MESSIAH COLLEGE

ENGR 492: SENIOR PROJECT II

SPRING 2001

FINAL DESIGN REPORT:

DRILL PRESS AUTOMATION

JESS MULBERGER JEREMY SCHAFFER

T.J. LINTON PAT LEWIS

PROJECT ADVISOR: PROFESSOR CARL ERIKSON

LABORATORY MANAGER: MR. JOHN MEYER
ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN: MR. EARL SWOPE
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...……..……………...1
DESCRIPTION…………………………….………………………………………...2
LITERATURE REVIEW…………………….………………………………………...4
SOLUTION……………………………….………………………………...……….8
DESIGN PROCESS…..…………………………………………………………………….11
IMPLEMENTATION.………………………………………………………………………13
CONSTRUCTION.…………………………….……………………………………13
OPERATION…..…………………………………………………………………..15
PROJECT MANAGEMENT……...……….………………………………………………...17
ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULING.……………………………………………………17
FINISHED GANTT CHART……….………..………...……………………………..20
BUDGET……..…………………………………………………………………………...22
CONCLUSION..…………………………………………………………………………...24
FUTURE WORK…………….. …………………………………………………………...26

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.……………………………………………….……..28

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………...29
Abstract:

Today’s society has everyone looking for a way to create products quickly,

efficiently, and inexpensively, without jeopardizing their quality. As the development of

computers and electronic communication equipment progresses, and a variety of

technologies evolve, the effectiveness of manufacturing processes and systems has vastly

improved. The implementation of automation is a prime example of this advancement.

Automated systems essentially remove the human aspect from the manufacturing process

bringing about a number of benefits.

The completed project involved automating the printed circuit board (PCB) drill

press located in the Messiah College Electrical Engineering laboratory. The new drilling

process serves as a means of saving time and money while increasing the safety,

efficiency and precision of printed circuit board drilling. Jeremy Schaffer, Patrick Lewis,

T.J. Linton, and Jessica Mulberger completed this project, under the supervision of

Professor Carl Erikson.

Acknowledgments:

Corey Foster (Compumotor Division, Parker Hannifin)

Steve Semekoski (Daedel Positioning Division, Parker Hannifin)
Is-Tech Inc.
John Meyer, Lab Technician
Earl Swope, Lab Technician
Professor Erikson, Advisor
Dr. Pratt
Keith Wagner
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Description:

After researching the utilization of automation and its applicability to the drill

press, the design and construction of an automated system was implemented in the

electrical engineering laboratory of Messiah College. The new drilling process serves as a

way of saving time, and money, while increasing the efficiency and precision of printed

circuit board drilling.

Using software available on the computer donated by Messiah College

(Electronics Workbench, or Ultiboard), the user will create the circuit board layout that

he/she needs for their own work. Once the final schematic is completed the x-y

coordinates are extracted from the data window in the respective program and saved so

the designed positioning program on Visual Basic can import each point. This

positioning program will send each coordinate to the control and processing systems of

the drill press where the motors will position the table to the correct location for drilling.

Upon reaching the correct position, the user will manually lower the drill to produce the

hole. After successfully drilling the hole, the user will hit enter which tells the program to

move to the next hole causing the x-y table to set up the board for the next hole, and this

process continues until the printed circuit board drilling is complete.

An automated drill press is very advantageous for the engineering students of

Messiah College. By using an automated drill press, students will save time, as the

automated process will be faster than the manual process. The need to reposition the

board (manually) is eliminated because the automated drill press would position the
board itself. The number of printed circuit boards that are drilled incorrectly or

inaccurately will decrease in turn saving the college money and valuable resources. It can

be very tedious and complicated to drill accurately on complex PC boards, but using an

automated drill press, the position of the holes for the electrical components will be more

precise, then if located manually. To obtain the most out of the designed project the

following objectives were set*.

To design an automated system that can be installed into the given drill press so

the amount of time spent drilling printed circuit boards (compared to a manual

drilling process) is reduced by a factor of one-half.

To employ stepping motors and a controller in the design of the automated

system, to accurately position the printed circuit board for drilling.

To develop a program that is capable of extracting coordinates from existing

software and then

To use LabView 6i as a controlling program to operate the desired system. In

this case LabView will be used to enter the coordinates into the controller for

further operation of the x-y table

To design and build an automated system that will drill printed circuit board

component holes accurately within five-thousandths (.005”) of an inch.

To construct an automated drill press within a budget of three hundred ($300)

dollars available through the Messiah College Engineering Department

*Note: Discrepancies between the objectives and solution will be addressed.

1.2 Literature Review:

As the development of computers and electronic communication equipment

progressed and a variety of technologies have evolved the efficiency of manufacturing

processes and systems has vastly improved. These developments have been termed as

computer integrated manufacturing, or CIM.1 The aspect of CIM that will be utilized for

this project is process automation.

Automation involves automatic handling between machines, and the continuous

processing at those machines. Automation only exists when a group of related operations

are tied together mechanically, electronically, or with the assistance of computers.1 The

word “automation” originated at Ford Motor Company in 1945 to describe “a logical

development” in technical progress where automatic handling between machines is

combined with continuous processing of machines. This implies that machines are

considered automated only when they are mechanically joined for continuous automatic

handling and processing.1

Now with a proper definition to give a foundation, the evaluation of automation

can begin. It today’s society everyone is looking for a way to make things faster for less

money, without sacrificing the quality of their product. This is also held as a high

priority for the proposed project. But if automation can’t move us in that direction, the

question was asked, “is it really worth implementing?” The original objective of

automation was the reduction in direct labor costs, but as automation becomes more

prominent other benefits have been observed. Safety is one of those factors that

contributed to the success of automation.

 Automation has been proven to reduce the amount of industrial accidents, which

is important for positive employee morale1. Tying this to the given project, the drill press

can injure someone who gets their hands too close to the drill, or doesn’t have the

adequate training for operation. Automation of a production is said to remove the human

from direct participation in the operation.2 By automating the drill press the operator will

not have to worry about their safety because while the drill is on they will not be required

to be so involved with the drilling process, therefore assisting in avoiding a potential

injury.

Although the safety of the operator is very important, it is not the main benefit

that will be obtained in this project, nor is it the main motivation for implementing an

automated system. By automating the drill press the productivity of the PC boards will

vastly increase. There will be a small amount of time needed to train students on how to

use the new production system, but once they have the knowledge the production rate,

and output per hour will greatly improve due to the fact that the program will move the

drill to the desired point to drill rather than the operator taking the time to move the drill

to that point with an sufficient amount of accuracy.

This leads into another benefit of automation: improved quality. Automated

production usually achieves greater consistency, and accuracy in processing. At its

current state there is a relatively low accuracy due to human error. The operator positions

the table to the desired coordinates, and because humans are not perfect, there tends to be

a certain amount of human error that can vary depending on numerous outside variables.

But with an automated system, as mentioned before, the human is removed from the
process, which will lead to an increase in accuracy, and as a result improve the quality of

the product being drilled2.

One last advantage, which I previously touched upon, of automation that will

undeniably be observed through this project, is the reduction of work in process. On the

macro-level of automation, the work in process is when the product is either being

processed or between processing operations. Automation tends to reduce work in process

by reducing the time the product spends in the factory. On our micro level of automation

there is only one process that can be evaluated, but the time it takes to complete that

process will decrease because of the implementation of automation. Previously the

operator had to drill a hole as close as they could to the desired coordinates, which took

time to locate each hole. But with the automated system all of the coordinates are entered

into a spreadsheet, where those coordinates are exported to the controller, and then once

one hole is drilled the system will then move the drill to the next desired position until all

holes are made. Therefore the time it takes to move from one hole to the next is

significantly decreased, the total time of production will also be minimized.

One final aspect of the project that needs to be researched comes back to the goal

of today’s society, economics. Currently the drill press is working, and has so far

provided the students with quality holes. But the question is will this project be

completed, within the allotted budget, and confirm that it also produces the benefits

mentioned above.

Designing and constructing this automated system is not necessarily the easiest

way of obtaining an automated drill press. One way of acquiring an automated drill press

would be to purchase one. After searching numerous catalogs, and Internet sites, a
conclusion has been reached that there are three different levels of automated drilling

machines. When dividing anything into different categories there is always a grey area,

but for easy comparison of automated, also known as computer numerical control, drill

presses can be categorized as excellent, decent, and substandard.

When looking to buy a drill the final decision depends on what type of

specifications the buyer is trying to meet, and what kind of budget they are dealing with.

The most expensive and elaborate drill found through an extensive search was the

Cameron CNC Micro Drilling Center Model 2001 (Appendix A, Figure 1). This drill has

triple axis movement, an excellent resolution, and a fast traveling speed. This package

includes a laptop computer, software, stepper motors, along with a security lock, and a

clean room enclosure with a vacuum nozzle. This equipment, which is very precise and

sophisticated, yet easy to use, is available for purchase at $16, 500 5.

Another expensive, yet not quite as advanced as the previous drill, is the Sherline

Deluxe mini drill model # 2000 (Appendix A, Figure 2). Sherline's newest drill brings

the best features of full size shop drills into a miniature machine shop with a column that

offers 4 additional directions of movement compared to their other models. The base

extends 14" long to accommodate the additional mechanism of the column. With this

drill, holes can be drilled from almost any angle with the part mounted square to the

table. This drill, along with all of their models, can be purchased with either English or

Metric measuring systems. This particular item is price listed as $1275.00, which doesn’t

include the additional $125 for the different accessories3.

Because of the large amounts of money it requires to purchase a brand new drill,

used machinery can also be considered. Sticking with the Sherline models, a used less
expensive drill was found on an auction web site. This 5000A/5100A deluxe drill

Package (Appendix A, Figure 3) comes with a variety of selected popular accessories,

and a handbook to guide you through the computer interface. The Model 5000 features a

solid 10" aluminum base, precision machined dovetailed slides with adjustable gibs,

permanently lubricated spindle bearings, adjustable pre-load anti-backlash feed screws on

x and y axes, two laser engraved aluminum hand-wheels, one laser engraved hand-wheel

with thrust bearings, and many other features4. But because it is used, and from an

auction web site, it is hard to tell what you will really get when the drill arrives. This

item can be purchased at a bargain price of 900.00 dollars. In the Sherline catalog this

particular item is price listed at $1100.00, which does not include the cost of accessories3.

When considering the benefits of an automated piece of machinery the

disadvantages are quite minuscule when compared to the benefits that will transpire. The

only real draw back to an automated drill press is the cost. That is where the proposed

project comes into play. Using the present drill press, and acquiring the different

positioning and assembly parts and software, an automated drill press can be assembled

at a much lower cost. In turn, the demands of today’s society are being met by utilizing

the ultimate option of producing the same result at a fraction of the cost.

1.3 Solution:

In order to fully examine the different alternatives of any project, it must be

broken down into the individual facets that make up the project, and then determine

which of the proposed options can be discarded based on what will bring about the best

overall result.
 After properly investigating each of the proposed alternatives an optimum

solution to the project as a whole was comprised. Visual basic was chosen to host the

positioning commands that are communicated to the controller from the computer. The

deciding factor in this decision was the ease in writing a program, and user-friendliness

Visual Basic brings compared with LabView 6i.

As previously touched upon in the literature review, a main alternative to

designing an automated system would be to simply purchase an automated drill press.

But because of the given economic limitations compared to the cost of the most

inexpensive machine, this option was not pursued much further.

Focusing more on the micro level of the project, a proposed solution was to use

the Motorola 68HC11 board and run a program to control the motion of the x-y table.

This program would act as the interface from the drawing to the desired positioning of

the table where the holes will be drilled. This alternative was also rejected due to

economic boundaries. There are computers available for us to use that already have

driver cards installed in them and would not add any cost to our proposed budget.

Another alternative would be to use servomotors, as opposed to stepping motors.

This alternative, like the others proposed, was not used because of the large amount of

money it would take to acquire. Two stepping motors were donated by Compumotor

Division, and will serve the same purpose without using up the majority of our allotted

finances.

As with any project money can be a huge deciding factor in the many facets of the

finished product. The x-y table, controller, and motors could have all been purchased at a

local retailer, or via the Internet. Fortunately, two different companies were willing to
donate these products, and although they are refurbished, will do more than an adequate

job of performing their respective tasks. Another deciding factor in this arrangement was

the fact that the aforementioned parts all came from two divisions (Daedel and

Compumotor) of the same company (Parker Inc.). Therefore each of these parts was

guaranteed to be compatible with one another. Had these parts been purchased separately

the same guarantee would not apply.

Another set of decisions that was guided by our limited budget was the design and

construction of our mounts, and clamps. Upon receiving the motors and x-y table, it was

evident that a mount would be needed to adjoin the two linear motion pieces. It was also

determined that another mount would be needed to hold the PC Boards during the drill

process, and a base to hold the x-y table apparatus once assembled. Upon establishing

proper design dimensions for all three pieces, arrangements could have been made with a

local machine shop and have them machine each of the parts. In place of that option, the

specific designs were given the “go ahead” by both Professor Erikson and John Meyer

(with proper adjustments and redesign being done when recommended), and the group, in

Messiah College shop, successfully machined each part.

In the acquisition of printed circuit boards to test the final product, designs were

developed on Ultiboard and then fabricated in the lab under the supervision of Earl

Swope.
2 DESIGN PROCESS

One of the biggest obstacles in our design process was to design a program that

would communicate the positions entered into a spreadsheet by the user, to the computer

which would take those values and relay them to the controller which positioned the x-y

table to the desired coordinates. Originally LabView was researched, and beginning

stages of an appropriate program were developed. But after advanced complications

began to surface, and hours of discussion with different respected authorities, a

conclusion was drawn that Visual Basic would not only be more adequate for the writing

of the program, but would also be easier for the user who in most cases will not be

acquainted with advanced programming. After receiving a general overview of Visual

Basic from a fellow Messiah College student, Keith Wagner, a program was written. As

with most programs, there were many error signals received, but after many redesigns,

and codes rewritten, the final program was complete and ready for the next step.

The next step consisted of taking the written program and communicating that

with the controller. After connecting the motors to the controller, it was confirmed that

they were in fact compatible with each other. Manuals from the Compumotor web site

were then printed to best determine how to configure the controller to receive the data

sent by the program. This process was labored over for many hours, but awarded such

satisfaction when a solution was finally met.

As the electrical aspect of the project was being designed, calculations,

measurements, and drawings were being contrived in order to construct the mechanical
components needed to make the project successful. It was necessary to first design the

mount to attach the motors to the x-y table so that formal testing could be done to ensure

proper movement. Once the first draft was complete, the drawings were shown to our

advisor, and then to the shop supervisor. As with many first drafts, ramifications needed

to be adjusted before construction was allowed to begin. The material that the plates

were made from was available in the shop so the actual machining of the part took

minimal time, and then confirmation of the drivers moving the table was established.

The next step in the mechanical design was to determine the correct dimensions

of the PC Board mounting plate, and then draw a formal design to be “Okayed” by the

respective overseers. The actual dimensioning and proper layout of this plate did not take

as much time as the machining. Because this plate is used to hold the piece to be drilled,

it is important that it be as flat as possible to ensure maximum accuracy. The time it took

to square the edges, and level off both sides of the plate, was well over the allotted

amount of time. Fortunately, the proposed time-line for completion allowed for a couple

extra days of construction, and testing of the final project was not pushed back a

detrimental amount.

While the kinks were being figured out in both the mechanical and electrical

facets of the project, printed circuit boards were being designed and constructed so that

all three parts could be brought together for testing, with plenty of time left for redesign

in order to obtain the proposed accuracy. While the desired amount of testing was not

reached, recommendations for future work will be addressed later in the report.
3. IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Construction:

The construction of our prototype was divided into two aspects. The first was the

mechanical aspect. Here we milled some important pieces in the design; the motor

mounts, the plate that will hold the PCBs and clamps that will hold the board in place.

The motor mounts were then used to mount the stepping motors to the x and y tables. The

plate was drilled with several holes into which dowel pins were placed to help the

students position their boards correctly. Clamps were made so that they could be

positioned to hold the board in place without disrupting the drilling process. All these

pieces were put together to complete the mechanical system. The second aspect was the

electrical systems and the required control programs. The electrical system was not built

from scratch, as was the mechanical. Here the focus was on assembly more than actual

fabrication of parts. The process of learning Visual Basic and creating a program with it

took a few weeks and was a major issue in slowing us down, as will be discussed in the

following section. The program (attached in appendix –pg ) reads the coordinates from

Ultiboard output file and then sorts the “x” and “y” coordinates from each line of the file.

Once it gets the coordinates it divides the numbers by a set constant, which determines

the number of steps each axis will move. Once the number of steps is determined the

program sends out the commands for the controller to send signals to the drivers to begin

movement. After the movement has occurred the process is repeated until the last line of

the file has been completed. After a basic program was established we tested

communication between two computers with a null modem setup through Hyperterminal.

Once we had success with that setup we began communicating with the computer and our
controller, and with some minor changes to the program we were able to communicate

with the controller. During development of the program we also worked on connecting

the motors to the drivers, as well as setting the correct current settings for the driver.

After completing these important components, we put all the individual pieces together

and started testing our prototype.

Along the way we made some major changes-mostly in the area of the software

control-and encountered some major problems because of them. Our original plan for the

software was to use LabView as a means to create a GUI (graphical user interface) for

controlling the motors and other external hardware. As the project progressed we made

a change to Visual Basic as our software control platform because it would be easier to

set up and use, which meant we now had a new programming language to learn before

we could continue. None of the team members knew the programming language but we

enlisted the help of a computer science student, who was able to give us some basic

guidelines to the Visual Basic program needed, and with some of our own ingenuity we

were able to complete the program for operation of our prototype. Some other minor

changes made were made in the mechanical aspects. We were originally going to buy

clamps but we were having issues finding a clamp to suit our project, so we opted to

build our own. Despite the bumps in the road, we were able to handle the changes and

the problems that resulted.

3.2 Operation:

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE AUTOMATED DRILL PRESS:

X-Y Table
Mounting surface: > 200 x 200 mm
Travel range: > 100 mm
Flatness: < ±10 µm
Straightness < ±10 µm
Accuracy: < ±100 µm
Reproducibility: < ±10 µm
Reversal Error: < ±20 µm
Max. Load: > 1500 N
Body material: Aluminum
Weight: < 25 kg

Drill press
Spindle Travel: 50 mm
Swing: 250 mm
Weight: <100 lb
Chuck capacity: 13 mm
Controller: 2-Axis coordinate system.
Software: Visual Basic 6
RPM: 5 speed, 540-3600
Motor: 120v AC 1/4 HP
Height: > 600 mm

Stepping Motors
Amps: >1.5 A
HZ: DC
Duty: Cont.
Steps/Revolution: 200
Max. Ambient Temperature: 40 ºC

The testing process began when the prototype was constructed and the testing

boards were completed using arbitrary drill files from Ultiboard. The first test that we

ran was to test the program and the components to see if everything worked properly.

After finishing that test, we inserted a circuit board and imported the coordinates from the

corresponding drill file into the Visual Basic program. Once the key elements were in

place, we started the process of the program. Once the drill moved to the first coordinate,
we found that the positioning of the drill was near our target but was not accurate enough

to meet our objective. We continued the program and found that the error we had from

each hole was compounding onto the following hole. After a number of hours of testing

we recollected our ideas and found that if we went back to the origin we would eliminate

the error. We then proceeded to review our algorithm in the program, but because of

time restraints we were unable derive a new algorithm to enhance our precision.
4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

4.1 Organization/Schedule:

The senior engineering project has taught us a number of lessons about

management and team planning. We began work on this project with the knowledge that

some group organization was necessary but the way that we organized our group changed

as work progressed.

At first we looked at our group and assigned tasks based on concentration, but

some tasks overlapped, or could have been done by anyone in the group. For example, as

can be seen on the Gantt chart provided, Jeremy, Pat, and T.J. were in charge of some of

the tasks that were more electrical in nature. This included researching and

understanding stepping motors, computer interfacing, and sensor research. Jess on the

other hand worked on the mechanical design of the mounting system and the theory

behind the X-Y table. Some of the tasks such as the literature review and the acquiring

parts were assigned independent of concentration.

As work progressed first semester we began to see who was better at which tasks,

and some of the assignments began to change. For example, Jess took over the contacts

with companies that helped us acquire many of our components. Pat devoted most of his

time to the research and operation of the stepper motors and drivers, which included

integration of the motors to the system. There were other examples of changes in

assignments, which can be seen in the updated version of the first semester Gantt chart.

As second semester began and the building phase began, almost all of the tasks

assigned remained within concentration. Jess worked primarily on the design and

construction of the mounting system which included mounting the X-Y table to the drill
and the circuit boards to the entire system. T.J. worked on sensor acquisition, but when

they seemed to no longer be necessary he devoted his time to creating the circuit boards

that we hoped to have tested by the final presentation, as well as working on the

acquisition of various parts. Jeremy and Pat were devoted to the interfacing of the

computer with the controller, which included creation of the controlling software, as well

as the correct attachment of the motors to the drivers and the drivers to the controller.

Jeremy, as the group leader, also oversaw the entire project as well, keeping the group on

track and working together. But in general we all helped each other out and because of

this we each put some time into all of the different components of the project.

Our schedule seldom completely matched the Gantt chart, but that was not

completely negative- at times we were ahead of schedule, sometimes we finished a task

early, and at other times we were slightly behind schedule. As might be expected, it was

the major issues that set us behind schedule. The interfacing was a major time consumer

and seemed to put us behind schedule both in the research stages as well as the

construction stage. We were fortunate in receiving a large amount of components from

Parker Automation and Compumotor, and learning how those components worked and

interfaced was a major issues as well on which we spent a good deal of our time. The

Visual Basic software and the communication between the computer and the motor

controller also posed a big challenge. The problem with the development of the control

software was that we changed course a number of times between the use of Labview and

Visual Basic, which could have saved time if it had been known earlier which would

ultimately be the most effective tool. These were the major issues that tied up our
schedule, but solutions seemed to arise with determination, prayer, and sometimes a little

luck.
4.2 Finished Gantt Chart:
5. BUDGET

Description Quantity Price ($) Donation

X Slide 1 2,251 x
Y Slide 1 1,803 x
Stepping Motor #1 1 230 x
Stepping Motor #2 1 175 x
Stepping Motor #3 1 120 x
Controller 1 5,232 x
Drivers 2 2,602 x
PC with Visual Basic 1 from dept.
Aluminum Mounting Plate 1 50
Stepping Motor Mounts 2 25
Machining n/a 100 x
Wooden Box 1 5 x
Wire, Harness, Plugs, etc. n/a 15
Hardware n/a 15
PCBs 18 54
Report Supplies n/a 45

Total Cost: $12,722 $204

One of our most important objectives was to complete this project within the

budget that was allotted to us by the Engineering Department. The budget that we had to

work with was $300. As one can easily notice from the budget chart above, the actual

price in completing our senior project is much different than the price it cost us to

construct. Although it only cost our team $204 to complete this project (its prototype

cost), it would cost over $12,600 to make this item again (production cost). Generous

donations from companies greatly helped in keeping this project under budget. Over

$10,000 in equipment was donated to our senior project group. The Engineering

Department also saved us a great amount of money, as a computer and time in the shop

(machining) were available to us for no cost. Our group could never produce this project

at the same cost of our prototype model. Money could be saved on the smaller items,

such as the mounts, machining, plugs, hardware, and wires, if these products were

purchased in bulk. But there is not really any way to surpass the large expenses of the
slides, motors, controller, and drivers. I believe that a production-type model would cost

approximately $12,400. We are very thankful to have received donations that helped us

to finish our project. Our group remained under our $300 budget; we met our objective

involving the budget.

6. CONCLUSIONS

As we look back over the accomplishments we have made in the past year, we are

encouraged by our sense of achievement. This project has given us experience in our

first real engineering project. Our senior project included: defining the project, creating a

list of objectives, and meeting these objectives by designing an automated system,

followed by construction, testing, and finalizing our efforts through a presentation and a

report.

Our group defined objectives that we desired to achieve through this project. The

objectives we created were found in the introduction of this report. As for meeting our

specified objectives, our group successfully fulfilled three out of six objectives. We

reached these goals: to utilize a program to extract the coordinates from Ultiboard, to

employ stepping motors and a controller to position a PCB for drilling, and to construct

our project within a budget of $300. Another objective was to utilize LabView as a

controlling program to operate our automated system. Although we did not accomplish

this goal, we found an alternative, which was easier to operate, learn, program, and was

more user-friendly: Visual Basic. These are the objectives that were not satisfied: to

design an automated system that will reduce the time of drilling a PCB by a factor of one-

half and to build an automated system that will accurately drill component holes within 5

mils (.005) of an inch.

We are satisfied with the objectives we have accomplished, and we are confident

that our other objectives can be met with further improvements. After applying the

suggestions that we make in the next section of this paper for future work, we do believe

that all of our original objectives are feasible. We hope that theses suggestions and
possibly others will be completed to improve upon our project, as the automated drill

press system will greatly improve the PCB construction process for all of the engineering

students at Messiah College. During this project, we learned a lot about automation, such

as the idea behind stepping motors, how controllers and drivers operate, how to program

in Visual Basic, and various other ideas and concepts. We also learned lessons on the

importance of staying on task, backing up our computer files and reports, and working

together as a team. Overall, this senior design project was a fun and exciting way to

experience our first engineering project. We all hope to use the lessons learned from this

project in our future engineering careers and in other areas of our lives as well.
7. FUTURE WORK

We are very pleased to see everything that we have done in the past year. It was

an exciting day when we tested our drill and everything worked. As we used the project,

we were able to see certain areas that needed improvements. The first thing we would

like to see accomplished is to make a set of formal directions. Any member of our group

could set-up the drill press and use our automated system. But, no other student can use

it, at least not without any directions. We would like to see a list of specific, detailed

instructions on how to operate our system. These directions would incorporate steps

including information on Ultiboard, the etching procedure, running the Visual Basic

program, and the actual set-up of the drill press and completed automated system.

As we were testing our system, we also found out that it is very limited to the size

of printed circuit board it could drill. Due to the size of the mounting plate and the

location of the drill’s supporting pole, we are limited to a four inch PCB. We thought that

mounting the drill press on a wall or from the ceiling would eliminate this problem. With

no supporting pole to interfere with the motion of the plate, the slides could move to their

full potential and larger boards could be drilled. We also found that our system would

move as the project operates. The wooden box and the drill press were not bolted down

onto the table. With the vibrations and movements of the system, the origin for drilling

had to reset frequently. Mounting the drill on the wall would not only increase the size of

boards we could use, but it would also eliminate the movement of the origin and save

more time.

As we think of automation, it would be an improvement to make the whole

procedure automated. As of now, only the positioning is automated, and the operator
must manually move the drill press down to drill out the hole. A mechanical device that

allows the drill to drop down on its own, programmed to work with our existing project,

would complete the project and make it entirely automated. The final improvement we

would suggest is to change the actual Visual Basic program that runs our controller.

Currently, the accuracy of the automated system decreases as we move further along the

board. Also, we have the drill bit return to the origin before each hole is drilled; these

extra movements increase the time that our system spends in completing the drilling of a

PCB. We believe that a change in our programming could effectively increase the

accuracy and decrease the amount of time spent on drilling. With these changes and

improvements, our automated drill press would be more practical, accurate, and efficient.
8. REFERENCES

1. Amstead B.H., Ostwald P., Beneman M.L., Manufacturing Processes, John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY 1987.

2. Dorf R., Kusiak A., Handbook of Design Manufacturing and Automation, John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY 1994.

3. http://www.sherline.com

4. http://www.ebay.com

5. http://www.cameronmicrodrillpress.com

6. Neibel B.W., Drarer A. B., Wysk, R. A., Modern Manufacturing Processes

Engineering, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1989.

1
9. APPENDIX

Figure A:

2
Original Drill Press:

3
Final Assembly: