1. Kyle Harris Sang Huynh Bhupinder Shergill Eric Stolp
Project PFADS
Kyle Harris
Sang Huynh
Bhupinder Shergill
Eric Stolp
TEAM FTP
LAB 5

2. Overview/Outline Introduction Objectives Preliminary Ideas Refinement
Decision
Construction and Testing
TEAM FTP

3. Overview/Outline (continued)
Results/Discussion
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
TEAM FTP

4. Introduction Background:
Design and build mobile parabolic food aid delivery system (PFADS) to children in refugee camps
TEAM FTP

5. Introduction (continued)
Objectives:
Device traverses 7 feet down an inclined ramp
Device launches 4-3/8” x 4-3/8” x 5-1/2” package to target 10 feet away and over 6’2” wall located 3’1/2” away from base of the ramp
Practice Teamwork
Practice Formal Presentation skills
TEAM FTP

6. Introduction (continued)
TEAM FTP

7. Introduction (continued)
CONSTRAINTS
Weight < 10 lbs
Launch 4-3/8” x /8” x 5-1/2” box
Spend < $20
Fit within 18” x 18” x 18” container
Mechanism cannot fall over ramp
TEAM FTP

8. Introduction (continued)
CRITERIA
Minimize weight
Minimize dimensions
Package clears 6’2” wall
Package hits target 10 feet from base
TEAM FTP

9. Introduction (continued)
Project Objectives:
Build device to launch FAP over wall
Gain more experience in TEAMWORK
Gain experience in FORMAL PRESENTATIONS
TEAM FTP

10. Preliminary Ideas Preliminary Idea # 1 Designed by Sang PROS CONS
Simple Design
Simple trigger device
Cheap
Roll down ramp
CONS
Rat trap not support arm
Inaccuracy in launch
TEAM FTP

11. Preliminary Ideas (continued)
Designed by Eric
PROS
Surgical tubing
Roll down ramp
Trigger mechanism
CONS
Not gain enough momentum to launch
Weight
Dimensions
TEAM FTP

12. Preliminary Ideas (continued)
Designed by Bhup
PROS
Power in release
Trigger mechanism
Accuracy in launch
Roll down ramp
CONS
Dimensions
Weight
Instability in arm: break off
TEAM FTP

13. Preliminary Ideas (continued)
Designed by Kyle
PROS
Inclined height
Trigger mechanism
Strength in arm
Roll down ramp
CONS
Inconsistency in springs: break off
Wooden bars: break off
TEAM FTP

14. Refinement Preferred Ideas
Preliminary Idea #2
Why Preferred?
Surgical Tubes for strength in launch
Trigger mechanism
Possible Problems:
Weight
Dimensions
May tip over
TEAM FTP

15. Refinement (continued)
Preliminary Idea #4
Why Preferred?
Inclined Height
Trigger mechanism
Strength in arm
Light in weight
Possible Problems:
Inconsistency in springs
Wooden bars crack due to pressure
May need to make adjustments to arm
May tip over
TEAM FTP

16. Decision
Final Design
Incorporated Prelim. Design #2 and #4 into Final design.
PROS:
Inclined Height
Surgical Tubing
Trigger mechanism
CONS:
May need to adjust arm frequently
Wooden bars may crack due to pressure
May Tip Over
TEAM FTP

17. Construction and Testing
Used surgical tubing, drill, hammer, screws, wood, nuts, bolts, metal arms and hinges to construct device
Took place in Wehymes and Southwest
Tested launching mechanism of device in Khoury Hall, in Southwest, and in Wehymes.
TEAM FTP

18. Construction and Testing (continued)
Final Design:
Height: 13.25”
Length: 10”
Width: ”
Weight: 4lbs
Basic design:
Tupperware container on metal arm; surgical tubing causes arm to spring up and forward, shooting FAP once device hits 4” wall at base of ramp (triggered by shock of impact)
TEAM FTP

19. Results and Discussion
Heat 1: Failure- FAP hit top of wall
Heat 2: Failure- FAP hit top of wall
Heat 3 (w/out wall): Distance was 6.67 feet past 10 ft marker
Final FOM= 83.41
Result: Placed 17th overall
TEAM FTP

20. Results and Discussion (continued)
ADVANTAGES
Slid down ramp easily
Triggered every run
Small size and volume
Light in weight
Device did not tip over
DISADVANTAGES
Package did not travel over the wall
Package did not hit the 10 foot mark on 3rd attempt
Surgical tubing lost strength after each run
TEAM FTP

21. Results and Discussion (continued)
Suggested Improvements:
Two surgical tubes instead of one: more support and strength
Adjust arm to improve angle accuracy
FAP clears wall and reaches target
Raise platform level of device: Higher inclination
Re-design device
upward cannon-type launcher rather than arm launcher – better model as seen in competition
TEAM FTP

22. Conclusions Key Criteria: Key Constraints:
Minimize rectangular volume of design
Minimize weight
Key Constraints:
Device must fit within an 18”x18”x18” container
Device < 10lbs
TEAM FTP

23. Conclusions (continued)
Competition Performance:
Trial 1: Fail
Trial 2: Fail
Trial 3: ft off
Final Result: th Place out of 36
TEAM FTP

24. Conclusions (continued)
Improvements:
Two surgical tubes
Adjust arm to improve angle accuracy
TEAM FTP

25. Acknowledgements Professor Camilla Saviz Professor Kurt Schulz
Clarification of specifications
Professor Kurt Schulz
Introduction to Engineering: Course Manual
Guidelines to build device
Bob Pollard
Cut wood pieces for device
TEAM FTP