University of Florida - Design and Manufacturing Laboratory

EML2322L – Design and Manufacturing Laboratory
Design Report
Team 5A
Anthony M. Alvarez (1)
Benjamin H. Duncan (2)
Andres D. Flores (3)
Morgan R. Jones (4)
Instructor: Mike Braddock
Summer 2015

Written Description
The final design was generated through the thorough analysis of each of the four designs
generated and described in Design Report 1. The different qualities of each design were weighed
on a number of different objectives in the matrices that were generated and outlined in Appendix
A. A fifth matrix was generated to account for some of the ‘winning’ designs not being
compatible with others. Ultimately, the final concepts led to the most effective design to
accomplish the goals set for the project.
The design utilized a mobile platform design made entirely of 1 inch 80/20 aluminum
extrusions, with the exception of the motor mounts and wheel hubs, which were made from
aluminum bar stock. The mobile platform employed the use of 13.6 inch wheels, because they
produce a higher velocity than that of the 8 inch wheels. The design uses differential steering
with two 44 RPM Entstort Drive Motors. The use of differential steering avoids having a larger
turning radius and provides a great deal of maneuverability. A caster wheel in the back of the
design is the third point of support, which verifies that all three wheels will be in contact with the
ground at all times.
The bucket manipulator utilizes sheet metal to form a ‘claw’ to hold and secure the
bucket. The claw is long enough that the bucket will not fall or slip from the mechanism when it
is being raised and lowered. An 80/20 aluminum extrusion piece connects to a 4.5 RPM Globe
Motor to create the raising motion of the arm. The bucket manipulator is designed in such a way
that when it rotates 90 degrees, the balls start releasing into the hopper. The bottom of the claw is
th same height as the top of the hopper in order to assure that no balls will not make it into the
hopper. With a longer arm, bouncing could result in losing some of the balls and with a shorted
arm, not all the balls would be properly dispensed. The design of the final bucket manipulator
effectively solves all of the problems that arise with the project.
The final ball hopper utilized a container mechanism to effectively sort the two different
types of balls based on their different diameters. The ball hopper was generated so that it could
be 3D printed with plastic for weight and precision purposes, rather than be made out of sheet
metal through the machining process. The design has the parameters so that only the golf balls
can roll into a lower level, and the tennis balls stay on the upper level. Two holes, with the
relative diameter size of the two balls, are cut in the end of the hopper to allow for the release.
The final release mechanism works with the ball hopper by dispensing the balls into the
appropriate bucket through a 4 inch diameter 90 degree PVC pipe. The PVC pipe is attached to
the 80/20 aluminum extrusion frame with the use of a plastic U bracket. In order to raise and
lower the release mechanism, a linear actuator was chosen to create the necessary up and down
motion. The linear actuator first lowers the PVC to release the golf balls in the lower level of the
hopper, then raises the PVC to release the release the tennis balls in the upper level of the
hopper. The final design creates a smooth and easy way to release 2 different types of balls into
two different buckets.
It is important to note that the final design will not try to obtain the bonus balls. The robot
velocity and trajectory decreases competition time significantly, so it was decided that the bonus
balls would not be a factor in the total competition time. With this aspect if the competition being
disregarded, two raising and lowering motions of the bucket manipulator are eliminated, which
will ultimately leave the robot with a fast finish. The final design components are detailed in the
following report.

Appendix A: Decision Matrix / Justifications

Objective Weighting Factor Parameter Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value
Manufacturing and Assembly Time 0.20 hours 9.0 10.0 2.0 9.0 10.0 2.0 9.1 10 2.0 10.1 8.9 1.8 9.3 9.7 1.9
Material Cost 0.10 dollars 34.00 6 0.6 30.00 7.3 0.7 22.00 10.0 1.0 41.00 5.4 0.5 29.00 7.6 0.8
Modularity 0.15 fasteners 8 5.0 0.8 6 7 1.0 6 7 1.0 6 7 1.0 4 10 1.5
Speed 0.25 feet/second 1.2 2.9 0.7 3.9 10.0 2.5 3.9 10 2.5 1.2 2.9 0.7 2.0 5.0 1.2
Maneuverability 0.30 inches 55 3 0.9 23 7 2.2 42 4.0 1.2 20 8 2.5 17 10 3.0
5.0 8.4 7.7 6.5 8.5
Objective Weighting Factor Parameter Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value
Manufacturing and Assembly Time 0.30 hours 4.1 3 1.0 4.0 3.5 1.1 2.4 5.8 1.8 1.5 9.3 2.8 1.4 10.0 3.0
Material Cost 0.10 dollars 29.85 2 0.2 5.50 10 1.0 13.11 4.2 0.4 9.75 6 0.6 6.50 8 0.8
Alignability 0.25 inches 33.0 5 1.3 16.5 10 2.5 21.9 7.5 1.9 20.4 0.8 0.2 37.7 4.4 1.1
Torque Ratio of Retrieval 0.25 unitless 1.3 2.8 0.7 3.9 8 2.1 1.2 2.6 0.6 1.3 2.8 0.7 4.6 10 2.5
Modularity 0.10 fasteners 3 6.7 0.7 2 10 1.0 4 5.0 0.5 2 10.0 1.0 2 10.0 1.0
3.8 7.7 5.2 5.3 8.4
Objective Weighting Factor Parameter Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value
Manufacturing and Assembly Time 0.15 hours 4.3 3 0.4 2.9 4.1 0.6 1.2 10 1.5 2.4 5.0 0.8
Material Cost 0.20 dollars 11.00 6 1.3 21.00 3 0.7 30.00 2.3 0.5 7.00 10 2.0
Modularity 0.15 fasteners 2 10 1.5 4 5.0 0.8 2 10 1.5 3 7 1.0
Sortability 0.25 experience okay 6 1.5 good 8 2.0 great 10 2.5 fair 4 1.0
Weight of Hopper 0.25 pounds 2.7 7.8 1.9 6.6 3.2 0.8 2.1 10 2.5 4.2 5.0 1.3
6.6 4.8 8.5 6.0
Objective Weighting Factor Parameter Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value Mag. Score Value
Manufacturing and Assembly Time 0.10 hours 0.7 10 1.0 5.4 1.3 0.1 1.5 4.7 0.5 1.7 4.1 0.4
Material Cost 0.10 dollars 3.00 10 1.0 9.00 3 0.3 11.00 2.7 0.3 7.00 4 0.4
Modularity 0.10 fasteners 2 10 1.0 4 5 0.5 2 10 1.0 2 10.0 1.0
Accuracy 0.25 balls fair 4 1.0 good 8 2.0 okay 6 1.5 great 10 2.5
Angle of Release 0.20 degrees 70 7.8 1.6 70 7.8 1.6 90 10 2.0 90 10 2.0
5.6 4.5 5.2 6.3
Design 5
Design 5
Overall value
Design 3 Design 4
Overall value
RELEASE MECHANISM Design 2Design 1
Design 4Design 3
Overall Value
Design 1BALL HOPPER / SORTER Design 2
Overall value
BUCKET MANIPULATOR Design 1 Design 2 Design 4Design 3
EML2322L Group 5A
Design 3 Design 4Design 1 Design 2MOBILE PLATFORM

Objective Definitions & Weighing Factor Justifications:
Ball Hopper / Sorting Mechanism
Manufacturing and Assembly Time addresses the amount of time required to accurately and
effectively produce and assemble the ball hopper. While some ball hoppers require custom
designs to satisfy different volumes of tennis balls, the production process can become time
consuming as designs become meticulous. Weighted at 15%, this accounts for the time required
to obtain the necessary materials, manufacture all parts, assemble the hopper, and final
installation. Manufacturing time scores will be measured in seconds and the ball hopper design
exhibiting the most time-conscious design and manufacturing process will receive the highest
score while the design with the longest process receives the lowest score.
Material Cost addresses the amount of money and resources necessary to successfully and
effectively design and produce the robot’s ball hopper. Weighted at 20%, the amount of money
is determined by the cost of the material used coupled with the cost of the external resources
necessary for developing the piece. Given that each design features a hopper mechanism,
materials will vary, affecting the hopper’s overall cost. The cost scores will be measured in
dollars ($) and the ball hopper design with the lowest cost will earn the highest score while the
most costly hopper receives the lowest score.
Modularity is defined as the least number of fasteners to disassemble in order to fit the design
into the allotted space. Because each hopper design uses different material, the number of
brackets and connectors connecting the hopper to the mobile platform measures modularity.
Weighted at 15%, the modularity parameter directly affects the initial assembly time and
indirectly affects the daily disassembly and reassembly times. Modularity will be measured by
recording the number of fasteners on each hopper and dividing 10 by the number of fasteners,
thereby measuring and comparing each hopper’s modularity on a scale of 1-10, where 10
indicates the hopper with the best modularity.
Sortability addresses the hopper’s ability to sort the tennis balls and the golf balls once
collected. Once the balls are collected in the hopper, they are required to be sorted according to
their type using a sorting mechanism. Weighted at 25%, the hopper sorting mechanisms will be
measured by estimating any foreseen errors and calculating the likelihood for ball misplacement.
The hopper with the most accurate foreseen ball sortability will be measured and compared on a
1-10 scale, where 10 indicates the hopper with the best sortability.
Weight of Hopper addresses the hopper’s total weight when completed. Weighted at 25%, this
weight includes the hopper, the sorting mechanism, and all associated fasteners. When
determining the weight, it is most favorable to put the lightest load on the robot because it will
move more quickly and more easily through the arena. Furthermore, a lightweight will allow the
robot to maneuver the arena with the least amount of applied power, thereby allowing it to
efficiently use the charged control box. When determining the more favorable hopper, each
design will be weighed based on the amount of material used. Once a total weight is recorded, 10
will be divided by the recorded number, thereby providing a quantified score for the hopper

weight that will be measured and compared on a 1-10 scale, where 10 indicates the hopper with
lowest hopper weight.

Ball Hopper / Sorting Mechanism Score Assignments
Manufacturing and Assembly Time
Design 1 features a design made of sheet metal, which requires manufacturers to measure, cut,
shape, and weld the required parts accordingly. Because of the lengthy and tedious process to
manufacture hopper design 1, the estimated manufacturing/assembly time is 6.2 hours
(calculations in Appendix A). Design 1 earns a score of 5 out of 10 on a linear assignment score
assignment.
shape, and weld the required parts accordingly. The estimated manufacturing/assembly time is
4.8 hours (calculations in Appendix A). Design 2 earns a score of 6.5 out of 10 on a linear
assignment score assignment.
Design 3 features a 3D printed design made of polylactic acid, a polymer material commonly
used for 3D printing. Although the printing process usually requires approximately 6-10 hours to
generate a larger print, the printing will not be done during a lab period, and so it will not take
away from manufacturing time. Therefore, the estimated manufacturing time is 3.1 hours
(calculations in Appendix A). Design 3 earns a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear assignment score
assignment.
shape, and weld the required parts accordingly. The estimated manufacturing/assembly time is
4.3 hours (calculations in Appendix A). Design 4 earns a score of 7.2 out of 10 on a linear
assignment score assignment.
Material Cost
Design 1 requires sheet metal, costing $2.35/ft2
of steel sheet metal. Given the amount of
material cost and the amount required for hopper design 1, the total estimated cost is $11.00
(calculations in Appendix A). Design 1 earns a 6.4 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 requires polylactic acid used for printing, costing $0.06/g of 3D printed material. Given
the amount of material required for hopper design 3, the total estimated cost is $30.00

(calculations in Appendix A). Design 4 earns a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Modularity
Design 1 requires 2 fasteners to assemble the hopper. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of
fasteners required to disassemble the mechanism in order to fit in the designated bin evaluated
the modularity of this design, the least number of fasteners earns the highest score.
Consequently, Design 1 earns a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 2 requires 4 fasteners on the hopper. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of fasteners
required to disassemble the mechanism in order to fit in the designated bin evaluated the
modularity of this design, the least number of fasteners earns the highest score. Consequently,
Design 2 earns a 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 requires 4 fasteners on the hopper. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of fasteners
modularity of this design, the least number of fasteners earns the highest score. Consequently,
like Design 2, Design 3 earns a 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 4 requires 3 fasteners to remove on the hopper. Reference in Appendix A, the number of
the modularity of this design, the least number of fasteners earns the highest score.
Consequently, Design 4 earns a 6.7 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Sortability
Design 1 features a sorting mechanism that separates the tennis balls and golf balls using bungee
cords spaced at the diameter of the golf balls. Assessing the design qualitatively through
experimentation, the likelihood for ball misplacement determines the hopper’s sorting
mechanism score. However, the hopper volume did not collect all the balls and the release holes
were deficient in functionality. Compared to Design 2 and 3, it was not as effective in the
sorting. Design 1 scored better than Design 4, because Design 4 was the least effective at sorting
the balls. Design 1 earns an ‘okay’ (calculations in Appendix A) in performance, earning a 6 out
of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 2 features a sorting mechanism that separates the tennis balls and golf balls using two
ramps; one ramp is spaced at just below the diameter of the tennis balls and the ramp beneath it

is spaced at just below the diameter of the golf balls, where tennis balls are too large to fall
through the higher ramp to fall through onto the golf ball ramp. Assessing the design
qualitatively through experimentation, the likelihood for ball misplacement determines the
hopper’s sorting mechanism score. However, the open design risks the balls falling out when the
hopper is angled to dispense the balls into the hopper. The design is more effective than both
Design 1 and Design 4 in sorting, which is why it receives a better score. Design 3 was the best
sorting mechanism, so it scored better than Design 2 for sortability. Design 2 earns a ‘good’
(calculations in Appendix A) in performance, earning an 8 out of 10 on a linear score
assignment.
Design 3 features a sorting mechanism that separates the tennis balls and golf balls two ramps
angled to allow the balls to roll downwards toward their respective partitioned spaces. The
second ramp features a spaced along the center of the ramp at the diameter of the golf balls,
allowing the golf balls to fall through and be sorted into a partitioned section while the tennis
balls continue rolling down the second ramp into the other partitioned section. Assessing the
design qualitatively through experimentation, the likelihood for ball misplacement determines
the hopper’s sorting mechanism score. No identifiable misplacement potential is identified for
this hopper. Since Design 3 was the best at sorting, it receives a better score than the other three
designs. Design 3 earns a ‘great’ (calculations in Appendix A) in performance, earning a 10 out
Design 4 features a sorting mechanism that collects the tennis balls and golf balls on a plate. In
the middle of the plate is a dipped indentation spaced at the diameter of the golf balls and the
entire plate is angled to direct the collected balls toward the hopper release mechanism.
Assessing the design qualitatively through experimentation, the likelihood for ball misplacement
determines the hopper’s sorting mechanism score. However, as balls are collected on the plate,
the hopper risks congestion wherever tennis balls block golf balls from passing into the hopper’s
dipped indentation. Since Design 1, Design 2, and Design 3 all showed that they could sort the
two types of balls more effectively, it scores the lowest of the four. Design 1 earns a ‘fair’
(calculations in Appendix A) in performance, earning a 4 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Weight of Hopper
Design 1 is made of sheet metal and bungee cords, weighing a total of 2.7 pounds (calculations
in Appendix A). When determining score assignments for hopper weight, the lowest score was
considered most desirable because after lab testing, an Enstort motor proved most effective for
the robot’s objective in the arena. Consequently, a lighter load is more desirable to avoid slowing
down the robot’s movement. Design 1 earns a 7.8 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Design 2 is made of sheet metal, weighing a total of 6.6 pounds (calculations in Appendix A).
When determining score assignments for hopper weight, the lowest score was considered most
desirable because after lab testing, an Enstort motor proved most effective for the robot’s
objective in the arena. Consequently, a lighter load is more desirable to avoid slowing down the
robot’s movement. Design 2 earns a 3.2 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 is made of polylactic acid, a polymer material weighing a total of 2.1 pounds
(calculations in Appendix A). When determining score assignments for hopper weight, the
lowest score was considered most desirable because after lab testing, an Enstort motor proved
most effective for the robot’s objective in the arena. Consequently, a lighter load is more
desirable to avoid slowing down the robot’s movement. Design 3 earns a 10 out of 10 on a linear
score assignment.
Design 4 is made of sheet metal, weighing a total of 4.2 pounds (calculations in Appendix A).
When determining score assignments for hopper weight, the lowest score was considered most
desirable because after lab testing, an Enstort motor proved most effective for the robot’s
objective in the arena. Consequently, a lighter load is more desirable to avoid slowing down the
robot’s movement. Design 4 earns a 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Bucket Manipulator
Manufacturing and Assembly Time defines the bulk time required to fabricate and assemble
all parts needed for the bucket manipulator. Quantified at 30%, this criterion outweighs the rest
given the amount and variety of materials it will take to build the largest/most complex part of
the vehicle. A score of a 10 out of 10 denotes the manipulator that took the least amount of time
to manufacture.
Material Cost is the cost of materials to create the bucket manipulator. The measured weight of
this criterion at 10% is due to the abundance of 80/20 that is provided for the vehicle design,
which most vehicle designs will utilize. The generation of this concept reflects on the low
weighting percentage given to the bucket manipulator. The design with the lowest material cost
scores a 10 out of 10.
Alignability is an assessment of how well the robot moves the bucket manipulator. This
quantitative test is based on turning radius calculations for each design located in Appendix A.
Weighted at 25%, this criteria takes into account knocking over buckets, bucket approach and
engagement. The more alignability of the bucket manipulator, the better the robot will perform.
The design with the smallest bucket manipulator turning radius will receive a score of 10 out of
10.
Torque Ratio of Retrieval is the quantitative comparison between the torque created by the
motor and the torque created by the weight of the bucket and balls over the distance of the arm.
The comparison of both torques allows for us to analyze which bucket manipulator will move
faster. This objective was weighted at 25% because time is a major aspect of the success of the
design. The faster the manipulator moves, the more effective it will be for completing the run.
The highest torque ratio receives a 10 out of 10.
Modularity is an assessment of the bucket manipulator’s ability to be quickly assembled and
disassembled. Modularity is the quantitative measurement of the least number of fasteners it
takes to fit the design in the allotted space. This objective is weighted at 10% because the robot
must fit into the 17”x12”x15” storage box in order to avoid penalty. The design with the fewest
amount of fasteners scores a 10 out of 10.

Bucket Manipulator Score Assignments
Design 1 uses 1” aluminum extrusion and steel sheet metal in the form of a stationary gripper as
shown in Figure 1C to manipulate the bucket. The manufacturing/assembly time to produce this
manipulator was estimated to be 5.3 hours, based on personal experience and knowledge
(calculations in Appendix A). Design 1 was approximated to take 2.2 hours longer to
manufacture/assemble than Design 5, earning a score of 5.8 out of 10 on a linear score
assignment.
Design 2 uses aluminum square tubing in the form of a stationary gripper as shown in Figure 2C
to manipulate the bucket. The manufacturing/assembly time to produce this manipulator was
estimated to be 5.7 hours, based on personal experience and knowledge (calculations in
Appendix A). Design 2 was approximated to take 2.6 hours longer to manufacture/assemble than
Design 5, earning a score of 5.4 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 uses 1” 80/20 aluminum extrusion in the form of a stationary gripper as shown in
Figure 3C to manipulate the bucket. The manufacturing/assembly time to produce this
assignment.
Figure 4C to manipulate the bucket. The manufacturing/assembly time to produce this
assignment.
Design 5 uses four 6” pieces of sheet metal separated by an extrusion of 80/20 in the form of a
stationary gripper as shown in Detail Design to manipulate the bucket. The
manufacturing/assembly time to produce this manipulator was estimated to be 3.1 hours, based
on personal experience and knowledge (calculations in Appendix A). Design 5 was
approximated to take the least amount of time to manufacture/assemble than all other designs,
earning a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Material Cost
Design 1 uses 1” 80/20 aluminum extrusion and steel sheet metal in the form of a stationary
gripper as shown in Figure 1C to manipulate the bucket. The material cost of this design was
evaluated on a by foot basis, taking into account sheet metal, 80/20 and fasteners (calculations
shown in Appendix A). Design 1 was estimated to cost $29.82, approximately 6 times greater
than the least costly design, earning a score of 1.8 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
to manipulate the bucket. The material cost of this design was evaluated on a by foot basis,
taking into account sheet metal, 80/20 and fasteners (calculations in Appendix A). Design 2 was
estimated to cost $5.50, and was the least costly design, earning a score of 10 out of 10 on a
linear score assignment.
Figure 3C to manipulate the bucket. The material cost of this design was evaluated on a by foot
basis, taking into account sheet metal, 80/20 and fasteners (calculations in Appendix A). Design
3 was estimated to cost $13.11, approximately 2 times greater than the least costly design,
earning a score of 4.2 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Figure 4C to manipulate the bucket. The material cost of this design was evaluated on a by foot
basis, taking into account sheet metal, 80/20 and fasteners (calculations in Appendix A). Design
4 was estimated to cost $9.75, 1.6 times greater than the least costly design, earning a score of
5.6 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
stationary gripper as shown in Detail Design to manipulate the bucket. The material cost of this
design was evaluated on a by foot basis, taking into account sheet metal, 80/20 and fasteners
(calculations in Appendix A). Design 5 was estimated to cost $6.50, earning a score of 8.5 out of
10 on a linear score assignment.
Alignability
Design 1 uses differential steering located at the front of the robot, close to the bucket
manipulator. The alignability of this design was evaluated based on the arc length created by a
90-degree rotation of the manipulator arm as measured from the drive axle. Design 1 was
evaluated to create an arc of 33.0 inches (calculations in Appendix A), twice as long as the most
alignable design, earning a score of 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

evaluated to create an arc of 16.5 inches (calculations in Appendix A), which was rated as the
most alignable design, earning a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
evaluated to create an arc of 21.9 inches (calculations in Appendix A), earning a score of 7.5 out
of 10 points on a linear score assignment.
evaluated to create an arc of 20.4 inches (calculations in Appendix A), relatively close to the
most alignable design, earning a score of 8.1 out of 10 points on a linear score assignment.
evaluated to create an arc of 37.7 inches (calculations in Appendix A), earning a score of 4.4 out
of 10 points on a linear score assignment.
Torque Ratio
Design 1 lifts the bucket off the ground as shown in Figure 1C, creating a moment on the motor.
The Torque Ratio was calculated using the length of the manipulator and the estimated weight of
the loaded bucket (calculations in Appendix A). Design 1 was evaluated with a motor generated
torque to bucket generated torque ratio of 1.3, approximately 30% of the highest ratio, earning a
score of 2.8 out of 10 on a linear scale assignment.
Design 2 tilts the bucket shown in Figure 2C, creating a moment on the motor. The Torque Ratio
was calculated using the length of the manipulator and the estimated weight of the loaded bucket
(calculations in Appendix A). Design 2 was evaluated with a motor generated torque to bucket
generated torque ratio of 3.9, earning a score of 8.4 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

torque to bucket generated torque ratio of 1.2, 36% of the highest ratio, earning a score of 2.6 out
torque to bucket generated torque ratio of 1.3, 3% of the highest ratio, earning a score of 2.8 out
Design 5 lifts the bucket off the ground as shown in Detail Design, creating a moment on the
motor. The Torque Ratio was calculated using the length of the manipulator and the estimated
weight of the loaded bucket (calculations in Appendix A). Design 5 was evaluated with a motor
generated torque to bucket generated torque ratio of 4.6, the highest ratio, earning a score of 10
out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Modularity
Design 1 uses 1” 80/20 aluminum extrusion and steel sheet metal in the form of a stationary
gripper as shown in Figure 1C to manipulate the bucket. Referenced in Appendix A, the number
of fasteners required to disassemble the mechanism in order to fit in the designated bin evaluated
the modularity of this design. The bucket manipulator of Design 1 was designed to use 3
fasteners, 1 more fastener than the most modular designs, earning a score of 6.7 out of 10 on a
to manipulate the bucket. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of fasteners required to
disassemble the mechanism in order to fit in the designated bin evaluated the modularity of this
design.. The bucket manipulator of Design 2 uses 2 fasteners as does two other designs, earning
a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 uses 1” 80/20 aluminum extrusion with a round 3D printed stationary gripper as shown
in Figure 3C to manipulate the bucket. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of fasteners
modularity of this design. The bucket manipulator of Design 3 was designed to use 4 fasteners, 2
more than the most modular designs, earning a score of 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Figure 4C to manipulate the bucket. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of fasteners required
to remove from the bucket manipulator evaluated the modularity of this design. The bucket

manipulator of Design 4 was designed to use 2 fasteners as does two other designs, earning a
score of 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
stationary gripper as shown in Detail Design to manipulate the bucket. Referenced in Appendix
A, the number of fasteners required to disassemble the mechanism in order to fit in the
designated bin evaluated the modularity of this design. The bucket manipulator of Design 5 was
designed to use 2 fasteners as does two other designs, earning a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear
score assignment.

Mobile Platform
Manufacturing and Assembly Time is an estimation of the amount of time it will take to
complete each design, such as fabricating and modifying each component. Using Time
Estimations for Manufacturing Lab Parts located in Appendix A. Manufacturing and Assembly
time is weighted at 20% because it is essential to the given time constraint of creating the vehicle
to manufacture and assemble it within reasonable time in order to begin testing the chosen
design. The design with the least amount of manufacturing and assembly time will receive the
highest score of 10 out of 10.
Material Cost measures the price of all materials used for the vehicle design. Weighted at 10%
this criterion meets the necessity of not exceeding the allotted budget of $50. Since a number of
the materials were provided to us in the lab, this objective is weighted the least of the five. The
design with the lowest material cost receives a score of 10 out of 10.
Modularity is a measurement of the ability the vehicle (mobile platform) has to assemble and
disassemble each part in the least amount of time. Quantified by the total number of fasteners to
remove for the mobile platform to fit in the allotted space, this criteria is weighted at 15%
because the entirety of the vehicle must fit within a 17” x 12” x 15” storage box. The design with
the least number of fasteners will receive a score of 10 out of 10.
Speed is measured as the maximum linear velocity of the robot under load on a hard and flat
surface. Speed is weighted at 25% because of the project’s time constraint. The values of speed
for each vehicle design can be found under Appendix B. Speed is the dominant determining
factor in completion time of the project task. The design with the highest linear velocity will
receive a score of 10 out of 10.
Maneuverability is an assessment of how well the robot moves, turns and responds to the driver
controls and how well it performs throughout the course as it maneuvers between buckets to
arrive at target sites. This quantitative test is based on turning radius calculations for each design
located in Appendix A. Weighted at 30%, this criteria avoids 30 second course penalties such as
knocking over buckets which may result in DNF if not taken into account. The design with the
smallest turning radius based on the arm length will receive a score of 10 out of 10.

Mobile Platform Score Assignments
Design 1 fabrication and modification time estimates can be found in Appendix A: Decision
Matrix Calculations / Summaries. Weighted at 20% in order to begin testing its functionality
quicker, the time required to manufacture/assemble the mobile platform of this design is
approximately 16.6 hours. This estimate considers the machining portion of the mobile platform
and based on the parts that can be made in the laboratory and the amount of time it takes to
assemble the vehicle. Design 1 design receives a score of a 8.6 out of 10 on a linear score
assignment
assemble the vehicle. Design 2 receives a score of a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment
assemble the vehicle. Design 3 receives a score of a 9 out of 10 on a linear score assignment
assemble the vehicle. Design 4 receives a score of a 8.1 out of 10 on a linear score assignment
assemble the vehicle. Design 5 receives a score of a 9.9 out of 10 on a linear score assignment

Material Cost
Design 1 uses 80/20 aluminum square extrusion measured at 1” x 1” and priced at $3.00 per foot
referenced in Appendix A. The design uses two aluminum wheel hubs which are 2 inches in
diameter and 2 inches long. The cost for 2” aluminum bar stock is $20 per foot, so the total cost
for 4 inches of the bar stock comes to about $7. The cost for 3/16” x 3” aluminum bar stock is
approximately $4.5/ft, needing 1 foot of this material for manufacturing motor mounts, the cost
is approximately $5. This mobile platform uses 7.33 feet of 80/20, which is approximately $22.
The total cost for this platform is approximately $34.00. Weighted the least at 10% considering
our $50 dollar budget and 8 free feet of 80/20. Design 1 receives a score of 9 out of 10 on a
Design 2 uses 80/20 Aluminum Square Extrusion measured at 1” x 1” and priced at $3.00 per
foot and 3/16"X3" Aluminum Bar Stock priced at $4.50 per foot referenced in Appendix A. The
design uses two aluminum wheel hubs which are 2 inches in diameter and 2 inches long. The
cost for 2” aluminum bar stock is $20 per foot, so the total cost for 4 inches of the bar stock
comes to about $7. The cost for 3/16” x 3” aluminum bar stock is approximately $4.5/ft, needing
1 foot of this material for manufacturing motor mounts, the cost is approximately $5. This
mobile platform uses 6 feet of 80/20 and 1 foot of bar stock that results in $23. The total cost for
this platform is approximately $30.00. Weighted the least at 10% considering our $50 dollar
budget and 8 free feet of 80/20. Design 2 receives a score of 9.7 out of 10 on a linear score
assignment.
referenced in Appendix A. The design uses two aluminum wheel hubs which are 2 inches in
diameter and 2 inches long. The cost for 2” aluminum bar stock is $20 per foot, so the total cost
for 4 inches of the bar stock comes to about $7. The cost for 3/16” x 3” aluminum bar stock is
approximately $4.5/ft, needing 1 foot of this material for manufacturing motor mounts, the cost
is approximately $5. This mobile platform uses 10 feet of 80/20, which is approximately $30.
The total cost for this platform is approximately $42.00. Weighted the least at 10% considering
our $50 dollar budget and 8 free feet of 80/20. Design 3 receives a score of 6.9 out of 10 on a
referenced in Appendix A. This mobile platform uses 9.75 feet of 80/20, which is approximately
$29. The design uses two aluminum wheel hubs which are 2 inches in diameter and 2 inches
long. The cost for 2” aluminum bar stock is $20 per foot, so the total cost for 4 inches of the bar
stock comes to about $7. The cost for 3/16” x 3” aluminum bar stock is approximately $4.5/ft,
needing 1 foot of this material for manufacturing motor mounts, the cost is approximately $5.
The total cost for the mobile platform is approximately $41.00. Weighted the least at 10%

considering our $50 dollar budget and 8 free feet of 80/20. Design 4 receives a score of 7.1 out
referenced in Appendix A. This mobile platform uses 9.75 feet of 80/20, which is approximately
$. The design uses two aluminum wheel hubs which are 2 inches in diameter and 2 inches long.
The cost for 2” aluminum bar stock is $20 per foot, so the total cost for 4 inches of the bar stock
comes to about $7. The cost for 3/16” x 3” aluminum bar stock is approximately $4.5/ft, needing
1 foot of this material for manufacturing motor mounts, the cost is approximately $5. The total
cost for the mobile platform is approximately $29.00. Weighted the least at 10% considering our
$50 dollar budget and 8 free feet of 80/20. Design 5 receives a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear
score assignment.
Modularity
Design 1 contains 8 fasteners. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of fasteners required to
design. The only fasteners considered are bracket type fasteners. Design 1 receives a score of 5
design. The only fasteners considered are bracket type fasteners. Among other designs, Design 2
receives a score of 6.7 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
design. The only fasteners considered are bracket type fasteners. Among other designs, Design 3
also receives a score of 6.7 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
design. Among other designs, Design 4 also receives a score of 6.7 out of 10 on a linear score
assignment.
design. Containing the least number of fasteners among all designs, Design 5 receives the highest
score of 10 out of 10.

Speed
Design 1 uses the 44 rpm Entstort right angle gear motors and 8" diameter drive wheels, which
result in a loaded vehicle speed of 1.2 ft/sec (calculations in Appendix B: Wheel Speed
Calculations). Since Design 1 travels at 29% of the fastest design’s speed (4.6 ft/sec), Design 1
receives a score of 2.9 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 2 uses the 150 rpm Denso right angle gear motors and 8" diameter drive wheels, which
Calculations). Since Design 2 travels at the fastest speed, Design 2 receives a score of 10 out of
Design 3 uses the 150 rpm Denso right angle gear motors and 8" diameter drive wheels, which
Calculations). Since Design 3 travels at the fastest speed, as does Design 2, Design 3 receives a
score of 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 4 uses the 44 rpm Entstort right angle gear motors and 8" diameter drive wheels, which
Calculations). Since Design 4 travels at 29% of the fastest design’s speed (4.6 ft/sec), Design 4
receives the same score as Design 1, 2.9 out of 10 using a linear score assignment.
Design 5 uses the 44 rpm Entstort right angle gear motors and 13.6" diameter drive wheels,
which result in a loaded vehicle speed of 2.0 ft/sec (calculations in Appendix B: Wheel Speed
Calculations). Since Design 5 travels at 50% of the fastest design’s speed (4.6 ft/sec), this design
scores a 5 out of 10 using a linear score assignment.
Maneuverability
Design 1 has a length of 35” from the center of the drive wheel axles to the end of the arm
length, and is calculated based off a constant 90° angle or 1.57 radians. This calculation results in
an arc length of 54.95 inches (calculations in Appendix A: Decision Matrix Calculations /
Summaries). With a three-wheel mobile platform, control of the vehicle is the highest weighted
criteria and Design 1 resulted in the largest arc length. Design 1 receives a score of 3 out of 10
on a linear score assignment.
Design 2 has a length of 14.6” from the center of the drive wheel axles to the end of the arm
an arc length of 23 measured in inches (calculations in Appendix A: Decision Matrix
Calculations / Summaries). With a three-wheel mobile platform, control of the vehicle is the

highest weighted criteria and Design 2 resulted in an arc length smaller than Design 3, but larger
than Design 5. Design 2 receives a score of 7 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
an arc length of 42.39 measured in inches (as seen in Appendix A: Decision Matrix Calculations
/ Summaries). With a three-wheel mobile platform, control of the vehicle is the highest weighted
criteria and Design 3 received the second lowest lowest score along with Design 1. Design 3
receives a score of 4 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
criteria and Design 4 resulted an arc length close to design 2. Design 4 receives a score of 8 out
Design 5 has a length of 10.7” from the center of the drive wheel axles to the end of the arm
criteria resulting in a score of 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Release Mechanism
Manufacturing and Assembly Time the bulk time required to fabricate and assemble all parts
needed for the release mechanism. Quantified at 10%, this criteria accounts for the small amount
of material that requires modifying and manufacturing. Because all designs have a relatively
short size of material to work with, a score of a 10 out of 10 is given to the release mechanism
that requires the least amount of time to manufacture.
Material Cost is the cost of materials to create the release mechanism. The measured weight of
this criterion at 10% this decision was made factoring in the overall size and expense of the
components for the release mechanism. The size and designs of this concept reflects on the low
weighting percentage given to the mechanism. The design with the lowest material cost in
dollars will score a 10 out of 10.
Modularity is the assessment of how quickly the design can be assembled and disassembled. It
is quantified by the least number of fasteners to remove so that the design can fit in the allotted
space. Because the release mechanism is a smaller piece compared to the others, the weight is
determined to be 10%. The entire design must fit into the allotted storage size of 17” by 12” by
15”, but the release mechanism will not be a large contribution to the size. The number of
fasteners quantifies the modularity. The least amount of fasteners corresponds to the highest
score of a 10 out of 10.
Accuracy is a qualitative assessment of how close the tennis or golf balls hit the desired target
upon falling. The assignments of scores were based on the experiment that was conducted using
a bulls eye (details found in Appendix A). The weighting for this objective is 25%, because there
is a 30 second penalty for each ball that does not land in the bucket. Accuracy becomes very
important for the release mechanism because a less accurate design may knock over the bucket,
which would also result in penalty. The highest score is obtained by all 10 of the balls landing in
the center of the bulls eye, which receives a score of a 10 out of 10.
Angle of Release is the measurement of each concept’s ability to ensure that the bucket will not
fall over when the balls are dropped. The angle of the release is based off of the inclination angle
that the design creates. The angle of release is allotted a 20% weight mainly due to the fact that
having a precise and accurate release mechanism is far more important than the time it takes for
the release. The optimum release angle is 90 degrees because this minimizes the chances of
knocking the bucket over. The angle at 90 degrees is the best angle of release, which receives the
highest score of at a 10 out of 10.

Release Mechanism Score Assignments
Design 1 has a manufacturing time of approximately 0.7 hours (calculations in Appendix A). The
design was uncomplicated, and easy to manufacture. Since design 1 is manufactured in the
fastest time, it receives a score of a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
design was a hard piece to manufacture, which resulting in more time than the others. Since
design 2 is manufactured about 7.7 times slower than that of design 1, it receives a score of a 1.3
door is manufactured relatively quickly as compared to design 2 or 4. Since design 3 is
manufactured 2.1 times slower than that of design 1, it receives a score of a 4.7 out of 10 on a
Design 4 has a manufacturing time of approximately 1.7 hours (calculations in Appendix
A). The mounting of the linear actuator and construction of the PVC-trap door mechanism took
a longer time to complete than design 1 or 3. Since design 4 is manufactured 2.42 times slower
than that of design 1, it receives a score of a 4.1 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Material Cost
Design 1 features a release mechanism costing $3.00. The design does not use a lot of material,
and uses the least expensive steel. The calculations for the cost of the different materials can be
referenced in Appendix A. Since design 1 has the lowest cost, it receives a score of a 10 out of
Design 2 features a release mechanism costing $9.00. The cost of aluminum is greater than steel,
which accounts for the price differential. The calculations for the cost of the different materials
can be referenced in Appendix A. Since design 2 costs 3 times as much as design 1, it receives a
score of a 3.3 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 features a release mechanism costing $11.00. The mechanism is the most expensive
due to the amount of metal being used. The calculations for the cost of the different materials can
be referenced in Appendix A. Since design 3 costs 3.66 times more than design 1, it receives a
score of a 2.7 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 4 features a release mechanism costing $7.00. The PVC pipe is not as expensive as the
metals used for the release mechanism in design 2 or 3. The calculations for the cost of the
different materials can be referenced in Appendix A. Since design 4 costs 2.33 times as much as
design 1, it receives a score of a 4.3 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Modularity
Design 1 uses 2 fasteners in its release mechanism. Referenced in Appendix A, the number of
the modularity of this design. Since Design 1 uses the same amount as the least fasteners used for
the Release Mechanism, it receives a score of a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
the modularity of this design. Since Design 2 uses the most amount of fasteners among all
designs, it receives a score of 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Accuracy
Design 1 has an accuracy of 10 (calculations in Appendix A). All of the tennis balls landed in the
center of the target, but none of the golf balls made it out of the release mechanism. Overall, the
design scored the lowest for accuracy. Since Design 1 was 50% less accurate than design 4, it
receives a 5 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 2 has an accuracy of 16 (calculations in Appendix A). This score shows that all but one
of the balls landed in the center of the target. Design 2 received the second highest accuracy
rating based on how it did as compared to the other designs in the test. Since design 2 was 20%
less accurate than Design 4, it receives a 8 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 has an accuracy of 15 (calculations in Appendix A). The design had all but 2 of the
balls land in the center of the target. this small error resulted in the third highest accuracy rating.
Since Design 3 was 25% less accurate than design 4, it receives an 7.5 out of 10 on a linear score
assignment.
Design 4 has an accuracy of 20 (calculations in Appendix A). This number was obtained by
doing an experiment referenced in Appendix A. All 5 tennis balls and all 5 golf balls dropped in
the center of the target, which is why it obtained the perfect score for accuracy. Since Design 4
had the greatest accuracy, it receives a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Angle of Release
Design 1 releases the balls at an angle of 70 degrees. With a ball release mechanism that is not
directly above the bucket, there is a chance an angle smaller than 90 degrees could knock it over.
Since the angle is 20 degrees smaller than the 90-degree angle, it scores a 7.8 out of 10 on a
Design 2 releases the balls at an angle of 70 degrees. With a ball release mechanism that is not
directly above the bucket, there is a chance an angle smaller than 90 degrees could knock it over.
Design 2 receives a lower score. Since the angle is 20 degrees smaller than the 90-degree angle,
it also scores a 7.8 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.
Design 3 releases the balls at an angle of 90 degrees. The release mechanism is designed so that
it is directly over the bucket upon release. This design ranks the highest, receiving a score of a 10
Design 4 releases the balls at an angle of 90 degrees. A PVC pipe is maneuvered directly over
the bucket and the balls are released through it. This design ranks the highest, receiving a score
of a 10 out of 10 on a linear score assignment.

Ball Hopper / Sorter
Estimated Sheetmetal Manufacturing Time
Design 1
Design 2
Design 4
Relative Part Complexity
SIMPLE MORE COMPLEX
[min] [min]
select to material blank from which to make part 5 10
layout cut and fold lines using full scale paper template 10 20
cut part to overall size using foot shear or bandsaw 7 12
center punch hole locations using a hammer and punch 3 5
if possible, punch holes using sheetmetal punch press x 8 7 12
bend sides or tabs of part using sheetmetal brake(s) 5 20
weld corners of part for additional strength or stiffness, or weld
part to another to create a larger assembly 15 25
time to debur part between steps 5 7
time to dispose of material scraps when finished 3 4
ESTIMATED MANUFACTURING
TIME:
[min] 60 115
[hr] 1 1.9

Design 1
Time Estimation for Part Manufacturing and Assembly: Ball Hopper / Sorter
ANUFACTURING / ASSEMBLY PROCESS
Est. Time Quantity Subtotal
[min] [-] [min] [hr]
Retrieve & cut sheetmetal 10 8 80 1.3
manufacture sheetmetal piece [A] 115 1 115 1.9
Drill 6 holes on hopper 10 6 60 1.0
Tie 3 pieces of 8" rope from hole to hole 2 3 6 0.1
TOTAL: 258 4.3
Design 2
MANUFACTURING / ASSEMBLY PROCESS
retrieve pre-cut pieces of 80/20 off shelf 5 2 10 0.2
Assemble 80/20 frame [A] 20 1 20 0.3
retrieve & cut sheetmetal 15 2 30 0.5
manufacture sheetmetal piece 115 1 115 1.9
TOTAL: 195 2.9

Design 3
mark 3d printed surface 3 4 12 0.2
load part and endmill into mill 8 1 8 0.1
find X, Y zeros using edgefinder 10 1 10 0.2
drill mounting holes x 4 20 1 20 0.3
tap 0.25 holes 20 1 20 0.3
TOTAL: 70 1.2
Design 4
retrieve & cut sheetmetal 15 1 15 0.3
manufacture sheetmetal piece [A] 115 1 115 1.9
install sheetmetal to frame 15 1 15 0.2
TOTAL: 130 2.4

Material Cost
Design 1
Material Cost Estimates: Ball Hopper / Sorter
Material
Unit of Cost Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
[-] [-] [$] [$]
1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 1.3 $3.00 $3.90
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 1.5 $2.35 $3.53
Bungee Cord ft 2 $1.98 $3.96
Total: $11.39
Design 2
Material
Unit of Cost Quantity
Unit
Cost Total Cost
[-] [-] [$] [$)
1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 3 $3.00 $9.00
3/16"X3" Aluminum Bar Stock ft 1 $4.50 $4.50
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 3 $2.35 $7.05
Total: $20.55

Design 3
Material
Unit of Cost Quantity Unit Cost
Total
Cost
[-] [-] [$] [$)
3D Printinted Hopper 30 1 $30.00 $30.00
Total: $30.00
Design 4
Material
Total
Cost
[-] [-] [$] [$)
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 2.8 $2.35 $6.58
Total: $6.58

Modularity
Design 1
Modularity Estimates: Ball Hopper/Sorter
Component Number of Fasteners
Hopper Mount 2
Total: 2
Design 2
Modularity Estimates: Ball Hopper/Sorter
Frame 4
Total: 4

Design 3
Modularity Estimates
Hopper Mount 2
Total: 2
Design 4
Modularity Estimates
Hopper Mount 3
Total: 3

Weight of Hopper
Design 1
Weight: Ball Hopper/Sorter
Material Weight Per Area (lbs/ft^2) Area (ft^2) Total Weight (lb)
GA Steel 1.5 1.5 2.25
Fastener
Weight per Fastener
(lb/fastener)
Number of
Fasteners Total Weight (lb)
3275 0.009 2 0.018
Total: 2.7
Design 2
Material Weight Per Foot (lbs/ft) Feet (ft) Total Weight (lb)
80/20 1" 1010 0.50 3 1.5
Aluminum Bar Stock 0.51 1 0.51
Steel Sheetmetal 20 Gauge 1.4 3 4.3
Fastener Weight per Fastener (lb/fastener)
Number of Fasteners
(fasteners) Total Weight (lb)
3275 0.009 28 0.25
Total: 6.6

Design 3
Material Marston Estimate (lb.)
Polylactic Acid 2.1
Total: 2.1
Design 4
GA steel 1.5 2.8 4.2
Fastener Weight per Fastener (lb/fastener)
Number of Fasteners
(fasteners) Total Weight (lb)
3275 0.009 3 0.027
Total: 4.2

Bucket Manipulator
Estimated Motor Mount
Manufacturing Time
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3
Student Experience Level
BEGINNER INTERMEDIATE
[min] [min]
mark & cut rectangular bar stock on bandsaw 12 7
load part and endmill into mill 8 5
face first pair of sides 10 7
face second pair of sides 15 12
mill part to final length 20 15
find X, Y zeros using edgefinder 10 8
drill clearence holes x 4 35 30
time to clean machine when finished 10 8
ESTIMATED
MANUFACTURING
TIME:
[min] 140 102
[hr] 2.3 1.7

Time Estimations
Design 1
Time Estimation for Part Manufacturing and Assembly: Bucket Manipulator
retrieve pre-cut pieces of 80/20 off shelf 5.0 7 35 0.6
mark & cut remaining 80/20 on bandsaw 8.0 2 40 0.7
manufacture motor mount 140.0 1 140 2.3
Assembly bucket manipulator [B] 30.0 1 30 0.5
TOTAL: 215 4.1
Design 2
NUFACTURING / ASSEMBLY PROCESS
retrieve &cut pieces of 1"x0.125" AL square tubing 15 3 45 0.8
manufacture motor mount 140 1 140 2.3
attach motor to motor mount [B] 7.5 1 8 0.1
attach motor mount to robot frame [C] 15 1 15 0.8
TOTAL: 198 4.0

Design 3
Assembly bucket manipulator [A] 30.0 1 30 0.5
TOTAL: 144 2.4
Design 4
mark & cut remaining 80/20 on bandsaw 5 2 10 0.2
Assemble 80/20 pieces to form claw [B] 60 1 60 1.0
Attach arm and claw to Globe motor [C] 20 1 20 .3
TOTAL: 90 1.5

Design 5
retreive steel sheet metal 5 1 5 0.1
mark and cut steel sheet metal 5 4 20 0.3
punch 1/4" hole in steel sheetmetal 4 4 16 0.3
assemble 80/20 extrusion arm [A] 10 1 10 0.2
attach motor to 80/20 mount 7 1 7 0.1
attach 80/20 arm to motor and mount 5 1 5 0.1
attach bucket manipulator grips to arm [B] 2 4 8 0.1
TOTAL: 86 1.4

Material Cost
Design 1
Material Cost Estimates: Bucket Manipulator
Material
Total
Cost
[-] [-] [$] [$]
2" Aluminum Bar Stock ft 1 $20.00 $20.00
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 1 $2.35 $2.35
Total: $29.85
Design 2
Material
Total
Cost
[-] [-] [$] [$]
1"x0.125" AL square tubing ft 1 $1.00 $1.00
Total: $5.50

Design 3
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$]
Round 3D Printed Grabber g 1 $2.61 $2.61
Total: $13.11
Design 4
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$]
1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 3.25 $3.00 $9.75
Total: $9.75
Design 5
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$]
1" x 1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 2 $1.00 $2.00
1/4"x4" Aluminum Bar Stock ft 1 $4.50 $4.50
Total: $6.50

Alignability
=
Design 1 Example
= ( . ) ∗ ( . )
= . .
Design 1
Alignability Estimates: Bucket Manipulator
r (in) Θ (radians) s (in)
21 1.57 32.97
Total: 32.97
Design 2
10.5 1.57 16.4
Total: 16.4
Design 3
14 1.57 21.98
Total: 21.98
Design 4
13 1.57 20.41
Total: 20.41

Design 5
24 1.57 37.68
Total: 37.68
Torque Ratio
=
∋ = ( ! " #) ∗ ($ "# % )
Design 1 Example
= ( ) ∗ ( . &! ) = . '
=
( − !
. ' − !
= . &

Design 1
Torque Ratio Estimates: Bucket Manipulator
otor Torque
(in-lb)
Bucket Moment
(in-lb) Arm Length (in) Weight (lb)
30 23.4 13 1.8
Torque Ratio: 1.28
Design 2
tor Torque
(in-lb)
Bucket Moment
(in-lb) Arm Length (in) Weight (lb)
17.5 4.5 2.5 1.8
Torque Ratio: 3.88
Design 3
Motor Torque
(in-lb)
Bucket Moment
(in-lb)
Arm Length
(in) Weight (lb
30 25.2 14 1.8
Torque Ratio: 1.19
Design 4
Motor Torque
(in-lb)
Bucket Moment
(in-lb)
Arm Length
(in) Weight (lb)
30 23.4 13 1.8
Torque Ratio: 1.28
Design 5
Motor Torque (in-lb) Bucket Moment (in-lb) Arm Length (in) Weight (lb)
125 27 15 1.8
Torque Ratio: 4.6

Modularity
Design 1
Modularity Estimates: Bucket Manipulator
Motor Mount 3
Total: 3
Design 2
Motor Mount 2
Total: 2

Design 3
Motor Mount 4
Total: 4
Design 4
Motor Mount 2
Total: 2
Design 5
Arm 2
Total: 2

Mobile Platform
EML2322L Time Estimation for Part Manufacturing
MANUFACTURING PROCESS
BEGINNER INTERMEDIATE
[min] [min]
mark & cut 3/16" x 2.5" bar stock on bandsaw 10 8
load part(s) into milling machine vise 5 3
drill (3) clearance holes for motor mounting, thru [A] 20 15
drill (1) clearance hole for motor shaft clearance, thru [B] 15 10
drill (2) clearance holes for bracket mounting, thru [C] 15 10
ESTIMATED MANUFACTURING TIME:
[min] 87 62
[hr] 1.5 1.0

Estimated Manufacturing Time for Wheel Hub
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3
Design 4
Design 5
Beginner [min] / [hr]
Cut piece of 2'' diameter round bar stock 3-1/2'' long in bandsaw 10
Clamp part in lather and face end of workpiece 10
Turn OD along length of part so it's round 15
Turn shoulder on end of workpiece 10
Turn front two chamfers on workpiece 10
Cut off workpiece on the bandsaw 20
Load part into the lathe chuck, face 2" OD of hub to final length 15
Drill center hole thru workpiece using center drill 20
Drill center hole 1/64" under 5/16" to use reamer 25
Use 0.3135" reamer to finish center hole 15
Drill and tap 3 holes on face of hub using manual milling
machine 20
Clamp part on its side; drill set screw holes 15
Thread the set screw holes sink a tap guide, handle & 10-24 tap 20

ESTIMATED MANUFACTURING TIME: 205 3.48
Time Estimates
Design 1
Time Estimation for Part Manufacturing and Assembly: Mobile Platform
MANUFACTURING / ASSEMBLY
PROCESS
manufacture wheel hub 205 1 205 3.4
modify wheel hub made earlier in the semester 20 1 20 0.3
attach motor to motor mounts [A] 7.5 2 15 0.3
attach motor mount to robot frame [B] 5 2 10 0.2
attach wheel hub to motor [C] 8.5 2 17 0.3
attach wheel to wheel hub [D] 8.5 2 17 0.3
attach caster wheel to robot frame [E] 10 1 10 0.2
attach and wire control box for first time 20 1 20 0.3
TOTAL: 540 9.0

Design 2
attach motor to motor mount [A] 7.5 2 15 0.3
TOTAL: 540 9.0

Design 3
Time Estimation for Part Manufacturing and Assembly : Mobile Platform
PROCESS
modify wheel hub made earlier in the
semester 15 1 15 0.3
TOTAL: 546 9.1

Design 4
assemble 80/20 frame 15 8 15 0.25
TOTAL: 607 10.1

Design 5
mark & cut remaining 80/20 on bandsaw 10 2 20 0.3
attach 80/20 frame together 25 1 45 0.75
attach motor to motor mount [A] 8 2 15 0.3
attach wheel hub to motor [C] 8 2 16 0.3
attach wheel to wheel hub [D] 8 2 16 0.3
TOTAL: 555 9.25
Material Cost
Design 1
Material Cost Estimates: Mobile Platform
Material Unit of Cost Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

[-] [-] [$] [$)
1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 7.33 $3 $22
2" Aluminum Round Bar Stock ft .3 $20 $7
3/16"X3 Aluminum Bar Stock ft 1 $4.50 $5
Total: $34.00
Design 2
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$)
1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 6 $3 $18
3/16"X3" Aluminum Bar Stock ft 1 $4.50 $5
Total: $30.00
Design 3
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$)

1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 10 $3 $30
Total: $42.00
Design 4
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$)
1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 9.75 $3 $29
Total: $41.00
Design 5
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$]
1" x 1" 80/20 Aluminum Extrusion ft 5.5 $3.00 $16.50
Total: $29.00

Modularity
Design 1
Modularity Estimates Mobile Platform
Base 8
Total: 8
Design 2
Modularity Estimates: Mobile Platform
Base 6
Total: 6

Design 3
Base 6
Total: 6
Design 4
Modularity Estimates Mobile Platform
Base 6
Total: 6
Design 5
Base 4
Total: 4

Speed Estimates
* ! + = (. ∗ , ∗ - ! ./ ∗ 0
0 " 12 /!
* ! + =
(. ∗ , ∗ '' / ∗ &
(3( ∗ )
* ! + = . % /
Design 1
Speed Estimates: Mobile Platform
Motor
Nominal
Speed (rpm)
Wheel Diameter
(in) Velocity (in/s)
Enstort 44 8 1.15
Total: 1.15
Design 2
Motor
Nominal Speed
(rpm)
Wheel Diameter
(in) Velocity (ft/s)
Denso 150 8 3.92
Total: 3.92
Design 3
Motor
Nominal
Speed (rpm)
Wheel
Diameter (in) Velocity (in/s)
Denso 150 8 3.92
Total: 3.92
Design 4
Motor
Nominal
Speed (rpm)
Wheel Diameter
(in) Velocity (in/s)
Enstort 44 8 1.15
Total: 1.15
Design 5
Motor Nominal Speed (rpm) Wheel Diameter (in) Velocity (ft/s)
Enstort 44 13.6 1.96
Total: 1.96

Maneuverability
= ∗
0 " 12 /!
= ∗ .
= '.
Design 1
Maneuverability Estimates: Mobile Platform
r bar (in) Θ (radians) s (in)
35 1.57 54.95
Total: 54.95
Design 2
14.6 1.57 23.00
Total: 23.00
Design 3
27 1.57 42.39
Total: 42.39
Design 4
13 1.57 20.41
Total: 20.41
Design 5
10.73 1.57 16.85
Total: 16.85

Release Mechanism
Time Estimate
Design 1
Time Estimation for Part Manufacturing and Assembly: Release Mechanism
PROCESS
Weld chutes to hopper 20 2 40 0.6
Strap motors to side of chutes [C] 5 2 10 0.1
TOTAL: 50 0.7
Design 2
manufacture release mechanism 150 1 150 2.5
attach release mechanism to motor 10 1 10 0.2
attach motor to motor mount 7.5 1 8 0.1
attach motor mount to robot frame [D] 5 1 5 0.1
TOTAL: 323 5.4

Design 2 Motor Mount
Motor Mount
BEGINNER
INTERMEDIA
TE
[min] [min]
ark & cut rectangular bar stock on
bandsaw 12 7
drill clearance holes x 6 45 35
me to clean machine when finished 10 8
ESTIMATED
NUFACTURING
TIME:
[min] 150 107
[hr] 2.5 1.8
Design 2 Release Mechanism
Motor Mount
BEGINNER INTERMED
[min] [min]
mark & cut rectangular bar stock on
bandsaw 12 7
mill sickle shape into peice 30 20
drill clearance holes x 1 15 10
ESTIMATED
MANUFACTURING
TIME:
[min] 150 102
[hr] 2.5 1.7

Design 3
manufacture release mechanism 66 1 66 5.5
attach motor to motor mount 7.5 2 15 0.3
TOTAL: 91 1.5
Design 4
retrieve pre-cut PVC pieces off shelf 5 1 5 0.1
mark & cut remaining PVC on bandsaw 7.5 2 15 0.3
Drill 1/4 inch holes on PVC for mounting to linear actuator 15 2 30 0.5
Attach PVC release mechanism to motor 10 1 10 0.6
Retrieve and cut sheetmetal door 30 1 30 0.5
Attach sheetmetal door to PVC 10 1 10 .6
TOTAL: 100 1.7

Material Cost
Design 1
Material Cost Estimates: Release Mechanism
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$]
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 1.1 $2.35 $3
Total: $3
Design 2
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$)
Total: $9

Design 3
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$)
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 1 $2.35 $2
Total: $11
Design 4
Material
[-] [-] [$] [$)
20 GA Steel Sheetmetal ft^2 0.4 $2.35 $1
4 inch Diameter - 90 Degree PVC ft 0.5 $12 $6
Total: $7

Modularity
Design 1
Modularity Estimates: Release Mechanism
Base 2
Total: 2
Design 2
Motor Mount 4
Total: 4

Design 3
Mechanism 2
Total: 2
Design 4
Linear Actuator Mount 2
Total: 2

Angle of Release
Design 1
Angle of Release
Θ (degrees)
70
Design 2
Angle of Release
Θ (degrees)
70
Design 3
Angle of Release
Θ (degrees)
90
Design 4
Angle of Release
Θ (degrees)
90

Appendix B: Robot Path Illustration, Speed & Time Calculations

Estimated Competition Time

The estimated competition time accounts for the time it will take to maneuver to the
source bucket, manipulate the source bucket, and release the balls into the 2 different buckets.
This estimation gives an idea of how long it will take to perform the tasks that do not account for
driving through the outlined trajectory path.
For the source bucket maneuvering time, Design 1 and Design 5 were estimated at 8
seconds, which was the fastest. The designs utilize the entstort motor which has better
controllability than Designs 2 and 3. Both Design 1 and Design 5 scored higher than Design 4
because they have a shorter arms and are more compact, which makes maneuvering easier.
Design 4 scored the second fastest with an estimated time of 10 seconds. This design used
entstort drive motors as well, which is why it had more controllability than designs 2 and 3.
Design 2 was estimated to take 12 seconds and design 3 was estimated to take 15 seconds. These
times are relatively close because both use 8 inch wheels and denso drive motors, but design 2
performs better because it is lower to the ground which allows for more stability when centering
in on the location to pick up the source bucket.
The source bucket manipulation time is an estimate of how long it takes for the bucket
manipulator to “grab” the source bucket and   lift it up to release the balls into the hopper and
then put it back down. All 5 designs used similar claw designs, so the time was mostly based on
arm length and motor choice. Design 2 was the fastest estimate at a time of 5 seconds. This was
due to the elimination of a significant arm length. The design utilized a sei motor which was
mounted in a way that created a sideways dumping motion, so the bucket did not have to be
significantly lifted. Design 1 and 3 used entstort motors, which are significantly faster than the
globe motor used in Design 4 and Design 5.  Design 1 was estimated at 10 seconds because it
had a slightly shorter lifting arm than that of design 3. Design 4 was estimated to take 18 seconds
due to the speed of the motor along with the longer arm choice. Design 5 was estimated at 15
seconds because the arm was shorter than that of Design 4, so it was about 3 seconds faster.
Ball release time is the estimated time for the design to release both the tennis and golf
balls into their appropriate bucket. This takes into account how close the release mechanism has
to get to the bucket, as well as the speed of the motor to release the balls. Design 4 was the
fastest estimated time by releasing both sets of balls at approximately 15 seconds. The design
was created with a PVC that immediately dispenses the tennis balls without the use of a motor.
For the golf balls, a linear actuator that can move .5 inches per second lowers 2 inches for
dispensing. This allows the rest of the time to maneuver the release mechanism directly over the
bucket. Design 2 utilizes an Igarashi motor to release the balls, which operates at around 65 rpm.
The estimated ball release time was about 16 seconds, which breaks down to 8 seconds to release
the golf balls and 8 seconds to release the tennis balls. Designs 1 and  3 use the entstort motor
which operates at around 44 rpm. Design 1 is estimated to release around 20 seconds. The reason
it is 6 seconds faster than Design 3 is because the release mechanism of design 3 must be

maneuvered right above the bucket, whereas design 1 just has to be next to it. Design 5 scored
the same as Design 2 with a time of 16 seconds. It has a similar design to that of design 4, with a
raising and lowering of a PVC and linear actuator. Design 5 does not have a door attached to the
PVC, so there has to be more precaution to be taken, which takes more time.

Velocity Justifications

Design 5 uses an Entstort 44 RPM drive motor with differential steering and 13.6 inch
diameter wheels. The path chosen for the design was based on the route that would use the least
amount of turning with the longest velocity vectors. The trajectory chosen was based on a
trajectory that did not go for bonus balls and utilized the longest velocity vectors.
73.2% of the total path trajectory was traveled at 90% of max velocity. Since the Entstort
motor has fairly good controllability, it could travel with relatively high percent velocities due to
the fact that a lot of the vectors were long.
Design 5 travels 18% of the total path trajectory with 75% of max velocity. The designs
slowed down while entering and exiting the arena because there was more control necessary
when going through the entrance. The designs still travel with fairly high velocities, but still
slower than the larger vectors in the arena. The design used a level of caution when entering and
exiting the arena.
Design 5 travels 25% of max velocity for 4.4% of the path trajectory. This velocity vector
corresponded to the path vector that leads to the source bucket. The velocity had to be decreased
significantly because the arm had to be lowered and maneuvered to retrieve the bucket. The
design took into account that the approach of the source bucket had to be far slower than the
longer and less important velocity vectors.
4.4% of the total path distance was traveled at 15% of max velocity. This part of the
trajectory corresponds to the approach of the first release bucket. Since the robot will have all of
the balls, it is important to have the highest controllability at this point. Therefore, the design
travels the slowest for this vector.

Wheel Motor Speed & Robot Time Calculations

Vloaded = 0.75*(pi)DN

Concept
Motor
Description
Nominal
Speed
Wheel
Diameter
Maximum Robot Velocity
Distance
Traveled
Average Robot
Velocity
Driving Time Noload
(100%)
Loaded
(75%)
[rpm] [in] [ft/sec] [ft/sec] [ft] [%] [sec] [min]
Design 1
Entstort
Gearmotor
44 8.0 1.5 1.2 66.58 81 68
1.1
Design 2
Denso
Gearmotor
150.0 8.0 5.2 3.9 66.58 63 27
0.5
Design 3
Denso
Gearmotor
150.0 8.0 5.2 3.9 66.58 63 27
0.5
Design 4
Entstort
Gearmotor
44 8.0 1.5 1.2 66.58 81 68
1.1
Design 5
Entstort
Gearmotor
44 13.6 2.6 1.96 66.58 81 42
.7

Source Bucket
Maneuvering
Source Bucket
Manipulation
Ball Release
Time
Est. Competition
Time
Total Competition
Time
Time [sec] Time [sec] [sec] [sec] [min] [min]
Design 1 8 10 20 38 0.6 1.7
Design 2 12 5 16 33 0.6 1.1
Design 3 15 12 26 53 0.9 1.4
Design 4 10 18 15 43 0.7 1.8
Design 5 8 15 16 39 0.7 1.4

Driving Parameters:
Desired "Min" Time [min]: 1.5
Desired "Max" Time [min]: 4.0

Design 5
Portion or Segment of Robot Trajectory
1 2 3 4
Percent of Travel Distance: 73.2 18.0 4.4 4.4 100
Percent of Max Velocity: 90 75 25 15
Average Robot Velocity: 65.9 13.5 1.1 0.7 81

Appendix C: Wheel and Lifting Motor Torque Calculations

44 RPM Entstort Right Angle Drive Gearmotor
The equations to calculate the wheel torque of 13.6 inch diameter wheels are listed
below. All values for the variables are listed in the table. The wheel torque calculation was a way
to see if the selection of the Entstort motor could effectively drive the final robot design. After
the wheel torque was calculated, it was compared to the maximum tractive torque value to see if
slipping would occur. The wheel torque calculation was significantly lower than that of the
maximum tractive torque, which suggests slipping will not be an issue for the final design. Also,
knowing that the Entstort motor produces 120 lb-in of torque, there is no question that the motor
will be enough to overcome the wheel torque.
Equations:
● RR [lb] = GVW [lb] x Crr [-]
= .33 lb
● GR [lb] = GVW [lb] x sin(α)
= 1.15 lb
● FA [lb] = GVW [lb] x Vmax [ft/s] / (32.2 [ft/s2 ] x ta [s])
= 1.54 lb
● TTE [lb] = RR [lb] + GR [lb] + FA [lb]
= 3.02 lb
● Tw [lb-in] = TTE [lb] x Rw [in] x RF [-]
= 22 lb-in
● MTT = Ww [lb] x μ [-] x Rw
= 38 lb-in
Wheel Torque 22 lb-in
Maximum Tractive Torque x 2 76 lb-in
Motor Torque 120 lb-in

Name Symbol Value
Gross Vehicle Weight GVW 33 lb
surface friction (value from
Table 1)
Crr .01
maximum incline angle
[degrees]
α 2 degrees
maximum speed [ft/s] Vmax 1.5 ft/sec
time required to achieve
maximum speed [s]
ta 1 sec
Rolling Resistance RR .33 lb
Grade Resistance GR 1.15 lb
Acceleration Force FA 1.54 lb
Resistance Factor Rf 1.1
total tractive effort [lb] TTE 3.02 lb
Wheel Torque Tw 21.6 lb-in
Normal load on drive wheel Ww 14 lb
friction coefficient μ .4
radius of drive wheel/tire [in] Rw 6.8 in
Maximum tractive torque MTT 38 lb-in

4.5 RPM Double Reduction Globe Motor
The equation used to calculate the torque that is created on the motor is listed below. The
calculation of the torque created on the motor was then compared to the known torque value that
the Globe motor can create. In doing so, we can check if the motor choice will be able to
generate enough torque to overcome the opposing moment created by the bucket manipulator
and source bucket. The calculations showed that the Globe motor can produce enough torque to
lift the bucket.
BMT = F[lb] x d[in]
F = Weight of Source Bucket
d = length of Bucket Manipulator
BMT = Bucket Manipulator Torque
Globe Motor Torque = 125 lb-in
Bucket Manipulator length
(in)
Source Bucket Weight (lb) Torque (lb-in)
20 1.8 36
4” SPAL LINEAR ACTUATOR
The Linear actuator has a dynamic load of 110 lb. Since no torque is created from the
weight of the release mechanism on the linear actuator, the only consideration was to make sure
that the weight of the release mechanism did not exceed the 110 lb lift that the linear actuator
provides. Knowing that the total weight of the release mechanism is under 4 pounds, it is clear
that the linear actuator will have no problem in lifting.
The PVC and U Bracket both contribute very little weight because both are plastics. The
linear actuator is also supported to a vertical 80/20 extrusion with a linear slide. When raising
and lowering the mechanism, there is no problems in the final robot design.

Appendix D: Estimated Project Budget

Item Description Vendor Qty Unit Unit Price Subtotal
0.25-20 Button Head Cap Screw (BHCS) LAB 80.0 each N/C N/C
80-20 0.25-20 T-NUT LAB 79.0 each N/C N/C
80-20 90 Degree Angle Bracket LAB 24.0 each N/C N/C
10-24 x 1" Pan Head Cap Screw LAB 10.0 each N/C N/C
80-20 Straight Bracket LAB 9.0 each N/C N/C
20 Gauge Steel Sheetmetal LAB 2.0 ft^2 $2.35 $4.70
80-20 1"-1" Aluminum Extrusion LAB 8.0 ft N/C N/C
80-20 1"-1" Aluminum Extrusion LAB 2.0 ft $3.00 $6.00
13.6 Inch Wheel LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
1/4" x 2" AL Rectangular Bar Stock LAB 10.0 in $2.00 $20.00
44 RPM Entstort Right Angle Gear Motor LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
Ø 2.0" AL Round Bar Stock LAB 0.3 ft $20.00 $6.00
M6 Size, 10mm Length, 1mm Pitch Button
Head LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
1/4"-20 Thread, 1" Length Flat Head LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
Linear Actuator Mount (10-24) LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
Flat Type A Washer LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
Linear Mount Pin LAB 2.0 each N/C N/C
Control Box LAB 1.0 each N/C N/C
4.5 RPM Globe Gear Motor LAB 1.0 each N/C N/C
Caster Wheel LAB 1.0 each N/C N/C
30 IPM Spal Linear Actuator (4in) LAB 1.0 each N/C N/C
PVC U-Bracket
Home
Depot 1.0 each $2.38 $2.38
80-20 Linear Slide LAB 1.0 each N/C N/C
Right Angle 4" PVC Pipe
Home
Depot 1.0 each $3.85 $3.85
3D Printed Ball Hopper Group 1.0 each N/C N/C
TOTAL $42.93
Estimated Project Budget for Team 5A

Appendix E: Final Budget & Purchase Orders

Item Description Vendor Qty Unit Unit Price Subtotal
20 Gauge Steel Sheetmetal LAB 0.837 ft^2 $2.35 $1.97
80-20 1"-1" Aluminum Extrusion LAB 4.625 ft $3.00 $13.88
3/16" x 3" AL Rectangular Bar Stock LAB 10 in $0.38 $3.80
Ø 2.0" AL Round Bar Stock LAB 0.3 ft $20.00 $6.00
Right Angle 4" PVC Pipe Home Depot 1 each $3.85 $3.85
Acrylic Sheet Lowe's 1 each $10.37 $10.37
0.25-20 Inch Button Head Cap Screw (BHCS) LAB 99 each N/C N/C
80-20 0.25-20 Inch T-NUT LAB 80 each N/C N/C
80-20 90 Degree Angle Bracket LAB 24 each N/C N/C
10-24 x 1" Pan Head Cap Screw LAB 10 each N/C N/C
80-20 Straight Bracket LAB 9 each N/C N/C
80-20 1"-1" Aluminum Extrusion LAB 8 ft N/C N/C
13.6 Inch Wheel LAB 2 each N/C N/C
M6 Size, 20 MM Length Hex Head Cap Screw LAB 6 each N/C N/C
44 RPM Entstort Right Angle Gear Motor LAB 2 each N/C N/C
M6 Size, 16 mm length, Hex Head Cap Screw LAB 2 each N/C N/C
1/4"-20 Thread, 1" Length Flat Head LAB 2 each N/C N/C
Linear Actuator Mount (10-24) LAB 2 each N/C N/C
Flat Type A Washer LAB 6 each N/C N/C
Linear Mount Pin LAB 2 each N/C N/C
Control Box LAB 1 each N/C N/C
4.5 RPM Globe Gear Motor LAB 1 each N/C N/C
Caster Wheel LAB 1 each N/C N/C
30 IPM Spal Linear Actuator (4in) LAB 1 each N/C N/C
80-20 Linear Slide LAB 1 each N/C N/C
Right Angle 3 inch PVC Pipe LAB 1 each N/C N/C
5.5 inch PVC Pipe Extension LAB 1 each N/C N/C
3D Printed Ball Hopper Group 1 each N/C N/C
M8 x 1.25" Hex Nut LAB 2 each N/C N/C
1/4-20 x 0.75 inch Button Head Cap Screw (BHCS) LAB 1 each N/C N/C
1/4-20 x 3/8 inch Button Head Cap Screw (BHCS) LAB 10 each N/C N/C
Super Glue Adhesive LAB 1 each N/C N/C
TOTAL $39.86
Project Budget for Team 5A

REQUEST FOR ITEMS TO BE PURCHASED Date Requested: 7/2/2015
1. Purchase Order Number: 1
2. Group requesting item(s): Group 5A
3. Account to be charged:
4. Group member issuing PO:
Vendor Information:
5. Name:
6. Address:
7. City/State/Zip:
8. Phone Number:
Description of item to be purchased: Part Number Qty. Unit Unit Price Sub Total
N/A 0.167 ft2
2.35$ 0.39$
N/A 4.6 ft 3.00$ 13.88$
N/A 10 in 0.38$ 3.80$
N/A 0.3 ft 20.00$ 6.00$
N/A 0.67 ft2
2.35$ 1.57$
TOTAL: $25.64
Shipping charges: -$ Deliver to whom: Michael Braddock (392-3496)
Shipped via: UPS Ground Delivery location: Dept of Mech and Aero Eng.
Building C, Room 133
80-20 1"x 1" Aluminum Extrusion
3/16" x 3" AL Rectangular Bar Stock
2.0" Diameter AL Round Bar Stock
20 GA Steel Sheet
MAE Design & Manufacturing Laboratory
Anthony M. Alvarez
EML2322 LABORATORY
MAE-C Room 002
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-3496
20 Gauge Steel Sheetmetal

REQUEST FOR ITEMS TO BE PURCHASED Date Requested: 2/7/2015
1. Purchase Order Number: 2
2. Group requesting item(s): Group 5A
3. Account to be charged:
4. Group member issuing PO:
Vendor Information:
5. Name:
6. Address:
7. City/State/Zip:
8. Phone Number:
Description of item to be purchased: Part Number Qty. Unit Unit Price Sub Total
TOTAL: $3.85
Shipping charges:
Shipped via: 5150 NW 13th Street,
Gainesville, FL, 32609
in
-$
5150 NW 13th Street
Gainesville, FL 32609
(352) 392-3496
EML2322L-028 1
Anthony M. Alvarez
MAE Design & Manufacturing Laboratory
N/A
Anthony M. Alvarez
HOME DEPOT
Deliver to whom:
Delivery location:
4 in. PVC 90-Degree Hub x Hub Long-Turn Elbow,
Plumbing section
3.85$ 3.85$

Week Task Description Responsibility Est. Time
Welding Demo Team 40 min.
Fabricate Mobile Platform (cut pieces of 80/20) Anthony Alvarez 125 min.
Send in order for 3D print of Ball Hopper Andres Flores 25 min.
Fabricate and Assemble Release Mechanism Morgan Jones 125 min.
Fabricate Bucket Manipulator Benjamin Duncan 125 min.
Assemble 80/20 pieces of Mobile Platform Andres Flores 50 min.
Assemble Release Mechanism to Mobile Platform Andres Flores 50 min.
Meet outside lab Team 120 min
Assemble Bucket Manipulator to Mobile Platform Benjamin Duncan 155 min.
Fabricate wheel hubs (finish) Andres Flores 155 min.
Fabricate motor mounts (finish) Morgan Jones 155 min.
Assemble Ball Hopper to Mobile Platform Anthony Alvarez 40 min.
Assemble motor mounts and wheel hubs to Mobile Platform Anthony Alvarez 115 min.
Meet outside lab, assess progress on vehicle fabrication, prepare ECNs (if necessary) Team 120 min
Finish Assembly of Mobile Platform Morgan Jones 30 min.
Testing Morgan Jones 125 min.
Testing Anthony Alvarez 155 min.
Testing Andres Flores 155 min.
Testing Benjamin Duncan 155 min.
Meet outside lab, assess progress on vehicle fabrication, prepare ECNs (if necessary) Team 180 min.
Oral Presentation Team 30 min.
Testing Morgan Jones 125 min.
Testing Anthony Alvarez 125 min.
Testing Andres Flores 125 min.
Testing Benjamin Duncan 125 min.
Meet outside lab, make last minute troubleshooting adjustments Team 120 min
7/23/2015
7/2/2015
Project Schedule for Group 5A
7/9/2015
7/16/2015

Appendix G: Robot Wiring Schematic

GREEN
N/A
N/A
BLACK
CHANNELS
N/A
LEFT ENSTORT
REDBLACK
N/A
JOYSTICK
RED GREEN
RELAY
RIGHT ENSTORT
RED
RED
GLOBE MOTOR
LEFT
CHANNELS
LINEAR ACTUATOR
N/A
JOYSTICK
PROPORTIONAL
RIGHT
N/A
A
ANTHONY ALVAREZ
EML2322L WIRING SCHEMATIC
SHEET 1 OF 1
DWG. NO.
TITLE:
5 4 3 2
EML2322L-A-018
REV
A
BEN DUNCAN
1
SIZE
DRAWN
CHECKED
SCALE: N/A

Appendix H: Final Assembly Drawings & BOM

ITEM NO. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION QTY.
20 EML2322L-020 CONTROL BOX 1
37 EML2322L-A-005 MP MOTOR MOUNT - L 1
38 EML2322L-A-006 MP MOTOR MOUNT - R 1
49 EML2322L-A-MP COMPLETE MOBILE PLATFORM
ASSEMBLY 1
50 EML2322L-A-BM COMPLETE BUCKET MANIPULATOR
ASSEMBLY 1
51 EML2322L-A-RM COMPLETE RELEASE MECHANISM
ASSEMBLY 1
52 EML2322L-A-HP COMPLETE HOPPER/SORTER
ASSEMBLY 1
2
PLACES IN DIMENSION
TOLERANCE UNLESS NOTED
DIMS IN INCHES
2.
FINAL ASSEMBLY
SHEET 1 OF 10.5
DWG. NO.
TITLE:
5 4 3 2 1
REV
A
SIZE
A EML2322L-A-017
DRAWN
DESIGNED
BEN DUNCAN
DIMENSION
BEN DUNCAN
0.0000.000.0
0.050 0.020 0.005
ANGULAR
LOCATIONAL
TYPE
SCALE: 1:85
NOTES:
1.
QTY: 1
38
49
20
51
50
37
52

University of Florida - Design and Manufacturing Laboratory

University of Florida - Design and Manufacturing Laboratory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to University of Florida - Design and Manufacturing Laboratory

Similar to University of Florida - Design and Manufacturing Laboratory (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

University of Florida - Design and Manufacturing Laboratory