1. P11213: Modular Student Attachment to the Land Vehicle for Education Jared Wolff, Andrew Komendat, Oyetunde Jolaoye, Dylan Rider

2. Contents  Project Goals  Customer Needs  Engineering Specifications  Concept Selection  Design Considerations  Student Project  Prototype  Testing  Results and Status  Future Plans and Suggestions

3. Project Goals  Attachment to Land Vehicle for Education (LVE)  Introduce freshman engineers to design tools and processes  Removable and interchangeable Modular Student Attachment (MSA)  Utilize RIT facilities  Hands on example  Team project

4. Customer Needs Some significant customer needs: The MSA must teach first year RIT Mechanical Engineering students design principles. MSA must also utilize in house facilities for the manufacturing of MSA components. MSA must be of a low cost so that more would be purchased, MSA must be easy to store in the allocated storage and it must also be safe to use. MSA must be impressive such that other schools and faculty would want to emulate it.

5. Engineering Specifications Some engineering specifications:  MSA shall require each student to design, model, and manufacture 1 to 3 parts  MSA shall required assembly in CAD of 5 to 15 parts  MSA shall include at least 5 components  MSA shall have less than 10 customable parts  MSA shall require between 0.5 and 2 hours to teach per class  MSA shall have not exceed 5 pounds, including payload  MSA shall require less than 5 repairs during its lifetime

6. Concept Selection

8. Design Considerations  Feasibility and user friendliness  Detailed motor and torque analysis  Budget limitations  LVE integration and attachment  Control interfacing and communication  Power consumption analysis

9. Mechanical Design  Front/Aft Motor Interchangeable  Controls integral to LVE  Two motors required

10. Torque Analysis  Calculator in Matlab  Finds geometric angles based on 90 degree rotation  Uses 9x9 matrix to solve for torque required  Checking tool for professors to validate student design  Help visualize real world limitations

11. Torque Analysis  Standard square geometry  Full range of motion  No inflection point  No added range in the reach

12. Torque Analysis  Offset geometry  Full range of motion  Visible inflection point

13. Torque Analysis  Offset geometry  Full range of motion  Visible inflection point

14. Power Consumption  72.2 oz in at 4.8V  90.3 oz in at 6V  Worse Case Transients ~0.700 mA  Normal Under Load Current ~0.500 mA  5V provided by the Buck Circuitry  Power = 2*0.500 * 5V = 5W  Current = 1 A

15. PCB Design and Layout

20. Control Communication  USART Interface  115200 BAUD  1 stop bit  Normal Inverted Operation  No parity  Data protocol  All data is sent via UART from the LVE controller.

21. Structural Analysis  Subject to drop requirements  Limited payload weight  Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

22. LVE Mounting  Quick attachment and removal  Easy to use  Robust to repeated use  Press fit with cotter pin

23. Component Selection  Standardized bolt and nut sizes  Off the self gripper, motors  Less customized parts when possible  Budget restrictions

24. Student Goal  Lift an object from 6-9 inches off the ground between shelves across the room

25. Student Components and Analysis  Geometric analysis  Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) modeling of designed parts  CAD assemblies using parts library available  Manufacturing  Assembly and test

26. Student Components and Analysis  Links  Brackets  Pins Student Made

27. Student Components and Analysis

28. Prototype

31. Testing  Test plan includes 18 tests  Passed all tests Survey Feedback from ME Professors P11211-P11213 Land Vehicle for Education (LVE) Megan Ott and Andrew Komendat Response #Question #1Question #2Question #3Question #4Question #5 154-42 245445 345334 4354-3 544553.5 6 TOTALS80.00%92.00%80.00% 70.00% GRAND TOTAL80.43%

32. Testing  10/3 time to complete ratio  Scrap material

33. Results and Conclusions  Working prototype  Lacks robustness in strength and durability  Budget restrictions were overlooked  Fun project  Room for improvement  Contains potential multidisciplinary projects

34. Future Suggestions and Improvements  Better material selection color for aesthetics  Manufacture gripper in house (cost reduction)  More robust and capable drive servo  Decrease size and capability of MSA  Improve multidisciplinary projects

35. Acknowledgements  Special Thanks To:  Guides:  Phil Bryan  Leo Farnand  Vince Burolla  Sponsors and Faculty Advisors  Dr. Edward Hensel  Dr. Beth Debartolo