Transcript Final Measure Phase Presentation

Measure Phase
SENIOR DESIGN TEAM 25: PALM HARVESTER
Presenters
Ricardo Aleman, ME
Brian Newman, ME
Yuze Liu, ME
David Boswell, ECE
Louis-Olivier Verret, IE
Bolivar Lobo, IE
Gianni Alessandria, IE
Ricardo
2
1.
Original team didn’t finish robot ( Class of 2012)
2.
ME Team 25 assigned to project (Class of 2014)
3.
Decided against 2012 design “King Climber”
4.
Brainstormed Cart with Telescoping Pole
Goal
5.
Built a small mechatronic prototype
Develop an effective,
efficient, and economical oil
palm harvester
6.
Developed the Mechatronic Concept
7.
Replaced Mechatronic with Manual Concept
Project
Review
Palm Harvester
(CURRENT)
Ricardo
3
King Climber – 2012 Concept
CAD DESIGN
ASSEMBLED PROTOTYPE
Assembled prototype was never tested
Ricardo
4
Cart with Telescoping Pole – 2014
Concept
COMPONENTS
A
• Cutting Tool (A)
• Telescoping Pole (B)
B
R = 5ft
• Tree Grips (C)
• Cart (D)
H≤
40ft
C
• Power/ Auxiliary System (E)
Palm
Harvester
Drawing not to
scale
D&E
Ricardo
Oil
Palm
h = 4ft
5
Small Mechatronic Prototype
•$150 from Home Depot &
HobbyTown
• Gained better understanding of
functionality
• Gained better appreciation of
project’s complexity
• Starting point for in-depth design
Ricardo
6
Mechatronic Concept
• Based on small prototype
• Three DOF
• 1 – Pitch
• 2 – Translation
• 3 – Yaw
1
• Powered by DC motors with motor
drivers
• Risks
• 3 DOF = complex & expensive
• Mechatronics = complex & expensive
• Too complicated
• Simplified Design
•
•
•
•
Ricardo
Manual design = 2 DOF
No mechatronics
Cheaper & simpler
Can be built & tested by April
2
3
7
Prototype 1.0
FALL SEMESTER
• Simple system
 Design simple working system
 Will cost half the budget
 Manual components,
 Poor ergonomics
 It will be completely built and
tested by January
 Low risk
SPRING SEMESTER
• Optimized system
 If Prototype 1.0 is effective,
optimize design
 Potentially use electric winches
 More ergonomic
 Higher risk
This presentation will discuss the mechanical design of
Prototype 1.0, but the ergonomics of the Prototype 2.0
Ricardo
8
Prototype 1.0
Overview
A – Cutting Tool
A
B
C
B – Telescoping Pole
C – Tree Grips
D – Cart with Legs
D
Ricardo
9
Cutting Tool
Design
Brian
10
Cutting Tool Design
In order to simplify the cutting tool, only two
degrees of freedom were chosen: pitch and
horizontal swivel
Brian
11
Cutting Tool Design
Pivot Block
Self-Locking
Shoulder Screw
Brian
12
Cutting Tool Design
Welded Square
Tubes
Camera
Lazy Susan
Angle Brackets
Brian
13
Cutting Tool Design
Top platform swivels by pulling the attached ropes
Pole saw rotates by pulling two other ropes
Brian
14
Cutting Tool Design
Brian
15
Telescoping
Pole Design
Brian
Telescoping Pole Design
•Original design called for 6”, 5”, 4”, and 3” diameter sections
• The 5” size is not readily available
•Instead, a 2” diameter section will become the smallestsized tube
•Galvanized steel conduit will be used for the top section to
add rigidity
• Thin-walled, weighs only 14 lbs
•The rest of the pipes will be Schedule 40 PVC
Brian
17
Telescoping Pole Design
2 in Diameter
Steel
3 in Diameter
PVC
4 in Diameter
PVC
6 in Diameter
PVC
Brian
18
Telescoping Pole Design
•The total weight of the poles will be about 100 lbs
•1/8” galvanized steel rope will be used
• Holds up to 1540 lbs in tension
• Corrosion resistant
•2” diameter pulleys will be used, supported by L brackets
• These L brackets also act as stoppers, so the poles only retract to
their designed heights
•Rope is attached to inner pole with small L bracket
Brian
19
Telescoping Pole Design
•High density poly-ethylene bars will be used to fill the gaps between
poles
•This makes the structure much more rigid
HDPE Bar
Outer Pole
Inner Pole
Brian
20
Telescoping Pole Design
• The pole can fold down
Pivot Block
Self-locking shoulder screw
• Rotate with the pivot block
• The pole can translate through the
hole of the pivot block
Alignment Block
21
Telescoping Pole Design
Brian
22
Tree Grips
Ricardo
23
Need for Tree Grips
• System is 40 ft tall
• Total weight is ~200lbs
• About 100lbs is vertical
• System can tip over
• 3 out of 4 tubes are PVC
• PVC bending stress isn’t safe if the
system is not absolutely rigid
• The PVC can break
• Need to design something that
stabilizes the system to prevent
tipping over and/or PVC fracture
Ricardo
24
Tree Grip Secures Cart to Tree
•
Ricardo
25
Tree Grip Design
Close Procedure
1. Pull the rope
2. The grips close
Grips Close
Pull the
rope
Ricardo
26
Tree Grip Materials
Sliding Rope
Attachment pin
Fixed pin
¼” x 1”
Aluminum
bars
(6 – 12in)
5” Spring
1” x 1” 80/20 Aluminum
(4ft)
2” OD Pulley
Folding
Bracket
Ricardo
27
Tree Grip Budget
2 Tree Grips come out to $116 total
Ricardo
28
Cart Design
Yuze
29
Need for Cart
• Modify a premade cart
• Large, soft wheels are mounted
on the extension
• Two winches are fixed on the side
of the cart
• Monitors will be put on the cart
Yuze
30
Cart Materials
Swivel Caster
Monitor
Winch
Rigid Caster
Perforated Tube
Yuze
Modified cart
31
Cart
• Modified a pre made cart
• Edsal 24 in. W x 36 in. D x 32 in. H Steel
Service Cart $80.95
Yuze
32
Cart Design-Extended legs
• Extended legs with the maximum of length 3
ft and the minimum is 1.5ft
• Use perforated tube and lock pins to adjust
the length
• Easy to transport and stable to use
Detail:
• Perforated Tube (size:1 1/2" 6ft) $29.23
• Perforated Tube (size:1 3/4" 6ft) $30.56
• Locking pins
$6.02
Yuze
33
Cart Design - Wheels
• The two front wheels are swivel caster,
easy to turn
• The two rear wheels are rigid, increase
stability.
Details:
• 10 In. Pneumatic Caster
• 10 In. Pneumatic Swivel Caster
Yuze
34
Cart Budget
Yuze
35
Power
Configuration
David
36
Power
Draw
On-board
Battery
Monitor
(~8W)
David
Camera
(~1W)
Batter
Pack
Pole Saw
(100 cuts)
37
Power Supply
12VDC battery and charger
$39.99
7 Amp Hour (84W-hr)
• 9.5 hours of use
PROS
• Easy to replace
• No startup time
• 12VDC is compatible with auto electronics
(car, camera)
• Quiet
CONS
• Has to be recharged
• Runs out quicker than generator
David
http://www.amazon.com/Spypoint-12-VoltRechargeable-BatteryCharger/dp/B002NYN7EM
38
Camera & Monitor
• Waterproof and durable
• Easy setup
• $13.64
• Outputs video via RCA cable
• Waterproof
• 12VDC 60mA (.72W)
David
• Durable
• $30.40
• Requires waterproofing case
• 12VDC
• 8W
39
Wiring
•Supply power from battery to
camera
•100 ft copper wires
•$20.00
David
• Supply image from camera
to monitor
• 50 ft RCA cables
• $11.49
40
Waterproofing
Liam
•Hose prevents tangling and waterproofs
wires
• Acrylic case with sealant
• Stores monitor
• Waterproof
David
•$30.00
•50ft long, about 0.3” diameter
•Fits all power cables inside
41
Example Pole Saw
• Black and Decker 20V Max
Lithium Ion Pole Pruning Saw
• $159 at Home Depot
•
•
•
•
•
•
David
Up to 100 cuts
Cuts up to 6” thick branches
8” long cutting bar
Pole can extend 6.5 – 10ft
Includes battery & charger
http://amzn.com/B00AZW9Y8C
42
Pole Saw Configuration
•Pole Saw will be cut in half
•Pushbutton used to activate cutting
tool
•Wires will be used for connections
David
43
Power Configuration
44
Parts List: Power and Electrical System
Part
Qty Price Per
Unit
Total
Serial Number
Distributor
50-ft Blue Coil Hose
1
$29.99
$29.99
27891
Amazon
Waterproof Camera
1
$13.33
$13.33
B005CTKYB4
Amazon
Monitor
1
$29.96
$29.96
B007SLDF7O
Amazon
12V Battery and
Charger
50 ft Video Cable
1
$32.99
$32.99
B002NYN7EM Amazon
1
$11.49
$11.49
B006IVGL80
Amazon
100 ft Red Copper Wire 1
$10.77
$10.77
7587K932
McMaster
100 ft Black Copper
Wire
Inline Hand Held
Switch
1
$10.77
$10.77
7587K931
McMaster
1
$5.99
$5.99
26-5065
MCM
Electronics
Total
David
Comment
Waterproof cables
For camera
Supply power to
cutting tool and camera
Supply power to
cutting tool and camera
Activate pole saw
$145.83
45
Top Risks – Prototype 1.0
1. Thin Sheet Metal on Cart
2. Pole Stresses
3. System Weight
4. Concentrated stress on Pivot Bolts
5. Level Ground
Ricardo
46
Risk 1: Thin Sheet Metal Cart
• Simplified analysis
• Thin stainless steel
• 150lb
• Load area is 10x16” patch
• Min. FOS is 6.55
• Max deformation is 0.06"
Cart handles 500lbs uniformly distributed, so keep an eye on concentrated stresses
Ricardo
47
Risk 2: 40ft of Telescoping Pole
No Fixture
With
Fixture
VS.
Fixture stabilizes but concentrates stress on top tube
Ricardo
48
Risk 3: System Weight
Total weight is 227lb  Can lower by optimizing weight of heaviest parts.
Ricardo
49
Risk 4: Concentrated Pivot Stresses
Pivot Screw
Do not raise pole if ground isn’t level
Ricardo
50
Risk 5: Non-Level Ground
• Need to ensure horizontal plane is
truly horizontal
• Use Bullseye level
• If not level, be careful
• $12.10
Do not raise pole if ground isn’t level
Ricardo
51
Industrial
Aspects
52
Louis
53
Louis
54
Louis
55
Louis
56
Louis
57
Mini Prototype VS Final Prototype
Louis
58
Project Budget
Louis
59
Updated Human-Machine
Interface
•Focus on simplicity by selecting hand operated
motions.
•Increased human labor.
•Overall analysis of the ergonomic risks involved
with each task
Bolivar
60
Setup of the Pole
•Heavy
•Solutions
• Automate task
• More than one operator
Bolivar
61
Rolling the Cart
•Inputs:
• Floor to hand height: Shoulder level
• Frequency: 1/2 min.
• Push distance
•Inclination or terrain issues
•Output
• Initial force allowed: 31 lbs. < x < 48 lbs.
• Sustained force allowed: 9 lbs. < x < 31 lbs.
Bolivar
62
Cranks as Control Activation Mechanism
•Gripping the tree
•Extending the pole
Bolivar
63
Extending the Pole
•Handle dimensions
• Length 3.0 – 5, 3.75 preferred
• Diameter 1.0 – 1.5, 1.0 preferred
• Turning radius
• If below 100 rpm
• 7.5 -20.0
• Above 100 rpm
• 5.0 – 9.0, 2.5 preferred
Bolivar
64
Gripping the Tree
•Handle dimensions:
• Length 1 – 3, 1.5 preferred
• Diameter .4 – .625, .5 preferred
• Turning radius:
• If below 100 rpm (for this crank it most likely
will be under 100 rpm)
• 1.5 -5.0, 3.0 preferred
Bolivar
65
Ropes as Control Activation Mechanism
•Rotate the device
•Cut the fruit
•Inputs:
• Distance of pull: 7 feet
• Frequency: 1/6s
• Floor to hand height: elbow level
•Output:
• Maximum force recommended
• Initial Force: 35 lbs.
• Sustained force: 15 lbs.
Bolivar
66
Prototype 1.0: Feasible
Prototype 2.0: Ergonomic
Bolivar
67
S
Strengths
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
Gianni
•
Simple
Safer than conventional climbing
Portable
Waterproof
Easy to use/low training costs
Environmentally harmless
Low power consumption
Economical
Opportunities
•
•
W
Rising demand for palm oil
Increasing concern for the safety
of human personnel
Lack of competition
Weaknesses
•
•
•
T
Total process takes longer than
conventional climbing operations
Stability concerns
Still lacking fail safe system
Intense human labor required
Threats
•
•
Cutting tools and complex
motions at large heights
Human error
68
Fall Schedule
Ricardo
69
Spring Schedule
Ricardo
70
Summary
• Cart with Pole instead of tree-climbing robot
• Designed manual prototype (1.0)
• Completing procurement next week
• If Prototype 1.0 works, make 2.0 later
Ricardo
Prototype 1.0
71
Questions?
72