1. MIRE Design Review
Steven Wylie, Ivan Auer, and Max Tabor
March 14, 2013

2. Scope
• Requirements and functional decomposition
review
• Highlight changes since last meeting
• Brief concept diagram and traceability
• Review of proof of concept design
• Present of optimized design
• Highlight subsystems
• Showcase individual efforts
• CAD
• Engineering Analysis

3. Requirements
• Functional/Performance
• Physical Size
• Safety
• Portability
• Electrical/Software

4. Functional Decomposition

5. Original Proof of Concept

6. Material Decision Review
Weight Score Multiplied Weight Score Multiplied Weight Score Multiplied Weight Score Multiplied
80/20 3 0.75 4 0.8 5 1.5 4 1 4.05
Eco Shape 2 0.5 4 0.8 4 1.2 3 0.75 3.25
L Bar Aluminum 1 0.25 5 1 2 0.6 2 0.5 2.35
Price $ Weight EofU Strength (Yield Strength)
1 0.10 1 Heavy 1 Custom 1 7000 13399
2 0.15 2 Less Heavy 2 Heavy Machining 2 15000 21399
3 0.21 3 Light 3 Multiple Types of Premachine Material 3 23000 29399
4 0.26 4 Very Light 4 Fasterners and Raw Material Options 4 31000 38999
5 0.35 5 Lightest 5 Vast Amount of Interchangable Parts 5 39000 +
Table 7: Material Decision Matrix
1
Total Weight Total ScoreItem
Price Weight/inch Ease of Use Strength
0.25 0.2 0.3 0.25

7. Arm Decision Review

8. Key Technical Challenges
• Switch placement on Moffatt arms
• Moffatt arm base mount
• Frame durability and sturdiness
• Monitor support and height adjustment
• Caster installation and placement
• Weight distribution

9. Changes in Design
• Moffatt Arms
• Height adjustment system
• Caster mount optimization
• Addition of minor aid parts
• Handle
• Kick axle
• Rubber feet
• Optimization of monitor/arm adjustment

10. Wheel Optimization Analysis
• Led us to use 8”
over 6” wheel
• User friendly
• Bigger wheel better
for larger loads
• 44 lbs of force
needed

11. Monitor/Arm Subsystem

12. New Moffatt Arm
• Ideal end piece for velcro on button
• Room for wires through center
• Triangular mounting base fits arm base area
• Same load rating (9 lbs)

13. Height Adjustment Figures

14. Is Linear Actuator Necessary?

15. Height Adjustment in Motion

16. Weight Distribution/Moment
Analysis
• Concerned with
weight load on OT
• Calculates counter
weight for no tip
condition
• Will reinforce with
steel plate if
necessary
• Results will come in
testing of system
• Aim for 20 lbs for
safety factor

17. Rigid Caster
• McMaster Carr
• Trusted engineering web
retailer
• Difficulty in mounting
• Plate runs at 2-1/2” x 3-5/8”
• 80/20 frame sections are
only 1” x 1”
• Utilize weld between steel
plate and mounting plate

18. Stress-Weld Analysis

19. Addition of Minor Helpful Parts
• Handle across top
• 16” across
• ~$8
• Kick axle between wheels
• ½” diameter steel bar
• Rubber feet on base (4)
• 2-3/8” x 1-5/8”

20. Budget

21. Optimized Design Concept
• This design
encompasses the
best of all previous
ideas
• Lightest
• Cheapest
• Most maneuverable
• Reliable
• Easy of Use

22. Project Plan
• Proof of concept design needed optimization
• More optimization to come as fabrication
begins
• Order parts Friday
• Begin fabrication immediately
• Bench testing and verification of subsystems
to come

24. Conclusion
• Optimized design as
shown
• Engineering
analysis led to
optimization
• Questions and
comments from
customers and
advisors