Group 1 designed and built a robot to collect nuclear waste scattered across land. They went through many iterations of the robot's design and code to overcome challenges. In the preliminary competition, the robot was damaged and performed poorly. However, Group 1 learned from their mistakes and made significant improvements to the robot's physical design and programming. They are optimistic about achieving better results in the final competition due to their lessons learned and hard work.

1. Final Report
ENGR 102 – Winter 2015 - 2016
Engineering Design Lab II
Lab Section: 070 Date Submitted: March 11, 2016
Group Number: 1
Section Faculty: Professor Caroline
Schaur
Section Fellows: Bita Alizadehtazi
Group Members:
Derek Campbell Pedram Keyvani
Aaron Bennett

2. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
1
Abstract
This project is a review of the work and effort of Group 1 regarding their robot design. The goal
here is to explain the robot configuration of: the robot’s coding process, the mechanical and physical
aspects of the robot, the comparisons of past designs compared to the final result, and reference to what
they will accomplish in the future. This has been done by examining the code and through explanation of
the sensors used and how vital the positioning of the sensors were. As well as examining the images and
the progress of initial designs of the robot to that of the final robot. Upon examination of these events it is
clear that Group 1 reshaped their robot and reconstructed their code many times to achieve the highest
efficiency and minimal error through the actual competition. through explaining and showing all the
components behind the making of the robot, this paper highlights the trials, efforts, and time put in
throughout the quarter by Group 1.
Introduction/Background
A Hazardous storm has left trash and nuclear waste scattered across the land. A company has
taken interest in creating a machine that is able to clear the land of the unwanted substances across the
land. It is crucial to use machines and no biotics because of the risk of harm that the nuclear radiation
have for living beings; therefore, our purpose is to help construct the best aspired robot that can
successfully collect the trash, paving the way for easier clearing of the nuclear trash by others. We are
challenged here, as we are not the only group of people trying to accomplish this task. The main focus
was to maintain a speedy procedure that the robot can exceed other teams in collecting the trash. Getting
in contact with robotics can be revolutionary to keep our planet safer and cleaner. A continuous challenge
was finding a similar environment that the robot can be continuously tested in; the group unfortunately
was unable to meet in the open labs available. Some constraints of the project worth noting is: The robot
has to fit is a 1x1x1.5 feet box, maximum sensors used is 4, and that we could only use 3 motors.

3. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
2
Technical content
I. Robot’s Base
When in the process of building the robot, there were many problems faced. The major mechanical issue
initially was building a robot that is solid and also light weight. Group 1 wanted to create a small and
lightweight robot, yet still powerful. In doing so this group faced many constructions and reconstructions.
At first, the group created a robot that each part was built by a different member; we did come down to a
final root design but it did not take long for that design to be completely changed. The main issue was the
unbalanced robot we got; we found that for example our gripper design was too big and for the body and
that the sensor placement and selection would not work how it was desired. a lot was learned using this
approach, so this time we held a meeting to discuss the mechanics of the robot and see if it will work with
the programming of the robot. A design was created to achieve the goals of the project, agreed by all team
members and it was given to one of the team members to build the robot, to avoid complications; changes
and suggestions was given through the process of the build through group chats. The robot looked way
better and neater; it was solid and small, however there were problems faced, when trying to program the
robot.
II. Sensors and Sensor Placement
Initially, it was discovered that the placement of the ultrasonic sensor was too high. The programming
issue was that we could not seem to find the best sensors to work with each other, at the right place.
Nonetheless, it was found out that when the motor wheels turned, the robot faced a balancing issue, which
affected unnecessary movement of the Ultrasonic sensor. From there For the ultrasonic sensor, previous
learnings helped to detect the actual distance versus that of the sensor detects; this was straightforward
and caused minimal effort. Next for the light sensor, a shroud (10 cm) was decided to be used for more
accuracy; However there was difficulty faced with the light sensor acting unusual at times that mislead
group 1 into changing the code a few times. Hands down, The Color sensor was the most challenging, as

4. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
3
there was no background work done with it previously; it took some time to figure it out, but with some
help it was recognized how to use it. It is worth mentioning that we tried avoiding using it, but eventually
it was realized that it is the best way to go with.
III. Robot’s Gripper
The group came together and focused to have a final plan. It was decided to build a robot to put the
sensors in front of the robot instead of on the gripper. The gripper using gears then changed; the chosen
sensors were selected and the base of the robot also needed to get built from scratch this time another
group member took the robot to build. It ended up to be a very satisfying design. The gripper was
designed smartly so it would push the canister in when detected. The challenge here was faced when
discovered that the monitor for the robot was not working and had to be changed. What it came down to
is an isolating arm that captures the canister and releases when sensors command.
IV. Coding
Group 1 went through various coding strategies, at first it was hard to come to a complex code; the
strategy was to start from what is known and start small and add step by step. The initial struggle was to
put various codes in loops. The group came along at the end with a code that took many trials and errors
and questions and answers. After all, it is staggering how the code and mechanics come together to form a
moving system. In the process, keeping track of the ports and correct information entered was vital. The
color and light sensor were most difficult to incorporate, as they were used often. it was critical to use a
switch and right positioning for correct behavior as well. The robot is intended to move forward until it
finds a blue canister or hit the wall; if it sees the blue canister the gate closes and moves towards light for
drop off; if it goes to wall it backs up and turns.
V. All In One
It was hoped to build the best design and learn from the mistakes gone through. Main components were:
not using the right sensors, changing the gripper design to a capture design (closed all around to be able to
put the sensors on top, and having a dynamic back wheel for stability). This time around, the wheels were

5. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
4
placed closer to each other to have more stability and use less weight and space; In addition, duct tape
was helpful to use in certain parts; for instance, to place color sensor low to the ground, and to provide
more stability for NXT parts. A sigh of relief was felt when testing the robot; it was much better and it
worked well with minor issues, main being the light sensor and the gripper getting stuck to the fence
when delivering blue canister in process. The main achievement is that it follows a fast pace process
which is good, this also bring certain errors throughout the process. The programming was still a
challenged but we used the learned facts from before and came to a program that worked.
Results:
In the Preliminary competition group 1 unexpectedly did not meet its expectations. On the day of the
competition as the robot was going through final tests just hours before the competition, it fell from the
table it was being tested on and completely got shattered. At this point we were very disappointed.
Tiredness and the lack of testing environment were the main victims. We tried putting together with tape
and such, but it was worst than what could be imagined. We had the program and before the incident it
was able to detect and move towards the light; we were making some changes and tests with the light
intensity for the blue canister to be delivered at the place where we wanted it to. There is no blame on
anything at the end of the day and after we received the minimal grade for that session, it was a great
lesson and motivation to do better in the following weeks. After having been testing the current robot
recently, the hopes for best results in the final competition is high, due to lessons learned and the bridges
burned; the numerous changes made on the program and on the physical design of the robot mentioned
earlier has come through a long way.

6. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
5
Future Work:
Although the robot is almost thoroughly functioning at this point, it has space to be fatherly worked on
and improved upon. For example, the physical design and appearance can be modified to have a more
aesthetically pleasing look, and also have a more sturdy structure, which would have been possible if the
kit with better equipment. Moreover, The program can be over looked at parts to be more simplified
(using less loops). In addition the motors , wheels, and sensors that we use are not so powerful and can be
improved on.
Conclusion:
Throughout this project group one gone through many highs and lows; what was important was the the
group stuck with each other and crawled their back into rhythm again. Group one was off to a slow start
but steadily improved and can be considered as a tough opponent. Through many issues, such as the
display not properly working, missing pieces not working motor and sensors group 1 managed to rise
through and come to a final functioning robot. The robot now moves pretty quickly compared to other
competitors and is constructed balanced and pretty lightweight. Group one is proud of this achievement
looking back and has taken many highlights to carry for future works from this project.

7. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
6
Robot Transformation
Before:
Figure 1: Initial intended robot (front, right, above view)
Figure 3: second attempted robot design (above, right, behind views)

8. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
7
Figure 5: Final design of the robot to compete (front, left side view)
References
1. Valk. Laurens. “Chapter 6: Programming Robot with Sensors.” The LEGO Mindstorms NXT 2.0
Discovery Book: A Beginner’s Guide to Building and Programming Robots. San Francisco: No
Starch. 2010. N. pag. Print.
2. Choset, Howie M. Principles of Robot Motion: Theory, Algorithm, and Implementation.
Cambridge, MA:MIT, 2005. Print.

9. Section 070, Group 1
ENGR 102, Winter 2015 - 2016
8