not fail
due to fatigue during the competition.
The Structure

Frame
The entire frame of the robot can be distinguished as two frames, the lower frame
and the upper frame:

Upper
Frame

Lower
Frame
Figure 29: Upper and Lower Frame

Lower Frame
The lower frame is a modified version of last year’s lower chassis design. On the left
and right side of the lower frame are the track portions to be situated on top of the
drive tracks. Interconnecting framework and space for necessary control modules
and excavation system can be seen in the midsection between the two tracks. The
primary function for the lower frame is to provide a basis for the high stress vertical
posts partial to the upper frame, which will be welded to the lower frame. A major
modification was a length reduction in the two members that connect the track
pieces at the rear of the frame, this was done to accommodate for the narrow
excavation unit. At a maximum length of 0.7m and width of just under 1m, the lower
frame is designed to meet specifications for space and weight.
Upper Frame

Excavator Support
The upper frame design supports the excavator directly from the base of the lower
frame with two vertical supports. Connected to the two vertical posts by pin are
members which allow the angle of the mounted excavation unit to be changed
manually.

Hopper Support
Extended vertically from the rear of the lower frame are another pair of posts
responsible for the majority of the hopper support. These posts are connected to the
vertical posts supporting the excavation unit by horizontal framework. The hopper
is supported eccentrically due to clearance needed for the linear actuators
associated with the dumping mechanism.

In its entirety, the frame is an extremely important entity to the robot because it
joins three major components together: the excavator, the hopper, and track drive
system. Not only does the frame have to be designed to withstand the loads brought
on by these components, the frame has to remain stable while these components
are performing their necessary functions, simultaneously.

Engineering Analysis

Weld Analysis
Despite a few pins and fasteners, welding is going to be the primary joining process
for the members in the frame. It therefore becomes very important, from an
engineering design standpoint, to determine the best and strongest welds to use, as
well as what type of loads may cause the welds to fail.

Assumptions
– The welds that join the members of the lower frame can be neglected for
analysis, or assumed strong enough for their intended function.

– Attention will be focused on the high stress welds: Where the vertical posts
meet the lower frame

Analysis
The vertical posts are considered the high stress members because the front posts
take much of the load from the excavator and the rear posts take much of the load
from the hopper. These loads are dissipated along the member though various
fasteners and finally the weld, where it is transferred elsewhere to the lower frame.
Figure 30 provides a visual representation of these weld locations.
Figure 30: Rear Support Welds and Front Support Welds

For these vertical posts, the main objective for the analysis was to determine if this
type of weld, a parallel fillet weld, is feasible for the loads considered, or if an
alternative type of weld, such as a perpendicular weld or modified T joint weld
(where the end of the vertical post is welded to the top of the lower frame at one
instance, instead of the side at several instances) is a better choice.
To simplify analysis, each vertical hopper support was subjected to a compressive
load equal to half of the maximum load seen if the hopper were to be completely full
of regolith.

F=392.2N For a parallel fillet weld, the maximum shear force on the
3.175 minimum throat area of the weld can be determined by
the following equation:
19.4mm

τ=1.414Fhl=1.414*392.2 N3.175 x 10-3 m(19.4 x 10-


3m*8)=1.125 MPa

For the rear hopper support seen in Figure 30, the


vertical post is actually joined to two sides of the lower
3.175mm
frame instead of one, increasing the amount of welded
areas to 8 instead of 4, hence the factor of 8 used in the
Figure 31: Parallel Fillet Weld Diagram
equation above.

Weld analysis for the front vertical posts was approached the same way as the rear
posts. Assuming that each post was to take half of the maximum compressive load
generated by the excavator, the maximum shear stress at the minimum throat area
would be:
τ=1.414Fhl=1.414*161.45 N3.175 x 10-3 m(19.4 x 10-3m*4)=926.6 kPa
Observing the shear stress at the throat area is beneficial because if failure of the
weld were to occur due to compression, this is where it would occur. Based off of the
shear stress calculations, which were calculated using maximums loads at worst
case scenarios, the stresses are still well below tolerances of the weld, concluding
that the parallel fillet weld would be a suitable choice.

Another welding option for the vertical post would follow in the form of a T joint
weld, which can be seen in Figure 32:

Figure 32: T-Joint Weld1

T-joints are actually more commonly seen when two large plates are being joined
together. If this method were to be implemented instead of the parallel fillet, one
would be welding together two pieces of equal cross-sectional area, which would
make for a more difficult weld. Grooves are often beveled in T-joints for improved
stability, a task that requires additional machining and skill. This weld would also be
more susceptible to bending moments due to the cantilever-like orientation that the
weld creates.

In summary, the parallel fillet weld is the better choice because:

– It allows more surface area of the joining members to be welded, resulting in


a smaller shear force
– Does not require additional machining
– Less likely to fail from bending and torsion

Hopper Support Posts Analysis


Figure 33 shows the typical loading scenario of the hopper. The left side of the figure
shows how both posts support the hopper and the right side shows how the load
from the hopper is seen by one individual post. As can be seen from the diagram,
both the weight (W) and the distance (D) between the support posts and the
centroid of the hopper are reduced.

1 Edgar, Julian. "AutoSpeed - Beginners' Guide to Welding, Part 1." AutoSpeed - Technology, Efficiency,
Performance. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
<http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Beginners-Guide-to-Welding-Part-1/A_108738/article.html>.
Figure 33: The typical loading scenario of the hopper

The previous scenario of course is an ideal situation. However, it is preferable to


design the post based on a worst case scenario. Figure 34 shows the worst case
loading scenario, where the entire hopper is supported by only one post.

Figure 34: The worst case loading scenario.

Bending
Since the weight of the hopper is both eccentric in the x and y directions as seen in
Figure 35; the highest stress will occur on a corner of the post. The stress at this
corner will be both the bending moment from the eccentric loading and the
compressive stress that would be seen in a centric loaded member.
Figure 35: The top view of the hopper given full capacity

Worst Case

P M xy c P M y2 + M x2 c
σ cr = σ xy = + = +
A I A I
[ (784.3N )(5.73cm)] + [ (784.3N )(26.8cm + 6.54cm) ]
2 2
784.3N 13.34cm
σ cr = +
0.8716cm 2 0.8739cm 4

σ cr = 377.3MPa
FoS = 1.35

Typical Case

P M xy c P M y2 + M x2 c
σ cr = σ xy = + = +
A I A I
[ (784.3N )(5.73cm)] + [ (784.3N )(13.4cm + 6.54cm)]
2 2
784.3 N 13.34cm
σ cr = +
0.8716cm 2 0.8739cm 4

σ cr = 114.3MPa
FoS = 4.44
Buckling
Both ends of the hopper support post will be welded to cross members, thus in terms of column
analysis the posts can be considered fixed-fixed with an effective length half that of its actual
length (see Figure 36).

Figure 36: Fixed-Fixed ends in terms of column analysis

According to the Manual of Steel Construction, there are two different modes of
buckling failure. The first happens in the “intermediate” range and the second
happens in the “slender” range. The maximum length given the previously
calculated bending stresses is desirable, thus the first calculation will be in the
slender range.

I 0.8739.1cm4
r= = =1.01 cm
A 0.8716 cm2
π 2E π 2E π 2E
σ cr = = ⇒ L = 2 r
1.92σ cr
2 2 cr
 Leff   Lcr / 2 
1.92   1.92  
 r   r 
Worst Case
π 2E π 2 (200GPa)
Lcr = 2r = 2(1.01cm) = 52.2cm
1.92σ cr 1.92(377.3MPa )
Typical Case
π 2E π 2 (200GPa)
Lcr = 2r = 2(1.01cm) = 94.8cm
1.92σ cr 1.92(114.3MPa )

The worst case stress gives a maximum length of 52.2 cm, but the longest unsupported section
will be 49cm. The second portion of the buckling calculations will determine the factor of safety
in terms of stress. However, it must be first determined if the 49cm section is in the slender or
intermediate range.

Leff Lcr 49cm


= = = 24.3
r 2 r 2 ( 1.01cm)
2π 2 E 2π 2 (200GPa )
Cc = = =88.2
σy 508MPa

Since Cc is greater than L/r, the member is in the intermediate range. The factor of safety can be
found using the following formula.

3
5 3 L/ r  1 L/ r
FS = +  −  
3 8  Cc  8  Cc 
3
5 3  24.3  1  24.3 
FS = +  −  
3 8  88.2  8  88.2 
FS = 1.77

Excavator Support Posts


Figure 37 shows the excavator and one of its support posts. In the figure the excavator is digging
and at full capacity. Aside from the drive motor, the rest of the excavator is assumed to be an
evenly distributed load.
Figure 37: Side view of the excavator and its support post at full capacity:

To solve for the unknown reactions the sum of the forces and the moments was determined. Since
all of the forces are pivoting around the middle support pin, R2x is assumed to be 0.

∑F x =0
R1x + R3 x − 97.3 N = 0
∑F y =0
−29.4 N − 252.1N + Ry = 0
∑M R1 x =0
+0.478m (sin12o )29.4 N + 0.359m(sin12o )100.6 N − 0.172m (sin12o )48.1 N
−0.516m (sin12o )48.1N − 0.873m (sin12o )51.8 N − 1.058m (cos12o )97.3 N
+0.688m (cos12o ) R3 x
⇒ R3 x = 158.3 N
⇒ R1x = 61N
Due to excavator centroid’s location in the z-axis in Figure 5x, additional moments on the
components supporting the excavator are:

On the lower support:


M yy = 97.3 N ( 0.159 m) =15.5 Nm

On the middle support:


M xx = 252.1N (0.159m )= 40.1Nm

Assuming a worst case scenario where all the forces are supported by the
middle pin, the forces on the pin will be as follows:

Moment − xx
−29.4 N (0.17m) − 252.1N (0.24m ) = −65.5 Nm
Moment − yy
97.3N (0.24m) = 23.4 Nm
Moment − zz
29.4 N (0.72m) sin(12o ) + 252.1N (0.11m ) sin(12 o ) = 10.1Nm
Force − y
−252.1N − 29.4 N = 281.5 N
Force − x
−97.3 N

Using this worst case scenario, the excavator beam was analyzed in Ansys. The length of the
beam used was the actual length of the beam between the middle pin support and the fixed lower
support on the lower frame.
Figure 38: The excavator beam analyzed in Ansys

Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 508Mpa for the steel tubing, the factor of
safety for the excavator support beam is 1.98.

Bracket Analysis

Hopper Support Bracket


The hopper bracket was designed to transfer the load on a horizontal beam to a vertical beam
given a 20 cm offset. The bracket was analyzed in Ansys given the worst case loading for the
hopper that was previously calculated.
Figure 39: The hopper support bracket

Figure 40: The hopper support bracket as analyzed in Ansys

Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 270Mpa for aluminum, the factor of safety
for the hopper support bracket is 4.6.
Excavator Pin and Pin Support
The excavator pin and pin support assembly is designed to allow the excavator system to pivot
when manually adjusted for a different angle of attack. The assembly will be primarily tasked
with supporting the direct weight of the excavator and the moment that it induces in the zz-axis as
in Figure 10x.

Given loading conditions if the middle support for the excavator was the only support, the
excavator pin support and its pin were analyzed in Ansys.

Figure 41:The excavator pin support as analyzed in Ansys


Figure 42: The pin for the excavator pin support in Ansys

Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 270Mpa for aluminum, the factor of safety
for the excavator pin support is 7.8. Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of
508Mpa for shaft steel, the factor of safety for the excavator pin support is 1.6.

Excavator Side Supports


The excavator side supports are primarily tasked with supporting any induced moments and
horizontal forces in the excavator system.

Given the typical loading conditions of 158.3 N in the horizontal direction and a moment of
15.5Nm acting around the yy-axis, the excavator side supports were analyzed in Ansys. In Figure
43 the far right hole was considered a fixed support and the far right hole was where the force and
moment were applied.
Figure 43: Excavator side supports as analyzed in Ansys

Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 270Mpa for aluminum, the factor of safety
for the excavator side support is 5.4.

Experiments/Tests Performed
Upon receiving the stock tubing for the frame, strength and hardness tests
will be performed to verify its material rating. Additional experiments that
may be preformed will be buckling/bending tests on the stock frame material.

The Hopper
The Hopper consists basically of 2 sidewalls, a backwall, a flapgate, 2 linear
actuators and 2 ropes.

The hopper has to fulfill the requirements of volume and strength. The dumping
concept has to ensure that the excavated regolith is dumped at a height of at least
1m into the collector’s box, furthermore it has to be guaranteed that all of the
regolith slides out without any complications in a short time.

Volume:
The necessary volume of the hopper has to be capable of at least 15 kg. This
amount of regolith has to be dumped in the collector in 15 minutes. Therefore it is a
goal to gain this amount in one run, because of this short time. The volume was
restricted by interfaces with the excavation/conveying system and the structure.
Moreover it was decided to have already the hopper at the necessary height for
dumping, which is 100mm above the wall of the collector, so 1100mm above the
surface. This decision was made to keep the hopper dumping system as simple as
possible, so that no devices are needed to lift the hopper.
Figure 44: Hopper geometry

Anyway there were restrictions in the height because of the collector’s wall and
above the hopper because of the excavation/conveying system. The hopper was
restricted in the width by the overall dimensions of the robot (Width: 1m x Length:
0.75m x Height: 2m) and therefore by the supporting beams of the structure. Finally
it was limited by the in the length/depth by the excavation/conveying system and
once more by the overall dimensions. Some other dimensions played a role in the
design and the volume of the hopper. One was the width of the excavation buckets
which was determined to be 355.6 mm (14”). The
necessary volume the hopper has to have is
Vmin=20,000,000mm3=20 liter with respect to a minimum of
15kg of regolith simulant and the density of δ=0.75 g/cm3
(Black-Point-1: for fluffy composition=>worst case). All
these variables created the dimensions of the hopper.

The total volume of the hopper can be calculated with the


area of a quadrant body and the total width of the dumping
hopper w:

A=πr24=π300mm24=70685.83 mm2

V=A∙w=70685.83 mm2∙576mm=40,715,040.79 mm3≈40.7 liter

V> Vmin

The round shape was chosen in order that the regolith will easily slide out. Although
this decision decreases the volume it can be an advantage for the center of gravity
for the whole excavation robot. One problem could be the tip over of the robot, so
therefore a smaller volume is more helpful for the center of gravity and
consequently for the lunar excavator.

Comment: The volume of the hopper is 2 times bigger than the necessary volume
assuming that the excavated regolith is not compacted but rather fluffy. So the
hopper has to be at least capable of these 15kg, and it will be definitely more, if the
regolith simulant gets compacted, so that it has a density of 1.8g/cm3.
Center of gravity:
It is also important to know the center of gravity, because it influences the interface
between the supporting beams and the hopper. The center of gravity is shown in
xxx and can be calculated like the following:()

s=423r=423300mm=180.06mm Figure 45: center of


gravity (sideview)
xs=s∙cosα=180.06mm∙cos45°=170.32mm

ys=s∙sinα=180.06mm∙sin⁡(45°)=170.32mm

Material selection:
The material that will be used for the hopper, has to be chosen very carefully, due to
the restriction of 80kg for the entire excavator. Therefore the excavator has to be
very light, but it has also to resist the force of the regolith which acts on the hopper.
The worst case would be a fully loaded hopper where the regolith is compacted
(δ=1.8g/cm3) and with the volume of 40.7 liter, the mass will be 73.3kg which would
create a force of almost 719 N.

To accomplish all of these tasks improved-strength basic aluminum (alloy 3003) will
be used.

This is a general purpose manganese alloy that is the most widely used of all
aluminum alloys. The addition of Manganese increases the strength by 20% over the
1100 (pure aluminum) grade. This combines the excellent characteristics of 1100
with higher strength. It has excellent corrosion resistance. It is not heat treatable
and develops strengthening from cold working only. The AL 3003 alloy is readily
machined and is considered as having good machinability for the aluminum alloys. It
has excellent workability and it may be deep drawn or spun. It can be welded by all
conventional processes. This alloy is commonly used to make cooking utensils,
pressure vessels, builder’s hardware, decorative trim, mail boxes, awnings, siding,
storage tanks, window frames lithography plates and storage tanks. ()

The stresses, forces and deflections which act on the hopper walls will be calculated
later on.

Table 7: Properties of 3003 Aluminum Alloy

Form Sheet
H12 at
Condition
25°C
Density 2730 kg/m3
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
Elastic
70-80 GPa
Modulus
Tensile
130 MPa
Strength
Yield Strength 125 MPa
Elongation 10 %
HB50
Hardness 35
0
Shear Strength 83 MPa
Fatigue MPa
55
Strength

Concept:

Figure 46: Rough basic 3D-model

The Hopper consists basically of 2 sidewalls, a backwall, a flapgate, 2 linear


actuators and 2 ropes.

The flapgate is connected via both ropes to the backwall which is movable. The
linear actuators are attached to the sidewalls from outside and are able to open the
flapgate. So if the linear actuators start to open the flapgate, the regolith is falling
out of the hopper. After a while the backwall starts moving too, just in case if the
regolith doesn’t slide itself into the collector box. The sidewalls will hang on 2
supporting beams. The idea is to measure the weight of the hopper during
excavating with switches or sensors which are attached to these supporting beams.
Hatch seals at the edges of the backwall will close the gaps between the backwall
and the sidewalls. This ensures that the regolith isn’t able to flow through the gaps.
Although these hatch seals create friction, it has to be determined experimentally if
this concept works, or if other devices have to be considered. The following pictures
show steps while dumping the regolith.
movable

regoli
th

fla

Figure 47: Closed flapgate (storage position)

rop

Figure 48: Start of dumping


linear

pivot
points
Figure 49: End of process

Material thickness and deflections:

Deflection of backwall:

Radius=300mm δ(high density)=1800kg/m3


Width=576mm g=9.81m/s2
Wall thickness=3mm

inner width=width-2∙wall thickness=570mm

A Distance
V [mm3] Fg [N]
[mm2] [mm]

8977,4 5135095, 90,6755 0


4 68 2

8886,5 5083092, 89,7572 30


25 3 4

8701,8 4977438, 60
15 18 87,8916

8417,0 4814555, 85,0154 90


55 46 2

8021,4 4588266, 81,0196 120


45 54 1
7497,1 4288352, 75,7237 150
2 64 3

6813,6 3897404, 68,8203 180


45 94 8

5913,6 3382604, 59,7300 210


45 94 4

4661,5 2666380, 47,0829 240


05 86 5

1961,5 1121980, 19,8119 270


05 86 4

0 0 0 300

Total 69851, 3995517 705,528


7 2,4 4

Table 8: Force acting on backwall

Figure 50: Hopper divided in sections

Figure 51: Fg distribution


Figure 52: Triangle of forces

Figure 54: Cantilever theory

Figure 53: Supporting points

By the means of the circular function the slope was determined, so that it was
possible to get FN.

fx=r-r2-x2=300-3002-x2

f'x=m=x3002-x2
FN [N] Distance α
[mm] [degrees m
] [slope] y x

90.67552 0 0 0 0 0

0.1005 1.5037688
89.30733 30 5.73917 04 68 30

0.2041 6.0612308
86.11583 60 11.537 24 66 60

0.3144 13.818239
81.09954 90 17.4576 85 57 90

0.4364 25.045458
74.2557 120 23.5782 36 3 120

0.5773 40.192378
65.57867 150 30 5 86 150

55.0563 180 36.8699 0.75 60 180

0.9801 85.757147
42.65578 210 44.427 96 14 210

1.3333
28.24977 240 53.1301 33 120 240

2.0647 169.23303
8.635824 270 64.1581 42 17 270

0 300 180 8 300 300

FNtotal=70
5.52
Table 9: Force acting normal on backwall and datasheet for circle function

Figure 55: Fn distribution

Figure 56: Stress distribution

A [mm2] FN Distance σ
[mm] [N/mm2]

17168,0 0
4 90.67552 0,005282

17193,1 30
5 89.30733 0,005221

17238,6 60
9 86.11583 0,005099

17311,5 90
6 81.09954 0,004911

17425,3 120
5 74.2557 0,00465

17608,5 150
3 65.57867 0,0043

17930,5 180
9 55.0563 0,003838

18622,6 210
4 42.65578 0,003207

23190,0 240
9 28.24977 0,00203

20563,8 270
4 8.635824 0,000963

0 0 300 0
Table 10: Stresses in backwall

r= 300 mm

h= 3 mm Iy
= 1282.5 mm4
b= 570 mm
Table 11: Values for deflection
621.6302
F= 742 N Iy=bh312

q0 1.319140 l=2πr4
= 412 N/mm q0=Fl
wx=q0l4360EIy3xl-10x3l3+7x5l5
471.2388
fm=q0l4153.3EIy in x=0.519l
l= 98 mm

E= 70000 N/mm2 Maximum deflection: fm=4.7267mm


Table 12: Deflection data 420 1.7032183
92
l [mm] w(x) [mm] 450 0.7221736
0 0 02
30 0.8917787 471,23 0
89
06
60 1.7525874
26
90 2.5522138
81
120 3.2619612
03
150 3.8554056
42
180 4.3091542
74
210 4.6036027
03
235,5 4.7172428
97
240 4.7236927
71
270 4.6596702
61
300 4.4078426
04
330 3.9713365
89
360 3.3608560
6
390 2.5954396
33 Figure 57: Deflection of backwall

Conclusion: The deflection of almost 5mm shows how the load affects the backwall
of the hopper. Therefore a support is needed to hold the load. This could be
accomplished by welding small aluminum sheets under the backwall to the
sidewalls.
Deflection of flapgate:
There are three categories of lateral earth pressure and each depends upon the
movement experienced by the vertical wall on which the pressure is acting.

These three categories are:

• At rest earth pressure


• Active pressure
• Passive pressure

Rest pressure develops when the wall experiences no lateral movement. This
typically occurs when the wall is restrained from movement such as a basement wall
that is supported at the bottom by a slab and the top by a floor framing system prior
to placing soil backfill against the wall.

Active pressure develops when the wall is free to move outward such as a typical
retaining wall and the soil mass stretches sufficiently to mobilize its shear strength.

Passive pressure develops when the wall moves into the soil, then the soil is
compressed sufficiently to mobilize its shear strength. This situation might occur
along the section of wall that is below grade and on the opposite side of the wall
from the higher section.

Figure 58: Wall movement Figure 59: Angles definitions


When discussing active and passive lateral earth pressure, there are 2 theories
existing:

• Rankine
• Coulomb

Rankine theory:
• No adhesion or friction between the wall and soil
• Lateral pressure is limited to vertical walls
• Failure (in the backfill) occurs as a sliding wedge along an assumed failure
plane defined by φ
• Lateral pressure varies linearly with depth and the resultant pressure is
located one-third of the height (H) above the base of the wall
• The resultant force is parallel to the backfill surface

Coulomb theory:
• There is friction between wall and soil and takes this into account by using a
soil-wall friction angle of δ (δ ranges from φ/2 to 2φ/3 and δ=2φ/3 is
commonly used)
• Lateral pressure is not limited to vertical walls
• The resultant force is not necessarily parallel to the backfill surface because
of the soil-wall friction value δ

The Coulomb theory was chosen for the case of the hopper because of the
arguments discussed above. The Coulomb active and passive coefficients are
complicated expressions that depend on the angle of the back of the wall, the soil-
wall friction value and the angle of backfill. These values can be found in textbook
tables or by programmed computers and calculators.

Some points have to be considered:


• As the soil becomes stronger the friction value φ increases. The active
pressure coefficient decreases, resulting in a decrease in the active force and
the passive pressure coefficient increases, resulting in an increase in the
passive force
• As the soil increases in strength there is less horizontal pressure on the wall
in the active case
The active case will be used for calculations on the hopper, because of bending of
the flapgate, which would be a moving of the wall like in the active case explained
above.

The following variables and formulas were needed to determine the pressure on the
flapgate. ()
active earth pressure β 0 rad
coefficient (Coulomb rad
KaC theory) ϕ 0,785398163 (=45°)
ϕ soil friction angle η 0 rad
η wall angle rad
δ wall friction angle δ 0,523598776 (=30°)
β backfill slope γt 0,000017658 N/mm3
Pa active earth pressure H0 300 mm
γt soil backfill unit weight c 0,001 N/mm2
H0 height of the wall KaC 0,161957635
c cohesion of soil total Pa 0,127888277 N/mm2
Table 13: Variables for earth pressure
Table 14: Determined values
calculations

KaC=cos2φ-ηcos2ηcosη+δ1+sinφ+δsinφ-βcosη+δcosη-β2
Pa=0.5KaCγtHo-2cKaC

The two formulas above are needed to calculate the earth pressure. KaC represents
the active earth pressure coefficient and is dependent of the described angles which
can be found in textbook tables.

Pa represents the total pressure which occurs at the height of H0/3 from the bottom
of the wall. The term that is subtracted in the formula represents the cohesion
effects of the regolith (c: cohesion of regolith), this effect lowers the total pressure.
Figure 60: Active and passive cases

H0
A [mm] P [N/mm2]
0 0 0
8,57954E-
17100 30 05 17100
0,00017159 A= 0 mm2
17100 60 1 h= 3 mm
0,00025738 b= 570 mm
17100 90 6 14,671
0,00034318 F= 02 N
17100 120 2 0,0489
0,00042897 q0= 03 N/mm
17100 150 7 l= 300 mm
0,00051477
17100 180 3 E= 70000 N/mm2
0,00060056 Iy= 1282,5 mm4
17100 210 8 Table 16: Values for deflection
0,00068636
17100 240 3
0,00077215
17100 270 9
0,00085795
17100 300 4
Table 15: Determined stresses
Figure 61: Stresses in the flapgate

Figure 62: Forces acting on the flapgate

08
Figure 63: Deflection of flapgate 7,3355 0,02872615
1 150 1
8,8026 0,02786243
12 180 6
H0 10,269 0,02419688
F [N] [mm] w(x) [mm] 71 210 7
0 0 0 11,736 0,01793173
1,4671 0,00845734 82 240 7
02 30 7 13,203
2,9342 0,01619033 92 270 0,00957808
04 60 4 14,671
4,4013 0,02251872 02 300 0
06 90 8 Table 17: Determined deflection value
5,8684 120 0,02685054

Conclusion: As shown and determined in Figure 63, the deflection of the flapgate is
very small, so this device doesn’t have to be improved in respect to the calculations,
but there could still occur some failures. These failures will be determined in the
experimental phase in next quarter. A problem could be the closing of the flapgate,
so that there is no gap where the regolith could flow out. This problem could be
solved by hatch seals which also will be used for the side walls to close the gaps.
Moving backwall concept:
In this step, the centroid was calculated of the backwall. It was needed to see when
the backwall is in equilibrium. Therefore it could be determined if a device is
necessary to pull the backwall after dumping back in its previous position.

The backwall is an annulus piece. The radius and the thickness of the backwall are
needed. The distance of the centroid is calculated with the following formula: ()

y=38.197R3-r3∙sinαR2-r2∙α=38.197300mm3-297mm3∙sin45°300mm2-
297mm2∙45°=268.75mm

Figure 64: Centroid of hopper backwall (side view)

a=cosα∙y=190.03mm
a=b=190.03mm

Figure 65: Distance of equilibrium point


Figure 66: Backwall in dumping position 1

Figure 67: Backwall in dumping position 2

The arc describes the backwall, the following calculations assume that the backwall
is very thin. Figure 66,Figure 67 and Figure 68 show the backwall in dumping
position. These positions helped to determine the necessary distances.

s=R2+R2=300mm2+300mm2=424.64mm→s2=212.32mm

y1=300mm2-212.13mm2=212.13mm
Figure 68: Backwall in dumping position 3

y-y1=268.75mm-212.13mm=56.62mm

x=212.13mm2+56.62mm2=219.56mm

cosγ=s2x→ γ=14.75°

Figure 69: Backwall in equilibirum point

β=45°-γ=30.25°
Figure 69 shows the backwall when it is in its equilibirum point.

Figure 70: Isosceles triangle

cosδ=x12R→x1=302.26mm

When the centroid is on the vertical axis the, the backwall is in equilibrium. The
distance x1 was calculated by the means of an isosceles triangle. The value of
302.26mm describes that the backwall will be able to rotate over the centroid in
respect to the radius of 300mm where it would interfere with the pivot point of the
flapgate at the top of the hopper. Figure 71 shows where the centroid would be until
the backwall would interfere with the pivot point at the top.
Pivot point of
flapgate

Figure 71: Maximum dumping position of backwall


The distance d was determined by the means of the software “solidworks”, which is
d=0.359mm.

Moment which acts on the backwall to fall because of gravity was determined as
follows:

m=Vback∙δAlu=πR2-r24∙w∙δAlu=π300mm2-297mm24∙572mm∙2730kgm3≈2.2kg

Mg=m∙g∙d=2.2kg∙9.81ms2∙0.000359m=7.7×10-3Nm

Conclusion: The determination of the centroid of the backwall shows that if no


device is installed, the backwall would rest in the dumping position. Therefore a
device definitely needed to ensure that the backwall gets back in its previous
position (storage position). Experiments will show which device can is adequate to
making this concept work properly in the next quarter. This could be accomplished
by a spring which would connect the backwall to the frame. After dumping the
spring would pull the backwall back. Another approach could be to shorten the ropes
so that the backwall doesn’t get that close to the centroid, to have a bigger
moment. Also metal brackets could be installed instead of ropes to create a positive
force on the backwall during retracting of the linear actuators. All these approaches
will be tested to figure the best possible solution in the next quarter.

Linear actuators:
Two linear actuators will be part of the dumping system. There are located at the
outside of the sidewalls (one on the left side and one on the right side). Therefore
they are connected to the sidewalls of the hopper and also to the flapgate.

The linear actuators have two tasks:

1. They have to open and close the flapgate


2. They have to keep the flapgate closed while excavating/storing

Therefore they must be capable of the excavated amount of regolith which will be
stored in the hopper. This is because the flapgate is connected via ropes to the
moving backwall and therefore the actuators have to lift all of it. The lifted mass is
round approximately 70kg. Another issue is the closing of the flapgate or in other
words the resistance of the actuators against the pressure. As seen in the diagrams
of the stresses in the flapgate. The highest stresses are in the bottom of the flapgate
and therefore the highest forces. That’s why the actuators have to be connected to
the flapgate as close as possible to the bottom. Although this creates a longer stroke
of the actuator, it is much more important to keep the gate closed.

The necessary opening angle for dumping will be determined in experiments. For
these calculations a an opening angle of 45° was assumed, but will be optimized, so
that if a smaller angle is possible, no time will be lost for dumping, that means
decreasing the dumping time.
The actuator should be in line with the pivot point at the flapgate where it is
connected, so that the stroke won’t be that large.

The stroke can be easily determined in this case:


sin45°=strokeradius→stroke=sin45°∙radius=212.13mm≅8.4"

Figure 72: Necessary stroke

The manufacturer Firgelli Automations has actuators in this range. This


manufacturer could be one possible solution for the actuators. The next stroke that
they have is 9”. The necessary load that has to be lifted is 70kg(≈154.3lb). So if we
assume that one actuator has to be capable in some situations of 2/3 of the 70kg
(due to a failure mode and due to a safety factor), each of the actuators has to be
capable of 70Kg*2/3=46.7kg(≈103lb). This gives us the FA-150 Standard Force
actuator by Firgelli Automations.
Some properties of the FA-150 Standard Force actuator by Firgelli Automations:()


• Stroke=9”≈228.6mm
• Collapsed length=13.5”≈342.9mm
• Extended length=22.5”≈571.5mm
• Weight=1160g
• Input voltage=12 VDC 5 amp current draw at full load
• Load capacity=150lbs≈68kg
• Static load (minimum)=2 times max load
• Speed at no load=0.5”/sec
• Clevis ends=1/4” diameter
• Screw=ACME screw
• Gear ratio=20:1
• Duty cycle=20%
• Operation temperature range= -26°C to +65°C
• Limit switch: built-in (factory preset) non moveable
• IP Grade: IP54
• Safety certificate: CE, ROHS
A datasheet concerning the actuators can be found in the attachment. All properties
are listed there as well as the dimensions. Tables show important values like speed
or load capacity.
Conclusion: If possible experiments will be ran to try to use actuators with a smaller
load capacity to increase the speed of extending and retracting of the actuator and
therefore decreasing the dumping time. An issue could be installing at the sidewall
of the hopper and the exact position. Other manufacturers will be also contacted to
compare available actuators on the market.
Sensors and Other Electronics
In order to make a proper engineering decision when selecting sensors, the first
question that had to be answered was what needs to be measured. A list was
created ranking the most important to least important measurements. Further
research was then conducted on different methods and products that could be used
for these measurements. These were then ranked the most to least information for
the cost. The “cost” is a mixture of factors used in the selection of sensors. Money,
weight, size, time, and other factors all play into the cost. All factors and possible
sensors are listed in the sensor hierarchy found in Table 1.

Page 90 of 146
Table 18: Sensor Hierarchy

Page 91 of 146
Top to bottom - Most important to least important measurement
Left to right - Least information and cost to most information and cost
Navigation
No Measurement Bump Sensors LEDs Single Camera Dual Cameras Moving Camera Laser Mapper
Provides a 3D
Four LEDs used for
Micro switches and One forward camera, one map of the
Description No measurement orientation with the A single forward camera Camera with pan and tilt
piano wire reverse camera surrounding
overhead camera
area
0.07 Green
Cost ($) 0 2.37 See Cameras Worksheet
0.14 Red
Mass 0 See Cameras Worksheet
Length 0 1.10 in 0.339 in See Cameras Worksheet
Width 0 0.63 in See Cameras Worksheet
0.232 in diameter
Depth 0 0.41 in See Cameras Worksheet
One end of the wire
on a pivot, the other
Top corners of the
Mounting passes through a
excevator
hole and contacts a
switch
Advantages
Only useful when
near a wall or Placement could be
Disadvantages No navigation obstacle, requires difficult, could be Limited line of sight Bandwidth limitations Bandwidth limitations
more time to obscured by dust
construct
Product Link Allied Allied Green See Cameras Worksheet
Notes Snap Action Allied Red

Digging Depth
No Measurement Limit Switches Micro Switch String Potentiometer Linear Potentiometer Actuators with Feedback
Switches placed at Stationary roller
the top and bottom micro switch which Measures position using Measures position via Actuators with built in
Description No measurement
of the movement rides over graduated a coiled string varying resistance potentiometers
range bumps
275 to 495 depending on 30.00 more than base
Cost ($) 0 2.47 2.46 275
length actuator
Mass 0 0.3oz 0.3 oz 3 oz
depends on required
Length 0 1.09 in 1.09 in 3.45in
measurement length
Same as base actuator
Width 0 0.63 in 0.63 in 1.90in
0.38 in or 0.5 in diameter
Depth 0 0.40 in 0.40 in 1.85in
Along the bucket
Placed to contact the conveyer, bumps Along the bucket Alongthe bucket Replaces normal
Mounting
actuator rod attached to the conveyer conveyer actuators
conveyer frame
Advantages

Information limited
Disadvantages No measurement Minimal information by graduations, could
get jammed with dust

Product Link Allied Allied Racerparts Omega 0.38" Progressive Automations


Comparing mini linear
Roller Lever Switch, actuators to linear
Notes Lever Switch Celesco Omega 0.5"
Requires bumps actuator with
potentiometer

Hopper Weight
No Measurement Switches and Springs Strain Gauges Force Sensor
Limit switches used
Measure deflection
in conjunction with Electrical resistance
Description No measurement in the frame from the
springs of known changes with load
weight of the hopper
stiffness
Cost ($) 0 2.47 80 per pack of 10 660.35
Mass 0 0.3oz
Length 0 1.09 in 0.37 in Depends on load
Width 0 0.63 in 0.11 in capacity
Depth 0 0.40 in
On frame, near
Mounting Beneath hopper Beneath hopper
hopper
Advantages
Requires more time Can be difficult to
Disadvantages No measurement
to construct calibrate
Product Link Allied Omega Allied
Lever Switch, spring
Notes Max 8 V
figures not included

Page 92 of 146
Hopper Position
No Measurement Limit Switch String Potentiometer Linear Potentiometer Actuators with Feedback
Measures position Measures position via Actuators with built in
Description No measurement Detects closure
using a coiled string varying resistance potentiometers
275 to 495 depending on30 more than base
Cost ($) 0 2.47 275
length actuator
Mass 0 0.3 oz 3 oz 0.4 to 1.1 oz
depends on required
Length 0 1.09 in 3.45 in
measurement length
Same as base actuator
Width 0 0.63 in 1.90 in
0.38 in or 0.5 in diameter
Depth 0 0.40 in 1.85 in
On base of hopper Replaces normal
Mounting Along actuators Along actuators
along the door actuators
Advantages
Minimal
Disadvantages No measurement
measurement
Product Link Allied Racerparts Omega 0.38" Progressive Automations

Comparing mini linear


actuators to linear
Notes Lever Switch Celesco Omega 0.5"
actuator with
potentiometer

Conveyer Rotation
No Measurement Micro Switch Hall-effect Sensor Rotary Potentiometer Rotary Encoder
Stationary roller
Stationary sensor Measures angular
micro switch which
Description No measurement detects one or more position via varying Measures rotation
rides over one or
magnets resistance
more bumps
Cost ($) 0 2.46 1.99 32.51
Mass 0 0.3 oz 17.6 oz
Length 0 1.09 in 0.08 in 0.484 in 1.89 in
Width 0 0.63 in 0.08 in
1.125 in diameter 2.99 in diameter
Depth 0 0.40 in 0.05 in
Mounting On axis
Advantages
Not necessarily
Could get jammed
Disadvantages No measurement applicable to continuous
with dust
rotation
Product Link Allied Allied Allied Trelectronic
Roller Lever Switch,
Notes Requires magnets
Requires bumps

Other
Motor Gearbox Piano Wire
Description CIM P80 Motor Planetary
Cost ($) 28 79.50 to 157.25 15.95 per 1 lbm cable
Mass 46 oz 30 to 61 oz
Length 4.32 in 2.5 to 4.5 in
Depends on gauge
Width 2.5 in
2.6 in diameter
Depth 2.5 in
Mounting
Advantages
Disadvantages
Product Link BaneBots BaneBots PianoSupplies
Price, mass, and
Notes length variations Guages
based on gear ratio

Page 93 of 146
Cameras

Panasonic BL- Panasonic BL- Linksys TRENDnet TRENDnet


hootoo FoscamFI8908W
C140A C1A WVC80N-RM TV-IP501P TV-IP501W

Motion Motion
Type Fixed 0-270Horizontal 0-270Horizontal Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
0-120Verticle 0-120Verticle
Manufacturer's Cost ($) 199.95 72.99 119.95 99.95 89.99 142.99 164.99
4.69oz 4.69oz
Mass 9.88oz 3.52oz (+4.27oz (+4.27oz
stand) stand)
Length 5.8125in 3.375in 7.7in 7.7in
Width 4.25in 3.375in 3.5in 3.5in
Depth 2.5in 1in 2in 2in
Max Resolution 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480
Max Frame Rate (FPS) 30 25 15 30 30
Zoom 10x digital 10x digital 4x digital 4x digital
5V/2.5A 5V/2.5A
Power Source 9V DC(3.2W) 5V DC/2A 9V DC(1.7W)
(2.6W) (2.6W)
Outdoor rated,
Built in Wifi and Built in
splash proof, Built in Wifi and Built in Wifi
Advantages ethernet, night Wifi and
power over ethernet and ethernet
vision ethernet
Ethernet
Disadvantages
Product Link Panasonic hootoo Foscam Panasonic Linksys TRENDnet TRENDnet
Notes

Experimentation:

Cameras:
In order to determine how a camera could benefit the robot’s operation the sensor
sub-team devised 5 different experiments. These tests will determine how and if a
camera would be used.

1. Lag
2. Blur
3. Vibration
4. Movement
5. Driving

The lag test uses the Linksys network camera. While pointing the camera at
the computer screen and recording simultaneously, a tunnel effect of camera
windows is created. Swinging the camera away and back towards the screen
multiple times allows the frame rate, and the lag time of the camera to be found.
After completing the test it was found that the network camera had a lag time of
0.5 seconds.

Page 94 of 146
Using the same recording as the lag test, the blur dissipation time can be
found by counting the frames from when the camera stops moving until the motion
blur dissipates. It was found that the blur dissipates after 0.12 seconds.

In order to test the vibration of the camera, the network cam was mounted
on the robot, facing perpendicular to the direction of travel. A test board with black
and white horizontal stripes, was be set up along the distance of travel. As the
robot drove, a recording was taken. Using know values such as the distance to the
board, thickness of stripes, frame rate etc., the angular vibration magnitude and
average velocity can be found. The resulting angular vibration magnitude was
0.007576 rad, and the average velocity was 0.45454 rad/s.

The final tests are very similar. The movement test has the robot drive
around the lab while recording, then analyzing the video to determine if all of the
surroundings were in focus and identifiable. If the visual recording was clear, the
driving test could then be performed. The robot was driven around the lab using
only the camera as guidance. After the test was completed, it was determined that
it is feasible to drive the robot solely using one camera. There were minimal
collisions, and occasional pausing is required.

Hopper springs and switches:


Knowing the current weight of material inside the hopper is a major concern. A
spring switch combination was created to balance the hopper above a simple toggle
switch. Knowing the spring constants and size allows for a simple mathematical
model to be made so that when a certain weight is reached, the switch is hit.
MATLAB was used to write a code to prove that no matter where the load was
applied, the switch would still be hit at a predetermined weight. The MATLAB code
contained in the m-script can be found in Appendix B.

When the code was run, the following plot of deflections was created. As the
position of the load moves from the left end of the bar to the right, the deflection at
the left end decreases and the deflection increases at the right end. However, the
deflection at the switch, which is located at the midpoint, remains constant. This
system can be calibrated through the proper selection of springs and mounting
height of the switch.

Page 95 of 146
Figure 73: Center Aligned Switch

For comparison, the following plot was made with the switch positioned 1 cm left of
center. Here, accuracy is dependent upon the position of the load.

Figure 74: Off-center switch

This system can be calibrated through the proper selection of springs and mounting
height of the switch. Beginning next term, the sensor sub-team will construct an
actual model for weighing the hopper to test structural rigidity and accuracy.

A simple solid model was created to show the planned layout of this system. The
C-bar will fit over the support rails on the structure, and the springs will fit into
shallow cuts on each supporting bar to ensure the springs do not move laterally.
The switch is located in the center of the bar.

Page 96 of 146
Figure 75: Hopper loading switch

Bump Sensors:
Due to the lag in the camera, and the possibility of a low visibility environment,
bump sensors could be placed on the lower robot for collision prevention. Multiple
configurations have been created for testing. These designs are still in sketch form,
but plans to begin simple construction and testing have been made for the
beginning of spring term.

Table 19: Bump Sensor Alternatives

Design Description

The switch is tripped by a piece of piano


wire.

Simple, easy, cheap

Figure 76: Wire

Thin sheet metal supported by a wire.

For increased coverage

Figure 77: Plate

Page 97 of 146
Double ended plate, switches can be
wired in parallel or series.

No overlap required
Figure 78: Double-Switch Plate

Springs are of a relatively low stiffness.

Insures reset

Figure 79: Spring Plate

Combination of the spring plate and the


double-switch plate.

Figure 80: Double-Switch Spring Plate

Figure 81: Alternative Double-Switch Spring


Plate

Table 20: Bump Sensor Mounting Alternatives

Design Description
As drawn in table 18.

Page 98 of 146
Figure 82: Horizontal Switch Support

Switches rotated 90 degrees.

Figure 83: Vertical Switch Support

Bracket supports.

Not recommended for setups without


Figure 84: Slotted Bracket Support springs.

Current Design:
The current design of the navigational systems
consists of two Linksys network cameras, four Light
Emitting Diodes, and a minimum of five bump sensors.
The network cameras are the primary feedback to the
operator. One network camera will be positioned facing
forward and the other will be a rear facing camera. The
rear facing camera was included to reduce travel time Figure 85: Linksys Model
WVC80N-RM Network Camera
during competition. As the hopper is designed to
empty from the back of the excavator, it will be much
more efficient to drive the excavator in reverse to the
collection bin, rather than turning driving to the bin and
turning again. To reduce communication bandwidth, each
camera will be deactivated when not in use.

The bump sensors will detect collisions that occur Figure 86: A Limit
Switch
outside the visual range of the cameras. This additional
information will allow the operator to detect collisions and
minimize damage.

Two red and two green LEDs constitute an


alternative navigation method, should the cameras be
obscured or damaged. In competition an overhead view
of the arena is provided. The LEDs will allow the operator
to use this overhead camera to identify the orientation of Figure 87: LEDs
the excavator, even when the view excavator is partially
obscured by dust.

Page 99 of 146
The hopper will be balanced on a system of four springs and two switches will
inform the operator when the hopper is filled to capacity. A limit switch placed
beneath the hopper will let the operator know when the hopper is fully closed.

Figure 88: Hopper Closure Switch

The excavator will use three rotary encoders. One encoder will be mounted to
the drive shaft of each track and the third will be mounted to the drive motor on the
bucket conveyer. These rotary encoders will provide angular position and velocity
feedback for their corresponding drive motors.

Figure 89: Rotary Encoder

Possible Changes:
The current design of the sensor system may undergo some changes before
the competition this spring. During competition the average communication
bandwidth is limited to 5 mega bits per second. If the deactivation of cameras, while
they are not in use, does not reduce the communication bandwidth, then the rear
facing camera will have to be removed. Conversely, if the amount of communication
bandwidth used by the excavator is sufficiently below the limit, and if the budget
allows, the cameras may be replaced by cameras of a higher picture quality.

As weight is a major concern of this project, the rear facing camera may also
be removed due to weight constraints. Bump sensors may also be changed to a
simpler design or even removed to reduce the weight of the system.

Page 100 of 146


Detailed Budget
The Manatee Mining Systems Team keeps a very detailed economic and weight
budget. The detailed expenses can be viewed in Table 5.

MESeniorDesignProject
2011 Student Lunar Regolith Competition
Team: ManateeMininingSystems
Members: Rafael Ardnt
Jon Block
Zak Griffa
Mike Riley
David Swanson
Mike Varga
Ryan Waldman
Eugen Zinn
Date: 2/19/2011

Project Expenses: Materials Labor Total % of Total


Mobility (Drive and Chassis) $ 1,050.28 $ 720.00 $ 1,770.28 15%
Conveyor (Bucket Excavation) $ 1,201.61 $ 945.00 $ 2,146.61 18%
Structural $ 337.60 $ 6,075.00 $ 6,412.60 55%
Controls System $ 1,278.24 $ - $ 1,278.24 11%
SUBTOTAL: $ 3,867.73 $ 7,740.00 $ 11,607.73 100%

Project Income: Funds Labor Total % of Total


Customer Funds $ 4,000.00 $ - $ 4,000.00 73%
Grants $ - N/A $ - 0%
Donations $ 914.50 $ - $ 914.50 17%
TeamMembers $ 600.00 $ - $ 600.00 11%
SUBTOTALS $ 5,514.50 $ - $ 5,514.50 100%

Page 101 of 146


Table 21: Manatee Mining Systems robot design expenses

Page 102 of 146


2010 - 2011 MSOE Senior Design Robotics Team
Bill of Materialsfor : 2011CompetitionRobot Team: ManateeMiningSystems School: MilwaukeeSchool of Engineering
Date: 2/19/2011 City: Milwaukee State: Wisconsin
Required?

Total Price Unit Weight Total Weight


Initial

Unit Unit Total

QTY
Item Description Raw Material Source
Price $ % lbs kg lbs kg % Hours Hours

Y Mobility Gearbox P -80 Standard Gearbox (144:1) BaneBots 2 $163.50 $327.00 5% 3.30 1.50 6.60 2.99 0.0
Y Mobility Additional Hardware Bolts/Washers/Nuts/Rivets Local Hardware Store 1 $100.00 $100.00 2% 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Connecting link ANSI #35 Connecting Link With K-1Tabs 7321K3 McMaster Carr 40 $2.14 $85.60 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Idler sprocket No. of teeth 15, part No. 8255K12 McMaster Carr 6 $11.92 $71.52 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Aluminum channel 90 degree angle, part No. 4630T12 McMaster Carr 8 $8.37 $66.96 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Single strand chain ANSI #35 Chain (10' length) McMaster Carr 2 $28.80 $57.60 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility M otors 2.5" CIM Motor am-0255 (337W) Andy M ark 2 $28.00 $56.00 1% 2.82 1.28 5.64 2.56 0.0
Y Mobility Sides Frames 0.125 x6.00 x 24.00 6061Al Stock Speedymetals.com 4 $13.55 $54.20 1% 3.50 1.59 14.00 6.35 4.0 16.0
Y Mobility Aluminum stock Angle 6061Aluminum 1/4"x 2"x2"x 6ft Speedymetals.com 2 $26.90 $53.80 1% 6.66 3.02 13.32 6.04 0.0
Y Mobility Aluminum stock Angle 6063Aluminum 3/16"x2"x2"x 6ft Speedymetals.com 2 $25.20 $50.40 1% 4.99 2.26 9.98 4.53 0.0
N Mobility Labor Work performed by M obility Sub team 8 $45.00 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.0
Y Mobility Drive sprocket 32 Tooth 20mm DIA Bore, SP 40B32-N-20 MISUM I 8 $15.90 $127.20 2% 2.67 1.21 21.36 9.69 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0

Y Mobility (Drive and Chassis) SUBTOTAL: $1,050 18% 73 32 ## 16


Y Conveyor Buckets (12 x 24 x0.05 AL plate) x10 (2 buckets per plate) Speedymetals.com 10 $11.66 $116.60 2% 0.28 0.13 2.80 1.27 2.0 20.0
Y Conveyor Gearbox P 80 Gearbox: Standard Shaft CIM 256:1 BaneBots 1 $157.25 $157.25 3% 3.81 1.73 3.81 1.73 1.0 1.0
Y Conveyor Hardware Additional Bolts/nuts/washers 1 $100.00 $100.00 2% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Conveyor Connecting link ANSI #35 Connecting Link With K-1Tabs 7321K3 McMaster Carr 40 $2.14 $85.60 1% 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.18 0.0
Y Conveyor Linear Actuator 12vdc IEI 500 lb max, 0.51in/sec 5.09" stroke Burden Sales Surplus Center
2 $189.99 $379.98 6% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Conveyor Drive Sprocket BSP 40B24-N-15 (15mm shaft Dia 24 teeth MISUM I 2 $16.10 $32.20 1% 1.71 0.78 3.42 1.55 0.0
N Conveyor Square Stock 6" x 6" x 1" Black P olycarbonate McMaster Carr 1 $63.54 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Conveyor Bearings BGCAB623ZZ MISUM I 4 $10.45 $41.80 1% 0.16 0.07 0.64 0.29 0.0
Y Conveyor Chain #35 Chain 10' 6261K151 McMaster Carr 2 $28.80 $57.60 1% 2.50 1.13 5.00 2.27 0.0
N Conveyor C-Channel 2.0 base, 1.0 leg height, 1/8 thk, 8 feet McMaster Carr 2 $26.93 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Conveyor Support Beams AETRS12_326_SC0 MISUM I 4 $16.00 $64.00 1% 0.22 0.10 0.88 0.40 0.0
N Conveyor Labor Work performed by Excavation Sub team 5 $45.00 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.0 0.0
Y Conveyor Driven Shaft KZCE15-370-P 12-LA10-LB10-KC5-HC100-KD245-HD100 MISUM I 1 $16.80 $16.80 0% 1.06 0.17 1.06 0.17 0.0
Y Conveyor Drive Shaft KZCE15-400-P 12-LA40-LB10-KA0-HA30-KC5-HC100-KD245-HD100 MISUM I 1 $18.80 $18.80 0% 1.08 0.49 1.08 0.49 0.0
Y Conveyor M otor 2.5" CIM Motor am-0255 Andy M ark 1 $28.00 $28.00 0% 2.82 1.28 2.82 1.28 0.0
Y Conveyor Flat stock 4" x 6 feet x 3/16" thk 6061Al (side rails) Speedymetals.com 2 $20.29 $40.58 1% 5.28 2.39 10.56 4.79 0.0
Y Conveyor Timing P ulley U-ATP 32XL050-B-S0.50 MISUM I 2 $31.20 $62.40 1% 0.29 0.13 0.57 0.26 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Y Conveyor (Bucket Excavation) Assembly SUBTOTAL: $1,202 20% 33 15 ## 21


N Struct/Assem. Linear Actuator 12vdc IEI 500 lb max, 0.51in/sec 8.03" stroke Burden Sales Surplus Center
2 $189.99 $0.00 0% 13.00 5.90 0.00 0.00 3.0 0.0
Y Struct/Assem. Hardware Additional Bolts/nuts/washers 1 $100.00 $100.00 2% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Struct/Assem. Al Extrusion 20mm x 4m Al Extrusion HFSC5-2020-4000 MISUM I 4 $24.40 $97.60 2% 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.0 60.0
Y Struct/Assem. Sheet Metal 6061AL 36" x36" x0.032" thk McMaster Carr 2 $47.23 $94.46 2% 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.0 30.0
Y Struct/Assem. Flat Stock 0.25 x 4.00 x48.00 6061Al Flat Stock Speedymetals.com 3 $15.18 $45.54 1% 4.80 2.18 14.40 6.53 15.0 45.0
N Struct/Assem. Labor Work by the Structural Sub team 6 $45.00 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 450.0 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0

Y Structural Assembly SUBTOTAL: $338 6% 14 7 ## 135


Y Controls Speed Control Victor 884 24V 120A Continuous IFI Robotics 3 $199.95 $599.85 10% 0.25 0.11 0.75 0.34 0.0
Y Controls P ower Distribution Fuse panel with 24V boost supply AndyMark 1 $189.00 $189.00 3% 1.60 0.73 1.60 0.73 0.0
Y Controls Hardware Additional Bolts/nuts/washers 1 $100.00 $100.00 2% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Controls Enclosure 24"x 24" 3/16" P olycarbonate Sheet McMaster Carr 3 $27.06 $81.18 1% 3.00 1.36 9.00 4.08 0.0
Y Controls P owerP ole 45A 45A P owerpole Set P owerwerx.com 4 $14.95 $59.80 1% 0.20 0.09 0.80 0.36 0.0
N Controls Labor Work by the Electrical Sub team 5 $45.00 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 450.0 0.0
Y Controls H-Bridge Relay Spike H-Bridge Relay 20A IFI Robotics 1 $34.95 $34.95 1% 0.12 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.0
Y Controls 40 Amp Breaker 40 amp snap action breaker AndyMark 3 $7.00 $21.00 0% 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.14 0.0
Y Controls 10awg Black Wire 10awg high strand count black wire (per ft.) Robot Market P lace 20 $0.79 $15.80 0% 0.30 0.14 6.00 2.72 0.0
Y Controls 10awg Red Wire 10awg high strand count red wire (per ft.) Robot Market P lace 20 $0.79 $15.80 0% 0.30 0.14 6.00 2.72 0.0
Y Controls 16awg Black Wire 16awg high strand count black wire (per ft) Robot Market P lace 20 $0.60 $12.00 0% 0.30 0.14 6.00 2.72 0.0
Y Controls 16awg Red Wire 16awg high strand count red wire (per ft.) Robot Market P lace 20 $0.60 $12.00 0% 0.30 0.14 6.00 2.72 0.0
Y Controls 20 Amp Breaker 20 amp snap action breaker AndyMark 2 $6.00 $12.00 0% 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.0
Y Controls Servo Wire 22awg servo wire (sold by foot) Robot Market P lace 20 $0.56 $11.20 0% 0.05 0.02 1.00 0.45 0.0
Y Controls 120A Connector 120 Anderson P ower P ole Connector P owerwerx.com 1 $6.26 $6.26 0% 0.20 0.09 0.20 0.09 0.0
Y Controls M ale Servo Conn. RC M ale Housing and P in Set Robot Market P lace 10 $0.37 $3.70 0% 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.0
Y Controls Female Servo Conn. RC Female Housing and P in Set Robot Market P lace 10 $0.37 $3.70 0% 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.0
N Controls Controller sbRIO 9632 National Instruments 1 ###### $0.00 0% 2.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Battery Battery 12v Motorcycle Battery 2 $50.00 $100.00 2% 0.50 0.23 1.00 0.45 0.0
N Controls Accelerometer P arallax-Hitachi Tri-Axis Robot Shop 1 $34.99 $0.00 0% 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0
N Controls Gyroscope SFE Dual 500deg/sec Gyroscope Robot Shop 1 $43.42 $0.00 0% 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0

Y Controls (Electrical, Sensors, Processing) SUBTOTAL: $1,278 21% 39 18 ## 0


Y Travel ExpensesGasoline Travel down to J FK ($0.50 per M ile) 1300 $0.50 $650.00 11% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Travel ExpensesGasoline Travel down to J FK ($0.50 per M ile) 1300 $0.50 $650.00 11% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Travel ExpensesRoomand Board 4 nights in a hotel for 2 rooms 8 $100.00 $800.00 13% 0.00 0.00 0.0
N Travel ExpensesM eals 3 meals a day for 8 people 96 $10.00 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0

Y Travel Expenses SUBTOTAL: $2,100 35% 0 0 ## 0

Total Price: $5,968


Total Weight: 159.52lbs, 71.14kg
Total Hours: 172

Page 103 of 146


Table 21a: Detailed structure budget

Stock Order Totals


ITEM Cost per length
Material Dimensions Length (mm) length Total ($)
NO. ($)
3/4 in x 3/4in
1 4340 CHROMALLOY 16409 50.88 6ft 456.52
tubing
2 4340 CHROMALLOY 1in x 1in tubing 6554 43.2 6ft 154.82
3 1060 Aluminum 2in x 2 in 16in 31.72 1.5ft 31.72
4 1060 Aluminum 1in x 1in 16in 10.41 1.5ft 10.41
5 1060 Aluminum 3in x 4in 16in 82.26 1.5ft 82.26
3/4 in Round
6 4340 CHROMALLOY 7cm 10.52 1ft 10.52
Shaft
Total $746.25

Environmental Impact
All Material Safety Data Sheet Information can be found in Appendix D.

Materials Contained in the Design


The material that is used in the design is structured into the sections: drive,
material handling, and electrical components.

Track system:
Table 22: Components included in the track assembly

Component Quantity
CIM Motor 2
P80Gearbox 2
ANSI #40Steel Sprockets 8
ANSI #40Chain 25ft
6061AluminumAlloyPlate 126ft
2

3004AluminumRound Stock 3in Dia 1ft


PVCRubPlate 1ft
2

Roller Bearings 12
Max-Chain Aerosol 1

Page 104 of 146


Excavation:
Table 23: Components include in the excavator assembly

Component Quantity
6061AluminumAlloyFlat Stock 12ft
Roller Bearings 4
AluminumTimingBelt Pulleys 2
TimingBelt 1
3004AluminumAlloyBuckets 20
ANSI #40Chain 24ft
ANSI #40Steel Sprockets 4
15mmDia. Steel Drive Shafts 2
15mmDia. AluminumSupport Rods 4
ANSI #40Idler Sprockets 4
0.25" Thick6061AluminumPlate 2ft
Socket HeadCap Screws ~100
Linear Actuators 2
Linear Slide Rails 2

Hopper:
Table 24: Components included in the hopper assembly

Component Quantity
Linear Actuator 2
Hatch Seals 500mm
Rope/Cable 2ft
6061AluminumAlloyPlate

Page 105 of 146


Electrical:
Table 25: Components included in the electrical system

LINKSYSWirelessRouter 1
NiMHRechargeable Batteries 2
Microswitch 13
LEDs 4
RotaryEncoder 3
Springs 14
LinksysRefurbished WVC80N-RM 2
Wireless-N Camera
ALLEN BRADLEYEmergencySwitch 1
Electrical Connectors

Structure:
The structure is made out of 4340 Chromalloy Steel.

Materials or chemicals to be used in the design


The excavator will excavate in lunar regolith simulant JSC-1A. After operation the
components might contain JSC-1A.

Special handling instructions

Drive:
• A single track module weighs approximately 30lbs. Exercise caution when
lifting.
• All machined components and sprockets may have sharp edges. Use
caution when transporting.

Excavation:
• Buckets blades, sprockets, and hopper may have sharp edges. Leather
gloves are recommended if handling these components.
• There is risk of serious injury due to the pinch points between sprockets
and chain, or between the excavator and the frame. Removing all sources
of energy is required before performing maintenance on these
components.
• Special precaution must be taken when the equipment is under operation
since rotational parts may cause serious injuries by contact.
• Do not apply any unnecessary loading on the equipment.

Page 106 of 146


Hopper:
• There is risk of serious injury due to the pinch points between the hopper
wall and the flap gate when the hopper is open. Removing all sources of
energy is required before performing maintenance on this component.
• Do not apply any unnecessary loading on the equipment.

Electrical:
• The battery packs could weigh in excess of 10lbs each. Be careful when
lifting.
• The electrical control panel could weigh in excess of 15lbs and have the
potential of having some sharp edges. Fragile components will be
mounted to it. Handle with care.
• Many of the devices mounted to the electrical control panel are
susceptible to electrostatic discharge. Make sure to handle
panel/components with caution.

Special storage instructions

Drive:
• Dimensions of track modules are 29” X 5” X 6”.
• Store in a cool and dry location free of excessive moisture to prevent
corrosion of components.

Excavator:
• Dimensions of the excavator are 16in X 6ft X 6in.
• Store in a cool and dry location free of excessive moisture to prevent
corrosion of components.
• Do not store any objects on the excavator as external loading my shift
components out of alignment.
• Thorough cleaning after operation is recommended to keep parts clean of
build-up of contaminants. Avoid to storage equipment in dusty places to
preserve rotational equipment in optimal conditions.

Hopper:
• Dimensions of hopper are 22” X 12.2” X 16”
• Do not store any objects on the hopper as external loading may warp the
assembly.

Electrical:
• Make sure to store NiMH batteries in a temperature controlled location. If
storing the batteries for more than a year, cells must be charged at least
once a year.
• Make sure to store electrical panel within a temperature controlled
location.

Page 107 of 146


Disposal Instructions

Track System:

Parts to be reused
• 2 CIM Motors
• 2 P80 Gearboxs
• ANSI #40 Sprockets
• 6 Idler Wheels
• 12 Roller Bearings

Materials to be recycled
• Consult local regulations regarding the disposal or recycling of any
materials.
• Any metal framing or other metal components can be recycled at the
discretion of the team.

Excavator:

Parts to be reused
• 1 CIM Motor
• 1 P80 Gearbox
• 2 Linear actuators
• 4 Driven Sprockets
• ANSI 40 Chain
• 2 Drive Shafts
• 4 support shafts
• 4 Idler Sprockets
• 4 bearings
• 2 Timing Belt Pulleys
• 1 Timing Belt
• Fasteners

Materials to be recycled
• Consult local regulations regarding the disposal or recycling of any
materials.
• Any metal framing, buckets or other metal components can be
recycled at the discretion of the owner.
• Damaged screws, bolts, etc. may not be reused and must be recycled

Hopper:

Parts to be reused
• Rope

Page 108 of 146


• Linear Actuators
Materials to be recycled

All aluminum can be recycled. The hatch seals may be reused, otherwise they must
be disposed of properly.

Electrical:

Parts to be reused
• LINKSYS Wireless Router
• 2 LINKSYS WVC80N-RM Wireless-N Cameras
• NiMH Rechargeable Batteries
• 4 LEDs
• 13 Microswitches
• 3 Rotary Encoders
• Some special purpose wires/connectors

Materials to be recycled
• Electronic Components
• Rechargeable NiMH Batteries

If necessary, all electronic components must be properly recycled. All of these


devices may contain lead based solder or traces of it. All of the electrical devices,
batteries included, can be recycled in a variety of ways, many are even free. The
EPA (www.epa.gov) has a list of electronics recycling organizations nationwide that
are capable of recycling electronics and rechargeable NiMH batteries.

Timeline

Excavator Sub-team Time Line

Table 26: Excavation Sub-team ME491-ME492 Timeline

Page 109 of 146


Structure Sub-Team Timeline

Table 27: Structure Sub-Team ME491 Timeline

Page 110 of 146


Table 28: Structure Sub-Team ME492 Timeline

Page 111 of 146


Appendix A
Excavator Components

Page 112 of 146


Figure 90: Excavator Bill Of Materials

Excavator components purchased from MISUMI

Figure 91: Roller bearing designs complete with mounting apparatus. The excavator will
utilize the compact bearing design.

Figure 92: Timing belt pulley used to transmit power between the gearbox and the
excavator drive shaft.

Figure 93: Stepped drive shaft for the sprockets on both ends of the excavator.

Page 113 of 146


Figure 94: Idler sprockets used on the excavator.

Figure 95: Idler shafts used to add stability to the frame and also allow the idler sprockets
to function.

Page 114 of 146


Page 115 of 146
Figure 96: Side Rail - Non motor

Page 116 of 146


Page 117 of 146
Figure 97: Structural brace

Page 118 of 146


Page 119 of 146
Figure 98: Actuator mounting bracket

Page 120 of 146


Page 121 of 146
Figure 99: Driven shaft of the excavator assembly.

Page 122 of 146


Page 123 of 146
Figure 100: Excavator Bucket

Page 124 of 146


Figure 101: CIM Motor used in the excavator and the track systems

Page 125 of 146


Table 29: CIM Motor specifications

MotorSpecifications
Performance Physical
Model M4-R0062-12 Weight : 46 oz (1304g)
Operatingv : 6v - 12v Length - for motor : 4.32 in (109.6mm)
Nominal v : 12v Diameter : 0 in (0mm)
No Load RPM : 5310 Diameter : 2.6 in (66mm)
No Load A : 2.7A ShaftDiameter : 0.31 in (8mm)
Stall Torque : 343.27 oz-in 2424 mN-m Shaft Length : 1.4 in (35.6mm)
Stall Current : 133A
Kt : 2.58 oz-in/A 18.2 mN-m/A
Kv : 443 rpm/V
Efficiency : 65%
RPM - Peak Eff : 4614
Torque- Peak Eff : 45 oz-in 317.8 mN-m
Current - Peak Eff : 19.8A
Inductance : 0.023H

Page 126 of 146


Figure 102: P 80 gearbox used in the track system and the excavator

Page 127 of 146


Figure 103: P80 Gearbox

Page 128 of 146


The linear actuators used in the excavator and the hopper:

Page 129 of 146


Page 130 of 146
Page 131 of 146
Page 132 of 146
Appendix B
MATLAB Code for Hopper Spring/Switch Simulation
%2D rigid beam
%each end supported by a spring of equal stiffnesses
%force aplied as a point load
clear
clc
i=1; %counter
j=0.1; %step size
s=10; %cm Location of switch
x(1)=0; %cm Location of center of mass
m=15; %kg arbetrary mass
g=9.82; %m/s^2 Gravity
W=m*g; %N Weight
k=50; %N/cm Arbitrary spring constant
L=20; %cm arbitrary length of beam
while x(i) < L
Fb=W*x(i)/L; %N Left end force
yb(i)=-Fb/k; %cm Left end deflection
Fa=W-Fb; %N Right end force
ya(i)=-Fa/k; %cm Right end deflection
y(i)=(ya(i)*(L-s)+yb(i)*s)/L; %cm Deflection at switch location
i=i+1;
x(i)=x(i-1)+j;
end
Fb=W*x(i)/L; %N
yb(i)=-Fb/k; %cm
Fa=W-Fb; %N
ya(i)=-Fa/k; %cm
y(i)=(ya(i)*(L-s)+yb(i)*s)/L; %cm
hold on %plots of deflection as a function of center of mass location
plot(x,ya)
plot(x,yb,'k')
plot(x,y,'r')
legend('Left','Right','Spring')
xlabel('Weight Location (cm)')
ylabel('Deflection (cm)')

Page 133 of 146


Appendix C
Bill of Materials

Structure

Lower Frame
Table 30: Lower Structure BOM
ITEM Length Length to order
Part Material Cross Section QTY.
NO. (mm) [mm]
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
1 Track700NC 700 8 5600
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
2 Track536NC 536 3 1605
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
3 Track172NC 172 8 1376
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
4 Track140NC 140 8 1120
CHROMALLOY tubing
Trackadapter1 4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
5 51 4 204
NC CHROMALLOY tubing
Trackadapter2 4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
6 50 4 200
NC CHROMALLOY tubing

Page 134 of 146


Figure 104: The engineering drawing of the lower frame

Upper Frame

Table 31: Upper Frame BOM


ITEM Length Length to order
Part Material Dimensions QTY.
NO. (mm) [mm]
Track1230NCwithho 4340
1 1in x 1in tubing 1230 2 2460
les CHROMALLOY
4340
2 Track760NC 1in x 1in tubing 760 2 1520
CHROMALLOY
Track1230NChoppe 4340
3 1in x 1in tubing 1230 2 2460
r CHROMALLOY
4340
4 Track57NC 1in x 1in tubing 57 2 114
CHROMALLOY
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
5 Track567NC 567 2 1134
CHROMALLOY tubing

Page 135 of 146


4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
6 Track838NC 838 2 1676
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
7 Track100NC 100 2 200
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
8 Track1029NC 1029 2 2058
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
9 Track618NC 618 2 1236
CHROMALLOY tubing
Excavation Bracket
10 1060 Aluminum 2in x 2 in 4in 4 16in
v4
11 Guide v3 1060 Aluminum 1in x 1in 4in 4 16in
12 Hopper Bracket v5 1060 Aluminum 3in x 4in 4in 4 16in

Figure 105 The engineering drawing of the upper frame

Page 136 of 146


Components for Upper Frame

Figure 106: The engineering drawing of the hopper support bracket

Page 137 of 146


Figure 107: The engineering drawing of the excavator pin support

Page 138 of 146


Figure 108: The engineering drawing of the excavator side support

Page 139 of 146


Appendix D
Material Safety Data Sheets:

Page 140 of 146


Page 141 of 146
Page 142 of 146
Page 143 of 146
Page 144 of 146
References

I. Mark Unzicker [inventor], 31 May, 2007, “ Excavation Apparatus,” United


States Patent
2007/0119078

II. Edward J. Cormier [inventor], 21 July, 1981, “Bucket Conveyor,” United States
Patent4,279,562

III. Roland Gunther [inventor], 14 October, 1980, “Bucket Conveyor,” United


States Patent 4,227,60

IV. Roland Gunther [inventor], 14 October, 1980, “Bucket Conveyor,” United


States Patent 4,227,60

V. Willaim B. Bishop [inventor], 3 April, 1990, “Backfill Machine,” United States


Patent4,912,862

VI. Robert E. Pulfrey [inventor], 20 November, 1973, “Excavator for Graves and
the Like,” United States Patent 3,772,807

VII. William R. Bath [inventor], 31 December 1996, “Apparatus for Excavating


Soil,” United States Patent 5,588,230

VIII. "Anbaugeräte." Popella Baumaschinen - Handel - Vermietung - Service. Web.


15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.popella-
baumaschinen.de/anbaugerate/body_anbaugerate.html>.

IX. Lehmann, Rolf, and Reinhold Hodel. United States.Patent Number:5,143,202.


Wilmington:
,1992. Web. 5 Oct 2010.

X. Yoshiteru Kubo [inventor], 19 May 2004,“Construction Machine,” United


States Patent 7,204,518.

XI. Robert Reid [inventor], 20 September 1994,”Stuctural Member for a


Structural Frame,” United States Patent 4,049,082.

XII. John H. Howard [inventor], 27 March 1951,”Stuctural Frame for Windows,”


United States Patent2,546,187.

XIII. Richard E. Ohmer [inventor], 08 December 2003,”Light Aircraft Fuselage and


Structural FrameConnectors,” United States Patent 6,604,710.

Page 145 of 146


XIV. Adolph D. Russo [inventor], 02 March 1976,”Panel Supporting Frame
Assembly,” United States Patent 3,940,900.

XV. Dooling, Dave. United States. True Fakes: Scientists Make Simulated
Moondust. , 2006. Web. 4 Oct2010. http://science.nasa.gov/science-
news/science-at nasa/2006/28dec_truefake/

XVI. McMaster-Carr.Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.mcmaster.com/>.

XVII. "DigitalSpace Reports: SBIR I Final Report: X5.02-9853." DigitalSpace. Web.


27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.digitalspace.com/reports/sbir04-phase1-
finalreport/>.

XVIII. "Chain Bucket Conveyor." Deying. Web. 13q Oct. 2010.


<http://www.towercrane cn.com/page/chain%20bucket%20conveyor.html>.

XIX. [Online] http://www.markusbaumi.ch/schule/formel/schwerpunkt2.pdf.

XX. [Online] http://www.markusfarkus.com/reference/aluminum.htm.

XXI. [Online]
http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/show_aluminum.cfm?
ID=AA_3003&show_prop=all&Page_Title=AA%203003.

XXII. [Online] www.pdhonline.org.

XXIII. [Online] http://home.arcor.de/king-retro/formelsammlung.pdf.

XXIV. [Online] www.firgelliauto.com.

Page 146 of 146