1. All logos in this presentation is courtesy of the Florida Institute of Technology Robotics and Spatial Systems Laboratory and the Florida Tech Office of Creative Services.

2.  Project Background  Design Objectives  Design & Analysis  Detailed Drawings  Fabrication and Testing Plan  Budget  Team Organization  Scheduling  Conclusion

3.  The PantherBot, also known as the PowerBot made by MobileRobotics, Inc., is a multifunctional robot  autonomously mapping terrain  equipped with sonar and laser range finder  robotic arm fitted with a parallel gripper and webcam  has a 802.11b WiFi antenna for wireless communications (Image Source: RASSL)

5.  This team will create an autonomous tool changer such that the PantherBot will be able to perform the following functions inside the Olin Engineering Complex:  Open doors via twisting door handles  Open front door via pressing the handicap accessible button  Press appropriate buttons to recall and operate an elevator (Image Source: Robotics and Spatial Systems Laboratory (RASSL))

6.  Safety of people, building and robot  Functional tools for tasks  Autonomous tool changes  Positive control of tools  Secure storage  Store tools away from sensors and access areas

7. Combination of CAD and physical prototypes  CAD  3D models allow testing of mechanisms  Test designs for fit and easily produce drawings  Prototyping  Evaluate concepts with real world interactions  Low cost testing

8.  CAE  Direct import of CAD models for structural testing  Find areas of weakness and excessive strength  Determine forces exerted on components in normal operation

9. Material Selection  Cost, Strength, Machineablilty, Surface Finish  Priority goes to Cost and Surface Finish due to the fact that our machined components are simple and exposed to relatively small forces.  A major project goal is ensuring that all components meet the visual standard of the existing robot

21.  We will fabricate parts through Building 538 (Machine Shop)  We will obtain reasonable off-the-counter parts if it is more cost effective to purchase the part than to produce in-house, such as bearings.

22.  We have set aside a budget for a testing rig, which will provide a viable test platform  Opening doors  Pushing door panel button  Pushing elevator buttons  The testing platform will provide feedback to the team regarding the repeatability of the tools, ease of operation, and storage functions.  Also, it will help determine if there are any problems with the tools before the PantherBot performs the predefined functions inside Olin Engineering Complex.

23. Jameson L. Tai (Team Leader) Research Justin Nunn Design William Rae Analysis William Rae Fabrication Jameson L. Tai Testing Jameson L. Tai Finances Justin Nunn

25. Fall 2008  Complete research in door opening techniques  Pushing door (September 2008)  Pulling door (September 2008)  Present tool design (October 2008)  Present tool changer rack design (October 2008)  Preliminary Design Review  Presentation (22 October 2008)  Report (22 October 2008)  Analysis on tools and tool changer (November 2008)  Final Presentation (03 December 2008)  Final Report (03 December 2008)

26. Spring 2009  Fabrication (February 2009)  Testing (March 2009)  Showcase (April 2009)

27.  Minimum of three sources used for pricing  Lowest price used for comparisons  Multiple types of materials researched for each part  Typically common materials were researched as these are easiest to find  Weight factors vary for every part based on what is needed

28. Solid metal block Overall Rating Design RequirementsSelection Factors (1*A+5*B+4*C +3*D+2*E) /18 Yield strength (kpsi) Surface Finish Cost/unit volume (in^3) Machinabili ty (%)Availability AbsRelAbsRelAbsRelAbsRelAbsRel Al 5052- H32340.85800.8 400.8000.447222222 Al 3003240.6600.6 450.9000.4 Al 6061350.87510010.80215011010.9375 Stainless Steel (304)401850.857.17 0.11185 5270.5490.90.586523322 Steel (1018)320.8800.81.37 0.58540 1350.71010.718978102 Carbon Fiber 500.5 150.3000.205555556

29.  Prototyping will be done with low cost easily machined materials  Materials such as plywood and cardboard are examples of such materials  Test Stand will be built out of low cost materials that accurately portray school facilities  To save money we are trying to work with facilities to get parts such as a door handle

30.  Final design will be constructed from materials such as Aluminum and Stainless Steel  To save money we will be attempting to get donations for the material we require, as well as use left over material from previous years  Coatings will be required to prevent damage to both the robot and to the school facilities  Coatings will most likely be made out of Ruber or plastic

31.  Our current budget was developed without consideration of possible donations  Design changes might drastically change what is required  A small buffer was made in the budget to compensate for this

32.  Test Stand Hardware$ 150  Shop Materials/Metals$ 400  Bushings/Bearings/Shafting$ 100  Surface finishing$ 50  Prototyping$ 100  Miscellaneous Hardware$ 50  Total Budget$ 850

33.  We have a preliminary design of our button pusher.  We have conducted research on door opening mechanisms that would integrate with existing hardware.  We are working on several designs of our tool storage system. These designs will be revised as the tools are finalized.