Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ME 350
SECTION 4
TEAM 43
James Butler
Gregory Caputo
Mary Molepske
Samuel Shrago
PREPARED FOR
Dr. Jeffrey Stein
Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan
Mr. Yang Xu
Graduate Student of Mechanical Engineering
University of Michigan
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Specifications.....................................................................................4-5
1.1 Design Requirements.........................................................................................4
1.2 Considerations....................................................................................................4
1.21 Torque and Transmission.....................................................................4
1.3 Final Report.......................................................................................................5
2 Functional Decomposition.............................................................................................5-6
3 Motion Generation.........................................................................................................7-9
3.1 Design Process...................................................................................................7
3.2 Design Matrix....................................................................................................8
3.3 Choosing the Final Design.................................................................................8
3.4 Test Results........................................................................................................9
3.4.1 Initial Test...........................................................................................9
3.4.2 Final Test............................................................................................9
3.5 Revisions to Final Design..................................................................................9
4 Energy Conversion and Transmission.........................................................................9-15
4.1 Down Selection: Belt vs. Gears....................................................................9-10
4.2 Summary of Values .........................................................................................10
4.3 Operating Speed ..............................................................................................10
4.4 Maximum Torque............................................................................................10
4.5 Gear Ratio........................................................................................................10
4.6 Torque Verification..........................................................................................11
4.7 Speed and Time................................................................................................12
4.7.1 Motor Low Speed.............................................................................12
4.7.2 Time of Low Speed Travel...............................................................12
4.7.3 Time of High Speed Travel...............................................................12
4.7.4 Angular Displacement at High Speed...............................................12
4.7.5 Angular Velocity at High Speed.......................................................12
4.7.6 Angular Velocity of Motor Shaft at High Speed..............................12
4.8 Remarks...........................................................................................................13
4.9 Input Power, Output Power Draw..............................................................14-15
4.10 Mounts and Joints..........................................................................................15
4.10.1 Motor and Transmission Mounts....................................................15
5 Safety and Motor Controls........................................................................................16-18
5.1 Sensor Capabilities...........................................................................................16
5.2 Threshold Values.............................................................................................16
5.3 Relevant Equations.....................................................................................16-17
5.3.1 Given and Measured Parameters......................................................16
5.3.2 Lower Count Threshold....................................................................17
5.3.3 Upper Count Threshold.....................................................................17
5.4 Changes to Arduino Code...........................................................................17-18
2 Functional Decomposition
The following diagram on the next page is a functional decomposition of the linkage
system. The functional decomposition helped us organize and simplify the function and
form of the project by determining what our design must accomplish and map out how it
would do so. This process allowed us to deeply understand the design problem and its
functional needs thus, allowing us to efficiently find our solution. This also helps simplify
the project by outlining the primary and auxiliary functions.
Figure 2
Functional Decomposition
!
!
!"#$%&$'&(()%
*+,-.+#/%&#%(&#.+#/%
0&1202$3%%
"#$%&'()*+%
B"$,36&$%=2,&0<&:636&$%J28%
?&5/%?NK#6/72%%
",-74.+%
4"##2$3%%%
%K+,-<+,-%
!&#L"2% %
4&$12#3%252,3#6,%
2$2#78%3&%02,9+$6,+5%%
",-.-&+%
?@A!%
M&53+72%
A$7"5+#%M25&,638%
?&5/%0&3&#%%
"6*/&'4)+%
BCD4!DEF%
!#+$:(2#%02,9+$6,+5%
2$2#78%%
"01/2.+%
?&5/%:9+(3%%
"6*/&'4)+%
BCD4!DEF%
!#+$:(�%02,9+$6,+5%
2$2#78%%
")*/&0+%
?&5/%72+#:%%
",-74.+%
BCD4!DEF%
BCD4!DEF%
BCD4!DEF%
!#+$:(2#%02,9+$6,+5%
2$2#78%%
"3'45/)*0+%
;:2%02,9+$6,+5%
2$2#78%3&%0&12%
*+,-<+,-%%
"3'45/)*0+%
=2,252#+32%56$-+72%
0&1202$3%%
",-.-&+%
>3&<%56$-+72%
0&1202$3%%
",-.-&+%
>67$+5%
?&5/%*+,-<+,-%%
",-74.+%
4&$$2,3%G6$-:%%
"6*/&'4)0+%
H#&"$/%
6$<"3%56$-%%
",-74.+%
4&$12#3%":2#%6$<"3%%
"&-;5*&!0='.;1+%
I2+:"#2%0&3&#%
#&3+36&$%%
",-.-&!*4;-(*&+%
=232,3%
&*:3#",36&$:%%
"8&-9!:*40-&0+%
O#&,2::%:2$:&#%
6$(�+36&$%%
"<&(7'4-+%
=232,3%2$/%&(%0&36&$%%
"3','.!:*40-&0+%
?&5/%A#/"6$&%%
",-74.+%
3 Motion Generation
The final plans for our design emerged from having chosen the most preferable preliminary
design in terms of the project requirements. This section breaks down the design process,
includes a Pugh chart to illustrate the elimination process, discusses results from testing
trials with the finished linkage and mentions several revisions to the original chosen(not
sure could do either) design.
3.1 Design Process
The first step in our design process was to individually create a four bar linkage
model using Lincages software. We each imported a picture of the wheelchair for
a reference frame and used the sketch function to create a design that would be able
to move the coupler link to the right side of the wheelchair. Each linkage was
designed for a transmission angle between 30 and 150 degrees. Once we found
each links length by hand, we each created our own SolidWorks model and
imported it into ADAMS . In ADAMS we created joints and simulated the forces
acting on them creating a graph of the forces throughout the linkage movement.
Specific details on each individual design can be found in appendix A.
Next we analyzed each individuals design using the Pugh chart below. We
weighted our design criteria based the criterias importance for the final
design. . As a group we discussed how the four designs compared, and ranked them
with a 1 or -1, better or worse, for each category. After, we multiplied the criterias
weight by the designs ranks and summed all categories for each design. These
results contributed to the creation of our final design.
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3
(Mary)
Score (Greg)
Score (Jimmy)
Design 4
Score (Sam)
Score
FINAL
DESIGN
Volume (in^2), A
169.2
53.94
143.9
390
1202.906
Angle Offset,
~0.0
-1
5.85
5.67
3.14
5.49
3.625
7.26
6.94
-1
1.36
-1
5.98
-1
8.5
-33 to 25
-100 to
100
-1
-169.07 to
157
-1
-13 to 13
2.6
Cost Effectivness
Effective use of kit, minimal
purchasing required
Safety
# of pinch points, minimizes user
injury, angular velcocity
-1
-1
Radius of Motion
maximum distance backpack is from
wheel chair (minimize)
Roubustness
ability to resist load while
minimizing deformation, lifspan
(ability to undergo maximum
number of iterations)
-1
-1
-1
-1
TOTAL:
-3
-3
-3
Figure
3.4b
Position
2
(Intermediate):
Figure
3.4c
Position
3
(Intermediate):
Figure
3.4d
Position
4
(Final):
Figure
3.4e
Transmission
Angle
v.
Time
An ideal transmission angle is between 30 degrees and 150 degrees. Throughout the
movement process of the linkage our transmission angle stays within those limits. This
means our linkage has an ideal transmission angle.
3.5 Final Design Description
Transmission
Sandwich
Figure
3.5a
Isometric
View
of
Wheelchair
+
Mechanism
10
This 3-D isometric view shows our linkage design including ground link, input link,
coupler link, follower link, and the backpack holder. The input link is on top of the
ground and is supported between the ground and the transmission triangular plate
which will be used later to hold the transmission. The ground link has a large area
in this model because we have not yet designed our transmission and mechatronic
systems for the wheelchair design.
Input Link
Bottom
Ground
Link
Backpack
Holder
Coupler
Link
Output
Link
Figure
3.5b
Top
View
of
Wheelchair
+
Mechanism
at
Initial
State
This 3-D isometric view shows our linkage design including ground link, input link,
coupler link, follower link, and the backpack holder. The input link is on top of the
ground and is supported between the ground and the transmission triangular plate
which will be used later to hold the transmission. The ground link has a large area
in this model because we have not yet designed our transmission and mechatronic
systems for the wheelchair design.
Figure
3.5c
11
Top
View
of
Wheelchair
+
Mechanism
at
Final
State
In the ending position the Backpack is parallel to the side of the wheelchair which
gives the user easy access to their backpack. The forward offset, angle offset, and
horizontal offset are all within the required values in the end position.
3.6 Loading Analysis
Figure
3.6a
Forces
on
Joints
12
Our total deflection is .04134 inches. This is a realistic number because the square
aluminum stock we used is very strong and aluminum has a high Youngs Modulus.
In addition, our downward force is very small in comparison to the material
strength, causing only a small deflection. This deflection is totaled from three
different links and will not be noticeable to the naked eye.
This deflection will affect the joints because it will cause slight misalignment in
them. This causes out of plane loading (off-axis loading) creating friction at each of
the joints. To counteract this large friction force, caused by the deformation in each
link, we made sure to use bushings in pairs. We also used the shortest links
possible (that still achieve our desired forward offset) in order to reduce the moment
that the force at each joint creates, thus reducing defection and reducing friction.
We compared our max forces and the pin-joints, taken from our ADAMS loading
analysis graph and we compare with the Bearing/Bushing rates below; we found
that all our forces were smaller than our Bearing/Bushing ratings which means that
we are not at risk of causing damage to any of our bearings or bushings. The force
capacity for our shoulder screws is not listed. However, after talking with a GSI he
told us that, The shoulder bolt can withstand a much larger load than you would
apply in this project. Using this knowledge we can assume the shoulder bolts will
not be damaged by deflection. This makes sense because the material in the screws
is Alloy Steel, which has a large Youngs Modulus and the bolts have a thick radius
which provides large support against outside loads.
Bearing/Bushing load ratings:
Steel Thrust Ball Bearing
Steel Washers, for 3/8" Shaft Diameter, 13/16" OD
Dynamic Load Capacity: 31 lb (From McMaster-Carr
SAE 841 Solid Bronze Thrust Bearing
for 3/8" Shaft Diameter, 3/4" OD, 1/16" Thick
Pressure max: 2,000 lb/in2 (From McMaster-Carr)
Area: 1.32536 in2
Load Capacity: 2650.71 lb (See Appendix A)
SAE 841 Bronze Sleeve Bearing
for 3/8" Shaft Diameter, 1/2" OD, 1" Length
Pressure max: 2,000 lb/in2 (From McMaster-Carr)
Area: .323611 in2
Load Capacity: 687.22 lb (See Appendix A)
The Dynamic Load Capacity of the Steel Thrust Ball Bearings are given directly on
the McMaster-Carr website and can be immediately compared to the forces at the
pin-joints.
The Load Capacity of the Bronze Thrust Bearing was calculated by using the Max
Pressure from McMaster-Carr of 2,000 lb/in2 and the Area of 1.32536(See
Appendix A). Applying the formula P=F x A to solve for force we obtained a Load
Capacity of 2650.71 lb which was the compared to the forces at the pin-joints
13
The Load Capacity of the Bronze Sleeve Bearing was calculated by using the Max
Pressure from McMaster-Carr of 2,000 lb/in2 and the Area of .323611 in2 (See
Appendix A). Applying the same P = F x A formula we obtained a Load Capacity
of 687.22 lb and then compared it to the forces at the pin-joints.
Below you can find
Coupler
Link
Shoulder
Bolt
Input
Link
Thrust
Washer
Bushing (2)
Thrust
Bearing
Figure
3.6b
Cross
Section
Coupler-Input,
Coupler-Output
Thrust
Washer
Shoulder
Bolt
Coupler
Link
Follower
Link
14
Transmission
Sandwich
Figure
3.6c
Cross
Section
Ground-Input
Ground
Link
Thrust
Washer
Bushing (3)
Transmission
Sandwich
Thrust
Washer
15
Figure
3.6d
Cross
Section
Ground-Follower
16
!!
!!"
!!
!!
Equation 4.3
17
N T!"#$$ T!"# =
! !!"#$$
! !! !!"!!"#$ @ !"
!!
Equation 4.5
N was calculated to be 5.59:1, which for the sake of safety was rounded to 6:1.
This gear ratio was graphed and superimposed onto the motor torque speed curve
on the following page.
18
Below is verification that the motor satisfies the torque/speed requirements for the
high, medium and low torques (1050 oz-in, 560 oz-in, 290 oz-in, respectively)
given to us in the Gate 2 Review.
Figure 4.6 B
19
Equation 4.7.1
Equation 4.7.2
Equation 4.7.3
Equation 4.7.4
Equation 4.7.5
20
Equation 4.7.6
4.8 Remarks
After obtaining these values for Motor High and Low Speed we converted the
Distance Traveled at High and Low Speed (deg) to counts in order for the code to
read the encoder of the motor. These counts were thresholds for when the code
switched from low to high or high to low speeds. These count thresholds
corresponded to distances measured in degrees, not time.
In order to calculate the time we used a stopwatch to measure the time it took to
move from start to finish. It turned out that our time was too short (the linkage
moved too fast) so we adjusted the speed, in small increments, until the 9 second
goal was reached.
21
er
Op
To
ng
ati
e
rq u
e
Op
e
Op
o
g
P
tin
ra
p
g
S
tin
ra
t
in
d
ee
Figure 4.8 B
Relevant Speed/Current Equations
I = m + b
0.9 0.225
+b
10
I = 0.0675 + 0.225
0.9 =
Operating current:
22
Figure 4.8 C
Functional Motor Block with Power Flow
Pin=VI=V*(Tmax/KI)=9*(453.28/6*50)
Pin
Pout
Motor
!!"#
Pout = T
= !!!" ! (!!" )
P!"# = !
Ploss
P!"# = !
T!"#
!"!!"#$
!!
!
2
2
1128 oz in
10
2 rad
! ! RPM! (
)
2
2
60 sec
!!"# = !. !" !
!!"## = !!" !!"#
!!"## = !!. !" !
23
Figure 4.10.2A
Transmission
(Isometric)
This 3-D isometric view shows our linkage design and focuses on our
transmission. The input to ground joint is supported by the transmission
sandwich plate, transmission sandwich spacers, and ground plate assembly,
which minimizes moments occurring at the input to ground joint.
The motor is mounted by a custom made motor mount assembly. We
believe that the bracket included with the motor is not strong enough to
counter any deflection caused by the transmission, and we decided to mount
the motor vertically so we would not need to transfer the direction of torque.
Our motor mount is made up of a plate and two rectangular spacers. It is
mounted to slots in the ground to allow adjustment of the mount and thus
the tension put on the belt.
24
Figure 4.10.2B
Transmission
(Top)
This top view shows our linkage design focusing on our transmission
design. The ground link has a large area in this model because we have not
yet designed our mechatronic system for the wheelchair design.
25
Figure 4.10.2C
Transmission
(Isometric #2)
26
Figure 4.10.2D
Transmission
(Isometric #2)
This cut-away image shows the input gear to motor connection. The input
gear has a snug fit to the motors shaft. The gears set screw is tightened
against the flat keyway on the motor shaft to keep the input gear in place
with respect to the motor shaft.
27
Figure 4.10.31B
Shear Stress Equation
Bu Bo
sh lt/
in
g
T = F r
453.28 oz in = F 1 in
F = 453.28 ozf
F
=
A
= 453.28 ozf ( 0.25! in! )
! = !"#$ !"#/!!!
ow
el
Sandwich Plate
Gear
Input Link
Sandwich Plate
Input Gear
Figure 4.10.31C
Ariel View of Assembly Under Stress
r
Input Link
Gear Center
Dowel Hole
28
Figure 4.10.4B
Force Analysis:
Relevant Equations
Figure 4.10.4A
Ariel View of Motor Gear Shaft Assembly
F! = dF!
F! = 0.637 185
F! = 117.845 lbf
!! = !""#. !" !"
F1
Shaft
Motor Gear
Fnet
F2
F! F! = 2Td
F! = 2 453.2710.637
!! = !"#. !" !"
29
= ! = 2 arcsin
! = !!. !"
Where
!!!
!"
Figure 4.10.42B
Force and Moment:
Relevant Equations
Figure 4.10.42A
Side View of Motor / Motor Mount Assembly
Shaft
Fnet
Fa
Fb
*(Fmount is an internal force
M = 1954.94 oz 0.7 in
! = !"#$. !" !" !"
Fmount
LAB
! M! = 0:
L!" F! M = 0
2.4F! = 1368.45
FB = 570.19 oz
!! = !"#. !" !"
Motor
Figure 4.10.42C
Deflection Analysis:
Relevant Equations
!"##$ = 7.8
g
oz
= 4.51 !
cm!
in
. 2126!
0.7 = 0.0248 in!
4
oz
= 0.0248 in! 4.51 ! = 0.112 oz
in
V!"#"$ !"#$% =
m!"#$
I=
E!"##$
=
0.2126 !
= 0.000633 oz in!
2
lbf
oz
= 29,000,000 ! = 464,000,000 !
in
in
1 ! 1
mr = 0.112 oz
2
2
Fl!
1954.94 0.7!
=
= !. !!!"## !"
3EI 3 464,000,000 0.000633
30
Figure 4.10.43A
Bending Diagram of Top Plate of Motor Mount
Fmount
Fmount
State 1
Fmount
State 2
!!,! =
!!,! =
!" !!"#$%
!
!
0.25 !"
1954.95 !"
!"
2
= 3898.65 !
!"
. 25 2 !!!
!!
15.607 ! 2 ! ! + ! !
!!
0.25 !"
1954.95 !"
!"
2
+
= 3898.65 !
!
!"
.
25
2
!!
!!
15.607 ! 2 ! ! + ! !
!!
!! = 0 = !!
!!! =
! !"
!
31
32
33
The final change we made to the code was to the float Ki integration control
constant. We lowered this value to zero in order to eliminate the steady state error
and it was determined to lower it based on the suggestion from a GSI.
5.5 Sensor Mounting
Our Proximity Sensors are attached to the ground plate and are calibrated to sense
an obstruction near a pinch point. We chose to attach them to the ground plate so
the wires connecting the proximity sensors to the Arduino board would not get
tangled and would not have to move with every rotation of the mechanism. This
takes away a large possibility of failure from the wires breaking or failing under
heavy use.
We attached the proximity sensors by using the double sided tape. This held the
proximity sensor in place securely because the proximity sensor is light and does
not create that large of a torque on the tape.
A hand or object moving from above will be caught in the pinch point when the
mechanism is moving in the reverse direction; therefore, the first sensor is
positioned to sense any obstructions in the position above the linkage. This sensor
was calibrated at a value of 140.
A hand or object moving from below can also fit into a pinch point when the
mechanism is moving backwards, Therefore, the second proximity sensor is
positioned to sense any obstruction in the position below the linkage.
The sensors placement did not affect the previous volume or offset because they
were placed on the ground plate and did not extend out of the previous height,
length, or width.
34
6 Design Critique
As with every design, ours had its features and flaws. This section will clarify these
positive and negative attributes of the design process and derive meaning from the
experience as a whole.
6.1 The Good
The most positive aspects of the design process were the benefits of having a meticulously
planned model. For example, we cut no corners in the determination of each joint assembly
and the necessary bolts and bearings, which left us with no unpleasant surprises during the
manufacturing process. This sort of meticulousness ultimately played to our benefit.
Another benefit was the division of labor between the group. Mary and James were very
experienced with the lathe, whereas Greg and Sam were experienced with the mill. Given
that we had a variety of parts that required both machines, the group was able to divide the
labor based on the different skills of its members. Added to this division of labor was
Marys expertise with SolidWorks a skill she honed during an internship. Marys
expertise allowed the group to quickly update changes to the CAD model in the case of a
design alteration.
In addition to being meticulous and varied in skillsets, the group was always diligent,
punctual and mindful of deadlines. The group always opted to contact Mr. Xu or Professor
Umbriac to avoid confusion that would have otherwise led to mistakes. We met often and
had the habit of planning our next meeting ahead of time. This ensured that we stayed on
schedule and met each requirement in a timely manner.
6.2 The Bad
The group is pleased to report that the occurrence of error was minimal. Despite very minor
errors made during manufacturing, we encountered no situations that required us to
remanufacture any vital components. These small, almost negligible errors included a
misinterpretation of a dimension on a motor mount drawing and consequently led to an
error in the hole locations. The error was resolved.
The most significant error was our failure to predict the effects of the belt tension on our
mechanism. Our transmission was designed in such a way that the belt would fit perfectly
in other words, the belt tension was extremely high and caused stripping in the threaded
holes of the motor, consequently destroying the mechanism that kept the motor in place and
thus rendering our transmission useless. This failure inconveniently occurred during the
final testing and could have been avoided if we separated the belt from the transmission
during the overnight storage.
Prediction of these situations is a subtle, yet crucial theme of engineering and we became
more mindful and careful with these situations.
35
36
37