Design Report Full

University of Southampton Malaysia Campus
DESIGN REPORT
JB SHORE
(Eurobot 4)
Team Members:
Krystal, Mubarak, Syed, Naqi, Faris, Ameen, Adha, Adib, Shaun
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 3
a. Groups Aim 3
2. Conceptual Design Study and Selection of the Final Design 3
a. How the team prioritised the requirements 3
b. How the concept sketches were generated 3
c. How the mechanisms were chosen 3
d. The Final Design 4
3. Mechanical and Electrical Systems Design Process 5
a. Mechanical Systems
i. Selection of Components 5
ii. Mechanisms 6
iii. Finite Element Analysis 8
b. Electrical Systems
i. Power Supply 9
ii. Power for Components 9
iii. Wiring Connections 10
4. Manufacturing Processes and Robot Assembly 11
a. Manufacturing Process
i. How manufacturing was done 11
ii. Tolerance 13
b. Robot assembly
i. Primary Robot 13
ii. Secondary Robot 14
5. Programming and Testing Performed 15
a. Component Testing and Programming 15
b. Mechanism Testing and Programming 17
c. System Testing and Programming 18
6. Bill of Materials and Costing Report 19
7. Teams Performance, Future Improvements and Recommendations 20
8. Information Relevant to Design and Development of Robot 21
9. Conclusion 21
10. Appendix
a. Appendix 1
i. Binary Weighted Matrix
ii. Morphological Chart
iii. TRIZ
b. Appendix 2
i. Technical Drawings
c. Appendix 3
i. Strategy Map
d. Appendix 4
i. Gantt Chart
2
1. INTRODUCTION
This Eurobot project is Year 2 design project which is 90% of the module. This project is aimed to get students
to work together in their group and work well as a team, as well as develop a better understanding on
programming and designing a robot that is able to carry out certain tasks. This project will further develop the
student's skills on Solidworks (CAD), FEA and Arduino.
The Group's Aim
The aim of this project is toproducea well-thought-through andsmartrobot(s). The robot(s) should be able to
performallfour main tasks collecting blocks, collecting seashells, fishing and closing thehut doors. Also, to
include a parasolwhich will open at the end of each match to earn bonus points. At the same time, the cost of
manufacturing the robot(s) should be under RM400.00 and abide by allthe Eurobot Rules.The main aim of the
team was to win the Eurobot competition by getting the highest number of points.
2. CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY AND SELECTION OF FINAL DESIGN
How the team prioritised the requirements
Based on the project outline and marks distribution, the project requirements were set using the Binary
Weighted Matrix (BWM) (Appendix 1.1). This was to ensure the concept design produced was focused on the
teams target and could perform the tasks as expected. The requirements were set by all the team members
and was guided by the marks breakdown in Eurobot Project Outline 16/17.
The project requirements:
1. Innovation (22.22%)
2. Small form factor (19.44%)
3. Low cost (16.67%)
4. Simple design (13.89%)
5. Construction quality (11.11%)
6. Accuracy (8.33%)
7. Robustness (5.56%)
8. Appearance (2.78%)
How the concept sketches were generated
To harness the creativity of all the members, everyone produced at least one concept design which was guided
by the ranking of requirements. Each member should be creative in finding solutions to the tasks given. In the
concept drawing, explanation of the mechanism should be included to ensure that the design was understood
by all members. This acts as a platform for all members to give out their ideas, hence making sure no possible
solutions were overlooked. It was advisable for the team to look at previous Eurobot competitions designs as a
reference to get a rough idea as to how to design a well-designed robot.
How the mechanisms were chosen
In a meeting, every member presented their concept design and the reason for choosing each mechanism. List
of components inside the mechanism were listed, to approximate the cost for each design. After all the designs
were given a thorough explanation, members got to critic the designs, if it was necessary, and list out their pros
and cons.
3
A morphological chart (Appendix 1.2) was used to group all the proposed mechanism performing the same task.
Each mechanism for the task was compared directly in terms of innovativeness, robustness, cost and simplicity.
From there, one mechanism for each task was to be selected for the final concept design. Then, an initial strategy
map was drafted. From the map, it was concluded that one robot would not be able to perform all the tasks
within 90 seconds. By referring to TRIZ (Appendix 1.3), a problem-solving tool, the contradiction can be solved
by doing segmentation. Therefore, the team decided to have two robots. This enabled the robots to carry out
all the tasks in 90 seconds.
The next step was to detail out every mechanism selected by listing out the exact components required. By
referring to the technical specification of each component, the best components were selected for each
mechanism.
The Final Design
From the list of mechanisms selected, they were split into two robots. The grouping was done based on the
position of the tasks on the map. Since the hut and blocks were nearby, the door pusher, weight mover, shovel
and gripper were combined in the primary robot. On the other hand, the fishing area was around the seashells
area, so the fishing mechanism and flapper were combined in the secondary robot. Lastly, since the secondary
robot has more space available than the primary robot, the parasol mechanism was designed in the secondary
robot.
Then, the final design of the 2 robots were sketched properly. From the sketching, a detailed CAD drawing of
both robots were produced. The process took more than a month for the arrival of components to get the
correct dimensions. Also, some minor adjustment were made afterwards as the manufacturing and testing were
done.
Simultaneously, a rough estimate of the total cost of this project was generated and updated from time to time.
This was to make sure the project was within the budget. From the estimation, the budget was just enough
excluding the cost of 3D printing. This means the team had a high risk of exceeding the budget.
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
Detailed designs with proper dimensions of the robots and components used can be seen in the technical
drawings attached in the (Appendix 2).
4
3. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Mechanical system
Selection of components
MOTOR SPG30E
Type 20K 30K 60K 120K 200K 270K

Rated Load 0.127 0.177 0.294 0.490 7 14
Torque (Nm)
Rated current <680 <600 <560 <650 <500 <650
(mA)
Rated Load 16917 11211 555.5 282.8 16.92 12.51
Speed (rpm)
Resolution of 60 counts per 90 counts per 180 counts per 360 counts per 600 counts per 810 counts per
encoder main shaft main shaft main shaft main shaft main shaft main shaft
output revolution revolution revolution revolution revolution revolution
For this project, a motor was needed with the following characteristic
1. low current (does not drain battery too fast)
2. high rpm (quick enough to finish tasks in 90 seconds)
3. high resolution of encoder output (for accuracy since only using odometry for navigation)
Therefore, out of all the motors available, the best motor that fits the description needed was SPG30E 30K for
the primary robot (since it needs to move faster) and SPG30E 60K for the secondary robot (as it needs to be
more accurate). This can be seen in the comparison in the table above. Besides that, the lower accuracy of
SPG30E 30K was compensated by pairing it with MD10C which proved to help in the accuracy when navigating.
Lastly, since the weight of the robot was moderate, a high torque motor was not a requirement.
Motor types TowerPro MG946R Metal TowerPro SG90 Micro FC-130RA-10300 Small
Gear Servo Servo DC Motor
Compatible with Arduino Yes Yes Yo

servo library
Operating voltage 4.8 - 6V (DC) 4.8 - 5V (DC) 4.5-12V (DC)
Speed 0.17 s/60 at 6.00V (no load) 0.12 s/60 (no load) 180000 rpm
Torque 1.0296 Nm (at 4.8V) 0.1765 Nm 3.83x10-3 Nm
Rotation angle 180 180 continuous
The servo motor was chosen because of its high torque, feedback control and can be programmed easily. For all
the mechanisms, torque from the small DC motor was not sufficient. Therefore, the servo motor was chosen
instead of the cheaper small DC motor, which was initially suggested. The current consumption was also lower
than 200mA, hence it can be powered directly by Arduino.
5
Modified Servo Motor - Steps
Two plastic servo motor were required to move in continuous rotation for the weight mover and pusher
mechanism. This was because the mechanism needed to convert the rotation of servo motor to translation
motion, hence it requires more than 180 rotation. Below was the procedure taken to modify the servo motor
to achieve the continuous motion.
1. The top and bottom housing of the servomotor was removed.
2. A picture of the mechanism inside was taken as a reference.
3. The coggs were removed so that the screw insides can be easily removed.
4. The potentiometer was taken out - to be modified.
5. The potentiometer was plugged into the receiver where the servo will rotate.
6. The dial of the potentiometer was rotated until the motor stops (where Vout = 0.5Vin).
7. The potentiometer dial was glued.
8. A small protruding plastic that limit the rotation of servo motor on the cogg was cut.
9. The cogg was placed back to its original position.
10. All the electronics were placed back inside the servo motor housing.
The second servo motor modification was unsuccessful as the dial was not glued at the right spot (at step 7).
The problem was ratified by replacing the potentiometer with two equal valued resistors. A potential divider
circuit was constructed by using two resistors. This ensures that the Vout equals to 0.5Vin, hence enabling the
continuous rotation. Then similar steps were repeated from step 8 till 12.
Mechanisms used
Primary robot
Weight Mover
o The weight mover had two compartments. The left compartment housed a modified
servo motor, rack and pinion while the right compartment houses the weight and
supported by a caster. The servo motor was secured inside the moving weight via a
built-in slot. Some glue was applied to secure it permanently in place. The pinion
was fixed on the servo motor via a servomotor horn which was also glued. The rack was fixed on the
stationary platform. The whole structure had to be 3D printed due to its complexity. To increase
strength, it was printed with the finest resolution and highest print density. From the teams estimation,
the structure will be able to cope with the compressive loads applied during application.
o When the servo motor rotates, this causes the whole weight mover structure to move. Motion of the
weight causes the centre of gravity of the robot to shift and hence tilting it backward or forward. A small
angle was required for shovelling and the shovel needs to be lifted when it is not in use (to prevent the
robot from getting stuck and slipping).
Shovel
o Steel plate was used in manufacturing the shovel because it is the thinnest and
rigid material available in the workshop. Initially, aluminium plate was
considered but it was not stiff enough compared to steel. The edge of the shovel
was grinded and sharpened with a portable grinder as it needs to be thin enough for the shovel to scoop
6
the blocks. The shovel was chosen because it is easy to manufacture and low cost. It works together
with the weight mover and the pusher to scoop and deliver the blocks to the designated area.
Pusher (modified servo motor continuously rotation)
o The pusher mechanism consisted of a simple rack and pinion arrangement. The
pinion was connected to a modified servo motor while the rack was secured to a
pusher. A housing for the rack was designed to allow motion in one direction. All
the parts (except to the plank) had to be 3D printed as they have a complex shape and does not carry
large load.
o The mechanism converts the continuous rotation motion of a servo motor into translation motion of
the rack. The pusher, which was connected to the rack, moves forward to push the blocks on the shovel
into the designated area.
Gripper
o The gripper mechanism used two metal gear servo motor with high torque. Two
servos were used to provide more clamping force with the blocks. A threaded metal
rod was used to provide rigid connection between the servo motor on one end and
a 3D-printed block gripper on the other. A gripper joint was designed to provide a
strong connection between servo motor, servo motor horn and the rod. The block gripper was designed
to have an elliptical base so it can take two or three blocks in a row. A flat block gripper would have
more area of contact but can only take a fixed number of blocks (either 2 or 3). Some sponges and blue
tack were added to the surface of the block gripper base to provide a better grip. A thick servo motor
holder was also designed to mount the servo motor firmly to the robot base. It had an enclosed design
to provide a rigid support and prevent the servo motor from rotating out of the holder. The servo motor
holders, connectors and block gripper were 3D printed due to their complex geometry. Besides, the
servo motor holder needed to be precise in dimension to fit the servo, hence 3D printing was more
suitable.
o The gripper arm will clamp onto the bottom block because of the rotation of the servo motor. The servo
motor was kept in tension as the blocks were dragged into the designated area to prevent any clamping
force being loss. When the robot reaches the designated area, the servo motor will then reset to the
initial position, releasing the blocks.
Secondary robot
Fishing rod
o The fishing arm was designed as an I-beam with a servo motor connected on
one end. An I-beam shape was chosen to save weight while maintaining rigidity
of the structure. This mechanism was chosen as it is reliable and at the same
time could perform the task given in a shorter period of time (the robot does not need to reposition
each time it goes fishing). On the fishing end, small stacks of plywood were attached to increase the
reach into the fishing tank. Magnets were attached to the rod to attract the magnetisable rings on the
7
fish. The I-beam was 3D printed to make it light. This was because the torque available from servo motor
was just enough to pull apart magnet and fish. A modular design was chosen where the fishing
mechanism can be moved to the left or right side depending on the starting area. This was done to save
cost and can be done within three minutes of preparation time.
o The mechanism was housed inside the robot with a small opening, that was big enough for the I-beam
to pass through while the fish were not. Planks attached to the outer housing of the robot pushes the
fish so it falls inside the net when the I-beam was retracted inside the robot. By putting the fishing arm
on the side, fishing can be done easily as there was no need for the robot to rotate to send the fish
caught into the net.
Parasol
o The parasol mechanism consisted of a vase and rod. The rod was spring loaded into the vase
and secured in place by a pin. On the top of the rod, a paper parasol was attached. A few
centimetres above the parasol was a wooden beam to stop the parasol from flying out of the
vase. The pin was connected to a micro servo motor via a string. A micro servo was chosen due
to its high torque and low cost. The vase and rod were 3D printed as they need the correct
shape and geometry to fit while the wooden beam was laser cut since it needs to be strong to
withstand the impact of rod.
o After 90 seconds have passed during the match, the micro servo motor will be triggered to rotate causing
the pin to dislodge out, releasing the spring-loaded rod. The upward motion caused the parasol to open
and the wooden beam prevented it from exceeding the limit.
Pull start mechanism (both robots)
The robot must be started by pulling a cord of 500mm length. Therefore, a pull start mechanism was
designed using an ultrasonic sensor. The robot was programmed to stop if an object was within 100mm
from the sensor. Hence, a plank connected to a cord was used to cover the sensor. To start a match,
the cord will be pulled causing the plank to move sideways. Since nothing is obstructing the sensor, the
robot will start to move.
A strategy map followed by each robot is attached (Appendix 3).
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA)
Gripper (Primary Robot)
Figure 1 Figure 2
8
Figure 1 shows that there is not much stress on the servomotor and its holder when torque is applied. Therefore,
the servomotor and its holder is able withstand the pressure produced by the servomotor. Whereas Figure 2
shows that there will a small displacement of the servomotor when the torque is being applied. Hence, it can be
neglected as the value will not exceed 1mm.
Fishing Rod (Secondary Robot)

Figure 3 indicates that the fishing arm is able lift the fish (load) applied.
High stresses will be concentrated at the bottom of the arm where it is
connected to a servomotor. While Figure 4 shows that when it is applied
Figure 3 with load, the edge of the fishing arm will have the greatest
displacement. This was because the fish were being pulled there. This
would not cause a problem as the maximum displacement is only around
1mm.
Figure 4
Shovel (Primary Robot)

Figure 5 shows that the load (blocks and cone) can be lifted
Figure 5 Figure 6
easily without damaging the shovel. There is not much stress
applied other than the inner area of the shovel (greatest
stress will be). Figure 6 indicates that the shovel will
experience a displacement throughout its lifting area. The
greatest displacement would be at the tip. Fortunately, the
displacement value is very small which is negligible.
Electrical system
Power Supply
The distribution of the power supply is crucial as supplying more than the voltage stated of the component will
damage it. Worst case scenario, the component will be unusable. The team encountered a problem whereby
the voltage regulator of the Arduino was burned. The problem was identified where the lead acid battery voltage
was more than 12V after charging, which was bigger than the Arduino's voltage regulator operating range (7V -
12V). The solution was to switch the voltage regulator with a different regulator with a higher operating range
(7V 25V).
Power for Components
In both the primary and secondary robots, only DC geared motors, servo motors, and ultrasonic sensors were
used. The voltage range for the servo motor used was 4.8V to 6V, hence it can be powered directly by 5V pin
from Arduino. The ultrasonic sensor was also powered by the 5V output of the Arduino. Both the servo motor
and ultrasonic sensor required less than 200mA current, so it will not exceed the 5V pin current output. Besides
that, the DC geared motors required bigger current supply hence it was powered via MD10C for the primary
robot and Motor Shield for the secondary robot. The MC10C and Motor Shield were powered directly via the
9
12V battery. The encoder, which has a voltage range of 5V to 24V, was also connected to the 12V battery. This
was done to reduce the number of components connected to the 5V pin from Arduino. By doing this, the amount
of current had to be shared between multiple servos and ultrasonic sensor where it was sufficient and no
problem arose from the components including the encoder.
Wiring Connections
Below are the schematic diagrams of the wiring for the primary and secondary robot respectively.
Primary Robot Connections
Secondary Robot Connections
10
4. MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND ROBOT ASSEMBLY
How manufacturing was done
The aim was to produce a low-cost robot that can be easily manufactured, with the machines and tools available
in the workshop 3D printer, laser cutter, driller, lathe machine, guillotine shear cutter and milling machine.
As shown above, before considering the manufacturing process, the final design of the robots had to be checked
thoroughly once more on Solidworks. This was to ensure that all parts fit inside the robot and all the robot
perimeter are within the limit stated in the Eurobot rules. Also, all the materials used to manufacture each part
had to be concluded and analysed using Finite Element Analysis (FEA). The analysis had to be done before it can
be manufactured to prevent any failures from occurring as the FEA simulation ensures that the designed parts
are able to withstand the normal loading conditions with no significant deflection or failure.
During the analysis process, a problem was encountered with the 3D printed parts. The FEA package did not
have the data for 3D printed ABS. Therefore, normal ABS material was used for the FEA analysis. This led to a
huge error in the strength approximation from Solidworks and strength observed during the real testing. So, a
safety factor was considered to make sure that the design was sufficiently strong enough to withstand the
loading under normal condition.
Once the material for each part had been chosen, the next step was to consider the possible manufacturing
processes for the robots. A table was formed to categorise the manufacturing process.
Table of Manufacturing Equipment Used
Equipment used Parts manufactured

3D Printer Fishing rod (I-beam), parasol vase, parasol rod, rack, pinon, rack holder, weight
mover, block gripper, gripper joint, bottom motor housing, servo motor holder
Laser Cutter Panels for robot housing, pusher, door pusher, pull start plank
Pillar drill Holes on robot housing, flapper, weight mover
Other tools Flapper and gripper rod
Before going into the workshop, a detailed list of things required to do and the objectives were listed out to
make sure that the workshop session was utilised fully. This will help the group to achieve the necessary
goals. The tasks were all equally divided and delegated to each member in the design team, ensuring that the
team was productive, avoiding any member being idle.
The material for the body of both robots were initially chosen to be MDF. However, during the first
manufacturing workshop, the MDF board provided were not big enough. Ultimately, it was changed to plywood,
since it does not influence the overall dimension and structure rigidity. However, the CAD drawings and
dimensions were changed a bit due to depth difference of these two materials. The parts were cut using a laser
cutter, as shown in the table above. This manufacturing process was done fast, saving a lot of time during the
workshop, allowing other necessary manufacturing processes to be carried out.
11
Below is a table of both the primary and secondary robot components with the material used.
Table of Component and Material Used
Material Component
Steel Sheet Flapper, Shovel
Plywood Panels for robot, Pusher
MDF Wall Pusher
Paper Parasol
ABS (3D Printed) Motor Holders, Rack, Pinion, Parasol Vase, Parasol Rod, Motor housing, Weight
mover, Gripper, Fishing Rod
3D printing took a very long time and had a very high chance of failing, so both of these were taken into account
during the manufacturing process.
Manufacturing Process Flowchart
A brief explanation of the manufacturing process taken is explained in the flowchart.
12
Tolerance
In all manufacturing processes, tolerances are crucial as it could lead to improper fits during assembly.
The holes on the both the robot housing were drilled using the milling machine. The holes drilled were with
tolerance of +0.5mm. For example, if the technical drawing states that the hole was of diameter 3mm, then the
hole drilled will be 3.5mm so that the screws were able to fit through the hole smoothly.
For the rack and pinion design, the fit that was required was a clearance fit, to allow smooth motion. Since the
design of the rack and pinion was quite complex, it was 3D printed because the tools and materials in the
workshop were not sufficient to manufacture it. Unfortunately, the tolerance of the 3D printer was not specified,
so the design was estimated to try to achieve a clearance fit. Hence, the hole in rack was made a bit bigger than
the rack's external size.
Besides that, for the servo holder for the fishing rod, gripper servo compartment and the general servo holders
needed to be tight fit. This was because the servo gear needs to fit with the holder tightly to ensure that it does
not wobble during motion. As mentioned earlier, a major problem was faced where the 3D printed part was too
tight causing it to break when the servo motor was fitted to the holder. Therefore, the design was re-
dimensioned with bigger dimensions. Therefore, to securely hold the servo motors, super glue was applied to
make sure it fit securely. To connect the connector and servos, epoxy was used for the fishing rod while super
glue was used for others to ensure they are firmly secured.
Robot Assembly
In order to finalise the assembly of both robots, a discussion was necessary. One main objective when
assembling the robot was to ensure that it was neat and presentable. The part that will be the messiest would
be the electronic wiring connections. Using the wiring diagram (electrical systems), the best path for each
component was selected. Some components that had no fixed position was moved to make sure the connection
was neat. Once all the parts were manufactured, all the electronics were assembled to find the best possible
way to connect them to the Arduino board and the breadboard.
Below are pictures of the assembly of the primary and secondary robot in more detailed.
Primary Robot
EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON
LEVEL 3P
INFRARED SENSOR
LEVEL 2P WALL
PUSHER
LEVEL 1P
PUSHER
SHOVEL
WHEEL
13 GRIPPER
LEVEL 1P LEVEL 2P
MD10C
INFRARED
SENSOR
BREADBOARD
PINION SERVO MOTOR
DC
MOTOR SERVOMOTOR BATTERY HOLDER
HOLDER
LITHIUM ION BATTERIES
LEVEL 3P
PINION
WEIGHT MOVER
CASTOR
Secondary Robot
FISHING ROD
MAGNET
S
LEVEL 2S
LEVEL 1S LED ACID BATTERY

PUSH START BUTTON
PARASOL
ROD
VASE
FISHING ROD
EMERGENCY
ARDUINO STOP BUTTON DC MOTOR
SERVO MOTOR
14
5. PROGRAMMING AND TESTING PERFORMED
In order to make the robots move, the programming section is very important. The aim for the programming
team is to be able to sketch a code with the least amount of error occurring, especially during the competition.
Therefore, testing was performed on each component provided to ensure that they work perfectly and are not
faulty.
Programming and Testing of Each Component:

Servomotor normal and modified
It was connected to the Arduino according to the connections provided in the lab. Then the codes were uploaded
to check whether it worked. The programming team sketched a function for each mechanism that used a servo
motor. For two mechanism in the primary robot that required the servomotor to rotate continuously, same code
was used. Stationary point, high and low value were determined using angle value. Duration of clockwise
rotation and anti-clockwise rotation were controlled by a delay() function.
Magnetometer
Lab code was uploaded into Arduino board and the heading from the magnetometer readings were compared
with an electronic compass. The magnetometer readings were noisy with of 10 fluctuation which was more not
accurate enough. Hence, the team decided not to use it.
Ultrasonic sensor
After uploading the code from the Arduino, the serial monitor was opened to check whether the ultrasonic
sensor was working well with the codes. The monitor would display the distance of the obstacle in front of it. If
an obstacle was 8 cm or less from the sensor, the robot would stop.
DC motor
The primary robot and secondary robot were using the SPG 30E-30K and SPG 30E-60K DC motor respectively.
SPG 30E-30K and SPG 30E-60K DC motor were driven by motor drive (MD10C) and motor shield respectively.
Test conducted were driving forward and backward motion of DC motor and update encoder value
simultaneously. Afterwards, from encoder value, the number of ticks needed for one complete rotation was
taken, then the number of ticks were converted to the distance travelled/angle rotated with respect to robots
movement. The coding was made easier by using distance and angle as the input for further adjustment. To
ensure that both motors rotation speed were the same, the left motor was taken as the reference and the value
of the power supplied to the right motor was changed accordingly so that both wheels will rotate at the same
speed. Although the power supplied was the same, it does not necessarily give out the same rotation speed for
both wheels.
15
How the Libraries/Lab Code are Obtained (list of libraries)
The basic codes were obtained from the 10 Arduino labs that were done during the first semester of the
computing module. Further elaborations of the codes were from self-studies that the programming team
did from books, online videos and articles.
Reference: github.com - search Eurobot
Concept used - Coordinate navigation system with PID as control loop feedback mechanism
Coordinate navigation system (dead reckoning)
Initial position (x,y) and orientation were determined before starting. Desired destination, xg, yg could be
determined by using pythagoras and trigonometry calculation as shown in diagram below.
The calculation involved was to find the goal angle with reference to x-axis and distance between robot and goal
destination. Angle range were kept at 180 to 180 to ensure that the robot will not rotate more than 180,
reducing error in orientation. The x and y coordinate position of robot are updated using the encoder value as
the robot advance towards the destination.
This navigation concept was easier compared to moving straight and rotate function. The calculations were
computed internally instead of calculating manually.
Implementation of PID
16
Control diagram for the navigation + PID
More
detail on PID library used: http://brettbeauregard.com/blog/2011/04/improving-the-beginners-pid-
introduction/.
PID testing tuning for Kp, Ki and Kd were the most important part to avoid any instability of the robot which
could lead to huge errors (slipping again). The main testing was to ensure that the robot move from one point
to another accurately. Realising that slipping of wheel was the major error in the navigation part, the robots
were then made to move at a slightly low speed at starting point and the end point.For accuracy testing, a
straight line (chose 60cm) was drawn with perpendicular line constructed at the end point. The robot was then
tested to move straight for 60cm and rotate 90 degrees clockwise, then 180 degrees anti-clockwise. Steps were
then repeated several times.
Mechanism Testing and Programming
Most components were working perfectly. The next step was test to test the mechanism and carry out specific
task. Most of problem occurs due to components connected to interrupt pins or wires were faulty. Hence, this
required multiple checks and adjustment before the mechanism can start to work. Testing were done before
releasing robot to playground to make sure all mechanism works well.
System Testing and Programming
Since the robots will be moving around in playfield area, all the important points must be measured (using
measuring tape, because the actual dimension different from the blueprint). The robots were placed at all the
important coordinates, then the x and y values were measured (values measured from center of the two
wheels).
It is important to ensure all components were working as intended. For instance, our experience from using one
pin for ultrasonic sensor and interrupt pin simultaneously was result in error. Simple test was conducted before
17
robot release in the playground. The robot was tested to move for a short distance then rotate, and move all
mechanism available in each robot then the robot move straight and rotate again. This was to ensure all
mechanism are working perfectly and can be called at any time.
Afterwards, all measured coordinates were inserted to make sure that the robot is able to navigate accurately
to the desired spot. Error due to odometry accumulate over time mostly due to slipping hence minimum speed
was maintained. Another alternative is to bang the wall to realign the robot and reset the coordinate. This
proved to be a good trick but takes up a lot of time if it was done multiple times. Another problem was faced
when trying to reach a certain position. If the robot did not reach the desired value, it will not break out of the
loop and proceed to next command (explained further in future improvement). Obstacle avoidance code was
able to stop the motor when an object was detected within 8cm from the robot. It will remain stationary until
the object moves away.
18
6. BILL OF MATERIALS AND COSTING REPORT
At the start of this project, a budget of RM400 was given to help finance the cost of designing and building
robot(s). However, the team realised that that the budget will not be sufficient to build two robots towards the
end. Therefore, it was necessary to find a sponsor in order for this project to proceed further. Fortunately, the
team managed to secure a sponsorship from a local company called SuperCrane where they sponsored RM100.
Below is a detailed list of materials used during this project as well as their costing.
Supplier Item Name Quantity used Buy Price per Set (RM) Total Item Cost
Cytron Breadboard 2 1 9.01 9.01
Cytron SPG30E-30K Motor with Encoder 2 0 0.00 0.00
Cytron SPG30E-60K Motor with Encoder 2 2 78.44 156.88
Cytron Standard-size RC servo MG946R 4 1 37.10 37.10
Cytron TowerPro SG90 Micro Servo 1 1 8.48 8.48
Cytron Magnetometer HMC-5883L (digital 1 0 14.84 0.00
compass)
Cytron Magnetometer HMC-5883U (digital 1 0 21.20 0.00
compass)
Cytron Transistor 2N2222 4 0 0.42 0.00
Cytron Diode 1N4007 4 0 0.21 0.00
Cytron DC Jack (Female) to DG126 Converter 1 1 2.00 2.00
Cytron Female-Female wire 1 1 4.50 4.50
Taobao Emergency start stop button 2 0 1.36 0.00
Cytron DC Geared Motor Bracket 4 2 14.00 28.00
Cytron Plastic Wheel for SPG30/SPG50 (80mm) 4 2 15.90 31.80
Cytron Castor (metal, 43mm) 3 2 10.60 21.20
Cytron Li Ion Battery Holder 3x18650 2 0 3.82 0.00
Cytron Magnet Ring OD10mm x H3mm 8 8 1.27 10.16
Workshop 3D Printing /g 430 430 0.20 86.00
Workshop Plyboard (500 x 400 x 5 mm) 4 4 6.00 24.00
Workshop Steel sheet (500 x 400 x 0.6 mm) 1 1 33.60 33.60
Workshop M8 threaded rod (1000 mm) 1 1 4.00 4.00
Total Cost (RM) 456.73
From the table above, it can be seen that some components were used but not bought as they were provided
by the University from the previous odometry project. With a credit of RM500 (including the RM100 from the
sponsor), the team managed to produce and design two functioning robots with the required components
within the new budget.
19
7. TEAMS PERFORMANCE, FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Team's Performance
After the Eurobot competition, the performance of the team was evaluated. It was noted that the team was
very well organised and managed. This was because the team was divided into three subgroups (design,
programming and report team) from the beginning of the project. This ensured that the tasks were carried out
well throughout the whole project with limited amount of difficulties.
Since there were three subgroups, each team were able to set their own objectives and cover more areas leading
to a better functioning robot. Because all the teams were well managed and organised, all the objectives set
were met within a short period of time. For example, the programming team were able to do more research and
understand the codes for all the components in detailed, hence enabling the programming part for the robots
to be easy. Also, the programming team managed to implement PID which increased the accuracy of both the
robots. While the design team, with the help of the report team, were able to come up with innovative yet
simple designs for the robot. The report team, on the other hand, were able to start on the report so it was not
done last minute. Lastly, the team was always optimistic, which is a plus point, as it gave the team the drive to
performance well to reach the ultimate goal - winning the Eurobot competition.
Robot Performance
During the competition, the primary robot did not manage to perform at its fullest due to lack of power supplied.
The problem was identified where the robot was tested too many times before the competition, causing power
of the robot to be low. Besides that, when the robot hit the wall of the playing field during the second match of
the competition, the robot thought that it has not reached the distance set, so it did not manage to break out
of the loop leading to it getting stuck. This problem was solved where the solution was to check the encoder
value, when the robot gets stuck, and program it where when there is no change in value, the robot will break
out of the loop. This was successful during the last match of the competition. In addition, it was able to close
both hut door with ease and with no problem whatsoever.
To the team's surprise, the secondary robot was able to perform better than expected. It managed to collect
more fish than initially thought of. The parasol mechanism worked well and the parasol also managed to open
at the end of each match.
Overall, both the primary and secondary robot managed to perform well and it met the team's expectations.
Future Improvements
There were several things that could have been done better and been improved to perform well during the
competition. One of the things that could be improved is optimising the codes used where the robot is able to
break out of the loop when it gets stuck. Furthermore, intelligence could be included which helps the robot
detect an obstacle and plan a new path to avoid it. Besides that, it was difficult to control the speed of the robot,
especially after the battery have been charged. In the future, control systems could be looked into to help
resolve this problem. In this project, the primary robot had two servo motor which controls the gripper, one for
each. A way to improve this will be to use one instead of two servo motors two control both grippers. This will
help to save the cost of buying another servo motor. Other than that, one of the main thing that could be
20
improved would be estimating the budget and try to reduce it as much as possible. So that external funding like
sponsorship is not required. In addition, in terms of the team's performance, time management could be
improved as the task required to be done was quite packed towards the end, leading to work being done
improperly which can be seen in the initial Gantt chart at the start of the project and the final Gantt chart
produced (Appendix 4). Lastly, a way to improve the wiring connections of the components could be to use a
software that finds the best possible and neat way for the connections.
Recommendation
Firstly, it is highly recommended to list out the necessary components and material required to build the robot
as soon as possible so that the budget can be estimated at the early stage of the project. Also, to find other
possible ways to design the robot and research on the components before buying them. This would help ensure
that the project will be within the budget provided and that no wrong component is bought.
Second, before concluding the final design, it is important to know what equipment and materials are provided
in the workshop. This will prevent any major changes to the design during the manufacturing stage. Moreover,
it should be taken into account that the size of the map provided will be different compared to the actual playing
field. Therefore, it is important to test the robot regularly on the actual playing field. Also, it should be noted
that some rules may be changed at the very last minute. So, the robot should be designed and programmed
where it is able to adapt to changes made easily.
8. Information Relevant to Design and Development
The sizes of the blocks in the playing field were not the same, therefore making it difficult to use a shovel to pick
up the blocks. The team believes that using a shovel is not practical after numerous failed attempts. In addition,
the materials provided in the workshop were not sufficient enough, hence restricting a number of ideas. The
robot would be able to perform much better if there were more sensors provided.
9. Conclusion
The team performed well during the Eurobot competition, staying optimistic throughout. Because of that, the
team managed to win. Everyone in the team was happy with the result. Though there are room for more
improvements which can be achieved with more time and resources.
21
APPENDIX
Appendix 1
1.1 Binary Weighted Matrix (BWM)
22
1.2 Morphological Chart
23
1.3 TRIZ
24
Appendix 3
Strategy Map
25
26
24
23 26 9
28
22 20
29
25
27 19 17
12 3
21
13
2
1
16 15
30 10
NO PART TOTAL 5
1 EXTENDED DOOR PUSHER 1
2 PULL START PLANK 1
3 FRONT WALL 1
4 SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2 2
5 SERVOMOTOR 3 7
6 GRIPPER JOINT 2 18
7 BASE OF SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2 2
8 GRIPPER ROD 2
9 BLOCK GRIPPER 2
10 WHEEL 2 6
11 DC MOTOR HOLDER 2 8
12 PINION FOR PUSHER 1
13 RACK FOR PUSHER 1
14 SHOVEL 1
15 SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 1 1
16 BASE PLATFORM 1
17 BACK WALL 1
18 CASTER WHEEL 2
19 DOOR PUSHER 1
20 ULTRASONIC SENSOR 1 11 DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS
21 MIDDLE AND TOP PLATFORM 2 DO NOT SCALE NAQI(JB SHORE) OTHERWISE STATED UNIVERSITY OF
22
23
RACK OF WEIGHT MOVER
WEIGHT MOVER
1
1 A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X.XX = +/- 0.1mm Southampton
24 EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON 1 14 EDMC JOB No DEPARTMENT DATE SCALE ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
25 BREADBOARD 1 N/A FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 1:5 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS TITLE
26 2
OTHERWISE STATED
BATTERY HOLDER
PRIMARY ROBOT
PROJECT SUPERVISOR MATERIAL TEXTURE SURFACE FINISH
27 SOLIDWORKS Educational
ARDUINO BOARDProduct. For Instructional
1 Use Only EUROBOT DR.JOE PLYWOOD,ABS,
STEEL,MDF
SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS
LIFTON
28 6
OTHERWISE STATED
BATTERY SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION
29 BLOCK PUSHER 1 REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS
THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
1 1 - 1 1
30 RACK HOUSING FOR PUSHER 1 IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS
DO NOT SCALE NAQI(JB SHORE) OTHERWISE STATED UNIVERSITY OF
A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No DEPARTMENT DATE SCALE ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
N/A FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 1:5 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
ISOMETRIC VIEW
EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH PLYWOOD,MDF,

ABS,STEEL
SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS
LIFTON OTHERWISE STATED
SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 2 2 - 2 1
140
5
15
4
40
20
110

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
PULL START PLANK

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT

DR.JOSEPH
PLYWOOD SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS


DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 3 3 2 3 1
22.43
30
30
60
8
5.61
15
19.48
3.50 126.87
4.48
DO NOT SCALE OTHERWISE STATED UNIVERSITY OF
A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 2:1 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
BLOCK GRIPPER
OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH ABS SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS


77
3.50

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 2:1 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
PROJECT
EUROBOT LIFTON
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
STEEL
TEXTURE
ROUGH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

GRIPPER ROD
OTHERWISE STATED


245
5
45

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:2 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
PROJECT
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

EXTENDED DOOR PUSHER

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 6 6 1 6 1
21
R1
1
22
9
16.38
7
R7
7
22.04
R5
.25
12
3.50 R2
14
0.83
4.30 4.70 24.19

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 5:1 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

PROJECT
EUROBOT LIFTON
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
ABS
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

GRIPPER JOINT
OTHERWISE STATED


200
5 26 87
130
16.50
85
311
3.70
122.70
45
10
45 22.50

A3
DESIGNED BY
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:2 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
BACK WALL
OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH



200
5
10 26 88
65
10.50
10 10 65
45
3.50
9.80 38.81 30.89
6
90
26
55
25
12 35
21.70

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:2 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE

PROJECT
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR
DR. JOSEPH
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD SMOOTH
TEXTURE SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS BASE PLATFORM



200
180
26 87
7.30
130
16.50
85
311
10
51.70
71
3.70
12.30
98 10
41
5

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 05/01/2017 1:2 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
FRONT WALL

DR.JOSEPH


200
10
5 45
10
3.70
175
120
155
25
10
10

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:2 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
MIDDLE, TOP PLATFORM


DR.JOSEPH
PLAYWOOD SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS

165
5
110
10.75
72.50 20

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
1:1
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
PROJECT
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

BLOCK PUSHER

12 12 26 12 1
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
4.50
5
4.25
2
2.50
174
26.50

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 1:2 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE

PROJECT
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
ABS
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

RACK HOLDER FOR PUSHER


18
5.66 1.69
11
0 16.84
0
R0.5
13.50
0.62
165

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 1:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
RACK FOR WEIGHT MOVER



20
4.72
1.69 11
0
4.50
13.50
0.62
22.17 131.33
175.66

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 1:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
RACK FOR PUSHER



46
R2
R2
30
0
R2
25
14
16 2 5.68 34.64
20
50
5
10
40
A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 2:1
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
BASE OF SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2


DR.JOSEPH
ABS SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS

20.70
32.70
36.70
46
50
R2
R2
8.37
16
20
R4
8 .50
3 40
40
R4
R2
R2
5

DO NOT SCALE
NAQI(JB SHORE) OTHERWISE STATED UNIVERSITY OF
A3
JB SHORE
DESIGNED BY
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 2:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2


DR.JOSEPH


75
10 10
20
3.50
90
60
120
115
30
12
9.3
9 100
200
200
A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:2 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE

PROJECT
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
STEEL
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

STEEL SHOVEL


45 35
14
50
50
34
22 36 80
70
9 28
4.50
7.50
37
1
70
80
61.50
61
49
32
16
11

135
R1
R1
22
23.71
180
19 2 85
1 15.29
19.17
24
28
R4

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG 2001 01/02/2017 1:2 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
WEIGHT MOVER
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH



200
30
45

A3
DESIGNED BY
JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A FEEG2001 01/05/2017 1:1 X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE
PROJECT
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS DOOR PUSHER



15
14
4
10
25 11
17
12
26
24
8 23
20 3
1 21 9
B B C DETAIL C
SCALE 2 : 5
13
19
No Part Total 18 5
6
1 Wheel 2
2 Caster wheel 1 2
3 Flapper 2 7
4 Fishing I-Beam 1
5 DC motor 2
6 Dc motor holder 2
7 Dc motor base 2
8 Ultrasonic sensor 1
9 Infrared sensor 1 16
10 Servomotor 1
11 Servomotor holder 1
12 Micro servomotor 1
13 Magnet bar 4 22
14 Arduino board 1
15 Breadboard 1
16 Lead acid battery 1
17 Vase 1
Emergency push SECTION B-B
18 start button 1 DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL TOLERANCES UNLESS
19 Circular magnet 4
HADI(JB SHORE)
20 Fishing I-Beam wood

extension 1 A3
DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
21 1
EDMC JOB No: N/A DEPARTMENT: Mech DATE: 10 APRIL 2017 SCALE: 1:5
Front wood part Eng. FEE X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
22 Bottom wood part 1

OTHERWISE STATED
23 Left side wood 1

PROJECT: EUROBOT SUPERVISOR: DR
JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL:
PLYWOOD, ABS,
STEEL, MAGNETIC
TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
SECONDARY ROBOT
24 1
ALL OVER UNLESS
Right side wood ALLOY OTHERWISE STATED
25 Middle wood part 1 REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS
SHEET: No OFF: ASSEMBLY NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION
26 Vase rod 1 IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL TOLERANCES UNLESS
DO NOT SCALE HADI( JB SHORE)
OTHERWISE STATED UNIVERSITY OF
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A DEPARTMENT: Mech
Eng. FEE
DATE: 1 MAY 2017 SCALE: 1:5 ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
TITLE: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECONDARY ROBOT
OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
EUROBOT JOSEPH LIFTON PLYWOOD, STEEL,
MDF, MAGNETIC ALL OVER UNLESS
ALLOYS OTHERWISE STATED


214
5
255.59
48
3.50
20 810
22
11
4
45
28 10
10.50
103
21
20.95
57
4
30
20
30 79
DRAWN BY: JB SHORE TOLERANCES UNLESS

A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No DEPARTMENT:
FEEG 2001
DATE: 11 APRIL
2017
SCALE: 1:2 ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
TITLE: BOTTOM ROBOT
OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: EUROBOT SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only JOSEPH LIFTON PLYWOOD
ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION


3
6
2
5.20
DRAWN BY : MUHAMMAD ADIB TOLERANCES UNLESS

DO NOT SCALE IBRAHIM (JB SHORE)
A3
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No : DEPARTMENT : DATE : SCALE : ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A Mech Eng. FEE 1 MAY 2017 10 : 1
OTHERWISE STATED
CIRCULAR MAGNET
PROJECT : SUPERVISOR : MATERIAL : TEXTURE : SURFACE FINISH
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT DR JOSEPH LIFTON MAGNETIC ALLOY SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED


35
18
95 DRAWN BY : MUHAMMAD ADIB TOLERANCES UNLESS

DO NOT SCALE IBRAHIM (JB SHORE)
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A Mech Eng. FEE 1 MAY 2017 2:1
ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS TITLE :
OTHERWISE STATED

PROJECT :
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR :
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL :
MDF
TEXTURE :
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
ALL OVER UNLESS

FISHING I-BEAM WOOD EXTENSION
OTHERWISE STATED


214
5 145
5
20
30
35.07
110
22 96
20
10
3
4
55
75
295
4.50
66
30
23
20
88.50
12
107
20
30

A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A DEPARTMENT:
Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL
2017
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
TITLE: FRONT ROBOT
OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: EUROBOT SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only JOSEPH LIFTON PLYWOOD
ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED

26 26 21 26 1
170
30
25
20
115
15
26
20
21
30
5
4
84
300
90
93
30
20
50
8
20 9
50
35 20
127
DRAWN BY : Muhammad Adib Ibrahim TOLERANCES UNLESS

DO NOT SCALE (JB SHORE)
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A Mech Eng. FEE 12 APRIL 2017 1:2
OTHERWISE STATED Title

LEFT FRAME
EUROBOT DR JOSEPH LIFTON PLYWOOD SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED


214
5
35 30
20
3 4
35
22
165
20
40
40
4
20
62
20
8 20 5
30 30

DO NOT SCALE HADI
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017 SCALE: 1:2 ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
TITLE: MIDDLE ROBOT
OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
EUROBOT JOSEPH LIFTON PLYWOOD
ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED

28 28 25 28 1
18
5
9
7.50
5
30
15
DRAWN BY: MUHAMMAD ADIB TOLERANCES UNLESS

DO NOT SCALE IBRAHIM( JB SHORE)
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No:N/A DEPARTMENT: Mech
Eng. FEE
DATE: 26 APRIL 2017 SCALE; 2:1 ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
OTHERWISE STATED
TITLE: MAGNET BAR

PROJECT: SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: TEXTURE: SURFACE FINISH
EUROBOT JOSEPH LIFTON MAGNETIC ALLOY SMOOTH
ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED


3.13 3.63
26
20
10
16
26
36
6
7 45 6.50
80
66
10
5
10 60
DRAWN BY : MOHD ADHA ABDUL TOLERANCES UNLESS

DO NOT SCALE HADI
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Mech Eng FEE
DATE : SCALE : ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
11 APRIL 2017 1:1
DC MOTOR HOLDER
OTHERWISE STATED
EUROBOT DR JOSEPH LIFTON

OTHERWISE STATED

30 30 6 30 1
9.24
110
TRUE R2.50
27
82
9.40
75
10
55
20
6 43

A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL
2017
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
TITLE: FLAPPER
OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: STEEL TEXTURE: SURFACE FINISH
EUROBOT JOSEPH LIFTON SMOOTH
ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED

31 31 3 31 1
35
50
24
17.50
3.50
74.50
15
25
10
13 12
18
DO NOT SCALE
3 DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL
HADI( JB SHORE)
TOLERANCES UNLESS
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017 SCALE: 1 :1 ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
VASE FOR PARASOL

OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: EUROBOT SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: ABS TEXTURE: SURFACE FINISH
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only JOSEPH LIFTON SMOOTH
ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED

32 32 17 32 1
230
220
34 18
6
R7
10
12.74
5
R3
DETAIL Front Part

SCALE 1 : 1
DETAIL Motor Connection
SCALE 1 : 1 0
R1
185
220
230
20
10

DO NOT SCALE HADI(JB SHORE)
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Mech Eng. FEE
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
11 APRIL 2017 1:2
FISHING I-BEAM
OTHERWISE STATED

DETAIL Back Part EUROBOT ABS SMOOTH
DR JOSEPH LIFTON ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
SCALE 1 : 1 REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS

25
5
115
15 20
26
21
30
5
84
300
90
20
4
93
50
20
30
93
20
9 50
35
8
DRAWN BY : Muhammad Adib Ibrahim TOLERANCES UNLESS

DO NOT SCALE (JB SHORE)
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
N/A Mech Eng. FEE 12 APRIL 2017 1:2
OTHERWISE STATED Title

RIGHT FRAME
EUROBOT DR JOSEPH LIFTON PLYWOOD SMOOTH ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED


6
5
9
20
4
3.22
59
.04
5
5.5
DETAIL

5
SCALE 4 : 1
3
40.50
40.50
57.50
38
R2
2
17
1
0.50

LINEAR DIMENSIONS
Southampton
20
10
X = +/- 0.5mm
A3
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
X.XX = +/- 0.1mm

Eng. FEE
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
5
11 APRIL 2017 2:1
SERVOMOTOR HOLDER
OTHERWISE STATED

40 EUROBOT ABS SMOOTH
DR JOSEPH LIFTON ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED
50
35 35 11 35 1
6
16
50.84
0
R1
8.66
134.50
58.25
3.50
15
8
16

DO NOT SCALE HADI(JB SHORE)
A3
LINEAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017 SCALE: 1:1 ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X = +/- 0.5mm
X.X = +/- 0.25mm
TITLE: VASE ROD
OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT: EUROBOT SUPERVISOR: DR MATERIAL: ABS TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only JOSEPH LIFTON

ALL OVER UNLESS
OTHERWISE STATED



Design Report Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Report Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Southampton Malaysia Campus

Type 20K 30K 60K 120K 200K 270K

Compatible with Arduino Yes Yes Yo

Operating voltage 4.8 - 6V (DC) 4.8 - 5V (DC) 4.5-12V (DC)

Torque 1.0296 Nm (at 4.8V) 0.1765 Nm 3.83x10-3 Nm

Rotation angle 180 180 continuous

Fishing Rod (Secondary Robot)

Shovel (Primary Robot)

Secondary Robot Connections

Equipment used Parts manufactured

LITHIUM ION BATTERIES

LEVEL 1S LED ACID BATTERY

Programming and Testing of Each Component:

1.1 Binary Weighted Matrix (BWM)

EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH PLYWOOD,MDF,

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

PULL START PLANK

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT

LIFTON OTHERWISE STATED

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

ALL OVER UNLESS

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

ALL OVER UNLESS

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

4.30 4.70 24.19

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

ALL OVER UNLESS

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

ALL OVER UNLESS BASE PLATFORM

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT

LIFTON OTHERWISE STATED

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

MIDDLE, TOP PLATFORM

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only EUROBOT

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

ALL OVER UNLESS

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

ALL OVER UNLESS

SHEET No OFF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION

IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK