Running Head: 260 Final Report

Mec E 260 Major Design Project

Final Report

Group 12
Running Head: 260 Final Reports
Dallas White
Sam Tseung
Harpreet (Harry) Singh
Trevor Bayne
Nicholas Kwasny

Dr. Cagri Ayranci

260 Final Report

Contents
1

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Description ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.1

Chassis ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.2

Back drive train ................................................................................................................. 6

2.3

Clutch system and turning ................................................................................................ 7

2.4

Shooting ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.4.1 Power transmission...................................................................................................... 8

2.4.2 Launching mechanism.................................................................................................. 8
3

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1

Insurance Day .................................................................................................................... 9

3.2

Test day ............................................................................................................................. 9

3.3

Launcher Success .............................................................................................................. 9

3.4

Predicted Speed ............................................................................................................. 10

3.5

Maneuverability ............................................................................................................. 11

Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 11
4.1

Gantt Chart ..................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 13
5.1

Summary of results ........................................................................................................ 13

260 Final Report

5.2

Suggested Improvements ............................................................................................... 13

5.3

Suggested Future Competitions ..................................................................................... 14

5.3.1 Sam Tseung ............................................................................................................... 14

5.3.2 Trevor Bayne ............................................................................................................. 14
5.3.3 Dallas White .............................................................................................................. 14
5.3.4 Harry Singh ............................................................................................................... 14
5.3.5 Nicholas Kwasny ........................................................................................................ 14
6

References .............................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix 1

Speed Calculations .................................................................................................. 16

Appendix 2

Launching Distance ................................................................................................. 18

Appendix 3

Gantt Chart ............................................................................................................. 19

Appendix 4

Design Drawings ...................................................................................................... 20

Appendix 5

Progress Report ....................................................................................................... 92

260 Final Report

Figure 1 Dog Clutch .......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 Speed Calculations ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3 Launching Distance .......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4 Gantt Chart....................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5 Title Page .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6 Rendered Front View ....................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7 Drawing Tree Page One .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 8 Drawing Tree Page 2 ........................................................................................................ 23
Figure 9 Drawing Tree Page 3 ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 10 Drawing Tree Page 4 ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 11 Drawing Tree Page 5 ...................................................................................................... 26
Figure 12 Drawing Tree Page 6 ...................................................................................................... 27

260 Final Report

Abstract

The objective given for this project is to design a remote controlled vehicle that will start from
one side of the competition track, drive to the other side of the court and shoot nine preloaded ping
pong balls in to the hoop at the 3 point line at 3 different sections during the first round, and free
throw line during the second round given 1 minute and 30 seconds for each round.
The strategy for this problem is to incorporate a motor to drive a one way clutch system in the
front wheel that enables steering in one direction and compression of launcher ram in another direction
through various gear ratios calculated. Another motor is placed at the back of the chassis to provide
vehicle movement through low gear ratios to translate in to the higher torque required. The launching
mechanism used was to combine a ram loaded compression spring with a set of teeth at the bottom and
a gear with three sections of teeth spaced apart to provide slips between meshing of gears and sudden
burst of extension in the compression spring and the launcher ram. This ensures that the vehicle would
stay intact and would not suffer from bends and breakages from component loads during the operation.
Calculations were done in variables until the very last step to prevent redundancy in calculations and
account for the changes the team might incur during the manufacturing process.
The predicted performance of this vehicle are its capability to drive past the courts center line,
launch, and score a minimum of six out of nine preloaded balls with high accuracy. During the test day,
the vehicle scored zero out of the nine preloaded balls in the first round but successfully scored two out
of the nine preloaded balls in the second round. There was a ten basket difference in performance
between the predicted and the actual test day outcome. This is largely due to the teams inability to
construct vehicle parts in very specific dimensions and shapes, improper worm gear meshing, and team
members controlling of the motors during test day may alter the predicted results. The vehicles speed
turned out to be 0.45 m/s which was a 81% difference from the predicted speed of 0.25m/s (Appendix
1, figure 2).

260 Final Report

Description

The final design was comprised of five major components described in the progress report.
These five components where: the chassis, the back drive system, the turning system, the firing
mechanism, and finally a clutch plate system to link the previous two. Over all, the final design was very
similar to the initially planned design outlined in the progress report. However due to some
manufacturing difficulties and realizations during the testing phase, some changes were made to ensure
that the vehicle would be in working condition and competitive during the test day.

2.1

Chassis
The chassis of the final design (Appendix 4.29) was triangular in shape and built out of sheet

metal. The only two changes made to the chassis were to cut off the front point, and to add a support
underneath. The first of the changes was made to shorten the overall length of the vehicle and to
remove unnecessary weight. The second change was made because the vehicle was bending more than
was determined to be acceptable since an initial bending calculation was not completed.

2.2

Back drive train

Initially the vehicle was driven by a motor attached to a gear box which contained four sets of

gears to achieve a gear ratio of 60:1. During the building and testing phase, the gear ratio was deemed
to be too large and risked damaging the motor. Therefore the back drive train was adjusted (Appendix
4.37) to a worm attached to the motor to achieve a gear ratio of 20:1. Another set of two spurs which
was attached to the shaft and the axel to achieve a gear ratio of 5:1 providing an overall gear ratio of
100:1. This however slowed the vehicle down but not enough to change the overall time that was
allotted to moving the vehicle.

260 Final Report

2.3

Clutch system and turning

The vehicles turning and firing systems where both initially planned and implemented by using

a clutch plate system (Appendix 4.13, Appendix 4.16) attached to the second motor. This utilized the
motors two directional capability and applied it by turning the front wheel in one direction while the
motor was in the first directional state, and driving the firing mechanism while in the second directional
state.
The clutch system, as designed and built, was a column that had two clutches. These clutches
were a clutch plate design that was similar to a dog clutch (figure 1). If the driving plate was moving in
the desired rotational direction it would catch the driven plate and rotate the assembly. If the driving
plate was rotated in the other direction, the driven plate would skip up and down and would not rotate
the assembly. The two drive plates received power via a shaft which was driven by a spur (a 50 mm
module 1 in the metric module system). This spur was attached to a worm which was attached to the
motor. The worm to the spur then produced a 50:1 gear ratio for the turning and firing systems. The
clutch system as well as the turning system which was attached to the clutch received no changes and
both were built as designed.

Figure 1 Dog Clutch

260 Final Report

2.4
2.4.1

Shooting
Power transmission
The final component of the vehicle was the firing system. This launching system had two smaller

sub components. First was a system of gears attached to an acrylic, these gear had a dual purpose. The
first purpose was to transfer power from the clutch system to the launcher. Power was transferred 90
by a bevel gear. This Bevel was attached to the same shaft as the driving spur which drove a series of
gears. The original design intended the driving spur to be the same size as the final spur in the series to
provide a 1:1 gear ratio. When the vehicle was built a decision was made to reduce the risk of damaging
the motor by lowering the gear ratio from 1:1 to 4:1. This was achieved by changing the driving spur
from a 40mm module 1 gear to a 10mm module 1 gear while maintaining the final gear to be a 40 mm
module 1 gear. This change in gear ratio gave an overall gear ratio from the motor to the launcher of
200:1. The second purpose of the system of gears was to provide distance from the clutch column to the
launch so that there would be room to install the launcher and the supports that went along with it.
2.4.2

Launching mechanism
The original plan for the launcher mechanism was to incorporate compression spring in to the

launcher ram, and have a launcher gear that is connected to the set of gears attached in the acrylic
board with the same shaft mesh another gear with teeth in three sections spaced apart to produce slip
between mentioned gear and launcher rams teeth underneath. However, after thorough testing,
adjustment in gear ratio was needed to convert to higher torque in the gears, it was determined that
the motor provided insufficient motor torque to handle the force of the spring connecting to the
launcher ram. The design decision was reached to replace the compression spring to tension spring
since the tension spring required significantly less force leading to a much less powerful strike in the
launching mechanism.

260 Final Report

3
3.1

Results

Insurance Day
During insurance day the vehicle was able to leave the start zone, as required by the

competition rules. The vehicle was however unable to cross the center line of the competition area, due
to binding of the rear drive worm gear with the rear axle spur gear. This resulted in no points being
gained from the insurance test, but qualified the vehicle for test day competition.

3.2

Test day
On test day the vehicle was unable to get any of the balls into the net during round 1. This was

due to one of the balls in the loader jamming part way between the loading tube and the launcher
barrel. The launcher ram was therefore not able to make contact with the loaded ball. The vehicle was
reset to the starting zone where the balls were unjammed and a second attempt was started. Two balls
were able to be launched from the vehicle, which missed the net due to lack of distance, but the vehicle
qualified for the second round. In round 2, two balls went into the net; one from the second and third
sets of balls loaded. Two balls were loaded into the barrel at a time, with the third in the loader, which
led to the first ball leaving the barrel with enough speed to reach the net from the free throw line.

3.3

Launcher Success
In the progress report (progress report, p. 14) it was predicted that the vehicle would be able to

get six of the nine balls into the net during each round. As described above, complications with the
launching system resulted in zero balls entering the net in the first round. It was discovered after this
round of competition that a larger diameter ping-pong ball had been used in the final size adjustment of
the loading tube. This resulted in the smaller, shop-supplied balls, falling into the barrel before the
launcher ram was in the full rearward position, which caused the first two balls to jam together out of

260 Final Report

10

reach of the launching ram. During the end of the first round, and the duration of the second round, the
launcher was able to release balls but did not provide enough power to get them into the net as
designed. This issue arose from the spring component of the launcher. A tension spring was used in the
final design, which allowed the electric motor to be able to operate the system, but upon release did not
provide the power required to get a ball to the net in most cases. Calibrating the spring tension for
increased distance resulted in the launcher being inoperable due to power losses in the gear train and
the power output of the motor. The spring system was left at a safe level throughout to ensure balls
would leave the barrel and avoid jamming of the launchers components. It was found that when two
balls were placed into the barrel of the launcher at once, the outermost ball would travel a greater
distance during one shot of the launcher, compared to a single ball being placed into the launching tube.
During the competition, after the first three balls were fired one at a time, without reaching the net, it
was decided that two balls would be placed in the barrel at once to try to get a ball to reach the basket.
This proved successful, but resulted in a lower number of chances at making a basket.

3.4

Predicted Speed
It was predicted that the vehicle would move at 0.25 m/s across the court in 15 seconds. The

test day results had the vehicle moving at 0.45 m/s which was an increase of 81% in the predicted speed
(Appendix 1, figure 1). The launcher was predicted to fire three balls in 4.84s (progress report, p. 14)
when in reality it took 1.1s (progress report, p. 26, figure 28). This increase in speed in both cases was
likely due to the motor operating in a higher range on the torque vs angular speed graph (progress
report, p. 32, figure 36) than what was predicted.

260 Final Report

3.5

11

Maneuverability
The maneuverability of the vehicle was almost as predicted. One unexpected problem was that

the wheel responsible for steering turned at a very rapid pace. It was quite difficult to aim the vehicle
accurately in a timely manner, but after some testing the vehicle could be controlled fairly reliably.

Discussion

There were many difficulties and unexpected challenges that came up along the course of the
building stage. One of the first obstacles that were faced was attempting to bend some of the smaller
sheet metal parts. These proved to be too small to bend on most of the tools that were provided in the
shop. These parts were often fabricated by hand in the bench vice or by using smaller objects such as
dowels to create the small loops. The original design for the ram in the launcher called for a shroud that
did not completely support the ram. This resulted in the ram not being properly supported throughout
the firing cycle. A new design was conceived and implemented that better housed and supported the
ram throughout its cycle. This new design included longer sheet metal panels along the top, bottom and
sides of the ram that guided it along its path as the spring pushed it forward. There were some
difficulties locking gears to their respective shaft, but ultimately these were overcome by either
mounting a wire through the shaft and into the face of the gear, or by getting the machine shop
personnel to fabricate an insert.
Further on in the building process, more problems arose relating to strength of parts and
binding in some of the gear trains. The first major issue was that some of the parts that were made on
the 3D printer using the Polyjet process were not as strong as anticipated. The launcher gear (Appendix
4.47) and the bottom clutch plates (Appendix 4.22) were the two parts most affected by this. They both
ended up cracking under load and therefore had to be replaced. The clutch parts were reprinted on the

260 Final Report

12

Fused Deposition Modeling printer, while the launcher gear was cut from the acrylic plate and both
functioned as designed. The top clutch output shaft ended up causing a binding issue in the drive train
due to its wire connecting it to the shaft binding with the sheet metal supporting the assembly. This was
resolved by bending a small sheet metal ring around the wire to allow it to slide over the sheet metal
bracket more smoothly, without binding.
In the final stages of building, some major issues became apparent. First, the gear ratios that
were chosen did not work out as previously thought. The weight of the vehicle put too much of a load
on the rear motor. The launcher gear also did not have enough power to fully compress the spring and
cycle through one launch. Both of these problems were remedied by lowering the gear ratios of both
gear trains. The rear drive trains final gear ratio was 100:1 and the launchers gear train was 200:1.
These new values helped significantly in the vehicles performance by easing the load on the rear motor
and increasing the torque on the launcher gear. However, the torque needed to fully compress the
compression spring on the launcher ram was still not achieved. To overcome this, the design was
modified by incorporating a tension spring with a longer shaft. This modification greatly reduced the
torque required and the launcher gear was able to extend the spring fairly easily. This modification,
however, also reduced the speed with which the ping pong balls left the barrel and the distance they
travelled on the court. Another major issue was getting the worm and the spur gears to mesh properly.
The rear drive trains worm gear started to push against the spur and thus, damaged the spur. Extra
brackets were added to the design to overcome this problem by holding the worm gears in place and
having it mesh properly with the spur. A similar bracket was added to the front motor as well.
The building process of the car, if finished early, would have provided more testing time which
would have proved valuable towards the vehicles final results and its performance during the testing
day.

260 Final Report

13

4.1 Gantt Chart

The Time Management chart was followed relatively well, with the exception of the part
drawings and building time. Both of these steps took significantly longer than expected, likely due to
their complexity. Throughout the building process, many problems came up that required slight
modifications to existing parts. These modifications took time to implement and therefore, due to lack
of time, the part final part drawings were delayed.

Conclusion

5.1 Summary of results

The vehicle was able to score two out of eighteen possible baskets during competition. The
speed of the final vehicle design was measured to be 0.45 m/s and the launcher firing rate was 3 balls in
1.1 seconds. The ball travel was measured to be 0.566m across the court.

5.2

Suggested Improvements
Some improvements suggested are to use simpler designs yet feasible leading to ease of

manufacturing and fabricating an identical vehicle as designed. An even lower gear ratio would also be
needed to improve torque in wheels and the compression spring in previous design. Another option
would be to not use a compression spring and work around designing better implementation of the
tension spring. Worm gears should not be used for future improvements due to the inaccurate meshing
of teeth, and suggested to use more spur gears to translate motor torque. The use of nuts and bolts to
replace spot welding greatly encourages part replacements and design changes within the vehicle.

260 Final Report

5.3

14

Suggested Future Competitions

5.3.1

Sam Tseung
For next years MecE 260 project each group should design and construct a vehicle that able to

knock down an object attached to another groups vehicle. The competition consists of two groups
competing to be the first to remove the opponent vehicles object.
5.3.2

Trevor Bayne
Vehicles could be built that are able to pick up several ping-pong balls from the playing area

surface and drop them into a bin, either one at a time or as many as possible.
5.3.3

Dallas White
Vehicles could be designed to go through a simple obstacle course while knocking down targets.

The group that does it the quickest and/or most targets knocked down wins.
5.3.4

Harry Singh
Vehicles compete against each other trying to score the most goals with a ping pong ball. The

goal could be blocked by a block with certain openings in it. The team that manages to get the most
goals in the least amount of time wins.
5.3.5

Nicholas Kwasny

Vehicles move a ball up and down while driving around a court to reach different levels of hoops.

260 Final Report

15

6
1)

References

Ayranci, C. (2014). MECE 260 Mechanical Design I Fall 2014 Design Project

Handout. Retrieved from E-Class.

2)

White, D., Bayne, T., Singh, H., Seung, S., & Kwasny, N. (2014). Mec E 260

Major Design Project Progress Report. University of Alberta, AB, Canada.

3)

What is a Dog Clutch? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-

dog-clutch.htm
4)

Various design tips from Mec E 260 T.A.s and Machine shop personnel.

260 Final Report

16

Appendix 1

Figure 2 Speed Calculations

Speed Calculations

260 Final Report

17

260 Final Report

18
Appendix 2

Figure 3 Launching Distance

Launching Distance

260 Final Report

19
Appendix 3

Figure 4 Gantt Chart

Gantt Chart

260 Final Report

20
Appendix 4

Design Drawings

Appendix 4.1 Title Page

Figure 5 Title Page

260 Final Report

21

Appendix 4.2 Rendered Front View

Figure 6 Rendered Front View

260 Final Report

22

Appendix 4.3 Drawing tree page 1

Figure 7 Drawing Tree Page One

260 Final Report

23

Appendix 4.4 Drawing Tree Page 2

Figure 8 Drawing Tree Page 2

260 Final Report

24

Appendix 4.5 Drawing Tree Page Three

Figure 9 Drawing Tree Page 3

260 Final Report

25

Appendix 4.6 Drawing Tree Page 4

Figure 10 Drawing Tree Page 4

260 Final Report

26

Appendix 4.7 Drawing Tree Page 5

Figure 11 Drawing Tree Page 5

260 Final Report

27

Appendix 4.8 Drawing Tree Page 6

Figure 12 Drawing Tree Page 6

260 Final Report

Appendix 4.9

28

260 Final Report

29

Appendix 4.10

260 Final Report

30

Appendix 4.11

260 Final Report

31

Appendix 4.12