Objective

The purpose of this project was to design and fabricate an automated beverage dispenser capable of quickly and precisely mixing drinks composed of specified parts. Ultimately, the goal was not only to formulate a simple, reliable, and inexpensive method of making proper drinks, but also to engineer a user-friendly mechanism that promotes the art of mixology by allowing for the creation of many different mixtures.

Applications and Marketability

In the bar setting, such a vending machine-like device can increase productivity by aiding human bartenders prepare drinks on especially busy nights. Furthermore, implementation of the Automatic Bartender can benefit consumers by removing the obligatory tip associated with buying drinks from a human bartender. More importantly however, because of its simple, compact, and low-maintenance design, the Automatic Bartender would be very effective in the private setting, where it can serve perfectly proportioned drinks to those lacking mixing skills because of either inexperience or inebriation. In essence, the Automatic Bartender is an array of gravity fed gate valves actuated by DC motors. Initially, solenoid valves and ball valves were also considered, but because of a desire to minimize costs, these more expensive alternatives were not implemented (although the ball valves were not much more expensive than the gate valves, they required much higher torque motors for actuation, which would have been more expensive to acquire than the low torque DC motors available). In a similar vein, a gravity feed system was chosen over hydraulic pumps in order to avoid additional costs and complications.

The design of the array calls for a pair of valves to be associated with a single liquor. The DC motors are attached to the valves (1 motor per valve) via straight shaft couplers (which account for the difference in diameter of the motor spindles and valve knobs) and u-joints (which address alignment issues). In between each valve is a connector pipe that specifically stores a half shot of liquor. At the ends of the valves are relatively large diameter plastic piping that connect to the bottles and glass. Because of the size of these plastic pipes, air flows parallel to the fluid, which thus prevents the drawing of a vacuum

when the valves open and close. To pour the liquor using the two-valve system described, the following process is carried out: (1) Top valve opens (while the bottle "control" valve is closed) to fill the connector pipe with liquor. (2) Top valve closes to prevent further liquid from exiting the bottle. (3) Bottom "control" valve opens to send the half shot of liquor to the glass. (4) Bottom "control" valve closes. This cycle occurs simultaneously for the different liquors and repeats depending on how much of each liquor the user specifies. The purpose of utilizing a two-valve system is to remove the necessity of a pour timing scheme, which would have been especially troublesome with the gravity feed. With gravity feed, the pressure head within each bottle changes as the volume of fluid changes, which results in varying flow rates. Consequently, it would be difficult to control the amount of fluid flow with a single timed valve. Thus, by using the two-valve system, not only are the issues concerning timing with gravity feed bypassed, but it is also ensured that a consistent volume (the half shot volume in between the valves) be poured every cycle.

Design of an Automated Bartending System AME 527: Elements of Vehicle and Energy Systems Design Course Project Team iBAR Group #3 Matthew Aehle Kevin Courtoy Chan Chun Kuan Qianyu Liu Preetham Murthy Mark Wolfstone Due: May 7, 2009Abstract Human bartending processes were not efficient in crowded bars. Waiting time for drinks spanned up to 15 minutes on crowded nights, and bartenders often demonstrated favoritism toward high profile customers. Inefficient ordering and distribution in crowded bars led to customer frustration and dissatisfaction with their service from bartenders. The solution to this situation was to design an automated bartending system to make drink purchasing and distribution more efficient. The goal of the design was to automate the bartending system to increase the efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of drink ordering, preparation and delivery. Methods implemented to achieve this goal began with a conceptual and preliminary design, carried out with brainstorming sketches, functional requirements, and trade studies. Subsequently, a detailed design for the automated bartending system was completed in SolidWorks, and design verification was completed with statistical analysis in Excel. Desired results included modeled components for the automated bartending system, improved drink preparation accuracy and consistency, and

improved drink delivery efficiency. From a high level perspective, the functional requirements for the automated bartending system required that this system was safe, user friendly, and capable of receiving orders, preparing drinks, and delivering drinks without human assistance. For the sizing requirements, the design needed to fit in an existing facility that was large enough to accommodate 200 people, with bar seating for 21 people and walk-in ordering areas for 27 people. The automated bartending system was divided into 4 different subsystems, which included ordering, mixed drink and draft beer preparation, mixed drink and draft beer delivery, and bottled drink delivery. The ordering system allowed customers to place their orders using touch screen technology. The drink preparation system was comprised of procedures that included glass delivery and drink mixing. The mixed drink delivery system delivered the drinks to the corresponding customer, while the bottle delivery system vended bottled drinks and delivered these bottled drinks to the customer. The concept of the automated bartending system design was feasible and practical. Statistical analysis found that customers received their drink in an average time span of 5.2 minutes based on the worst case scenario, which included 30 simultaneous drink orders to the mixed drink preparation and delivery system. In this worst case scenario for mixed drinks, drink delivery efficiency increased 48 percent, when compared with the average customer waiting time of 10 minutes in a human-tended bar. For the bottled drink system, statistical analysis found that customers received their drinks in an average time span of 2.5 minutes, based on the same worst case scenario. In this worst case scenario for bottled drinks, delivery efficiency increased by 75 percent compared with the average waiting time of 10 minutes in a human-tended bar. The material cost of the automated bartending system was about 54,000 dollars, which was 27 percent of the startup cost of a regular bar. The total cost of the iBAR venue was about 300,000 dollars. This cost required 6 months for the iBAR venue to recuperate this initial cost, assuming

a monthly profit that was 10 percent higher than a regular bar. Thus, the automated bartending system created economical advantages for bar owners. Quality functional deployment was used to compare the automated bartending system to existing solutions. The automated bartending system was found to be unique and served as the best solution for crowded bar venues, when compared with the competition. 2Table of Contents Nomenclature...................................................................................................................................9 1.0 Introduction/Background.........................................................................................................10 1.1 Goals, Methods, and Results................................................................................................10 1.2 Functional Requirements ....................................................................................................11 1.3 Design Methods...................................................................................................................12 2.0 Results......................................................................................................................................13 2.1 Trade Studies........................................................................................................................13 2.1.1 The Bottle Delivery System..........................................................................................13 2.1.1.1 Vending Machine ................................................................................................13 2.1.1.2 Central Dispenser System....................................................................................14 2.1.2 The Drink Mixing System............................................................................................15 2.1.2.1 My Fountain Design............................................................................................15 2.1.2.2 My Fountain Design with a Central Dispenser....................................................16 2.1.2.3 Central Mixer/Funnel...........................................................................................16 2.1.3 Mixed Drink Delivery System......................................................................................17 2.1.3.1 Flat Conveyors.....................................................................................................17 2.1.3.2 Robotic Arm.........................................................................................................17 2.1.3.3 Glass Elevator and Oblique Conveyor with Conveyor Arm...............................18 2.2 General System Flow Chart.................................................................................................19

2.3 User Interface Design..........................................................................................................20 2.4 Design Methods: System Component Breakdown..............................................................22 2.4.1 Drink Ordering System.................................................................................................23 2.4.1.1 LCD Touch Screen...............................................................................................23 2.4.1.2 Card Swipe...........................................................................................................24 2.4.1.3 Receipt Dispenser................................................................................................24 2.4.2 Bottle Delivery System.................................................................................................24 2.4.2.1 Bottle Racking.....................................................................................................25 2.4.2.2 Helical Conveyor.................................................................................................26 2.4.2.3 Bottle Escalator....................................................................................................26 32.4.2.4 Three-way Chute..................................................................................................26 2.4.3 Drink Mixing System....................................................................................................27 2.4.3.1 Beverage Storage.................................................................................................27 2.4.3.2 Liquid Transport..................................................................................................28 2.4.3.3 Funnel Mixer.......................................................................................................28 2.4.3.4 Funnel Washing...................................................................................................29 2.4.4 Mixed Drink / Draft Beer Delivery System..................................................................29 2.4.4.1 Dishwasher Conveyor..........................................................................................30 2.4.4.2 Glass Elevator......................................................................................................30 2.4.4.3 Rotating Arm.......................................................................................................30 2.4.4.4 Lifting Platform and Platform Base.....................................................................30 2.4.4.5 Oblique Conveyor with Conveyor Arm...............................................................31 2.4.4.6 Rotating Platform and Sliding Door....................................................................32 2.5 System Flow Analysis..........................................................................................................32 2.5.1 Glass Drink Preparation and Delivery System.............................................................33

2.5.2 Bottle Vending and Delivery System............................................................................34 2.6 Time Estimation and Efficiency...........................................................................................36 2.6.1 Best Case Scenario for Mixed Drinks...........................................................................36 2.6.2 Worst Case Scenario for Mixed Drinks........................................................................37 2.6.3 Best Case Scenario for Bottled Drinks.........................................................................38 2.6.4 Worst Case Scenario for Bottled Drinks.......................................................................38 2.7 Drink Storage Capacity of the Automated Bartending System...........................................39 2.8 Speed of the Drink Moving Inside the Delivery System ....................................................40 2.9 Cost Analysis.......................................................................................................................41 2.9.1 Recuperation Time........................................................................................................42 2.10 Quality Function Deployment............................................................................................43 3.0 Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................................47 4.0 Recommendations....................................................................................................................49 5.0 Acknowledments......................................................................................................................50 6.0 References................................................................................................................................51 47.0 Appendices...............................................................................................................................53 7.1 Mixed drink full numerical analysis spread sheet ...............................................................53 7.2 Bottled beer full numerical analysis spread sheet................................................................55 7.3 Cost of AutoBar full numerical analysis spread sheet.........................................................57 7.4 Hand calculations.................................................................................................................59 7.5 Recuperation time and profit full numerical analysis spread sheet ....................................60 7.6 Bartender interviews spread sheet.......................................................................................61 7.6.1 29th Street Caf ............................................................................................................62 7.6.2 Hopscotch at the Custom Hotel ...................................................................................63 7.6.3 Brennan s......................................................................................................................64

7.7 Gantt Chart...........................................................................................................................66 5Table of Figures Figure 1: A Typical Alcohol Vending Machine.............................................................................13 Figure 2: The AutoBar Central Bottle Delivery System................................................................14 Figure 3: My Fountain...................................................................................................................15 Figure 4: AutoBar Drink Preparation System................................................................................16 Figure 5: A Robotic Arm................................................................................................................18 Figure 6: The AutoBar Glass Escalator.........................................................................................18 Figure 7: General Flow Chart for the Automated Bartending System...........................................19 Figure 8: Welcome Page................................................................................................................20 Figure 9: Main Menu.....................................................................................................................21 Figure 10: Customized Drink Ordering.........................................................................................21 Figure 11: Bill Summary Page.......................................................................................................22 Figure 12: Payment Page...............................................................................................................22 Figure 13: The AutoBar.................................................................................................................23 Figure 14: Bottle Delivery System Components...........................................................................24 Figure 15: Three-way Chute with Swinging Bumpers..................................................................26 Figure 16: Drink Mixing System Components..............................................................................27 Figure 17: Peristaltic Pump............................................................................................................28 Figure 18: Mixed Drink / Draft Beer Delivery System Components............................................29 Figure 19: Close-up View of Glass Lifting Platform.....................................................................31 Figure 20: System Breakdown.......................................................................................................33 Figure 21: Drink Preparation and Glass Delivery System.............................................................34 Figure 22: Bottle Vending and Delivery System...........................................................................35 Figure 23: Detailed System Flow Chart.........................................................................................35

Figure 24: Recuperation Time Comparison between Regular Bar and iBar that made more corresponding percentage of profit than the Regular Bar..............................................................42 Figure 25: Profit Comparison between Regular Bar and iBAR within 3 Years............................43 6Figure 26: Sample House of Quality structure with 6 sections numbered and labeled.................44 Figure 27: House of Quality for AutoBar design...........................................................................45 7Table of Tables Table 1: Time needed and improved delivery efficiency for a customer to order a mixed drink. .36 Table 2: Total waiting time and improved delivery efficiency for multiple customers ordering mixed drinks...................................................................................................................................37 Table 3: Time needed and improved delivery efficiency for one customer to order a bottled drink ........................................................................................................................................................38 Table 4: Time needed and improved delivery efficiency for multiple customers ordering bottled beer.................................................................................................................................................38 Table 5: Number of drinks iBAR could serve in one night without alcohols reloading................40 Table 6: Cost breakdown of the automated bartending system.....................................................41 Table 7: Total cost breakdown of the iBAR venue........................................................................41 Table 8: Total scores of the 3 competing designs based on demanded quality weight and competitor s achieved rating..........................................................................................................46 8Nomenclature AutoBar referred to the automated bartending system iBAR referred to the full venue in which the automated bartending system was located 91.0 Introduction/Background The purpose of the study was to design an automated bartending system that eliminated the need for human bartenders, facilitated greater efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of drink orders, and increased bar profits. Problems leading to the conceptualization of this design

resulted largely from the complications associated with obtaining drink orders in crowded bars. Procedures for ordering drinks in crowded, human-tended bars began with brashly pushing other customers out of the way in attempt to physically reach the bar. Once the customer had finally arrived at the bar, he had to catch the bartender s attention and indicate his intention to place a drink order. The specific process associated with the obtaining the bar tender s attention was not standardized, and the general customer service standard of first come, first served did not apply. As a result, customers often argued or fought with one another regarding which individual was next in line . Regardless of the method used, the customer s portrayal of his intention to order a drink was successfully completed when the bartender made eye contact with the customer and gave him a subtle nod of acknowledgement. This non-verbal signal indicated to the customer that he had been added to the bartender s mental queue and that he would be able to place a drink order once the bartender reached his spot in line. Survey data from Liu 1 indicated that this haphazard and non-standardized process resulted in customers waiting an average of 10 minutes and up to a total of 15 minutes to obtain their drink orders. Liu 1 also indicated that over 50% of customers observed the bartender-tocustomer ratio to be between1:15 and 1:20. According to 29 th St. 2 , Brennan s 3 , Hopscotch

4 , and Mansukhani 5 , crowded bars made use of only 4 bartenders on average during peak business hours on crowded nights. Additional complications arose, as bartenders tended to demonstrate favoritism toward high-profile customers, as well as those that were more attractive than other customers or paid higher tips. Further lack of standardization in the human bartending process occurred with regard to the amount of alcohol and associated mixers used in the preparation of mixed drinks, as the specific proportions of drink ingredients varied from one bartender to the next. Bartenders were also prone to misinterpreting drink orders, due to the high volume of noise, characteristic of bar venues. These inherent biases and inconsistencies associated with the drink-ordering process in bars led to complicated ordering procedures, customer arguments, inconsistent drink preparation, and inefficient drink delivery. The automated bartending system in this study was designed to address the complications associated with the human bartending system. 1.1 Goals, Methods, and Results In preparation for the design of the automated bartending system, the following GMR was created. Goals: Designed an automated bartending system for ordering, preparation and delivery 10 Increased efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of the drink ordering process Methods: Created a conceptual design during brainstorming sessions where sketches were used to portray the specifics of design concepts.

Formulated more specific details of the preliminary design by creating functional requirements and completing trade studies. Completed the detailed design of the system by creating a 3D model of the automated bartending system in SolidWorks. Verified the numerical parameters associated with the design through statistical analysis in Excel Results: Modeled components for automated bartending system Improved drink preparation accuracy and consistency Improved delivery efficiency 1.2 Functional Requirements In order to specifically delineate the desired properties of the automated bartending system, the following set of functional requirements was developed: High Level: The system had to be both safe and user friendly Automated Processes: Ordering: o Improved accuracy and efficiency of drink orders Preparation: o Improved drink preparation consistency Delivery: o Improved delivery efficiency by an average of approximately 50% o1 st come, 1

st served 11Sizing: o Fitted in existing facility with a capacity for 200 o Seating area for 21 people o Walk -in area for 27 people From a high level, customer safety and user friendly characteristics were of utmost importance in conceptualizing this design. As this system was designed to serve alcohol, the automated interfaces between the customer and the automated bartending system needed to be easily operated by customers possessing varying levels of intoxication. Additionally, the system needed to be designed in such a manner that customers could order and receive their drinks without causing harm to the automated bartending system or themselves. The automation process was broken into the three categories of ordering, preparation, and delivery. With regard to ordering, the automated bartending design needed to address the haphazard drink ordering process at human-tended bars by improving the accuracy and efficiency of drink ordering. In terms of preparation, the design would need to improve the consistency of drink preparation to eliminate the inherent drink-to-drink variation that occurred with human bartenders. For delivery, the automated system needed to improve delivery efficiency by an average of approximately 50% per order on a given night and eliminate bartender bias by ensuring that orders were processed in the order that they were received. For the sizing and dimensions of the bar, the system needed to be able to fit in an existing bartending facility with a capacity for 200 people and have bar seating for 21 people and walk-in ordering locations for 27 people. 1.3 Design Methods Methods for completing the design of the automated bartending system began with a

conceptual design, initiated by brainstorming sessions and sketching of ideas. Subsequently, the preliminary design process was completed, which included the establishment of the goals, methods, and results, as well as the functional requirements for the system. Additionally, trade studies were completed during the preliminary design process to conceptualize the specific features that would need to be incorporated to meet the functional requirements. High-level and detailed system flow diagrams were then produced to represent the chronological activation of automated processes in this system. Subsequently, a detailed design of the system was produced in SolidWorks, with design iterations completed to ensure that system features fulfilled the functional requirements of the system. The estimated drink preparation and delivery times, as well as the economic feasibility of the system were then verified by statistical analysis in Excel. Quality function deployment (QFD) was completed to compare the automated bartending design with other bartending systems. The finalized design, corresponding statistical analysis, and QFD results were then evaluated to verify the fulfillment of the functional requirements. 122.0 Results 2.1 Trade Studies Trade studies were conducted to determine which design offered the best functionality for the three major subsystems of the AutoBar, which included the bottle delivery system, drink mixing system, and drink delivery system. The trade study findings for these three systems were explained below. 2.1.1 The Bottle Delivery System This subsystem was responsible for delivering bottled drinks to iBAR customers. The standard vending machine and the central dispenser mechanism served as the two options evaluated for use in this subsystem. 2.1.1.1 Vending Machine This option functioned in the same manner as a standard vending machine, as shown in

Figure 1. With the use of this design, multiple vending machines were located in different areas of the bar venue. One of the advantages of this choice was that drink dispensers were available in multiple locations of the bar venue. Additionally, this method of vending was highly reliable and recognizable to customers. However, the use of this vending machine system did not provide the typical bar atmosphere" and also required the use of space outside of the automated bartending system to dispense drinks. Figure 13 1: A Typical Alcohol Vending Machine2.1.1.2 Central Dispenser System The central dispenser, shown in Figure 2, made efficient use of the available space within the automated bartending system by placing all bottle storage racks within the AutoBar. This system also facilitated ease of loading and storage of the bottled drinks. With six beer racks, capable of stocking up to 625 bottles each, this system was easily stocked with a sufficient number of bottles for up to two full nights of bar operation. This central delivery system did bring about a few drawbacks, as this design was more complicated than the vending machine setup. Such complexity increased production costs and also required the use of powered conveyors to facilitate bottle delivery, which increased the time required to deliver the bottled drinks. In spite of these complications, the central dispenser system was chosen for use in the AutoBar, due to the higher stocking capacity and the ability of bar managers to maintain the desired bar atmosphere. 14 Figure 2: The AutoBar Central Bottle Delivery System2.1.2 The Drink Mixing System This system was responsible for preparing mixed drinks and draft beer orders. Three designs were suggested for this system the My Fountain design, the My Fountain with a

central dispenser design, and the Central Mixer/Funnel design. 2.1.2.1 My Fountain Design This design was based on the My Fountain technology depicted in Figure 3. This system enabled the drink to be delivered through a faucet near the customer, similar to the mechanism used in a standard fountain drink dispenser. The delivery of the drink in this system would have been fast with minimal transportation of glasses. However, due to the large size of the intended AutoBar design, this system required a large number of long hoses stacked together for the mixing to take place. Additionally, each faucet required a set of these long hoses, making the assembly of this design a cumbersome procedure. The My Fountain design also limited user friendly characteristics, as the customer needed to place the glass in the right spot at the correct time for the drink to be delivered. The ease with which the customer was able to perform this action varied with the degree of intoxication that he or she experienced. 15 Figure 3: My Fountain2.1.2.2 My Fountain Design with a Central Dispenser This design made use of the same mechanisms of the My Fountain design, with the exception that a central dispenser would be used for all drink mixing. This variation on the My Fountain design reduced the amount of hosing required, but led to complications in pumping the numerous liquid mixtures of varying density to the faucets from the mixer. This design also mandated cleaning of the mixer after the filling of each drink order to prevent phantom taste in the next drink. 2.1.2.3 Central Mixer/Funnel This design consisted of a funnel, which mixed the drink and poured the beverage contents into a glass at a single central location. This design, shown in Figure 4, minimized the hosing required to transport the drinks and enabled easy cleaning of the funnel to avoid the phantom taste. Since this design was also primarily gravity powered, only weak pumps were

required to transport the liquids from the bottled mixers and bottle alcohols through the hosing. The CO2 pressure was already present in the kegs and their regulator system was more than sufficient to move the liquids from the kegs to the central mixer with the help of gravity. Drawbacks associated with this system included the need for conveyor belts to deliver beverages to customers, which added cost to the system and brought about the risk of drink 16 Figure 4: AutoBar Drink Preparation Systemspillage. Additionally, due to the use of a single mixer to prepare all drink orders, drink preparation and delivery time were increased with the use of this system. The minimized hosing, ease of cleaning, and gravity power outweighed the associated drawbacks, and this central mixer/funnel design was chosen for use in the automated bartending system. 2.1.3 Mixed Drink Delivery System This system was responsible for delivering mixed drinks to the costumer and involved handling glasses of various sizes, while ensuring that these glasses were not dropped or spilled. Three designs were considered for this subsystem: flat conveyors, robotic arms, and step conveyors. 2.1.3.1 Flat Conveyors This design consisted of a simple flat conveyor belt, delivering the drinks from the mixer to the customer. Since this design was very simple, the number of required components was minimized and production costs were low. The primary conflict with the flat conveyor design arose in shifting the glass from the conveyor belt to the customer. This process presented a challenge in shifting the glass from the conveyor belt to the customer table, due to the high risk of spillage in the transition of the glass from the moving conveyor to the static table. Additionally, the use of flat conveyors that traveled on top of the bar table also brought about the risk for customer interference with the delivery system.

2.1.3.2 Robotic Arm This system consisted of robotic arms, similar to the one portrayed in Figure 5. The robotic arms were responsible for grabbing the glasses from the mixer and placing them on the customers tables. This setup facilitated efficient delivery, minimized spillage, and was able to transport multiple varieties of glasses. The primary drawbacks associated with this system were the design cost and the safety factors. Robotic arms were expensive to manufacture and integrate within the automated bartending system. Similarly, the intricate programming necessary for these robotic arms also increased the system cost. Additionally, the use of robotic arms increased the risk of customer injury, due to the potential for mishandling of the delivery system by intoxicated users. 172.1.3.3 Glass Elevator and Oblique Conveyor with Conveyor Arm This design, shown in Figure 6, incorporated a multilevel conveyor system and a number of moving arms and platforms to prevent spillage. 18 Figure 5: A Robotic Arm Figure 6: The AutoBar Glass EscalatorThe glass elevator and oblique conveyor design also made use of sliding doors at the drink delivery location to ensure that drink delivery apparatus was exposed to the customer for a minimal period of time. Minimization of customer interaction with this system increased the safety of this design. Additionally, the glass elevator proved less expensive than the robotic arm system and also reduced drink spillage. Disadvantages associated with this system included the large amount of required space for the apparatus, as well as use of a multistage-stage delivery system, which increased the drink delivery time and electrical power usage of the system. In spite of potential disadvantages associated with this system design, the glass elevator setup was chosen for the AutoBar design since this setup fulfilled the high-level functional requirements, ensuring that the AutoBar was

both safe and user friendly. 2.2 General System Flow Chart For design and monitoring purposes, the automated bartending system was separated into different system stages and components. These stages and components were shown in the general system flow chart in Figure 7. Subsystems of the automated bartending system included ordering, mixed drink and draft beer preparation, mixed drink and draft beer delivery, bottle vending, and bottle delivery. The process began when the customers placed their orders through the ordering system. If a customer chose to order a mixed drink or draft beer, the automated ordering system activated the 19 Figure 7: General Flow Chart for the Automated Bartending Systemdrink preparation component to make the beverage ordered by the customer. After the drink was prepared, the drink delivery component delivered the beverage to the customer. Similarly, if a customer chose to purchase a bottled drink, the ordering system would activate the bottle vending component and delivery components to vend and deliver the bottled drink to the customer. Since this design focused on the mechanical development of the automated bartending system, the computer controls and system controls of the automated bartending system were treated as black box system components within this particular design. 2.3 User Interface Design In order to achieve automated ordering and increased efficiency, the AutoBar design featured a digital ordering system. Digital menus were displayed on 27 30mm x 20mm LCD touch screens, embedded in the table. The welcome page was shown in Figure 8. After a customer pressed the Enter button, a main menu displayed all the categories of drinks available at the bar. Six categories of drinks were available, which included draft beer, bottled beer, cocktails, wine, non-alcoholic and beverages, and customized drinks. The items were listed under the corresponding categories

with drink names and prices, as shown in Figure 9. For instance, a customer chose Vodka under the category of hard alcohol and added the item to the order by clicking the right arrow. If the customer had wanted to cancel an item, he or she could click the left arrow. Other drinks were also ordered in the same way. For customized drinks, customers were able to choose the ingredients they wanted, as well as the proportion of each of ingredient used, as shown in Figure 10. The total glass capacity was divided into 5 portions with 20% for each, thus a mixed drink order was completed after the ingredients amounted to 100%. After the total order was finished, the customer pressed the done button to complete the order. Once the order was confirmed, the customer was able to pay by credit, debit card, or prepaid iBAR card, as shown in Figure 11. The customer was then able to print out the receipt after signing his or her name on the touch screen, as shown in Figure 12. 20 Figure 8: Welcome Page21 Figure 9: Main Menu Figure 10: Customized Drink Ordering2.4 Design Methods: System Component Breakdown The methods for meeting functional requirements proposed in the introduction involved the design of a completely automated bartending system, designated as the AutoBar. The venue in which the AutoBar was located was known as iBAR and was divided into two separate floor levels: the upper floor, where the dishwashers operated, and a lower floor, which acted as the bar venue for customers. The AutoBar consisted of four primary systems: the drink 22 Figure 11: Bill Summary Page Figure 12: Payment Pageordering system, the bottle delivery system, the drink mixing system, and the mixed drink or draft beer delivery system. The four systems worked together to create a fully functional bar that served beverages quickly and efficiently, without the use of human bartenders.

2.4.1 Drink Ordering System The drink ordering system made it simple for customers to place orders and pay for beverages at 27 ordering locations around the AutoBar. Each location contained an LCD touch screen, a card swipe reader, and a receipt dispenser, as shown below in Figure 13. 2.4.1.1 LCD Touch Screen Touch screens located at the bar provided an easy and quick method for customers to order beverages and complete transactions. The screens were specifically located in between seats to ensure that non-seated customers still had access to the ordering system. Using the LCD screens, customers could order a variety of drinks, available at the AutoBar, including draft beers, cocktails, bottled beers, wine, and non-alcoholic beverages. The touch screens also 23 Figure 13: The AutoBarprovided the customer with the ability to create customized drinks. When credit or debit card was used as the form of payment, the screen provided a place for the customer to digitally sign receipts. 2.4.1.2 Card Swipe The card swipe, located next to the LCD screen, allowed the customers to use a variety of payment methods to purchase beverages. The bar supported the use of standard debit and credit cards as well as the proprietary iBAR card, which was available for purchase from one of the machines located around the exterior of the bar venue. 2.4.1.3 Receipt Dispenser Customers received standard receipts after each order with their printed signature from the receipt dispenser located directly below the card swipe. 2.4.2 Bottle Delivery System The bottle delivery system was responsible for storing and distributing bottled drinks to AutoBar customers and was comprised of four subsystems: the bottle racking system, the helical

conveyor, the bottle escalators and the 3-way chutes. A diagram of the bottle delivery system s main components was shown below in Figure 14. Additionally, an animation illustrating the functioning of the bottle delivery system was made available in Appendix 7.7 in the file entitled Bottle Delivery System. avi. 24 Figure 14: Bottle Delivery System Components2.4.2.1 Bottle Racking The purpose of bottle racking system was to store, refrigerate and dispense bottled drinks from a central location within the bar that was also easy to reload. A refrigeration unit surrounded the racks to keep the beer cold when the AutoBar was in the operation. The racks were designed to hold up to 625 bottles of one brand of beer on each rack. 6 racks were used to provide adequate beer variety and a total bottle capacity of 3750 beers. This large capacity was developed to ensure that the reloading of beer bottles would not be necessary at the iBAR even on an extremely busy night. In the process of vending bottled drinks, the racks made use of a combination of motors, wipers and a rack and pinion type setup to move the beer bottles. Each rack had 3 stepper motors, each fitted with a slider and a gear (Gear-Motor-Slider or GMS). The sliders acted as guides to move the motors along the outsides of the rack. Linear gears attached to the exterior of each rack and provided a means for the GMS to move back and forth. A long wiper, attached between two of these GMS s, moved columns of bottles over towards the area where they were unloaded in concordance with customer orders. The third GMS moved a single column of bottles down, one bottle at a time, to the vertical chute. In order to keep the bottles from sliding inadvertently into the column of bottles that was headed toward the vertical chute from the other columns, a small lip was placed to ensure that these areas were divided, unless a significant force was applied by the motors and pushed the bottles over the lip and into place. A similar lip was placed at the opening leading to the vertical chute to keep bottles from accidentally sliding out.

When an order for a bottled beer was placed, a bottle from one of the six racks was pushed into the vertical chute. The bottle would then travel down the chute through a series of spring loaded flaps. The purpose of these flaps was to significantly reduce agitation that the bottle would incur, when compared with a situation in which the bottle would simply fall down the chute. As the bottle passed down the chute, these flaps also served the function of blocking the openings of racks on the shelf below the rack in which the bottle was originally dispensed. This design guaranteed that that the bottle would reach the bottom of the chute unimpeded. The racking system was also designed to facilitate an easy reloading process. During restocking, a loading door, which comprised part of the exterior of the AutoBar and the bottle refrigeration unit, was rolled out along two rails. Then the racking system was rolled out of the refrigeration area, to the exterior of the AutoBar along the same two rails. The bottle racks were then removed one by one from the top. An animation illustrating the functioning of the bottle loading system was made available in the Appendix 7.7, in the file entitled Bottle Loading System. avi. The bottles were then loaded onto the bottom rack until this rack was full. This process repeated on each following racks moving upward. The pins connecting the racks were also designed with rotationally asymmetrical pins, which could only be aligned in the correct orientation during reloading. 252.4.2.2 Helical Conveyor After being dispensed from the vertical chute, the bottle arrived on a helical gravity powered roller conveyor, which moved the bottle to specific areas for delivery. The roller conveyor was completely gravity powered due to its helical shape. This conveyor provided 360 degree movement of the bottle around the center of the bar to any one of the 9 powered flap locations. The powered flaps would open when necessary to allow the bottle to drop onto its associated bottle escalator. The powered flaps were also controlled by stepper motors. 2.4.2.3 Bottle Escalator

The 9 bottle escalators facilitated the transport of bottles from the helical conveyor up toward the customer reception locations. The flaps on the escalator s conveyor belt ensured that bottles were lifted to 3-way chutes without the slippage that would occur with a friction based conveyor. The bottle escalator only needed to support the small load of one bottle at a time so a small stepper motor was used to power this device. At the peak of a bottle s travel on the escalator it would drop into the 3-way chute. 2.4.2.4 Three-way Chute Each of the 9 bottle escalators had a three-way chute that enabled the correct distribution of any bottle from the central racking system to any of the 27 customer receptacles. Each threeway chute had 2, two-part swinging bumpers that were used to guide they bottle to the correct customer receptacle located directly below its respective ordering screen. The second part of each bumper was spring loaded to compensate for the geometry of chute, while ensuring that the bottle arrived at the proper destination. The bumpers were connected by a link to keep them pointed in the same direction and thus only required one motor per three-way chute. A diagram of the three-way chute with swinging bumpers was shown in Figure 15. 26 Figure 15: Three-way Chute with Swinging Bumpers2.4.3 Drink Mixing System The drink mixing system utilized hosing and a funnel mixer to dispense various liquids into glasses located on a central mixing platform within the bar. The AutoBar had the ability to produce all of the typical drinks produced at a traditional bar as well as custom drinks requested by the customer. The drink mixing system was comprised of four subsystems: the beverage storage system, the liquid transport systems, the funnel mixer, and the funnel washing system. A diagram of the main components comprising the drink mixing system was shown below in Figure 16. 2.4.3.1 Beverage Storage The AutoBar supported the preparation of a wide variety of beverages, including all

standard beverages found at a standard bar. The storage of the beverage liquids were divided into two groups: keg storage and bottle storage. The keg storage consisted of kegs situated on the dishwasher level, filled with beer, club soda, generic hard alcohol, and other non-alcoholic mixers. These kegs were attached to a pressurized CO2 regulator system, similar to those found in common bars. The modeled design supported the use 16 kegs of any beverage liquids with room for increasing capacity. The kegs were arranged in a circular pattern around the top of the AutoBar and could easily be replaced into the regulator system, using standard regulator hardware. The bottle storage consisted of racks attached to the ceiling of the bar venue, containing brand name hard alcohols, liqueurs and other typical mixers found in a common bar. The racks 27 Figure 16: Drink Mixing System Componentswere arranged in a pattern of rays, which emanated from the center of the AutoBar, with room for increasing capacity. The design included 20 of these rays with 3 racks along each ray. The racks were configured to hold 6 bottles of a single type of liquid. The purpose of having such a large number of bottles was to guarantee that the bottles would not need to be restocked during one night of operation. 2.4.3.2 Liquid Transport Both the keg storage and bottle storage systems were connected to the central mixing area through hoses and were primarily gravity fed. Since the keg system was pressurized using the regulator system it was only necessary to control the flow of these liquids to the central mixer. A flow meter with a valve connected each keg to its respective hose. This enabled the accurate, computer-controlled, volumetric measurement when drinks were being mixed or poured. This systematic and automated drink preparation procedure resulted in a high repeatability factor concerning the proportions of each liquid that were poured into each drink. The bottle storage system was connected to the central mixer by hosing and controlled by

a peristaltic pump. Since the bottle storage system had no pressure control system in place a peristaltic pump was deemed the best way to accurately measure liquid passage, when pouring and restricting flow otherwise. The nature of the peristaltic pump made it easy to associate a specific number of revolutions with an accurate amount of fluid passage. Figure 17 illustrated how a peristaltic pump worked by positive displacement. 2.4.3.3 Funnel Mixer The central mixer served as the location where hoses from the beverage storage systems were terminated. The funnel shaped design of the central mixer ensured that many hoses could be connected at the top of this device, while the small exit area at the bottom of the funnel ensured that the liquids were successfully delivered within the perimeter of the glass rim. Also, the funnel shaped design allowed the liquids to dissipate any speed they may have acquired during transport. The funnel exit was also specifically sized to allow the addition of ice to any 28 Figure 17: Peristaltic Pumpdrink that needed it, from the icemaker located above the central mixer. The industrial icemaker used in the design implements a standard system, found in soda machine ice dispensers. 2.4.3.4 Funnel Washing In order to reduce the influence of phantom taste (Unwanted taste in a drink left over from the drink(s) previously prepared in the funnel) a funnel washing system was devised. After any drink was made in the funnel mixer, a wash cycle was performed to clean the funnel. The first stage in this cycle involved the rotation of a small funnel with a hose, to a location just below the exit of the funnel mixer, using a stepper motor. Next, water from a hose attached to the top of the funnel mixer circulated water over the area inside this component to clean out any residual liquids from the previous drink. This water then fell into the small funnel and the hose carried this fluid to the sewage line. Finally, the small washing funnel was rotated back to its original position.

2.4.4 Mixed Drink / Draft Beer Delivery System The purpose of the mixed drink or draft beer delivery system was to transport clean glasses from the dishwashing room down to the central mixing platform and subsequently, to the customers. A diagram of the mixed drink or draft beer delivery system s main components was shown below in Figure 18. An animation illustrating the functioning of the mixed drink or draft beer delivery system could be found in Appendix 7.7, in a file entitled Glass Delivery System. avi. 29 Figure 18: Mixed Drink / Draft Beer Delivery System Components2.4.4.1 Dishwasher Conveyor The dishwasher conveyor served as the system component used to complete the first stage of the glass delivery process. This system component was located at chest height on the dishwasher floor level to provide easy loading of glasses for the dishwashers. The dishwasher conveyor also acted as a glass queuing system that enabled the dishwashers to place clean glasses on the conveyor at a relatively slow pace. It was only necessary to place enough glasses on the conveyor to ensure that the glass elevator could receive a glass from the dishwasher conveyor upon request. The conveyor was powered by a stepper motor to ensure that glasses were removed from this conveyor one-at-a-time. Additionally, this stepper motor provided enough torque to move all the glasses on the conveyor when it was fully loaded. Each of the 3 dishwasher conveyors transported one type of glasses that the AutoBar system accepted standard (beer) glasses, martini glasses, and wine glasses. Glasses were placed in a rim-down orientation on the dishwasher conveyor to afford a longer drying time and to ensure that they were properly oriented for placement on the glass elevator. 2.4.4.2 Glass Elevator The glass elevator was responsible for transporting the glasses from the upper level of the bar down towards the mixing area. The glass elevator consisted of a vertically oriented conveyor

belt with flaps that extended outward from it. Each of these flaps was designed to carry down a single glass. Each glass elevator was powered by a large stepper motor to ensure the accuracy of the conveyors movements while providing sufficient power to carry the weight of the glasses. The glasses were housed in a glass lowering shield as they descended to both align the glasses correctly for the rotating arm as well as guarantee they could not fall off the elevator. 2.4.4.3 Rotating Arm The rotating arm served to move the glasses from the glass elevator to the lifting platform. The rotating arm was specifically sized to fit any of the 3 types of glasses used in the AutoBar. This compatibility of the rotating arm with each glass size was accomplished by sizing the holder on the arm to have a radius that was slightly smaller than the rims of the glasses but also slightly larger than the bottoms of the glasses. When a glass was requested, one of the 3 rotating arms (depending on the type of glass requested) would rotate so that the holder was concentric with the bottom of a glass on the glass elevator. Next the glass elevator would lower until the glass became supported by the rotating arm. The rotating arm would then swing to align the glass above the lifting platform. 2.4.4.4 Lifting Platform and Platform Base The purpose of the lifting platform was to raise and lower glasses to transport them from a rotating arm, up to the mixing funnel, and down to the oblique conveyors. The lifting platform was aligned vertically using the platform base. A diagram of the components pertaining to the lifting platform and oblique conveyor was shown below in Figure 19. 30The platform base consisted of 3 different configurations of the same triangular extrusion block. Each block had a hole at each of the corners to vertically align the 3 legs of the lifting platform. Each block also had a hinge in the center to which each of the 3 oblique conveyors connected that allowed them to rotate. The lifting platform was powered by a stepper motor attached to the platform base. One of the 3 legs of the lifting platform was geared, to allow

raising and lowering by the stepper motor. When a glass was placed above the lifting platform by a rotating arm, the platform lifted the glass out of the grasp of the arm and up to the funnel mixer, where the glass received the drink contents. The lifting platform was able to move the glass through the arm due to the fact that the radius of the lifting platform was smaller than that of the rotating arm s holder, but large enough to hold the bottom of the glass. After the drink was dispensed into the glass, the rotating arm swung out of the way to allow the lifting platform to bring the glass to the area where it was picked up by one of 3 the oblique conveyors. 2.4.4.5 Oblique Conveyor with Conveyor Arm The purpose of the oblique conveyor was to transport glasses from the lifting conveyor to the rotating platforms near the exterior of the AutoBar. There were 3 oblique conveyors in the design to remove many of the geometry, speed and redundancy constraints that were a problem when using only a single conveyor. Each of the oblique conveyors served approximately a third of the AutoBar s 27 ordering locations. This arrangement meant that each of the ordering locations would always be served by same conveyor every time. The belts on the conveyors were powered by small stepper motors to provide precision movement of the belt and to move the small load of a single drink. 31 Figure 19: Close-up View of Glass Lifting PlatformEach of the oblique conveyors were rotated to the specific ordering location, using a system of 2 gears, a stepper motor, and a geared ring that was attached to the support structure of the AutoBar, as shown in Figure 19 above. As the stepper motor turned the 2 gears, the oblique conveyor was rotated around the center of the bar along the path of the geared ring to align it with a delivery location. The oblique conveyors were fitted with a similar carrying arm to that found on the rotating arm to hold the glasses upright while they were being carried, as shown in Figure 19 above. The arm could freely swing in its bearing which was housed in a nub in the

conveyor belt. The arm was also fitted with a weight to ensure that the glasses were always kept from spilling during travel. When a glass was lowered to a specific point by the lifting platform, the oblique conveyor moved the arm so that it slowly lifted the glass off of the platform. The oblique conveyor then rotated to face the correct delivery location. Next, the glass traveled down the length of the oblique conveyor toward the exterior of the AutoBar where it was placed on one of the rotating platforms. 2.4.4.6 Rotating Platform and Sliding Door The purpose of the rotating platform and sliding door was to work together simultaneously to deliver the glass to the customer, while also restricting customer interference with the AutoBar. The rotating platform was directly powered by a small stepper motor. The sliding door was raised and lowered using a small stepper motor, as well as a rack and pinion gearing system. When a glass was being delivered to an ordering location, the rotating platform at that specific location would rotate to meet the oblique conveyor. Then, the oblique conveyor would slowly lower the glass onto the platform and continue to move the arm back up to the center of the bar. Next, the sliding door would slide open. This door was closed during most of the bar s operating time to hinder unwanted customer interaction. Subsequently, the rotating platform would rotate to the exterior of the bar, carrying a beverage. The sliding door would then close behind the rotating platform and the customer could receive the drink. Once the customer had picked up their drink, the rotating platform would rotate back into the interior of the AutoBar through a small slit at the bottom of the sliding door, which was always open. 2.5 System Flow Analysis In the AutoBar design, customers placed their orders through the touch screen embedded in the table. The menu had options such as mixed drinks, draft beer, and bottled drinks. When a

glassed drink (either a mixed drink or draft beer) was ordered, the drink preparation system and glass delivery system worked simultaneously to fulfill the task; the orders of bottled beer were processed by a different subsystem for bottle vending and delivery, as shown in Figure 20. 322.5.1 Glass Drink Preparation and Delivery System In order to fulfill the drink order, a set of valves and pumps within the liquid pipes in the mixer unit activated, in order to conduct the ingredient to the mixing funnel, shown in Figure 16. The liquid further flowed through the funnel to the glass placed right below it. The opening time of each valve and pump was programmed to meet the liquid amount requirement of each order. After the pumps were closed and the glass was filled, the platform lifted up the glass until the arm could rotate away from the glass. After the loading area was cleared up, the funnel was rinsed by clean water through a pipe connected to a pressurized water keg. As for the glass delivery system, the clean glasses were preloaded on three dishwasher conveyors which delivered the glasses toward three glass elevators within the center column (stage 1), shown in Figure 21. The glasses were loaded upside down when transferred to the vertical conveyors; as the flaps on the elevators rotated to the inner side, the glasses would regain the upright pose. When the glass was about to reach the right vertical position, the arm holder next to the center platform rotated forward to the glass until it was fully seated on the arm (stage 2). Then, the glass was delivered to the central mixing area (stage 3) while the arm rotated back to the original position. The central platform rose for a short distance until the glass was detached from the arm. The arm then swung away as the mixed liquid was poured into the glass. After the mixing was done, the conveyor arm on the oblique conveyor lifted the glass from its bottom and transported it (stage 4) to the rotating platform at the circular bracket (stage 5), which 33 Figure 20: System Breakdownwas located at the center of the table. The platform then swung out of the center column with the glass drink coming out of the sliding door, to serve the beverage to the customer (stage 6). After

the glass was obtained by the customer, the platform swung back into the interior structure of the AutoBar to prepare for the next order. 2.5.2 Bottle Vending and Delivery System When bottled drinks were ordered, the command would be sent to the bottle vending system located below the bar, shown in Figure 22. There were two orthogonal tracks on each rack; one track moved a row of bottles to the edge, and the other pushed the bottle off the rack at the end of the row (stage 1). The bottle then dropped down through the vertical chute to the circular conveyor (stage 2), which had nine slots that each led to a bottle escalator. As the bottle reached the specified slot by gravity power, the flap of this slot would open when the bottle arrived (stage 3). The bottle was then lifted up by the bottle escalator to the three-way chute (stage 4), and the chute guided the bottle to the right sliding track until it reached the customer (stage 5). 34 Figure 21: Drink Preparation and Glass Delivery SystemIn conclusion, the functioning process was presented in the detailed system flow chart shown in Figure 23. 35 Figure 22: Bottle Vending and Delivery System Figure 23: Detailed System Flow Chart2.6 Time Estimation and Efficiency One of the goals in designing the automated bartending system design was to improve ordering, drink preparation and delivery efficiency. Statistical analysis was completed to evaluate the performance of the AutoBar in these areas. As explained in the General Flow Chart, System Component Breakdown, and System Flow analysis sections, there were two different drink delivery methods, one for mixed drinks and draft beer, and one for bottled drinks. In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of the AutoBar for these two drink delivery systems, specific assumptions and statistics regarding

iBAR situations and conditions were used. As noted in the introduction, in a human-tended bar, the average waiting time for a customer to obtain his or her drink order was about 10 minutes. For the automated bartending system the following assumptions were used in time estimation and efficiency calculations: The ordering time for a customer using the touch screen system was 60 seconds The drink preparation time for a mixed drink or draft beer for was 15 seconds The mixed-drink and draft beer delivery time was 20 seconds Bottled delivery time was 20 seconds. These assumptions were justified later in the results section. Two situations were used to evaluate the performance of the automated bartending system. The first situation was labeled as the best case scenario, in which only 1 customer was using the automated bartending system at a particular moment in time. The second condition was known as the worst case scenario in which 30 customers were using the automated bartending system simultaneously. 2.6.1 Best Case Scenario for Mixed Drinks Time Spent On (secs) Orderin g Preparatio n Delivery Total Time (secs) Total Time (mins) Waiting Time

Drop (mins) Efficiency% 60 15 20 95 1. 58 8. 42 84.17 Table 1: Time needed and improved delivery efficiency for a customer to order a mixed drink As shown in Table 1, the time required for the customer to obtain a mixed drink was 1.6 minutes. The waiting time dropped by 8.4 minutes compared with the waiting time at a humantended bar. The improved delivery efficiency, also known as the time reduction, was 84.2%. The efficiency was defined by the equation shown below: 36The average waiting time refers to the waiting time at a human-tended bar, so this value was set to 10 minutes. Waiting time using the AutoBar was the total time required for a customer to obtain his or her drink order, using the automated bartending system. 2.6.2 Worst Case Scenario for Mixed Drinks Time Spent On (secs) Number of Customer Orders Orderin g Prepar ation Delive ry Total Time (secs)

Total Waiting Time (mins) Waiting Time Drop (mins) Efficienc y% 1 60 15 20 95 1. 58 8. 42 84. 17 5 60 75 20 155 2. 58 7. 42 74. 17 10 60 150 20 230 3. 83 6. 17 61. 67 15 60 225 20 305 5. 08 4. 92 49. 17 20 60 300 20 380 6. 33 3. 67 36. 67 25 60 375 20 455 7. 58 2. 42 24. 17 30 60 450 20 530 8. 83 1. 17 11. 67 Averag e 5. 21 4. 79 47. 92 Table 2: Total waiting time and improved delivery efficiency for multiple customers ordering mixed drinks As shown in Table 2, the drink preparation time required to obtain a mixed-drink order increased with the number of customers using the automated bartending system at a given point in time. This increase in drink preparation time resulted from the fact that the AutoBar prepared

all mixed drinks and draft beers with one drink mixer. Conversely, the ordering time and delivery time did not change with the multiple orders at the AutoBar since each customer had his own ordering monitor and the conveyor belts worked continuously to deliver drinks. In the worst case scenario, the last customer obtained his drink in 8.8 minutes. This waiting time was still less than the average 10 minute waiting time at a human-tended bar. Using the AutoBar, the average waiting time customers to receive their drink orders was 5.2 minutes, with an average time drop of 4.8 minutes. This time drop corresponded with an average improved delivery efficiency of 47.9%. A detailed table of waiting time and improved delivery efficiency for multiple customers ordering mixed drinks was included in the Appendix 7.1. 372.6.3 Best Case Scenario for Bottled Drinks Time spent on (secs) Orderi ng Bottle Vending Deliver y Total Time (secs) Total Waiting Time (mins) Waiting Time Drop (mins) Efficiency

% 60 5 15 80 1. 33 8. 67 86. 67 Table 3: Time needed and improved delivery efficiency for one customer to order a bottled drink As shown in Table 3, the time it took for the customer to get a bottled beer was 1.3 minutes. The waiting time dropped by 8.7 minutes compared with the time it took for the customer to get the drink in a human-tended. The improved delivery efficiency, also known as the time reduction, was 86.7%. 2.6.4 Worst Case Scenario for Bottled Drinks Time spent on (secs) Number of Custome rs Orderin g Orderi ng Bottle Vendin g Delive ry Total time (secs)

Total Waiting Time (mins) Waiting time drop (mins) Efficienc y% 1 60 5 15 80 1. 33 8. 67 86. 67 5 60 25 15 100 1. 67 8. 33 83. 33 10 60 50 15 125 2. 08 7. 92 79. 17 15 60 75 15 150 2. 50 7. 50 75. 00 20 60 100 15 175 2. 92 7. 08 70. 83 25 60 125 15 200 3. 33 6. 67 66. 67 30 60 150 15 225 3. 75 6. 25 62. 50 Average 2. 54 7. 46 74. 58 Table 4: Time needed and improved delivery efficiency for multiple customers ordering bottled beer As shown in Table 4, the bottle searching time required for a given order increased with the number of customers using the automated bartending system at a given point in time. This increase in waiting time resulted from the fact that the bottle delivery system was only able to locate one customer-ordered beer bottle at a time. Conversely, the ordering time and delivery time did not change with the multiple orders at the AutoBar since each customer had his own ordering monitor and the conveyor belts worked continuously to deliver drinks. In the worst

case scenario, of 30 simultaneous drink orders, the last customer got his/her drink in 3.8 minutes. This waiting time was much less than average waiting time of 10 minutes at a humantended bar. Overall, the customers obtained their drink orders after an average waiting time of 2.5 minutes, with an average time drop of 7.5 minutes. This time drop corresponded with an average improved delivery efficiency of 74.6%. A detailed table of the time needed and 38improved delivery efficiency for multiple customers to order bottle beer was included in the Appendix 7.2. 2.7 Drink Storage Capacity of the Automated Bartending System It was important to show that the automated bartending system was able to serve drink orders to the customers during operating hours with preloaded alcohols, draft beer and bottle beer without reloading during a given night. The ability of the AutoBar to fulfill all drink orders throughout an evening ensured that the automated bartending system would not require the assistance of any human bartenders. For simplicity, the AutoBar drink storage capacity was evaluated for were bottled beer, draft beer and mixed drinks. - Bottled beer The bottle delivery component in the automated bartending system contained 6 racks of bottled beer. Each rack held 625 bottles. Therefore at any given night, the automated bartending system was able to serve: - Draft beer The automated bartending system had 8 kegs of draft beer for its customers. Each keg of draft beer made 125 pints of draft beer. Therefore at any given night, the automated bartending system was able to serve: - Mixed drink The automated bartending system held 360 bottles of different alcohol. Based on the drink that the customer chose, the glass choice varied. As a result, the number of drinks that were able to be made out of the alcohols also varied. Shown below were some of the

common mixed drinks that customers were able to order and the number of these drinks the AutoBar was able to make in one night, with preloaded alcohols. The equation above gave the number of drinks that were able to be prepared with a given type of glass. The automated bartending system served drinks that included these glass types such as martinis, cocktails, lowballs and highballs. Glass capacities were obtained from Cocktail Mixing Master 6 . 39Glass type Capacity (ml) Number of drinks Martini 250 1080 Cocktail 250 1080 Lowball 250 1080 Highball 350 770 Table 5: Number of drinks iBAR could serve in one night without alcohols reloading As shown in Table 5, if customer-ordered drinks were served in martini, cocktail or lowball glasses, the preloaded alcohols were enough to make 1080 drinks throughout the night. For drinks that used highball glasses, the preloaded alcohols were enough to make approximately 770 drinks at maximum. 2.8 Speed of the Drink Moving Inside the Delivery System Since the drinks and bottles were moving on different conveyors inside the automated bartending system, numerical analysis was completed to ensure that the traveling speed of the drinks and bottles was not too fast, so as to avoid issues such as machine breakdown or safety concerns. For a mixed drink that traveled on the oblique conveyor, the length of the conveyor bell was 2.5 meters. The time that the drink traveled on the conveyor bell was 20 seconds, as stated in Time Estimation and Efficiency section. Therefore, the speed that the drink traveled

was: This speed was a relatively slow, compared to a speed of human walking, which was roughly 3 miles per hour or 1.34 meters per second. Therefore, the velocity at which the drinks traveled on conveyor did cause issues such as excessive drink agitation or spillage. For bottled drinks that traveled on the gravity roller conveyor and the short conveyor, the radius of the conveyor belt was 2.9 meters. The length of the short conveyor bell was 2.5 meters. The total time that the drink traveled on the conveyor bell was 20 seconds, as stated in the Time Estimation and Efficiency Section. The average travel distance was assumed to be half of the total available travel distance, since some of the bottles traveled more and some traveled less than this distance. As such, the speed at which the bottle traveled was: Again, this speed was relatively slow when compared with a human walking speed of 3 miles per hour, or 1.34 meters per second. Therefore, the drink would not incur excessive agitation and the traveling bottle would not create a safety hazard, such as a risk for bottle breakage on the way to the destination. 402.9 Cost Analysis Following quantitative performance evaluations, cost analysis of the automated bartending system was completed to evaluate design and production feasibility of the AutoBar. Below were the material cost breakdown of the automated bartending system, the total cost of the iBAR venue and the time estimation for the iBAR to recuperate its cost. Components Cost ($) Ordering 25112. 00 Drink preparation 6570. 95 Delivery 3622. 00 Bottle delivery 8252. 00 Others 10270. 00

Total 53826. 95 Table 6: Cost breakdown of the automated bartending system As shown in Table 6, the material cost of the ordering system cost almost half of the total material cost of the automated bartending system. The ordering system components were particularly expensive, since this system required 27 touch screen monitors, card readers and receipt printers. The cost of the drink delivery system was not as high, due to the fact that this system was comprised mainly of motors and conveyors, which had no electronic interfaces. The total cost of the automated bartending system was about 54,000 dollars. The cost of a regular bar was 200,000 dollars according to Dean 7 and Knowledge is Force 8 . The automated bartending system was only 27% of this startup cost of a regular bar. It should be noted that the cost of the automated bartending system did not include cost of structuring, modeling, business and alcohol license, employees and other equipment. A detailed table of the material cost of the automated bartending system was included in the Appendix 7.3. Components Cost ($) AutoBar material cost 53826. 95 AutoBar manufacturing cost 8000. 00 AutoBar assembly cost 5200. 00 Design and software cost 22500. 00 College 4000. 00 iBAR structure 100000. 00 Equipment 40000. 00

Liquor storage 10000. 00 Electronics 10000. 00 Employees 4000. 00 License 15000. 00 Total 272526. 95 Maintenance (10% of total) 27252. 70 Total 299779. 65 Table 7: Total cost breakdown of the iBAR venue 41Table 7 showed the total cost of the iBAR venue. Associated costs for college, iBAR structure, equipment, liquor storage, electronics, employees, and license were obtained from Dean 7 . The cost was found to be about 300,000 dollars which was 50% more than a regular bar. This total cost included the material cost of the automated bartending system, calculated in Table 6; the manufacturing cost of the automated bartending system was estimated to be 8,000 dollars for all the sheet metal and plastic materials; the assembly cost of the automated bartending system was estimated to be 5,200 dollars; the design and software cost was estimated to be 22,500 dollars; and other necessary cost that a regular bar needed, such as structure, equipment, liquor storage, electronic systems, employees, liquor, business license and maintenance were also included in this cost estimation. The maintenance cost was estimated to be 10% of the total cost, since the automated bartending system needed regular maintenance and equipment used in AutoBar, such as plates, glasses, stools, tables, bar sets, etc would require regular change and replacement. Detailed calculations of the total cost of the iBAR venue were included in the Appendix 7.4. 2.9.1 Recuperation Time

Assuming a regular bar made a modest profit of $45,000 per month, it would take a regular bar 5 months to recuperate its cost and started to make profit. As a comparison, below was a graph that showed the recuperation time of a regular bar and the iBAR. As shown in Figure 24, the recuperation time for regular bar was less than 5 months. With the conservative assumption that the iBAR that made 10% more profit than the regular bar per month, the iBAR needed a little more than 6 months to recuperate its cost. With the more liberal assumption that the iBAR made 30% more profit than the regular bar per month, the iBAR needed a little more than 5 months to recuperate its cost. However, in the long run, iBAR 42 Figure 24: Recuperation Time Comparison between Regular Bar and iBar that made more corresponding percentage of profit than the Regular Barwas a reasonable and profitable choice. A graph that portrayed the profits of a regular bar and the iBAR over a 3-year timeframe was shown in Figure 25. From Figure 25, it was seen that regular bar did not make as much profit as the iBAR over an extended period of time. With the conservative assumption that the iBAR that made 10% more profit than the regular bar, it took 23 months for iBAR to start making more profit than regular bar. It only took 15 months for an iBAR that made 15% more profit than a regular bar, 12 months for an iBAR that made 20% more profit than a regular bar, 9 months for iBAR that made 25% more profit than a regular bar and only 8 months for an iBAR that made 30% more profit than a regular bar to start making more overall profit than a regular bar. Therefore, in a long run, the iBAR served as a more profitable option, in comparison with a regular bar. Detailed recuperation calculations were placed in Appendix 7.5. In short, all these calculations and results showed that the automated bartending system design was efficient, well-stocked, economically feasible, and profitable in the long run. Some improvements were also found to potentially improve the AutoBar design. Such improvements were included in the recommendations section.

2.10 Quality Function Deployment The quality function deployment (QFD) was a method of taking the demands of the endusers or customers of a product and transforming them into design requirements and engineering 43 Figure 25: Profit Comparison between Regular Bar and iBAR within 3 Yearscharacteristics that described how these demands were met. QFD was used to help designers focus their efforts on improving components of the end-product that improved the product characteristics that customers found most important. A common method of organizing the data from a QFD analysis was in a House of Quality (HOQ). The HOQ was a graphical matrix that related the product s user-demanded qualities, the level of importance each desired quality, and the matter in which product designers met these user demands. Another important aspect of the HOQ was an analysis of the product s competition. Figure 26 showed the basic structure of a standard HOQ template. This matrix was called a house of quality because it was a measure of the quality of the product and its design and the matrix takes the shape of house, as shown in Figure 26. The process of determining the specific customers for which the product was designed, served as the first step in developing a HOQ for product analysis; the customer was any person that interacted with the end-design of the product. It was always important to consider the individuals that experienced the most interaction with the product once it was completed, such that the product design was able to be adjusted accordingly. Without evaluating the perspective of the individuals that experienced the greatest interaction with the product, engineers risked neglecting to adjust the product design to fit all the needs of the customer. For the AutoBar bar patrons and the bar owner served as the product s customers. The AutoBar patrons and bar owner were chosen to fulfill this roles, since these individuals experienced the most contact with the AutoBar. Additionally, the AutoBar patrons and the bar owner were also the individuals that used and purchased the end product, respectively, thus determining the degree to which this

product was profitable. 44 Figure 26: Sample House of Quality structure with 6 sections numbered and labeledThe second step that was taken in developing the HOQ was determining the customer s demanded qualities, which were comprised of the specific user-demanded functions of the AutoBar. These demanded qualities were commonly referred to as the whats of the HOQ. The demanded qualities were created by surveying a variety of bar patrons and bar owners (the customers developed in the first step of the HOQ) regarding the features that they found most important in bar tending facilities. The list of qualities included fast service, accurate delivery of the drinks, user friendly drink ordering procedures, a minimal amount of the drink spillage during preparation and delivery, consistent drink preparation, high drink quality, a bar venue that was safe for inebriated individuals, cheap drink preparation, cheap bar construction, and easy maintenance of the bar. This list was placed in section 1, the left wing of the HOQ (as labeled in Figure 26), as shown in Figure 27. After a comprehensive list of demanded qualities was generated, the next step taken was weighting each quality on a scale of 1 to 10, where a score of 10 indicated that the corresponding quality was extremely important to the customers and a score of 1 indicated the quality was of minimal importance to the customers. The scores were then translated into relative weightings out of a total score of 100. The weights and relative weights were placed section one, the left wing of the HOQ, as shown in Figure 27. The fourth step that was taken in the development of the HOQ matrix was evaluating the existing competition. This step was commonly referred to as the now because it was a look at what existed at the current time and how well the analyzed design compared with the competition. The two competing designs that were compared to the AutoBar design were a 45

Figure 27: House of Quality for AutoBar designregular bar that was tended by humans and the My Fountain product, previously mentioned in the Trade Studies section. Each of the competing designs was objectively analyzed and subsequently rated on a scale of 0 to 5 for each of the customer s demanded qualities; where a rating of 5 indicated that the design did very well in a particular category and a rating of 0 indicated that the design did not meet that demanded quality at all. The ratings were placed in section 2, the right wing of the HOQ in Figure 27. A chart was also generated in the right wing of the HOQ in Figure 27 to graphically represent the same data; the blue circles indicated the AutoBar s score, red squares indicated the score of a regular human-operated bar, and green triangles represented the scores for the My Fountain design. After each design was rated in the various customer-demanded qualities, a total score for each design was calculated by multiplying the weights of each customer-demanded quality by the rating achieved in that quality and then summing up all of those values for each design. The total score for each design was out of a possible 500. The results were shown in Table 8, with the AutoBar design obtaining the top score of 404.5, the My Fountain achieving the second best score of 314. 4 and the human-operated bar getting the lowest score of 293.7. The AutoBar design achieved a total score of over 90 better than the closest competitor, making the AutoBar the best design for both bar patrons and bar owners by a large margin. AutoBar Regular Bar My Fountain Total Score 404. 5 293. 7 314. 4 Table 8: Total scores of the 3 competing designs based on demanded quality weight and competitor s achieved rating The fifth step in developing the HOQ matrix was developing the engineering specifications for the design, commonly called the hows of the HOQ. These parameters determined how the customer-demanded qualities were met by the designers. The parameters for this evaluation were a set of values that were able to be directly measured and used to determine

how well each of the demanded qualities were met by the design. These engineering parameters were placed in section three, the attic of the HOQ shown in Figure 27. The sixth step that was taken for the HOQ was determining the relationships between the previously determined engineering specifications and the customer s demanded qualities. This step was commonly referred to as the whats vs. hows because it answers the question of how to measure what quality? This relationship matrix was placed in section 4, the center of the HOQ in Figure 27. Different symbols were used to portray the correlating relationship between each engineering parameter and demanded quality. The symbol was used to indicate that the symbol was used to symbol

engineering parameter had a strong affect on the desired quality, the

indicate that the engineering parameter and quality had a moderate relationship, the

showed a weak relationship and the cell was left blank when no relationship existed between the engineering parameter and demanded quality. The seventh step that was taken to create the HOQ matrix was determining the level of the relationship between the different engineering specifications. This step was often called the hows vs. hows because it demonstrates the manner in which the different hows were dependent upon one another. This matrix showed both positive relationships (when an improvement on one engineering parameter had a positive effect on the other) and negative 46relationships (when an improvement on one engineering parameter had an adverse effect on the other). The ++ symbol was used when a strong positive relationship existed between the two corresponding parameters, the + symbol showed when a weak positive relationship was there, a symbol was used for weak negative relationships, and a symbol showed a strong negative

relationship between parameters. This step was located section 5, in the roof of the AutoBar s HOQ in Figure 27. The eighth and final step taken in the HOQ matrix was setting target values for the engineering specifications so that a quantitative determination could be used to determine if

customer-demanded qualities were good enough to meet the desired standards. The target values were located in section 6, the basement of the HOQ shown in Figure 27. These targets served as goals to be achieved, so several of the values were taken from the functional requirements and the GMR developed for the AutoBar. After the design was built or a prototype of the design was constructed, it was possible to measure how close the design came to meeting each of the engineering targets. 3.0 Summary and Conclusions Summary: Human bartending processes were not efficient in crowded bars. Inefficient ordering and distribution in crowded bars led to customer frustration and dissatisfaction. Additionally, waiting time for drinks spanned up to 15 minutes on crowded nights, and bartenders often demonstrated favoritism toward high profile customers. The solution to the inefficient bartending processes in human-tended bars was to automate the bar tending system. The goal of automated bartending system was to overhaul all current human bartending procedures and increase the efficiency, accuracy, and reliability of drink ordering, preparation and delivery. Design methods implemented to achieve the design goal began with a conceptual and preliminary design, carried out with brainstorming sketches, functional requirements, and trade studies. Subsequently, a detailed design for the automated bartending system was completed in SolidWorks, and design verification was completed with statistical analysis in Excel. Desired results included modeled components for the automated bartending system, improved drink preparation accuracy and consistency, and improved drink delivery efficiency. Desired results of the AutoBar design included modeled components for the automated bartending system, improved drink preparation accuracy and consistency, and improved drink delivery efficiency. Functional requirements were set for preliminary designs. From a high level perspective,

the functional requirements for the automated bartending system required that this system was safe, user friendly, and capable of receiving orders, preparing drinks, and delivering drinks without human assistance. For the sizing requirements, the design needed to fit in an existing facility that was large enough to accommodate 200 people, with bar seating for 21 people and walk-in ordering areas for 27 people. 47The automated bartending system was divided into 4 different subsystems, which included ordering, mixed drink and draft beer preparation, mixed drink and draft beer delivery, and bottled drink delivery. The ordering system enabled customers to place orders using touch screen technology. Detailed designs of the subsystems of the automated bartending system were created using SolidWorks. The drink preparation system was comprised of components that carried out the processes of glass delivery and drink mixing. The mixed drink delivery system delivered the drinks to the customer, while the bottle delivery system vended bottled drinks and delivered these bottled drinks to the customer. Trades studies were completed on different subsystems of the AutoBar. For the bottle delivery system, a vending machine was compared with the central dispenser design. The central dispenser design was more efficient and was used in the automated bartending system. For the drink preparation system, the My Fountain design, an existing solution, was compared with the central mixer design. The central mixer was a better design and was chosen for the automated bartending system. For the drink delivery system, the conveyor belt was compared with the robotic arm design and the glass escalator design. The glass escalator was simple and unique and was used in the automated bartending system.

Conclusions: 1. The concept of the automated bartending system design was feasible, based on cost estimation. The material cost of the automated bartending system was about 54,000 dollars,

which was 27 percent of the startup cost of a regular bar. The total cost of the iBAR venue was about 300,000 dollars. It would take the iBAR 6 months to recuperate its cost with a profit that was 10% more than a regular bar and 23 months to obtain net profits greater than that of a regular bar. 2. The automated nature of the AutoBar created economical advantages for bar owners. The customers did not need to pay tips to the machine and were able to save their money for more drink purchases. Labor costs were decreased, since bar tenders were not needed. Additionally, the automated processes of the AutoBar enabled customers in the iBAR venue to obtain their drinks in a faster and less chaotic manner than that of human-tended bars. As such, the automated bartending system facilitated greater customer satisfaction than humantended bars, which brought about a greater likelihood that satisfied customers would provide consistent business for the iBAR venue. 3. The AutoBar provided more efficient, user-friendly drink ordering with a first-come, first served delivery process. Statistical analysis found that customers received their drink in an average time span of 5.2 minutes, based on the worst case scenario, which included 30 simultaneous drink orders to the mixed drink preparation and delivery system. In this worst case scenario for mixed drinks, drink delivery efficiency increased 48, when compared with 48the average customer waiting time of 10 minutes in a human-tended bar. For the bottled drink system, statistical analysis found that customers received their drinks in an average time span of 2.5 minutes, based on the same worst case scenario. In this worst case scenario for bottled drinks, delivery efficiency increased by 75% compared with the average waiting time of 10 minutes in a human-tended bar. 4. The AutoBar served as a complete overhaul of current bartending processes and provided the best solution for crowded bar situations when compared with the competition. Quality function deployment was used to compare the automated bartending system to existing solutions.

5. The AutoBar design met the sizing requirements and possessed bar seating for 21 people and walk-in ordering areas for 27 people. 4.0 Recommendations To improve the functional capabilities of iBAR, the following recommendations were proposed as following. 1. Additional glass storage and dispensing mechanisms were suggested to accommodate more glass styles and allow drinks to be served in a more professional way. Additionally, the draft beer mechanism had the potential to be adjusted to reduce foaming when pouring draft beer. 2. The use powered flaps of the helical gravity conveyor had the potential to be changed in such a manner that they directed the bottle to the outside of the conveyor rather than of dropping it onto the bottle escalator. This design adjustment reduced forces on the bottle that could agitate the beer. The addition of cushions to the bottle landing areas was also a method to avoid agitating the bottled drinks en route to their destination. 3. Adding an extra drink mixer to reduce drink preparation time was a manner in which efficiency could have been improved, when multiple customers placed orders at same time. The installation of additional touch screens on the AutoBar was a method that would have increased efficiency of the ordering system. The addition of touch screen ordering devices to the tables surrounding the AutoBar was also another way in which the efficiency of drink ordering could be improved. In this particular situation, a waiter or waitress made make use of a wireless device that indicated which table had placed which drink orders. 494. The adjustment of the AutoBar design to include automated processes that worked parallel within the system was a method to ensure that the AutoBar was still able to function if one subsystem malfunctioned. One potential risk that arose with the AutoBar

design was that, if one subsystem stopped working, the entire AutoBar would not function. The development and implementation of regular maintenance procedures was also another method to keep system working properly for a longer period of time. 5. Adapting the AutoBar design from the current circular formation to fit in non-circular bars was a manner in which this design could have been more adaptive to different bar venues. Redesigning some of the parts to fit within a non-axisymmetric layout was necessary for this adjustment to be made. 6. The customization of LCD screens to include internet access, live TV programs, payable screen games such as photo-hunt, poker, and blackjack was a manner in which the LCD interface could have been upgraded. 7. The addition of an iBAR application to iPhones was a way that the customers could efficiently pre-order their drinks prior to arriving at the bar. 5.0 Acknowledments The following was a list of a few bars and people who aided in the development of the AutoBar design by providing statistics and valuable information. 29 th St Caf Brennan s Pub Hopscotch Robin Mansukhani, Ohio-licensed Bartender Everyone who participated in our online survey - http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE? SID=SV_6Ffm0dust1hIZV2&SVID=Prod 506.0 References 1. 29

th Street Caf Bartender. Personal Interview. 19 April 2009. 2. Brennan s Pub Bartender. Personal Interview. 19 April 2009. 3. Hopscotch Bartender at the Custom Hotel. Personal Interview. 19 April 2009. 4. Mansukhani, Robin. Personal Interview. 25 April 2009. 5. Liu, Qianyu. Bartending Efficiency Survey. Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA, 2009 . 6. COCKTAIL MIXING MASTER. Welcome to the Cocktail Glass Guide. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.cocktailmixingmaster.com/cocktail_glass.html 7. Dean, E. (2008). How Much Money Does it Cost to Open a Bar. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Much-Money-Does-it-Cost-to-Open-aBar&id=1506155 8. Knowledge Is Force When You Use It Wisely. How Much Money Does It Cost To Open A Bar. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.knowledgeisforce.com/money/howmuch-moneydoes-it-cost-to-open-a-bar.html 9. POSMicro. Touch Screen Monitor. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.posmicro.com/touch-screen-monitor.htm 10. POSMicro. Card Reader. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.posmicro.com/cardreader.htm 11. POSMicro. Receipt Printer. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.posmicro.com/RECPRINTERS/ReceiptPrinters.htm 12. SECURE-TECH. Card Dispenser. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.securetechcorp.com/kyt5000.html 13. L.K. GOODWIN CO. LIGHT DUTY PORTABLE PARTS CONVEYOR. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://www.lkgoodwin.com/more_info/hytrol_pca_portable_parts_conveyor/hytrol_pca_p ortable_parts_conveyor.shtml 5114. FOOD SERVICE WAREHOUSE. Modular Flake Ice Machines. Retrieved April 16,

2009, from http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/equipment/modular-flake-icemachines/c3461.aspx 15. MICRO MATIC. Beer CO2 & Nitrogen Regulators. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://www.micromatic.com/draft-keg-beer/regulators-cid-17.html 16. McMASTER-CARR. Sheet Metal. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.mcmaster.com/#sheet-metal/=1mfy33 17. FOOD SERVICE WAREHOUSE. Milk Coolers. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/equipment/milk-coolers/c3764.aspx 18. L.K. GOODWIN CO. GRAVITY ROLLER SPUR CONVEYOR. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://www.lkgoodwin.com/more_info/gravity_roller_spur_conveyor_138/gravity_roller_ spur_conveyor_138.shtml 19. McMASTER-CARR. Plastic. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.mcmaster.com/#abs-plastic/=1mg90g 20. BARSTOOL SUPERCENTER. Prairie View Bar Stool. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://www.barstoolsupercenter.com/Welcome/Prairie-View-Bar-Stool 21. IBM. Small business solutions. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from http://www304.ibm.com/jct03004c/businesscenter/smb/us/en/smallbusiness?cm_re=masthead-_products-_-smallbus 527.0 Appendices 7.1 Mixed drink full numerical analysis spread sheet When iBAR serves 1 customer at a time (Best case scenario) Time spent on (secs) Orderi ng

Preparat ion Delive ry Total time (secs) Total time (mins) Waiting time drop (mins) Efficiency % 60 15 20 95 1.58 8.42 84.17 When all 40 customers order at the same time (Worst case scenario) Time spent on (secs) Orderi ng Preparat ion Delive ry Total time

(secs) Total time (mins) Waiting time drop (mins) Efficiency % 1 60 15 20 95 1.58 8.42 84.17 2 60 30 20 110 1.83 8.17 81.67 3 60 45 20 125 2.08 7.92 79.17 4 60 60 20 140 2.33 7.67 76.67 5 60 75 20 155 2.58 7.42 74.17 6 60 90 20 170 2.83 7.17 71.67 7 60 105 20 185 3.08 6.92 69.17 8 60 120 20 200 3.33 6.67 66.67 9 60 135 20 215 3.58 6.42 64.17 10 60 150 20 230 3.83 6.17 61.67 11 60 165 20 245 4.08 5.92 59.17 12 60 180 20 260 4.33 5.67 56.67 13 60 195 20 275 4.58 5.42 54.17 14 60 210 20 290 4.83 5.17 51.67 15 60 225 20 305 5.08 4.92 49.17 16 60 240 20 320 5.33 4.67 46.67 17 60 255 20 335 5.58 4.42 44.17

18 60 270 20 350 5.83 4.17 41.67 19 60 285 20 365 6.08 3.92 39.17 20 60 300 20 380 6.33 3.67 36.67 21 60 315 20 395 6.58 3.42 34.17 22 60 330 20 410 6.83 3.17 31.67 23 60 345 20 425 7.08 2.92 29.17 5324 60 360 20 440 7.33 2.67 26.67 25 60 375 20 455 7.58 2.42 24.17 26 60 390 20 470 7.83 2.17 21.67 27 60 405 20 485 8.08 1.92 19.17 28 60 420 20 500 8.33 1.67 16.67 29 60 435 20 515 8.58 1.42 14.17 30 60 450 20 530 8.83 1.17 11.67 Average 5.21 4.79 47.92 547.2 Bottled beer full numerical analysis spread sheet When iBAR serves 1 customer at a time (Best case scenario) Time spent on (secs) Orderi ng Bottle vending Delive ry Total time

(secs) Total time (mins) Waiting time drop (mins) Efficiency % 60 5 15 80 1.33 8.67 86.67 When all 40 customers order at the same time (Worst case scenario) Time spent on (secs) Orderi ng Bottle vending Delive ry Total time (secs) Total time (mins) Waiting time drop (mins) Efficiency % 1 60 5 15 80 1.33 8.67 86.67

2 60 10 15 85 1.42 8.58 85.83 3 60 15 15 90 1.50 8.50 85.00 4 60 20 15 95 1.58 8.42 84.17 5 60 25 15 100 1.67 8.33 83.33 6 60 30 15 105 1.75 8.25 82.50 7 60 35 15 110 1.83 8.17 81.67 8 60 40 15 115 1.92 8.08 80.83 9 60 45 15 120 2.00 8.00 80.00 1 0 60 50 15 125 2.08 7.92 79.17 1 1 60 55 15 130 2.17 7.83 78.33 1 2 60 60 15 135 2.25 7.75 77.50 1 3 60 65 15 140 2.33 7.67 76.67 1 4 60 70 15 145 2.42 7.58 75.83 1 5

60 75 15 150 2.50 7.50 75.00 1 6 60 80 15 155 2.58 7.42 74.17 1 7 60 85 15 160 2.67 7.33 73.33 1 8 60 90 15 165 2.75 7.25 72.50 1 9 60 95 15 170 2.83 7.17 71.67 552 0 60 100 15 175 2.92 7.08 70.83 2 1 60 105 15 180 3.00 7.00 70.00 2 2 60 110 15 185 3.08 6.92 69.17 2 3 60 115 15 190 3.17 6.83 68.33

2 4 60 120 15 195 3.25 6.75 67.50 2 5 60 125 15 200 3.33 6.67 66.67 2 6 60 130 15 205 3.42 6.58 65.83 2 7 60 135 15 210 3.50 6.50 65.00 2 8 60 140 15 215 3.58 6.42 64.17 2 9 60 145 15 220 3.67 6.33 63.33 3 0 60 150 15 225 3.75 6.25 62.50 Average 2.54 7.46 74.58 567.3 Cost of AutoBar full numerical analysis spread sheet Components Items Quantity Unit price

($) Total cost ($) Ordering 14" LCD touch screen 30 479.00 14370.00 Card reader 30 40.00 1200.00 Receipt printer 30 179.00 5370.00 Prepaid machine 1 3172.00 3172.00 Miscellaneous 1000.00 Drink Preparation wide conveyor belt 3 48.00 144.00 flapped conveyor belt 3 30.00 90.00 ice machine 1 2793.00 2793.00 Keg regulator 1 43.95 43.95 Metal support 0.15m3 sheet metal 3000.00 Miscellaneous 500.00 Delivery thin conveyor belt 3 24.00 72.00 small motor 30 25.00 750.00 large motor 3 100.00 300.00 Metal support 0.1m3 sheet metal 2000.00 Miscellaneous 500.00 Bottle Delivery refrigeration unit 1 2040.00 2040.00

small motor 70 25.00 1750.00 flapped conveyor belt 9 18.00 162.00 roller conveyor 1 1200.00 1200.00 Beer rack 0.6m3 plastic 1000.00 Metal support 0.08m3 sheet metal 1600.00 Miscellaneous 500.00 Others Stool 30 79.00 2370.00 BAR structure wood & frosty glass 5000.00 Computer controls 2500.00 Metal support 0.02m3 sheet metal 400.00 Total cost 53826.95 57These obtained costs associated with these components of the automated bartending system corresponded with the following sources: touch screen monitor PosMicro 9 card reader PosMicro 10 receipt printer PosMicro 11 card dispenser Secure-tech 12 conveyors L.K. Goodwin 13

ice machine Food Service Warehouse 14 keg regulator Micro Matic 15 metal support McMaster-Carr 16 refrigeration unit - Food Service Warehouse 17 gravity roller conveyor L.K. Goodwin 18 plastic support - McMaster-Carr 19 bar stool Barstool Supercenter 20 computer controls IBM21 . 587.4 Hand calculations - Manufacturing cost - Assembly cost - Design and software cost - Bar profit per night 597.5 Recuperation time and profit full numerical analysis spread sheet Profit ($) Time Regular

bar iBAR 10% iBAR 15% iBAR 20% iBAR 25% iBAR 30% 0 -200000 -300000 -300000 -300000 -300000 -300000 1 -155000 -250500 -248250 -246000 -243750 -241500 2 -110000 -201000 -196500 -192000 -187500 -183000 3 -65000 -151500 -144750 -138000 -131250 -124500 4 -20000 -102000 -93000 -84000 -75000 -66000 5 25000 -52500 -41250 -30000 -18750 -7500 6 70000 -3000 10500 24000 37500 51000 7 115000 46500 62250 78000 93750 109500 8 160000 96000 114000 132000 150000 168000 9 205000 145500 165750 186000 206250 226500 10 250000 195000 217500 240000 262500 285000 11 295000 244500 269250 294000 318750 343500 12 340000 294000 321000 348000 375000 402000 13 385000 343500 372750 402000 431250 460500 14 430000 393000 424500 456000 487500 519000 15 475000 442500 476250 510000 543750 577500

16 520000 492000 528000 564000 600000 636000 17 565000 541500 579750 618000 656250 694500 18 610000 591000 631500 672000 712500 753000 19 655000 640500 683250 726000 768750 811500 20 700000 690000 735000 780000 825000 870000 21 745000 739500 786750 834000 881250 928500 22 790000 789000 838500 888000 937500 987000 23 835000 838500 890250 942000 993750 1045500 24 880000 888000 942000 996000 1050000 1104000 607.6 Bartender interviews spread sheet Busy Night Statistics 125 pints/drinks per keg The 29 St. Caf Brennan's Hopscotch @ the Custom Hotel Average Maximum # of People 100 150 200 150 200 Liquor Used ---0

Vodka - 12 10 11.0 12 Rum - 2 3 2.5 3 Tequila - 1 2 1.5 2 Whiskey - 4 6 5.0 6 Gin - 4 2 3.0 4 Daft Beer (kegs) 8 2 4.8 4.9 8 Bottle Beer (bottles) 50 240 70 120.0 240 Wine 20 4 25 16.3 25 # of Bartenders 4 5 3 4.0 5 Average Tip per drink per order $1 $1 $2 $1.3 $2 How many single drink orders can a

bartender fulfill in 10 minutes 5.00 6.67 25.00 12.2 25 617.6.1 29 th Street Caf 627.6.2 Hopscotch at the Custom Hotel 637.6.3 Brennan s 647.6.4 Robin Mansukani - Ohio-Licensed Bartender Date: April 25, 2009 Interview with Robin Mansukhani: Ohio-Licensed Bar Tender At peak hours, how many people are in your bar at a given time? o 75-100 during peak hours, but depends on the bar Liquor: (Bottle being 1/5 th ) o Vodka: Most popular: 2 o Rum 1.5-2 o Tequila: 1 bottle o Whiskey: 1.5-2 o Gin 1.5-2 Bottle Beer (Bottles) o 300-400 bottles Draft Beer (glasses) (either or) Nicer bars won t be draft beer o 1 Keg of each kind per night:

o 4-5 kinds o 4-5 kegs How many bartenders are working on a busy night? o 3, sometimes up to 4 ( 3 main, and 1 bar back) What s the average tip ($ or percentage) o Drinks: 1 dollar per drink. (4-12 dollars) o 15-20% for Tab o 1 dollar per drink for rounds o 15-20% if tab How long on average does it take you to fill a drink order o 1 drink: o Round of Drinks: o 12 drinks in 8 minutes: goal Required for certification o Martini: 1-2 minutes o Mixed Drink 20 seconds o Beer: 10 seconds 65 How many single drink orders can you fulfill in 10 minutes on a busy night? o 10 max o 3 mins 7.7 Gantt Chart 66