Design Proposal Capstone

Design Proposal for the SauceBot

Zach Belanger
Tylor Duval
Nick Jakelski
August Jarecki
Greg Milks

Laurentian University
Bharti School of Engineering
Mechanical Engineering Design Project
ENGR 4595
December 20th, 2015

P a g e 2

Abstract

The SauceBot is an automated hockey puck passer, which allows for efficient
and reliable passes to players without the needed assistance of a coach. This
machine will minimize a coach’s work to pass the puck and allow him to fully
focus on the players and the development of their skills. All of our group
members have played hockey throughout our lives; this was the greatest reason
for motivation in designing such a machine. As a group our main goals are to
work together as efficiently as possible, and to design a reliable and functioning
prototype. Working together as a team and ensuring proper communication
between one another will better our functionality as a group, and will result in a
cost-effective and useful design for our final product. Our first step in this
process is to come up with a concept and draw the design on SolidWorks. From
here we can further discuss and finalize designs and begin testing of the firing
system. As designing comes to an end, we will be able to begin manufacturing of
our product.

P a g e 3

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. 5
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 6
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 8
1. Design Overview ................................................................................................................................ 9
1.1 Hopper System ............................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Ramp ................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Conveyor ........................................................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Firing System ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.5 Rotating System ........................................................................................................................... 10
2. Concept Development ................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Functional Requirements ........................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Product Constraints ................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Pugh Matrix .................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Calculations ....................................................................................................................................... 20
4. Materials and Mass Properties .................................................................................................. 27
5. Research Findings ........................................................................................................................... 29
6. Preliminary Testing and Alternative Solutions .................................................................. 32
6.1 Firing System ............................................................................................................................. 35
6.2 Hopper System ............................................................................................................................. 38
7. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) ................................................................................................... 41
7.1 Linear Actuator Mount .............................................................................................................. 41
7.2 Wheel Mount ................................................................................................................................. 42
7.3 Base Plate Support ...................................................................................................................... 43
7.4 Side Panel ........................................................................................................................................ 44
8. Shooting Pseudocode .................................................................................................................... 46
9. Electronic Interface Diagram ..................................................................................................... 48
10. User Control ....................................................................................................................................... 49
10.1 How the User Interfaces with the Saucebot .................................................................. 49
10.2 App Controls ............................................................................................................................... 49
11. Bulk Production Analysis .......................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A – E Drawing of the Design ........................................................................................... 54

P a g e 4

Appendix B – Drawings of Major Components ........................................................................... 55
Appendix C – Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) ...................................................................... 63
Appendix D – Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................ 64
Appendix E- Gantt Chart ....................................................................................................................... 67

P a g e 5

Acknowledgements

We would first like to thank Mr. Brad Greasley from Stainless Steel Technologies for
supplying us with the some of our steel material at a discounted price.

Another individual we would like to thank is Mr. André Duval, for having helped to
solder our Arduino board.

We would like to thank Mr. Greg Lakanen for being available at all times to answer
any questions we may have and for his continuous support.

Dr. Brahim Chebbi has been a great leader throughout the months, and was always
available for questions and never hesitated to help when it was required. We would
like to thank him for his continuous support.

Dr. Markus Timusk has been our professor for capstone, and has clearly
demonstrated to us the multiple steps needed to be taken to ensure a proper
concept design. We would like to thank him for his continuous support and
guidance.

P a g e 6

List of Figures

Figure 1: Free Body Diagram (FBD) of the firing system. ...................................................... 20
Figure 2: Sample calculations of the conveyor system. .......................................................... 22
Figure 3: Free Body Diagram (FBD) of the electrical linear actuator. .............................. 24
Figure 4: Schematic of the electrical linear actuator. ............................................................... 25
Figure 5: Derivation of equations to be able to select the appropriate electrical linear
actuator. ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Final time for a complete 90 degree oscillation. ..................................................... 26
Figure 7: Different options that were considered for the firing subsystem. ................. 32
Figure 8: The single/multiple tube loading hopper and the vibrating hopper design.
......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 9: The rotating arm hopper design. ................................................................................... 34
Figure 10: This figure displays the main concept of our initial puck shooting tests. . 35
Figure 11: A view from the shooting position of the finalized puck shooter design. 36
Figure 12: First concept of a puck hopper. ................................................................................... 38
Figure 13: Tentative final hopper design. ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 14: Top view of final hopper design testing. ................................................................. 39
Figure 15: An illustration that shows where the load was applied and which surface
was fixed. ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 16: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on the Linear Actuator Mount. As
expected, only the column with the applied load will experience a displacement.
This maximum displacement felt by the column (represented by the light green
colour) is 0.0258mm. ............................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 17: An illustration that shows where the load was applied and which surface
was fixed. ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 18: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on the Wheel Mount. As
expected, where the plate and shaft meet, was the area that had the most
displacement. The maximum displacement felt by the shaft (represented by the light
yellow) is 0.0696mm. ............................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 19: An illustration that shows where the loads were applied within the collar
and the bottom face of the plate which was fixed. .................................................................... 43
Figure 20: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on the Base Plate which supports
the Frame. As expected, where the collar and plate meet, experienced the largest
displacement. This maximum displacement felt by the collar edge (represented by
the light yellow colour) is 0.0017mm ............................................................................................. 44
Figure 21: An illustration that shows what area was fixed. The load was applied to
the back of the panel. ............................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 22: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on a Panel. Applying a load of
1000N did not fracture the panel. The maximum displacement for the panel is
3.15mm. ....................................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 23: In this figure, the interface diagram for the electronics system within the
system can be seen. ................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 24: This figure shows the tentative Android App interface that will be used.
......................................................................................................................................................................... 50

P a g e 7

Figure 24: E-Drawing of the SauceBot. ........................................................................................... 54
Figure 36: Solenoid Drawing .............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 37: Firing Motors Drawing .................................................................................................... 61
Figure 38: Linear Actuator Drawing ............................................................................................... 62

P a g e 8

List of Tables

Table 1: Pugh Matrix -Feeding System ........................................................................................... 15
Table 2: Pugh Matrix-Motor ................................................................................................................ 16
Table 3: Pugh Matrix-Electronics ..................................................................................................... 17
Table 4: Pugh Matrix-Power Source ................................................................................................ 18
Table 5: Pugh Matrix-Firing System ................................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Known values of our system, to calculate values found in the table that
follows. ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 7: The required motor torque to ensure the hockey puck is properly fired. .... 20
Table 8: Constant values required for conveyor system calculations. ............................. 21
Table 9: Values calculated for the conveyor system. The most significant value is the
torque required from our motor to ensure proper rotation of the conveyor. The
puck velocity (vp) was determined by wanting to fire a puck every five seconds, then
simply dividing the time by the length of the conveyor (8”). ............................................... 21
Table 10: Inertia of our system found from SolidWorks ........................................................ 22
Table 11: Tabulated values found from calculations below to ensure the proper
selection and positioning of the electrical linear actuator. ................................................... 23
Table 12: Material and Approximate Mass Properties that are subjected to change if
need be for the final design. ................................................................................................................ 27
Table 13: This table displays patents that were discovered related to our design. ... 30
Table 14: Website Citations ................................................................................................................ 31
Table 15: Prices for the bulk purchase of components. .......................................................... 51
Table 16: Prices for the bulk purchase of manufactured materials. ................................. 52
Table 17: Cost of hourly wages for workers to assemble units. .......................................... 53
Table 18: Overall profit from the sale of 1000 Saucebot units. ........................................... 53
Table 19: Bill of Materials - Fabricated Material Portion. ...................................................... 64
Table 20: Bill of Materials – Component Purchasing Portion. ............................................. 65
Table 21: Total Cost of Conceptual Design. .................................................................................. 66

E N G R 4 5 9 5 S a u c e B o t P a g e 9

1. Design Overview

The SauceBot is an automated machine that allows for hockey puck passes
without the assistances of a coach or player. Our design has multiple different
subsystems to ensure the pass is accurate and safe. In the next few sections, we will
give a detailed description of how each subsystem works.
1.1 Hopper System
The hopper system (see Figure 9) was a subsystem introduced into our
design to further assist players and coaches. It reduces the time required for
coaches and player to load the machine because hockey pucks can simply be
dumped into the hopper and with the help of brushes and a small 12 Volt-DC motor
spinning at approximately 30RPM, the pucks will be pushed into the opening where
they will fall down the ramp. The hopper has two components, which are the inner
hopper and outer hopper. The inner hopper is made of plastic or sheet metal,
rotates, and has many different brushes to aid with the movement of the pucks. The
outer hopper is stationary, made of steel and acts as a support to ensure the pucks
sit vertically at the bottom of the hopper subsystem.
1.2 Ramp

The ramp is a very important component of the design as it takes the pucks
in a vertical position from the base of the hopper and brings them to the base of the
ramp where they will sit and wait for the solenoid to punch them flat onto the
conveyor system. The material of the ramp is to be plastic or steel, which we believe
to be a great material in allowing the hockey pucks to slide freely.
1.3 Conveyor
The conveyor’s responsibility is to take the hockey puck from the base of the
ramp to the firing wheels found at the front of the design. This conveyor is best
illustrated in Figure 2 and will be directly mounted to a 12Volt-DC motor spinning at


approximately 300RPM. The frame and rollers are made of steel and the belt is
made of rubber.
1.4 Firing System

This subsystem is the most important aspect of the entire design. It allows
for the shooting of the hockey puck, which is the main purpose/objective of the
design. Once the puck has been brought to these wheels by the conveyor, the puck
will be accelerated through the small gap between the wheels, resulting in the pass.
1.5 Rotating System
The rotating system is one of our designs most unique subsystems, as no
similar existing products have this aspect. To get a visual understanding of how the
rotating system functions with the help of an electrical linear actuator, see Figure
32. One end of the linear actuator will be fixed to the base plate while the extending
and retracting portion will be fixed to the base of the frame. As the actuator extends
and retracts, it will allow the entire system found within the frame to rotate a total
span of 90 degrees.


2. Concept Development

During the last few months, our group has met every Wednesday to discuss
design ideas, issues that have risen, and detailed plans on what every group member
was required to complete for the following week. On top, Dr. Timusk had given us
weekly assignments to ensure as a group we studied all the possible solutions, and
then displayed our reasoning behind why we chose our final concept. All the
assignments are clearly defined or illustrated in the subsections below.

2.1 Problem Statement

As Canadians, many of us are familiar with the expenses that surround the
game of Hockey. For years, teams and organizations have spent countless dollars on
the training of players and goalies through coaching, exercises and costly
equipment. This has led our group to develop a cheaper alternative to multiple
forms of training. Our product will offer the consumer an all-in-one experience to
foster skills in many areas of the sport.

Parents or players will often spend over one hundred (100) dollars per hour,
for an on-ice skills session. The majority of the time an instructor or coach will
simply spend time passing and shooting the puck, rather than focusing on the skill
development of the player. A vast problem that exists with current products is the
cost associated. These prices range anywhere from $1300-$1500, another very
pricy purchase that parents will need to undertake. The prototype we create will be
an automated passing machine that will allow for a greater focus on player skill
cultivation. The device will also provide the opportunity for an individual to
develop skills independently.

In today’s hockey market, there are very few puck-passing machines, none of
which are capable of projecting the puck at various angles. Furthermore they are
unable to utilize mobile devices for the operation. The devices that do exist are


quite basic; as they only pass in one direction, operate using a timer, and rely on an
electrical outlet connection.
2.2 Functional Requirements

1. Size and Weight: The suitable size and weight of our product should allow
for easy maneuverability and transportation. The main goal is to ensure that
either two parents or two players are capable of lifting the product into a
vehicle. The material used to construct our product will be vital to meet these
sizes and weight constraints.
2. System Control: The system control should be very user friendly, which will
allow younger players to use the product without the help of an adult.
Operations may be controlled with the use of a hand held wireless device, as
well as switches and controls on a control panel.
3. Cost: With a complex design, we will ensure the minimization of cost. A
reasonably priced product is vital as it will be competitive with existing
devices in the marketplace and appealing to the consumer.
4. Speed and Capabilities: Speeds will vary so that both young and highly
skilled players can use the product. The option of delivering different types of
passes will enhance the user experience. Furthermore the ability to pass at
various angles can increase the consumers’ interest in the product. The
product will be considered maneuverable, with the elimination of the use of
an electric outlet and utilizing a battery.
5. Care and Maintenance: The device will need to be charged on a per use
basis as it will be relying on battery power, instead of using electricity from
an electrical outlet. The design will allow for easy access to the internal
components, if maintenance is required.
6. Loading: Loading pucks into the device should be an effortless process. The
capacity should be large enough such that it doesn’t have to be refilled too
often.


2.3 Product Constraints
Size and Weight:
● Able to easily lift by two adults.
● Easily fit into any large vehicle.
● Allow anyone to easily move around the ice.
● Must fit through the door to the ice surface.

Power:
● Will not run with the use of an electrical outlet.
● Only have a certain availability of power with the use of a battery.
● With a limited amount of power, our machine will not have the capabilities to
shoot a puck at high speeds (100mph). We will constrain our product as a
passing machine (0mph – 45mph).

Types of Passes:
● Pass without fluttering (stable).
● Able to pass the puck at various locations over a 90-degree span.
● Pass at variable speeds to accommodate various skill-leveled players.

Cost:
● Manufacturing cost less than $1000

Operating Conditions:
● Operate in temperature ranges from -20°C to +30°C.
● Operates when pucks are wet.

Loading Conditions:
● Enough pucks to ensure the player/coach aren’t constantly reloading pucks
(minimum 20 hockey pucks).
● Efficient loading, where player/coach do not have to place or stack pucks.
The idea of easily dumping pucks into a container to save time.

Stability:
● Able to grip the ice, and not move when passing.

Safety:
● Easy to stop in case of malfunction.
● Players should wear proper equipment when using the product.
● Properly wired and able to operate in wet conditions to ensure no electrical
shock.


2.4 Pugh Matrix

The Pugh matrix is a great tool to use during the designing process of a
product. It clearly outlines the importance of every subsystem and adds up the total
number of positives and negatives. It is very efficient to compare different design
ideas due to the numbering criteria and then select the most suitable design for your
product.

The SauceBot was broken up into five subsystems, which are: feeding system,
motor, electronics, power source, and firing system. Each system was analyzed
individually during the construction of the Pugh Matrix. Tables 1 through 5 illustrate
a Pugh Matrix for each individual subsystem. In the alternative solutions section,
some alternative designs and considerations will be discussed as well.


Table 1: Pugh Matrix -Feeding System

Pugh Concept Selection
Matrix
Feeding System
Weight
Vibrating Hopper
Single self loading tube
Declined Roller
Multiple self loading tube
Rotating Hopper
Selection Criteria
Performance
Speed 2 1 3 3 3 2
Power Usage 2 -3 3 3 2 -2
Accuracy 1 x x x x x
Noise 2 -3 3 3 3 2
Repeatability 2 1 3 3 3 3
Life
Jamming 3 -2 3 3 3 3
Maintenance 3 -2 3 3 2 2
Temp Range 3 3 3 3 3 3
Life Expectancy 2 2 3 3 3 2
Durability 3 3 3 3 3 3
Reliability 3 2 3 3 3 2
Ease of Use
Loading 3 3 -3 -3 -3 3
Control 2 3 3 3 3 3
Manoeuvrability
3 -1 1 2 -1 3
Start Up Time 1 2 3 3 3 2
Physical
Attributes
Size 3 2 2 -2 1 2
Weight 3 -2 3 3 2 -1
Safety 2 1 3 3 2 1
Manufacturability 3 -2 3 1 2 -3
Attractiveness 2 2 -2 2 2 3
Cost 3 -2 3 3 2 -3

TOTAL +

25 51 50 46 39
TOTAL - -17 -5 -5 -4 -9
TOTAL SCORE 8 46 45 42 30
WEIGHTED TOTAL+ 61 126 123 108 97
WEIGHTED TOTAL - -45 -13 -15 -12 -25
WEIGHTED SCORE 16 113 108 96 72


Table 2: Pugh Matrix-Motor

Matrix
Motor
Weight
Gear Box (1 Motor)
Belt Drive (1 Motor)
Two Motors
Selection Criteria
Performance
Speed 2 3 2 3
Power Usage 3 -2 3 1
Accuracy 2 x x x
Noise 2 -3 3 -1
Repeatability 2 x x x
Life
Jamming 3 x x x
Maintenance 3 2 2 1
Temp Range 3 3 -1 2
Life Expectancy 3 3 -2 3
Durability 3 3 1 3
Reliability 3 3 3 1
Ease of Use
Loading 3 x x x
Control 2 x x 2
Manoeuvrability
2 -1 3 1
Start Up Time 1 x x 2
Physical Attributes
Size 3 2 3 2
Weight 3 -2 3 -1
Safety 2 2 3 2
Manufacturability 3 -2 2 2
Attractiveness 1 x x x
Cost 3 -3 3 -2

TOTAL +

21 31 25
TOTAL - -13 -3 -4
TOTAL SCORE 8 28 21
WEIGHTED TOTAL+ 58 73 63
WEIGHTED TOTAL - -35 -9 -11
WEIGHTED SCORE 23 64 52


Table 3: Pugh Matrix-Electronics

Matrix
Electronics
Weight
Android App
IPhone App
Remote
App and Control Panel
Panel Only
Selection Criteria
Performance
Speed 2 X X X X X
Power Usage 3 x x x 2 2
Noise 2 x x x x x
Repeatability 2 x x 2 3 3
Life
Jamming 3 x x x x x
Maintenance 3 1 1 -1 -2 -2
Temp Range 3 1 1 3 3 3
Life Expectancy 3 x x 1 2 2
Durability 3 x x -2 2 3
Ease of Use
Loading 3 x x x x x
Control 2 3 3 3 3 2
Manoeuvrability
1 x x x x x
Physical Attributes
Size 1 3 3 3 3 3
Weight 3 3 3 3 3 3
Safety 3 x x x x x
Manufacturability 1 -1 -3 -1 1 2
Attractiveness 2 3 3 3 3 2
Cost 3 0 0 2 -1 -1

TOTAL +

17 17 25 30 31
TOTAL - -1 -3 -4 -3 -3
TOTAL SCORE 16 14 21 27 28
WEIGHTED TOTAL+ 37 37 58 71 76
WEIGHTED TOTAL - -1 -3 -10 -9 -9


Table 4: Pugh Matrix-Power Source

Matrix
Power Source
Weight
Lithium Ion
Lead Acid
Electrical Outlet
Rechargeable
Non-Rechargeable
Selection Criteria
Performance
Speed 2 3 3 3 -1 3
Power Usage 3 3 2 3 2 2
Noise 2 3 3 3 3 3
Repeatability 2 x x x x x
Life
Jamming 3 x x x x x
Maintenance 3 2 -1 2 -2 2
Temp Range 3 -1 -1 3 -2 -1
Life Expectancy 3 1 -2 3 3 -3
Durability 3 3 3 1 -1 3
Reliability
3 2 2 3 1 2
Ease of Use
Loading 3 x x x x x
Control 2 x x x x x
Manoeuvrability 2 2 -1 -2 2 2
Physical Attributes
Size 3 1 1 3 1 1
Weight 3 2 -1 3 2 0
Safety 2 3 1 -3 2 1
Manufacturability 3 x x x x x
Attractiveness 1 3 -2 3 3 -3
Cost 3 -2 2 1 -3 2

TOTAL +

29 18 33 20 22
TOTAL - -3 -8 -5 -9 -7
TOTAL SCORE 26 10 28 11 15
WEIGHTED TOTAL - -9 -19 -10 -26 -15


Table 5: Pugh Matrix-Firing System

Matrix
Firing System
Weight
Rubber Wheels
Parallel Belts
Actuator Punch
Mechanical Arm
Sling Shot
Selection Criteria
Performance
Speed 2 2 3 1 -1 2
Power Usage 3 2 1 3 3 3
Accuracy 2 1 3 2 -1 3
Noise 2 3 3 -3 1 1
Repeatability 2 1 3 3 3 3
Life
Jamming 3 x x x x x
Maintenance 3 2 2 1 3 3
Temp Range 3 -1 1 3 3 -1
Life Expectancy 3 2 2 3 3 -2
Durability 3 3 1 2 2 -1
Ease of Use
Loading 3 x x x x x
Control 2 -2 3 3 3 2
Maneuverability 2 3 -2 -1 -1 2
Start Up Time 1 1 3 3 -1 -2
Physical
Attributes
Size 3 3 -1 -1 -3 1
Weight 3 1 2 2 2 3
Safety 2 2 2 1 -1 2
Manufacturability 3 3 -1 0 2 2
Attractiveness 1 2 2 1 -3 2
Cost 3 3 2 -2 1 2

TOTAL +

36 35 30 28 33
TOTAL - -3 -4 -7 -11 -6
TOTAL SCORE 33 31 23 17 27
WEIGHTED TOTAL - -7 -10 -17 -21 -16


3. Calculations

1. Firing System Calculations:
𝐼! x 𝑤!"#$%"
!
= (0.5) x (𝑚!"#$) x (𝑣!
!
) + (𝐼!) x (𝑤!"#$%
!
)
Table 6: Known values of our system, to calculate values found in the table that follows.
Driven Value for System Design
Variable Symbol Value Unit Driven Value Driven Unit
Puck Mass mp 0.170097 kg 6 Ounces
Puck Velocity vp 35.7632 m/s 80 MPH
Wheel Radius rw 0.1143 Meter 4.5 Inches
Wheel Mass mw 4.53592 kg 10 Lb
Wheel Inertia Iw 0.05925948 kg*m^2 N/A N/A
Wheel Rotary Speed w 312.888889 Rad/s 2987.868798 RPM

Table 7: The required motor torque to ensure the hockey puck is properly fired.
Using Conservation of Energy and FBD to Find Below
Variable Symbol Value Unit
Speed of Rotors After Firing wafter 309.941675 rad/s
Time to Shoot Again ts 5 Seconds
Delta_w Delta_w 2.94721377 rad/s
Angular Acceleration
Required to Re-fire
w_doubledot 0.58944275 rad/s^2
Motor Torque Required Tm
0.03493007 Nm
4.94609819 Oz-In

Figure 1: Free Body Diagram (FBD) of the firing system.


2. Conveyor System Calculations:

Table 8: Constant values required for conveyor system calculations.
Constants
Rotor Diameter D 0.015875 m 0.625 in
Rotor Mass mR 0.1 kg N/A N/A
Belt Mass mb 0.042516236 kg N/A N/A
Load Mass mL 0.170097 kg N/A N/A
Factor of Safety K 2 N/A N/A N/A
Conveyor Length Lb 0.2032 m 8 in
Time to Shoot Tshoot 0.5 S N/A N/A
Start-up time of conveyor Tstart 5 s N/A N/A
Slope of Conveyor(using unit circle) alpha 0 deg N/A N/A
Number of Pulleys in Conveyor N 3 N/A N/A N/A

Table 9: Values calculated for the conveyor system. The most significant value is the torque required from our
motor to ensure proper rotation of the conveyor. The puck velocity (vp) was determined by wanting to fire a
puck every five seconds, then simply dividing the time by the length of the conveyor (8”).
Conveyor System Motor Calculations Based on Conveyor Design
Rotor Speed w 25.6 rad/s 244.461993 RPM
Puck Velocity Vp 0.4064 m/s N/A in/s
Load Inertia JL 1.07168E-05 kg*m^2 N/A N/A
Pully Inertia Jp 9.45059E-06 kg*m^2 N/A N/A
Belt Inertia Jb 2.67869E-06 kg*m^2 N/A N/A
Total Inertia JT 2.28461E-05 kg*m^2 N/A N/A
Tstart Ts 0.000116972 N*m N/A N/A
Tload Tl 0.015582261 N*m N/A N/A
Ttotal Tt 0.015699233 N*m N/A N/A
Tmotor Tm 0.031398466 N*m 4.44639737 Oz-in


Figure 2: Sample calculations of the conveyor system.

3. Linear Actuator Selection:

Table 10: Inertia of our system found from SolidWorks
Referenced From: Assembly Dim. And Stepper Motor Calc. Sheets
Assembly Inertia Ja 258416 oz-in^2
Bearing Friction Torque Tf 3.1005 oz-in


Table 11: Tabulated values found from calculations below to ensure the proper selection and positioning of the
electrical linear actuator.
Mounting Radius To Arm Rm 2 in
Mounting Angle Bi 70 deg
Mounting Angle Bi 1.22173048 rad
Princess Auto: 500lb
Actuator Force Fa 500 lb
Actuator Force Fa 8000 oz
Stroke Length S 6 in
Actuator Retracted Length La 12 in
Actuator Extended Length Le 18 in
Stroke Speed Vs 0.5 in/s
Positioning Calculations
X1(From Drawing) x1 1.41421356 in
X2(From Drawing) x2 4.10424172 in
Y1(From Drawing) y1 1.41421356 in
Y2(From Drawing) y2 11.2763114 in
Final Mounting Angle Bf 58.4168269 deg
X-Placement x 5.51845528 in
Y-Placement y -9.8620979 in
Using FBD is the Actuator Acceptable
Required Stroke Length
(90deg)
Sr 1.2369604 in
Angular Acceleration Of
Assembly
theta_dd_a 0.0581697 rad/s^2
Angular Vel. After Time T theta_d_a 0.25 rad/s
Angular Vel. After Time T theta_d_a 14.3239449 deg/s
Time To Reach Operation
Speed
T 4.29777008 s
Angle Traveled During
Acceleration
theta_a 0.53722126 rad
Angle Traveled During
Acceleration
theta_a 30.7805108 deg
Time To Travel 90deg T90 10.5434503 s


Figure 3: Free Body Diagram (FBD) of the electrical linear actuator.


Figure 4: Schematic of the electrical linear actuator.


Figure 5: Derivation of equations to be able to select the appropriate electrical linear actuator.

Figure 6: Final time for a complete 90 degree oscillation.


4. Materials and Mass Properties

Below is a table of every component of the design and its mass and material
properties. These values and materials may change from now to the final design,
depending on time constraints, budgeting, and fabrication. The values below are
those we have found to best suit all the required characteristics such as weight and
overall functionality and are subjected to change if need be.

Table 12: Material and Approximate Mass Properties that are subjected to change if need be for the final design.
Material & Approximate Mass Properties

Part Material Quantity Weight(lbs)
Total
Weight(lbs)
Caster
Wheels
Plastic/Steel 2 2.2 4.4
Handle Steel 1 6.4 6.4
Base Steel 1 15 15
Base Plate Steel 1 2.2 2.2
Frame Base
Plate
Steel 1 1.4 1.4
Linear
Actuator
1 5 5
Base Crosser Steel 2 1.9 2.8
Spikes Steel 4 0.1 0.4
Handle
Holder
Steel 2 0.3 0.6
Frame Base
Plate
Steel 1 20 20
Rotating
Shaft
Steel 1 0.6 0.6
Actuator
Support
Steel 2 0.4 0.8
Base Back
Plate
Steel 1 2.1 2.1
Angle
Supports
Steel 4 0.1 0.4
Frame Steel 1 64 64

Wheels
Rubber-
Steel
2 5 10
Wheel Mount
Shaft
Steel 2 1 2


Firing Base
Plate
Plastic 1 1 1
Conveyor
Rubber
Rubber 1 0.2 0.2
Conveyor
Frame
Steel 1 1.4 1.4
Conveyor
Shaft
Steel 3 0.2 0.6

Battery Pack
Nickel
Metal
Hydride
6 1.5 9
Inner Hopper Plastic 1 3.3 3.3
Outer Hopper Steel 1 20 20
Hopper Ramp Plastic 1 1.1 1.1
Solenoid Steel 1 1 1
Conveyor
Motor
Steel 1 1 1
Hopper
Motor
Steel 1 1 1
Firing Motor 2 3 6
Side Panel Plexiglass 2 10 20
Front-Back
Panel
Plexiglass 2 12 24
Top Panel Plexiglass 1 3.4 3.4

TOTAL
WEIGHT= 231.1 lbs


5. Research Findings

While deciding upon a design many different options were analyzed and
discussed as a group. It was necessary to investigate further into possible deigns to
see what technologies and or methods already existed, and whether or not to use
these pre-existing designs.

It was interesting to find that one group of engineering students from
Dalhousie University completed a design project with some aspects similar to ours.
They designed a puck-passing machine that required the user to load pucks by hand
and could only fire a puck in one direction without the user having to manually
change the direction the passer was facing. In addition to this the user interface was
only integrated into the machine, which meant if a player practicing would like to
modify any of the system settings they would have to walk to the machine and
change it. After seeing this, our group agreed that having either a wireless controller
or a smartphone app to control the device would be ideal.

From conducting further research, we were able to find a company named
Pucco, located in Sweden. This company has developed several models of puck
shooters with commendable characteristics. There was a model of their machine
that included an app control, however this app was not wireless. High speeds could
also be reached. The downfall to this machine was the immense size of 1.3 meters
long and weight of approximately 500+ pounds. The cost of this machine was very
high as well: over $5000 CAD.

The Puck Passer Pro was another machine used for a similar task as the
Saucebot. This apparatus was smaller and lighter than the Pucco, however the
loading and power sources were substandard. Although it was able to shoot pucks
at up to 40 miles per hour and at increments as low as 2 seconds, it required wall
power, as well as manual loading of only up to 18 pucks.


We wanted our machine to be as easy to use as possible for the user to prep
and load so there was minimal time lost to filling the hopper with pucks and setup.
All designs we saw required the user to manually stack pucks in some sort of hopper
system, which consumes practice time for the players. This led us to design a hopper
that allows the user to simply dump a bucket of pucks into and continue on
practicing. For this design it was necessary to research some automated sorting
machines like separators and vibratory sorters to give us a better idea of any
technologies we could use. Although the research was inconclusive as to a final
design to use for our product as sorting wafer or puck shaped objects isn’t common,
it sparked many new ideas within the group. With all previous aspects of
development outlined through the earlier sections of this report, the group was able
to come up with a relatively compact sorting system that could be used in our
application.
When designing our firing system we came up with multiple possibilities. We
had quickly scrapped many of the initial ideas, as they would not allow for quick
enough firing intervals. Using our knowledge of dynamics we calculated that the
most energy efficient way to launch pucks at such an interval would to utilize heavy
rotating wheels that would allow us to use angular momentum and kinetic energy to
our benefit.
Although multiple patent searches through federal and international
databases were conducted, there were very few relevant results found. Some of the
pertinent patents discovered are shown in Table 13 below.

Table 13: This table displays patents that were discovered related to our design.
Patent Name and Number Inventor Publication Date
“Athletic training device,”
US5160138 A
T. E. Sanders 03-Nov-1992
“Hockey practice device for
propelling pucks,” US3665910 A
B. Orlando 30-May-1972
, “Hockey shooting training
device,” US7905800 B2
D. Oneschuk 15-Mar-2011


“Hockey puck practice shooting
apparatus,” US3794318 A
H. L. 26-Feb-1974
“Apparatus for projecting hockey
pucks,” US3876201 A
K. G. Allan 08-Apr-1975

Some of the keywords that were used for various searches of information are
in the list as follows:
• Projecting puck (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Puck shooting (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Hockey shooting (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Hockey training (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Puck propelling (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Shooting (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Puck (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Hockey puck (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Automated puck (device/machine/apparatus/passer)
• Automated shooting (device/machine/apparatus/passer)

Table 14: Website Citations
Research
Component
Website/Article
Hockey Puck
Passer
Deign Team 3
http://poisson.me.dal.ca/~dp_09_03/WINTER%20REPORT.pdf
Puck Passer Pro http://www.puckpasserpro.com/
Vibratory
Sorting
Machines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrFkjwRhmo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgoi8d-X8oU
http://www.vibromatic.net/vibratoryfeederbowls2_1.html
Conveyor
Systems
http://www.conveyorscience.com/
file:///Users/nicholasjakelski/Downloads/bodine_sizing_gearmot
ors_for_conveyor_apps.pdf
http://www.cnc.info.pl//files/tecmtrsiz_155.pdf
Pucco Puck
Shooter
http://www.paramecanic.se/default.asp?str=106&link=PUCCO%
2090

Puck Passer Pro http://www.puckpasserpro.com/products/


6. Preliminary Testing and Alternative Solutions

Since the beginning of September we have discussed several alternative
solutions to the one we have finalized in our concept proposal. The figures below
are quick sketches of these different ideas. For the firing system we considered
multiple systems (see Figure 7) including a belt driven system, a linear actuator
punch, and a sling shot design. After many discussions, we were able to conclude
that the wheel driven system was our best option due to its reliability and efficiency.
Figure 7: Different options that were considered for the firing subsystem.

Many different hopper designs were taken into consideration during
discussions of our design. We wanted to be different from any other product found
on the market. Other considerations included a single/multiple tube loader and a
vibrating hopper (see Figure 8). We decided the single/multiple tube loader was not
the design for us, because players or coaches would need to manually place and load


pucks, wasting a lot of time. The vibrating hopper design was highly considered as a
viable option, until we re-created a cardboard model and tried to test it. From our
tests we were able to determine that jamming occurred quite easily and adding
vibration to the system would make it loud and possibly damage other components.

Figure 8: The single/multiple tube loading hopper and the vibrating hopper design.


Figure 9: The rotating arm hopper design.


6.1 Firing System
Phase 1:

Figure 10: This figure displays the main concept of our initial puck shooting tests.

This was one of the very first concepts thought of, which later developed into
the final firing mechanism system chosen. This system simply utilized pucks
attached to metal rods to accelerate the puck that would be fired. The frame of test
unit was simply constructed out of wood, as scrap wood was readily available in the
machine shop. With testing we found that the use of hard rubber wheels was
unfeasible, as the pucks did not grip well enough even when an abrasive material
such as sandpaper was added to the outer edge. Also, the diameters of the pucks
were much too small to reach passing speeds. With motor speeds of approximately
2000 rpm, initial testing resulted in a puck velocity of 1m/s. This completely
eliminated the use of hard rubber wheels for our firing system as they lacked the
ability to efficiently accelerate the puck.


The results of these original tests led us to believe that a larger diameter and
soft firing wheel would be much more efficient at accelerating the puck when
compared to the small diameter hard rubber puck. The softer firing wheels could be
placed in closer proximity, leading to a much better grip of the puck, while the larger
diameter would result in a higher velocity when compared to a smaller diameter-
firing wheel when rotating at the same angular velocity.

Phase 2:

Figure 11: A view from the shooting position of the finalized puck shooter design.
The second iteration of our test firing system worked on the same principle
as Phase 1 testing but the small hard pucks were replaced with pneumatic tires that


had a diameter of 8 inches. The wheels were attached to rods using handcrafted
plates. The plates were welded onto the drive shafts and in turn were spun by
motors (in our testing drills were used as electric motors). With the use of these
large pneumatic tires and motor speeds of 2000rpm and 1000rpm puck velocities of
approximately 12m/s or 25 mph were reached. The puck traveled along a straight
path even though uneven motor speeds were utilized. From our motor speed
calculations and initial results we were able to conclude that motor speeds of 4500
rpm or greater were required to reach the desired max velocity of 50 mph including
a factor of safety.

These initial testing of the firing system allowed us to comfortably decide
upon our final design by ruling out the first system and giving us insight as to what
would work. The phase 1 testing made it apparent that a large diameter and soft
wheel would be more suitable for firing the pucks when compared to hard small
diameter wheels. The phase 2 testing showed us that the firing system would work
and allowed us to order/purchase components that we were previously unsure of as
they accounted for a large percentage of the final budget.


6.2 Hopper System

Phase1:

Figure 12: First concept of a puck hopper.

The first concepts that we developed when thinking of simple loading
hoppers, which allowed for large numbers of pucks to be loaded without
placing/stacking pucks, were simple rectangular hoppers (example above). These
hoppers would be vibrated to allow for pucks to easily exit the hopper. These
systems were constructed out of cardboard to test for jamming and other problems
that may occur. When we tested these hoppers jamming occurred on a regular basis,
and both proved to be noisy. For these reasons we were able to rule out rectangular
vibrated hoppers, as they were unreliable, often jamming and would be extremely
noisy when constructed of metal.


Phase 2:

Figure 13: Tentative final hopper design.

Figure 14: Top view of final hopper design testing.


After discussion and several other hopper ideas our group conceived a
potential hopper system that had low chances of jamming and would allow for large
numbers of pucks to be loaded without placement. This system has a stationary
outside with a rotating middle section. The pucks exit through the cutout slot in the
stationary exterior. To determine the validity of this design a simple model,
constructed of sheet metal, was created, which proved to work extremely well. The
motor used in our testing rotated at too high of a rate (100-200rpm) and the
construction of the model was not very precise. Even with these problems the model
proved that the design would function as we hoped. (The above images are of only
a prototype of our final design, a very rough representation)


7. Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

We believed that an FEA of certain components was required to avoid any
possible failure that may occur during operation. The figures below are the FEA’s
that were performed on components, that we thought had the largest tendency to
fail. The finite element analysis was able to reassure what we had already believed,
that being; our design was properly constructed to avoid failure.

7.1 Linear Actuator Mount
The first component we did an FEA on was the linear actuator mount. The top
surface was fixed and the load (100lbs.) was applied to the back column, where the
actuator is to be mounted. This load is an extreme worst-case scenario and still
proved to supply a good factor of safety.

Figure 15: An illustration that shows where the load was applied and which surface was fixed.


Figure 16: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on the Linear Actuator Mount. As expected, only the column
with the applied load will experience a displacement. This maximum displacement felt by the column
(represented by the light green colour) is 0.0258mm.
7.2 Wheel Mount
The next component we performed an FEA on was the two wheel mounts.
These components were fixed at the bolt holes, and two loads (1000N) were applied
on the upper and lower parts of the shaft (see Figure 17). Again, the loads applied
were extremely generous compared to the loads they would actually feel from the
puck passing between the wheels.
Figure 17: An illustration that shows where the load was applied and which surface was fixed.


Figure 18: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on the Wheel Mount. As expected, where the plate and shaft
meet, was the area that had the most displacement. The maximum displacement felt by the shaft (represented
by the light yellow) is 0.0696mm.

7.3 Base Plate Support
Our base plate which supports the entire frame was one of the most
important components to perform an FEA, to ensure that it was capable of
supporting the entire design. We applied two loads (2000N each) within the collar
and also fixed the bottom of the plate.

Figure 19: An illustration that shows where the loads were applied within the collar and the bottom face of the
plate which was fixed.


Figure 20: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on the Base Plate which supports the Frame. As expected,
where the collar and plate meet, experienced the largest displacement. This maximum displacement felt by the
collar edge (represented by the light yellow colour) is 0.0017mm

7.4 Side Panel
A quick FEA of our panels was done to see what would happen if a player
accidentally hit it with a puck. The green arrows represent the fixed area of the
panel and the applied load (1000N) is found on the back.
Figure 21: An illustration that shows what area was fixed. The load was applied to the back of the panel.


Figure 22: A Displacement Finite Element Analysis on a Panel. Applying a load of 1000N did not fracture the
panel. The maximum displacement for the panel is 3.15mm.


8. Shooting Pseudocode
Arduino Pseudocode
void on() {
turn on motors;
power actuator/solenoid;
void loop {
set speeds to value determined by potentiometer (or app);
}
}

void off() {
turn off motors/actuator/solenoid;
}

void straight() {
void loop() {
serial string to extend/retract solenoid (punch);
delay for 5-10 seconds;
if (Serial1.read() = 1) {break;}
}
}

void oscillate() {
set angle to 0° (all the way left) via serial string sent to actuator;
counter = 0;
void loop() {
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
increment counter;
delay for 5-10 seconds;
if (counter = 0) { set angle 0°};
if (counter = 1) { set angle 22.5°};

if (counter = 4) {
set angle 90°
for(i = 4; i > 0; i--) {
decrement counter;
delay for 5-10 seconds


}
}
}

Code applicable only with app

void pass() {
}

void angle() {
set angle to 1 of 5 preset values using slider on app;
void loop() {
Serial.read();
if serial 0 = 0°;
if serial 1 = 22.5°; etc
}

void speed() {
set motor speeds to pwm value selected on slider by sending serial code to
Arduino
}

void stop() {
send serial code which breaks all loops;
}

App Code

GUI interface with buttons and sliders

On/off button sends serial code to toggle power on or off
Pass button sends serial code to solenoid to punch a puck onto conveyor
Two buttons to run preloaded codes for constant straight passing or oscillatory
passing
Stop button to break loop of preloaded codes

Angle slider to adjust angle of the machine to one of five presets
Speed slider to adjust speed of motors via pwm


9. Electronic Interface Diagram

Figure 23: In this figure, the interface diagram for the electronics system within the system can be seen.


10. User Control

10.1 How the User Interfaces with the Saucebot

The control panel will consist of 3 buttons, an on/off switch and a
potentiometer dial. One button will initiate the Arduino code to have the Saucebot
repeatedly pass pucks in a straight line until stopped. The second button will initiate
the code for the Saucebot to operate in an oscillatory manner, turning 22.5° after
every puck is passed. The third button will break all loops in the code to stop either
of the two previous settings. The on/off switch will control power to the motors.
Lastly the potentiometer dial will be used to regulate the speed at which the two
puck launching motors operate at, in turn controlling the velocity at which pucks are
passed from the machine.

10.2 App Controls

The app will provide all of the aforementioned functionalities through
buttons and/or sliders on a GUI which transmits the required serial signals to the
Arduino via Bluetooth and the use of a Bluefruit EZ-link Arduino shield. In addition
the app will add the capability to launch pucks on command at the push of a button,
as well as set the angle of the Saucebot to one of the five pre-set values with the use
of a slider.


Figure 24: This figure shows the tentative Android App interface that will be used.


11. Bulk Production Analysis

For this analysis, we assumed that 1000 units of the Saucebot would be
produced for sales. By researching bulk prices of materials and components, along
with average labour prices for various professions, we were able to come up with a
realistic cost analysis. This analysis can be seen in the Tables 15 to 18 below, and
demonstrate the viable business opportunity that this product is capable of
providing.
Table 15: Prices for the bulk purchase of components.
Component Purchase
Components Quantity Cost
Rubber Wheels 2000 $10,000.00
Panels 1000 $42,546.36
Base and Handle 1000 $30,948.30
Solenoid 1000 $1,370.00
Conveyor Motor 1000 $4,110.00
Conveyor Bearings 10000 $2,740.00
Tenergy Smart Universal Charger 1000 $4,096.30
Hopper Motor 1000 $4,110.00
Linear Actuator 1000 $24,660.00
BlueFruit EZ-Link Shield 1000 $34,233.53
Motor Bracket 4000 $2,740.00
Thrust Bearings w/ Washers 2000 $274.00
Thrust Bearing w/ Washers 1000 $137.00
Needle Roller Bearing 1000 $411.00
Ball Bearings 2000 $548.00
Firing Motors 2000 $91,543.40
Arduino Compatible ATmega 2560 1000 $1,370.00
Motor Driver 1000 $54,745.20
Voltage Relay 1000 $5,310.00
Battery 1000 $13,700.00


Wires 2000 $2,740.00
Potentiometer 1000 $137.00

Total $332,470.10

Total w/ Tax: $375,691.21

Table 16: Prices for the bulk purchase of manufactured materials.
Material Purchase
Component Quantity Cost Size
Square Hollow Steel Tubing 4000 $29,713.00 1" x 1" x 10'
Bearing Mount & Hopper Mount 196 $29,619.00 0.25" x 48"x 96"
Frame Base Plate & Wheel Plates 32 $7,928.00 0.25" x 48"x 96"
Base Plate (Support Frame) 94 $15,960.00 0.188" x 48" x 96"
Wheel Mount Shaft 125 $1,150.00 0.625" x 8'
Rollers 125 $1,150.00 0.625" x 8'
Lower Plate/ Puck Sliding Plate/ Conveyor Frame 63 $7,520.00 0.12" x 48" x 96"
Outer Hopper 188 $13,690.00 0.12" x 48" x 96"
Inner Hopper 144 $10,512.00 0.125" x 48" x 96"
Base Shaft 43 $2,072.00 1.25" x 8'
Base Support Shaft 21 $495.00 1.25" x 0.12" x 8'
Handle Supports 63 $764.00
1.125" x
0.0625"x8'
Base Plate Angle 4 $850.00 0.188" x 48" x 96"
Base Angle Support 12 $2,440.00 0.188" x 48" x 96"

Total: $123,863.00

Total w/ Tax: $139,965.19


Table 17: Cost of hourly wages for workers to assemble units.
Manufacturing
Type of
Labour Avg Wage

For 1 Unit:
For 1000
Units:

Cost:
Man Labour $15.00 /hr Cutting All Material @ 5/hr 200 hr $3,000.00
Machinest $19.00 /hr Preparing parts @ 1/hr 1000 hr $19,000.00
Welder $22.80 /hr Welding Frame @ 3/hr 333.33 hr $7,600.00
Assembler x 2 $15.00 /hr Assembling Components @2/hr 500 hr $7,500.00
Junior
Electrician $22.50 /hr Wiring @ 2/hr 500 hr $11,250.00

TOTAL: $48,350.00

Table 18: Overall profit from the sale of 1000 Saucebot units.
GRAND TOTAL COST FOR PRODUCING 1000 UNITS: $564,006.40
ESTIMATED SALES REVENUE AT $1200/UNIT $1,200,000.00
TOTAL BULK SALES PROFIT AFTER TAX=

$635,993.60

$635.99 /UNIT

From the tables above, one can see that the Saucebot has the potential for
profits, at a price similar to, or much lower than any other comparable unit. This
has led our group to the conclusion that we have produced a stellar product which
carries a great potential.


Appendix A – E Drawing of the Design

Figure 25: E-Drawing of the SauceBot.


Appendix B – Drawings of Major Components
Figure 26: Frame Drawing


Figure 28: Wheel Mount Plate Drawing
Figure 27: Firing Base Drawing


Figure 30: Conveyor Assembly Drawing
Figure 29: Hopper Assembly Drawing


Figure 32: Battery Assembly Drawing
Figure 31: Base Assembly Drawing


Figure 34: Proposal Concept Assembly Drawing
Figure 33: Rotating Subsystem Drawing


Figure 36: Conveyor Motor Drawing
Figure 35: Hopper Motor Drawing


Figure 37: Solenoid Drawing

Figure 38: Firing Motors Drawing


Figure 39: Linear Actuator Drawing


Appendix C – Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS)
Puck Passer
1.0 Body
1.1 Frame
1.1.1
Outer
Shell
1.1.1.1
CAD Model
1.1.1.2
Material
Specifica@on
s
1.1.1.3
Fabrica@on
1.1.2
Rota@ng
Core
1.1.2.1
Calcula@ons
1.1.2.2
CAD Model
1.1.2.3
Construct
1.2
Targe@ng
System
1.2.1
Eleva@on
Actuator
1.2.1.1
Calcula@ons
1.2.2
Rota@ng
Core
1.2.2.1
CAD Model
1.2.2.2
Calcula@ons
1.2.2.3
Assemble
2.0
Feeding
System
2.1
Hopper
2.1.1
Electric
Motor
Selec@on
2.1.1.1
Calcula@ons
2.1.1.2
Mount
Design
2.1.2
Design &
Modeling
2.1.2.1
CAD Model
2.2
Delivery
2.2.1
Sloped
Ramp
2.2.1.1
CAD Model
2.2.2
Actuated
Gate
2.2.2.1
CAD Model
2.2.2.2
Actuator
Selec@on
3.0 Firing
System
3.1 Electric
Motor
3.1.1
Wheels &
Belt
3.1.1.1
CAD Model
3.1.1.2
Calcula@ons
3.1.1.3
Material
Specifica@on
3.1.2
Gearbox
3.1.2.1
Calcula@ons
3.1.2.2
CAD Model
3.1.2.3
Material
Specifica@on
4.0
Electronics
and Power
4.1 App
4.1.1
Android App
Development
4.1.1.1
Code GUI
4.1.1.2
Implementa
@on
4.1.2 iPhone
App
Development
4.1.2.1
Code GUI
4.1.2.2
Implementa
@on

4.2 BaRery
Supply
4.2.1
Charging
System
4.2.1.1
Available
Power
4.2.1.2
Charge Time
4.2.1.2
Usage Time
4.2.2
Mount
4.2.2.1
CAD Model


Appendix D – Bill of Materials

Table 19: Bill of Materials - Fabricated Material Portion.
Component Quantity Cost Material
Machining
Process
Size
Square Hollow
Steel Tubing
4 $55.00 Steel Welding & Cutting 1" x 1" x 10"
Bearing Mount
& Hopper
Mount
1 $21.31
Steel-Cold
Rolled Plate
Welding, Drilling,
Cutting
2.5" x 36"x 1/4"
Frame Base
Plate & Wheel
Plates
1 $26.92
Steel-Cold
Rolled Plate
Welding, Drilling,
Cutting
12" x 12" x 1/4"
Base Plate
(Support
Frame)
1 $42.85
Steel-Cold
Rolled Sheet
A1011 CQ
Drilling, Welding 24" x 18" x 0.188"
Wheel Mount
Shaft
1 $10.42
Steel-Cold
Rolled Round
Bar 1018
Lathe 0.625" x 12"
Rollers 1 $10.42
Steel-Cold
Rolled Round
Bar 1018
Lathe 0.625" x 12"
Lower Plate/
Puck Sliding
Plate/
Conveyor
Frame
1 $26.01
Steel-Hot
Rolled Sheet
A1011 CQ
Lathe & CNC 12" x 24" x 0.12"
Outer Hopper 1 $70.00
Steel-Cold
Rolled Sheet
Bending 24" x 36" x 0.12"
Inner Hopper 1 $29.60 Plastic Bending 1/16" x 5' x 11"
Base Shaft 1 $13.54
Steel-Cold
Rolled Round
Bar C1018
Lathe & CNC 1.25" x 4"
Base Support
Shaft
1 $14.84
Steel-Cold
Rolled Round
Bar C1018
Lathe & CNC 2" x 1.25"
Handle
Supports
1 $12.80
Steel-Cold
Rolle Round
Tube DOM
Lathe & CNC 1.125" x 0.125"
Base Plate
Angle
1 $18.39
Steel-Hot
Rolled Sheet
A1011
Lathe & CNC 5" x 18" x 0.188"
Base Angle
Support
1 $24.53
Steel-Cold
Rolled Flat
C1018
Lathe & CNC 0.25" x 1" x 60"

TOTAL= $376.09


Table 20: Bill of Materials – Component Purchasing Portion.
Components Size Supplier Quantity Cost per Unit Total Cost
Rubber Wheels 8" diameter Princess Auto 2 $24.99 $56.48
Panels
48"x72"x0.075
"
Metal
Supermarket
1 $81.19 $81.19
Base and Handle 24" x 18" Canadian Tire 1 $22.59 $22.59
Solenoid N/A Amazon 1 $15.50 $15.50
Conveyor Motor 2.2" x1.5" Amazon 1 $23.65 $23.65
Conveyor Bearings
0.197" x 5/8" x
.196"
Amazon 10 $3.53 $2.39
Tenergy Smart
Universal Charger
16.5 x 8.9 x 4.4
cm
Amazon 1 $32.76 $32.76
Hopper Motor N/A Amazon 1 $9.19 $9.19
Linear Actuator 8" stroke eBay 1 $68.48 $68.48
BlueFruit EZ-Link
Shield
2.7" x 2" x 0.2" BC-Robotics 1 $44.69 $44.69
Motor Bracket 2.5" Lowes 4 $2.02 $8.09
Thrust Bearings w/
Washers
0.5" McMaster Carr 2 $2.91 $5.82
Thrust Bearing w/
Washers
1.25" McMaster Carr 1 $9.11 $9.11
Needle Roller Bearing 1"x1.25" McMaster Carr 1 $10.98 $10.98
Ball Bearings 0.5" McMaster Carr 2 $8.64 $17.27
Firing Motors N/A RobotShop 2 $41.49 $82.98
Arduino Compatible
ATmega 2560
4"x2.1" eBay 1
$12.40 $12.40
Motor Driver
2.56"x2.02"x0.
38"
AliExpress 1
$14.19 $14.19
Voltage Relay 8"x5.7"1.2" Amazon 1
$24.86 $24.86
Battery 2.42"x1.3" Ebay 10
$14.24 $142.40
Wires Various lengths Amazon 1
$3.63 $2.18
Potentiometer 0.59"x0.4"0.87" Amazon 1
$7.89 $7.89

TOTAL= $695.09


Table 21: Total Cost of Conceptual Design.
Total for Fabricated Components: $376.63
Total for Purchased Components: $695.09
GRAND TOTAL: $1071.72


Appendix E- Gantt Chart

S
8 Nov 15
M T W T F S S
15 Nov 15
M T W T F S S
22 Nov 15
M T W T F S S
29 Nov 15
M T W T F S S
6 Dec 15
M T W T F S S
13 Dec 15
M T W T F S S
20 Dec 15
M T W T F S S
27 Dec 15
M T W T F S S
3 Jan 16
M T W T F S S
10 Jan 16
M T W T F S S
17 Jan 16
M T W T F S S
24 Jan 16
M T W T F S S
31 Jan 16
M T W T F S S
7 Feb 16
M T W T F S S
14 Feb 16
M T W T F S S
21 Feb 16
M T W T F S S
28 Feb 16
M T W T F S S
6 Mar 16
M T W T F S S
13 Mar 16
M T W T F S S
20 Mar 16
M T W T F S S
27 Mar 16
M T W T
1 Body 54 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/25/16 5:00 PM
2 Frame 54 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/25/16 5:00 PM
3 Outer Shell 53 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/22/16 5:00 PM
4 CAD Model 18 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM
5 Material Selection 3 days? 12/7/15 8:00 AM 12/9/15 5:00 PM 4
6 FEA Analysis 2 days? 12/10/15 8:00 AM 12/11/15 5:00 PM 5
7 Fabricate 10 days? 1/11/16 8:00 AM 1/22/16 5:00 PM 6
8 Rotating Core 54 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/25/16 5:00 PM
9 Calculations 6 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/18/15 5:00 PM
10 CAD Model 11.5 days? 11/19/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 1:00 PM 9
11 Motor Selection 3 days? 12/4/15 1:00 PM 12/9/15 1:00 PM 10
12 Material Selection 2 days? 12/9/15 1:00 PM 12/11/15 1:00 PM 11
13 FEA Analysis 2 days? 12/11/15 1:00 PM 12/15/15 1:00 PM 12
14 Manufacturing Pr... 1 day? 12/15/15 1:00 PM 12/16/15 1:00 PM 13
16 Targetting System 49 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/18/16 5:00 PM
17 Elevation Actuato... 49 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/18/16 5:00 PM
18 Actuator Selection 10.125 d... 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/25/15 9:00 AM
19 CAD Model 7.875 days? 11/25/15 9:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM 18
20 FEA Analysis 2 days? 12/7/15 8:00 AM 12/8/15 5:00 PM 19
22 Feeding System 59 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 2/1/16 5:00 PM
23 Hopper 54 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/25/16 5:00 PM
24 CAD Model 17.75 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 3:00 PM
25 Mount Design 2 days? 12/4/15 3:00 PM 12/8/15 3:00 PM 24
26 Motor Selection 0 days? 12/8/15 3:00 PM 12/8/15 3:00 PM 25
27 Material Selection 2 days? 12/8/15 3:00 PM 12/10/15 3:00 PM 26
28 FEA Analysis 1 day? 12/10/15 3:00 PM 12/11/15 3:00 PM 27
29 Fabrication 6 days? 1/18/16 8:00 AM 1/25/16 5:00 PM 28
30 Puck Delivery 59 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 2/1/16 5:00 PM
31 Feeding Ramp 54 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 1/25/16 5:00 PM
32 CAD Model 17 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 12/3/15 5:00 PM
33 Testing 1 day? 12/4/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM 32
34 Material Selection 2 days? 12/7/15 8:00 AM 12/8/15 5:00 PM 33
35 FEA Analysis 1 day? 12/9/15 8:00 AM 12/9/15 5:00 PM 34
37 Puck Feeder 59 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 2/1/16 5:00 PM
38 Concept Design 1.5 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/12/15 1:00 PM
39 CAD Model 15.5 days? 11/12/15 1:00 PM 12/3/15 5:00 PM 38
40 Actuator Selection 1 day? 12/4/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM 39
43 Firing System 69 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 2/15/16 5:00 PM
44 Electric Motor 18 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM
45 Wheel Selection 1 day? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/11/15 5:00 PM
46 Calculations 5 days? 11/12/15 8:00 AM 11/18/15 5:00 PM 45
47 Excel File/Code 11 days? 11/19/15 8:00 AM 12/3/15 5:00 PM 46
48 CAD Model 1 day? 12/4/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM 47
49 Fabrication 1 day? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/11/15 5:00 PM
50 Gearbox 69 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 2/15/16 5:00 PM
51 Calculations 1 day? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/11/15 5:00 PM
52 CAD Model 5 days? 11/12/15 8:00 AM 11/18/15 5:00 PM 51
55 Electronics and Power 80 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 3/1/16 5:00 PM
56 App Development 80 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 3/1/16 5:00 PM
57 Pseudo Code 18 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 12/4/15 5:00 PM
58 Code GUI 31 days? 1/4/16 8:00 AM 2/15/16 5:00 PM 57
59 Implementation 11 days? 2/16/16 8:00 AM 3/1/16 5:00 PM 58
60 Electronic Compon... 79 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 2/29/16 5:00 PM
61 Motor Control 1 day? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/11/15 5:00 PM
62 Servo Control 1 day? 11/12/15 8:00 AM 11/12/15 5:00 PM 61
63 Actuator Control 1 day? 11/13/15 8:00 AM 11/13/15 5:00 PM 62
64 Wireless Aspect 1 day? 11/18/15 8:00 AM 11/18/15 5:00 PM 63
65 Component Selecti... 5 days? 11/19/15 8:00 AM 11/25/15 5:00 PM 64
66 Implementation 11 days? 2/15/16 8:00 AM 2/29/16 5:00 PM 65
67 Power Supply 25 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 12/15/15 5:00 PM
68 Available Power 6 days? 11/11/15 8:00 AM 11/18/15 5:00 PM
69 Charge Time 1 day? 11/19/15 8:00 AM 11/19/15 5:00 PM 68
70 Usage Time 1 day? 11/20/15 8:00 AM 11/20/15 5:00 PM 69
71 Battery Mount 15 days? 11/23/15 8:00 AM 12/11/15 5:00 PM 70
72 CAD Model 1 day? 12/14/15 8:00 AM 12/14/15 5:00 PM 71
Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors Resource Names
12/8
CAPSTONE - page1

Design Proposal Capstone

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Design Proposal Capstone

Similar to Design Proposal Capstone (20)

Design Proposal Capstone