Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mechanical Engineering
Some basic specifications regarding the overall design of the robot include:
• All apparatus included in the robot must be equal to or less than eighty
kilograms. (Rule #21)
• Robot must be able to maneuver to the excavation zone collect the regolith
and return to the collector within 15 minutes (Rule #3, #10)
• The technology incorporated into the design of the robot must be useable in a
lunar environment. No physical or fundamental processes that could not occur
on the moon will be used to aid in excavating regolith. (Rule #25)
• At the start of the competition attempt, the entire robot may not occupy any
location outside the footprint defined by Rule #24:
○ The area of a 1.5m by 0.75m square forming the cell adjacent to the
Collector.
○ No taller than a height of 2m.
• All systems do not need to be “space qualified” for the lunar vacuum,
electromagnetic, and thermal environments. (Rule #26)
• The robot must have a red emergency stop button of a minimum diameter of
5cm on the surface, which will kill all power and motion with 1 push. (Rule
#22)
The aforementioned specification helped give way to the design which was chosen
as the starting point during ME490, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The initial robot design chosen in ME490
Drive system and Excavation – Zak Griffa, Mike Varga, Eugen Zinn
Structure and Hopper –Rafael Arndt, Jonathan Block, and Mike Riley
The robot being built has six main elements to its design, the drive system, control
system, sensors, excavation, hopper and structure. Having worked exceptionally
the previous year, the drive system and control system will be rebuilt with the same
design. The design team however elected to redesign the other four systems.
Design for this project has been divided into three stages. The first stage was the
research and planning portion of the design process. During this stage it was
important to develop a base model of the design and determine the feasibility of
each part of the design using a qualitative perspective.. The second stage of the
design process was to take the base model from the previous part and build on it.
During this stage it was important to perform detailed design and modeling as well
as implement engineering analysis to determine whether the design could perform
quantitatively. The final stage will consist of creating the final design and vigorously
testing it before taking it to the competition.
Beyond just the design of the subsystems, there were several overall design
considerations: the stability, the weight, and the overall dimensions of the robot.
The Design:
Sensors:
Situational awareness was a major concern for the design team this year. Learning
from last year, it was determined that there had to be a minimum amount of
measurement done. Navigation of the robot was the primary concern, leading the
team to create network camera experiments to determine lag, vibration, settling
time, and range of vision. Last year, the hopper’s maximum load was exceeded,
causing the machine to break during unloading. To avoid this, Matlab coding was
written to determine if a spring/switch combination could be used for measuring the
weight of the hopper. Also, bump sensors were designed and created to test the
possibility of using switches to protect the robot from collisions. The proposed
sensor system includes 2 network cameras, one forward facing and one rear facing.
4 LED lights will be placed at the top of the structure to provide orientation from the
overhead cameras in the arena. A multi spring/switch mechanism is being built to
give the operator knowledge when specific weights have been reached in the
hopper. And lastly, bump sensors will be placed around the robot for
obstacle/collision avoidance.
Control System:
The excavator will be controlled remotely from a computer communicating via a Wi-
Fi link. Control systems will be implemented using a National Instruments sbRIO-
9623 controller board and LabVIEW Robotics software. This version of LabVEIW was
specially designed to offer programming functionality, movement subroutines, time
management, and speed control.
Drive System:
The 2010 robot drive system designed by the Lunar Baggers performed very well
during the competition, so well that The Manatee Mining Systems team has decided
to reverse engineer the track systems and modify them enough to fit the 2011
robot. The only modifications being that the gears used in the previous design are
no longer available for purchase this year.
Excavation:
Following the same route as our predecessors in 2010 and 2009, the Manatee
Mining Systems team has chosen to use a “Bucket-Chain” excavation system
primarily because of the simplicity and the quick excavation rate it can provide. The
design of the excavator this year consists mainly of “off-the-shelf” components,
from MISUMI. These components were analyzed and found to be sufficient for the
loading applied to the excavator during the excavation process. Other tasks
performed by the excavation team include determining the excavation forces on the
buckets, excavator, and transmitted to the frame due to the resistance of the
material. The torque loads on the shafts and the necessary gear ratios and motor
specifications were also calculated. Finally, the excavation rate was calculated to
determine whether the excavator would be able to fulfill the minimum requirement
of at least 10kg of simulant in 15 minutes. We found that with a reduction in gear
ratio, the excavator could fill the hopper (approximately 28kg) if necessary. A
complete model of the excavator can be seen in Figure 2, shown on page 5.
Structure:
The primary task of the frame is to support the hopper and the excavation systems.
The frame mainly consists of ¾ inch steel tubing. The base is much like last year’s
design, with two small rectangular box frames resting on the drive system tracks.
The main supports of the frame connect to these using vertical and horizontal
members. The main supports will then be reinforced with gusset and diagonal
framework. The supports for the excavation system allow for manual adjustment of
the angle of attack of the excavation unit. To connect the excavation system and
the hopper to the main supports, two custom brackets were designed.
All potential high stress areas of the frame needed to be analyzed to determine any
possible modes of failure. The main supports were analyzed for buckling and
bending. The excavation system is largely supported using two pins on either side,
which needed to be analyzed for the maximum principal stress. Other components
that needed to be analyzed for the maximum principal stress were the custom
brackets, any fasteners in the system, and the excavator braces. Additionally, all
the small components needed a fatigue life analysis. The frame was designed to
have a factor of safety of 1 in an extreme worst case scenario, and a factor of safety
of 4 in a typical loading scenario.
Hopper:
The dumping hopper mechanism will consist of a hopper with 2 sidewalls, a movable
backwall and a flapgate. Two linear actuators, two ropes, a spring and two brush
seals are also part of the dumping system. The flapgate is connected via both ropes
to the backwall which is movable. The linear actuators are attached to the sidewalls
from outside and are able to open the flapgate. So if the linear actuators start to
open the flapgate, the regolith is falling out of the hopper. After a while the backwall
starts moving too, just in case that the regolith doesn’t slide itself into the collector
box. Attached to the movable backwall are on each side brush seals which have two
tasks. 1st they have to seal the gap between backwall and sidewalls and 2nd they
have to make sure the smooth movement of the backwall during dumping. The
spring which is attached at the bottom of the backwall is connected also to the
frame; its task is to pull the backwall back after dumping process is completed. The
amount of regolith that can be dumped is 30.5kg with fluffy regolith: ρ=0.75g/cm3
(73.3kg with compacted regolith: ρ=1.8g/cm3). It has to be dumped across a wall
with the height of 1m. The hopper will have a volume of 40715cm3(≈41 liters) and is
separated from the excavation unit. The hopper will hang on two horizontally
beams, one on each side, which are supported by vertical beams. Switches in
connection with springs or sensors, which will be attached to the supporting beams,
will be used to measure the weight of the hopper during excavation.
Final Thoughts:
Additional analysis may be performed between the printing of this document and
the final presentation on Friday, February 25th; therefore all values may be subject
to change. Additionally, during the building process some unforeseen factors may
alter the final design of the system.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................3
Manatee Mining Systems Subgroups:...................................................................4
The Design:..............................................................................................................5
Sensors:................................................................................................................5
Control System:....................................................................................................5
Drive System:.......................................................................................................5
Excavation:...........................................................................................................5
Structure:..............................................................................................................6
Hopper:.................................................................................................................7
Final Thoughts:........................................................................................................7
Table of Contents........................................................................................................8
Table of Figures.........................................................................................................11
Table of Tables..........................................................................................................14
Project Background...................................................................................................15
Project Statement..................................................................................................15
Design Specifications.............................................................................................15
Overall Specifications.........................................................................................15
Drive Train and Chassis......................................................................................16
Material Handling................................................................................................16
Controls/Power....................................................................................................17
Environment.......................................................................................................17
Maintenance.......................................................................................................17
Materials.............................................................................................................18
Ergonomics.........................................................................................................18
Finish..................................................................................................................18
Safety.................................................................................................................18
Design Time........................................................................................................18
Background Research............................................................................................19
Excavation..........................................................................................................19
Frames/Linkages.................................................................................................22
Sensors and Electronic Devices..........................................................................25
The Lunar Regolith..............................................................................................27
Conceptual Designs...............................................................................................29
Feasibility...............................................................................................................30
Detailed Design.........................................................................................................31
The Excavator........................................................................................................32
Nomenclature.....................................................................................................33
Introduction........................................................................................................33
Calculation..........................................................................................................36
Experimental Setup............................................................................................39
Experimental procedure.....................................................................................40
Excavator components list..................................................................................41
Forces on the components of the excavator.......................................................42
The Structure.........................................................................................................48
Frame.................................................................................................................48
Engineering Analysis...........................................................................................49
Hopper Support Posts Analysis...........................................................................51
The Hopper.........................................................................................................61
Moving backwall concept:...................................................................................76
Sensors and Other Electronics...............................................................................82
Experimentation:................................................................................................85
Current Design:...................................................................................................89
Possible Changes:...............................................................................................90
Detailed Budget........................................................................................................91
Environmental Impact...............................................................................................93
Materials Contained in the Design.........................................................................93
Track system:.....................................................................................................93
Excavation:.........................................................................................................94
Hopper:...............................................................................................................94
Electrical:............................................................................................................95
Structure:............................................................................................................95
Materials or chemicals to be used in the design....................................................95
Special handling instructions..............................................................................95
Special storage instructions................................................................................96
Disposal Instructions...........................................................................................96
Timeline....................................................................................................................98
Excavator Sub-team Time Line..............................................................................98
Structure Sub-Team Timeline................................................................................99
Appendix A..............................................................................................................100
Excavator Components........................................................................................100
Appendix B..............................................................................................................115
MATLAB Code for Hopper Spring/Switch Simulation.............................................115
Appendix C..............................................................................................................116
Bill of Materials....................................................................................................116
Structure...........................................................................................................116
Appendix D..............................................................................................................120
Material Safety Data Sheets:...............................................................................120
References..............................................................................................................124
References
Table of Figures
Figure 1: The initial robot design chosen in ME490.....................................................4
Figure 2: Complete model of the excavator................................................................6
Figure 3: Rotary Excavator........................................................................................19
Figure 4: Linear Excavator........................................................................................20
Figure 5: Bucket Conveyor........................................................................................20
Figure 6: Bucket Conveyor........................................................................................21
Figure 7: Apparatus for Collecting Soil (Patent Number: US005588230)..................21
Figure 8: Cross Sectional Area Styles........................................................................23
Figure 9: Tubular Frame............................................................................................24
Figure 10: Light Frame-Perpendicular Connections...................................................24
Figure 11: Frame-Panel Support................................................................................25
Figure 12: Diagram of the formation of Lunar Regolith.............................................27
Figure 13: The various shapes of lunar regolith........................................................28
Figure 14: Concept 1 - A bucket/ brush system with wheels.....................................29
Figure 15: Concept 2 - A bucket conveyor with tracks..............................................29
Figure 16: Concept 3 - A bucket wheel collector with a screw-drive mobility system
..................................................................................................................................30
Figure 17: A complete model of the excavator.........................................................32
Figure 18 failure wedge in soil in front of the blade (1)............................................34
Figure 19 excavation blade.......................................................................................35
Figure 20 forces act on blade (1)..............................................................................35
Figure 21 Excavation force vs. scoop angle..............................................................38
Figure 22 Excavation force vs. tool angle.................................................................39
Figure 23 Excavation force vs. digging depth...........................................................39
Figure 24 Experimental Setup...................................................................................40
Figure 25: Free body diagram of the excavator........................................................42
Figure 26: Finding the stress concentration factor due to the step in the shaft........44
Figure 27: Notch-sensitivity factors for steels. (From Shingely and Norton)............44
Figure 28: Moment diagram......................................................................................45
Figure 29: Upper and Lower Frame...........................................................................48
Figure 30: Rear Support Welds and Front Support Welds.........................................50
Figure 31: Parallel Fillet Weld Diagram.....................................................................50
Figure 32: T-Joint Weld..............................................................................................51
Figure 33: The typical loading scenario of the hopper..............................................52
Figure 34: The worst case loading scenario..............................................................52
Figure 35: The top view of the hopper given full capacity........................................53
Figure 36: Fixed-Fixed ends in terms of column analysis..........................................54
Figure 37: Side view of the excavator and its support post at full capacity:.............56
Figure 38: The excavator beam analyzed in Ansys...................................................57
Figure 39: The hopper support bracket.....................................................................58
Figure 40: The hopper support bracket as analyzed in Ansys...................................59
Figure 41:The excavator pin support as analyzed in Ansys......................................60
Figure 42: The pin for the excavator pin support in Ansys........................................60
Figure 43: Excavator side supports as analyzed in Ansys.........................................61
Figure 44: Hopper geometry.....................................................................................62
Figure 45: center of gravity (sideview).....................................................................63
Figure 46: Rough basic 3D-model.............................................................................64
Figure 47: Closed flapgate (storage position)...........................................................64
Figure 48: Start of dumping......................................................................................65
Figure 49: End of process..........................................................................................65
Figure 50: Hopper divided in sections.......................................................................66
Figure 51: Fg distribution..........................................................................................67
Figure 52: Triangle of forces.....................................................................................67
Figure 53: Supporting points.....................................................................................68
Figure 54: Cantilever theory.....................................................................................68
Figure 55: Fn distribution..........................................................................................69
Figure 56: Stress distribution....................................................................................69
Figure 57: Deflection of backwall..............................................................................70
Figure 58: Wall movement........................................................................................71
Figure 59: Angles definitions.....................................................................................71
Figure 60: Active and passive cases.........................................................................73
Figure 61: Stresses in the flapgate...........................................................................74
Figure 62: Forces acting on the flapgate...................................................................75
Figure 63: Deflection of flapgate...............................................................................75
Figure 64: Centroid of hopper backwall (side view)..................................................76
Figure 65: Distance of equilibrium point...................................................................76
Figure 66: Backwall in dumping position 1................................................................77
Figure 67: Backwall in dumping position 2................................................................77
Figure 68: Backwall in dumping position 3................................................................78
Figure 69: Backwall in equilibirum point...................................................................78
Figure 70: Isosceles triangle.....................................................................................79
Figure 71: Maximum dumping position of backwall..................................................79
Figure 72: Necessary stroke......................................................................................81
Figure 73: Center Aligned Switch..............................................................................86
Figure 74: Off-center switch......................................................................................87
Figure 75: Hopper loading switch..............................................................................87
Figure 76: Wire..........................................................................................................88
Figure 77: Plate.........................................................................................................88
Figure 78: Double-Switch Plate.................................................................................88
Figure 79: Spring Plate..............................................................................................88
Figure 80: Double-Switch Spring Plate......................................................................88
Figure 81: Alternative Double-Switch Spring Plate....................................................88
Figure 82: Horizontal Switch Support........................................................................89
Figure 83: Vertical Switch Support............................................................................89
Figure 84: Slotted Bracket Support...........................................................................89
Figure 85: Linksys Model WVC80N-RM Network Camera..........................................89
Figure 86: A Limit Switch..........................................................................................89
Figure 87: LEDs.........................................................................................................89
Figure 88: Hopper Closure Switch.............................................................................90
Figure 89: Rotary Encoder.........................................................................................90
Figure 90: Excavator Bill Of Materials.....................................................................100
Figure 91: Roller bearing designs complete with mounting apparatus. The excavator
will utilize the compact bearing design...................................................................101
Figure 92: Timing belt pulley used to transmit power between the gearbox and the
excavator drive shaft..............................................................................................101
Figure 93: Stepped drive shaft for the sprockets on both ends of the excavator....101
Figure 94: Idler sprockets used on the excavator...................................................102
Figure 95: Idler shafts used to add stability to the frame and also allow the idler
sprockets to function...............................................................................................102
Figure 96: Side Rail - Non motor.............................................................................103
Figure 97: Structural brace.....................................................................................104
Figure 98: Actuator mounting bracket....................................................................105
Figure 99: Driven shaft of the excavator assembly.................................................106
Figure 100: Excavator Bucket.................................................................................107
Figure 102: CIM Motor used in the excavator and the track systems......................108
Figure 103: P 80 gearbox used in the track system and the excavator..................109
Figure 104: P80 Gearbox.........................................................................................110
Figure 105: The engineering drawing of the lower frame.......................................116
Figure 106 The engineering drawing of the upper frame........................................117
Figure 107: The engineering drawing of the hopper support bracket.....................118
Figure 108: The engineering drawing of the excavator pin support........................118
Figure 109: The engineering drawing of the excavator side support......................119
Figure 108: The engineering drawing of the excavator side support
Table of Tables
Table 1: Elemental composition of the lunar regolith and two different lunar regolith
simulants...................................................................................................................28
Table 2 Material properties.......................................................................................38
Table 3 Excavation properties...................................................................................38
Table 4: MISUMI component list for the excavator....................................................41
Table 5: Equivalent Radial Load Factors for Ball Bearings........................................46
Table 6: Dimensions and Ratings for Single Row 02-series Deep-Grove and Angular
Contact Ball Bearings................................................................................................47
Table 7: Properties of 3003 Aluminum Alloy.............................................................63
Table 8: Force acting on backwall.............................................................................66
Table 9: Force acting normal on backwall and datasheet for circle function.............68
Table 10: Stresses in backwall..................................................................................69
Table 11: Values for deflection..................................................................................70
Table 12: Deflection data..........................................................................................70
Table 13: Variables for earth pressure calculations..................................................73
Table 14: Determined values....................................................................................73
Table 15: Determined stresses.................................................................................74
Table 16: Values for deflection..................................................................................74
Table 17: Determined deflection value.....................................................................75
Table 18: Sensor Hierarchy.......................................................................................83
Table 19: Bump Sensor Alternatives.........................................................................88
Table 20: Bump Sensor Mounting Alternatives.........................................................89
Table 21: Manatee Mining Systems robot design expenses......................................92
Table 22: Components included in the track assembly.............................................93
Table 23: Components include in the excavator assembly.......................................94
Table 24: Components included in the hopper assembly..........................................94
Table 25: Components included in the electrical system..........................................95
Table 26: Excavation Sub-team ME491-ME492 Timeline..........................................98
Table 27: Structure Sub-Team ME491 Timeline........................................................99
Table 28: Structure Sub-Team ME492 Timeline........................................................99
Table 29: CIM Motor specifications..........................................................................109
Table 30: Lower Structure BOM...............................................................................116
Table 31: Upper Frame BOM...................................................................................117
Table 31: Upper Frame BOM
Project Background
Project Statement
The Manatee Mining Systems Team is designing a robot capable of competing in the
Lunabotic’s Mining Completion hosted by NASA. This completion simulates an
actual mining mission on the moon. The surface of the moon is not like the surface
of Earth. Everyone can agree that the Earth is rich with life. This fact is true for
both above and below the Earth’s surface. The soil composition on Earth contains a
great deal of organic material. Even the term “soil” infers that there is organic
material in the composition. The moon does not have life, thus the surface material
of the moon is called regolith. This regolith is rich with useful elemental
components such as Iron, Silicon and Helium-3. If these materials can be collected
from the moon’s surface, then they can be processed and used to manufacture
components for space shuttles and stations in space. This would essentially solve
the biggest problem facing the space program today, gravity. Almost all energy
used by space shuttles is used to escape the Earth’s gravity and leave Earth’s
atmosphere. If the shuttle could start in a low orbit the energy needs would be
greatly reduced. This means larger ships capable of taking longer trips could be
used.
Design Specifications
The robot design the Manatee Mining Systems team has chosen will meet all
competition rules and requirements to avoid disqualification. The design of the
drive train and chassis will allow the robot to move across the lunar regolith. The
material handling apparatus will contain the equipment required to excavate,
convey, and dump the collected material; attempting to reach the goal of 10 kg
(minimum) of regolith moved in the 15 minute time limit. The control of the robot
will be semi autonomous and will contain on board power for all subsystems. All
labor and materials utilized to design and construct the final design will comply with
the specifications listed below and will comply with the NASA competition rules as
we know them. They are subject to change.
The robot will compete in a 7.38m long by 3.88m wide area filled with 1m of
compacted regolith stimulant. Three obstacles with dimensions of twenty to thirty
centimeters and a mass of seven to ten kilograms will be placed inside the
competition area. There will also be two craters of varying depth and width no wider
or deeper than 30cm. The drive train of the robot must allow for avoidance or the
displacement of the rocks by the robot in a way such that time and energy
requirements are minimized.
Overall Specifications
Based on the performance of the 2010 MSOE robotics team the following
specifications are feasible.
• All apparatus included in the robot must be equal to or less than eighty
kilograms. (Rule #21)
• Robot must be able to maneuver to the excavation zone collect the regolith
and return to the collector within 15 minutes (Rule #3, #10)
• The technology incorporated into the design of the robot must be useable in a
lunar environment. No physical or fundamental processes that could not occur
on the moon will be used to aid in excavating regolith. (Rule #25)
• The assembly and disassembly of the robot in the competition area must be
performed in less than ten minutes before the start and five minutes after the
conclusion of the completion to avoid disqualification/time penalties. (Rule
#9)
• At the start of the competition attempt, the entire robot may not occupy any
location outside the footprint defined by Rule #24:
○ The area of a 1.5m by 0.75m square forming the cell adjacent to the
Collector.
○ No taller than a height of 2m.
• All systems do not need to be “space qualified” for the lunar vacuum,
electromagnetic, and thermal environments. (Rule #26)
• The robot must be designed so that no part of the robot passes more than 15
cm beyond the confines of the outer wall of the Sandbox and the Collector
during normal operation.
• The robot will not be designed with the requirement of being anchored to the
regolith surface prior to the start of the competition attempt. (Rule #12)
• The robot shall not be designed such that it requires to be placed on the
regolith surface with more force than its own weight. (Rule #28)
• In the event that the robot excavates its way to the bottom of the Sandbox,
no part of the robot may use the bottom of the sand box for support. (Rule
#19)
• The robot must have a red emergency stop button of a minimum diameter of
5cm on the surface, which will kill all power and motion with 1 push. (Rule
#22)
Material Handling
• Target excavation requirement is 10 kg (qualification minimum) in 15
minutes.
• Excavation will be accomplished by means of a continuous bucket method.
• The Collector will be 0.48 meter wide, by 1.65 meter long, and the walls will
rise to an elevation of 1m above the Regolith surface. The excavation
hardware must be able to deposit material at this height. (Rule #15)
• The Collector will be placed so that it is next to the outer wall of one of the
Sandbox sides.
• The distance between the inner side of the Sandbox and the inside edge of
the Collector will be between 17 cm and 30 cm.
• Excavation Hardware may NOT excavate regolith located in the starting cell
at any time during the competition attempt. (Rule #17)
• Excavation hardware may not change the physical or chemical properties of
the regolith in a way that endangers the uniformity between competition
attempts. (Rule #27)
• The excavation hardware cannot use the walls of the Sandbox to accumulate
regolith. (Rule #18)
• The excavation hardware may not use explosives or other ordnance.
Controls/Power
• The robot control circuitry must be protected by a single fuse for safety.
• The excavation circuitry & hardware supply voltage will come from 2
batteries.
• The excavation control circuitry shall be powered by a separate power supply
apart from the hardware i.e. motors & some sensors.
• The telerobotic operator is only allowed to use data originating from the
excavation hardware. The telerobotic operator shall be visually and
auditorally isolated from the excavation site. (Rule #20)
• Any data communication between the excavation hardware and the
telerobotic operator must be communicated over the provided network link
that limits data transmission bandwidth to 5.0Mbps. (Rule #23)
Environment
• The robot must be able to drive and perform an excavation routine without
parts misaligning, disassembling, buckling, or fracturing.
• The robot may sustain only minor surface damage and wear due to contact
with the regolith surface, stones, and sandbox boundary. This surface
damage can not affect the operation of other components.
• Components of the robot that, during the course of normal operation, are
near material handling equipment or the drive base must be able to withstand
the impact of 10 kg stones in the event that one be accidentally excavated or
collided with.
• Rotating and sliding elements, such as bearings, linear actuators, or guide
rails, must be designed such that regolith build up is prevented. Build up will
cause excessive and premature wear on shafts, guide wheels, and other
precision components.
Maintenance
• Worn or damaged parts should be replaced rapidly and with ease without the
need for any specialty tools.
• Standard fasteners and assemblies should be utilized wherever possible, and
modular designs should be practiced where applicable.
• The robot must be able to operate normaly even when it is not completely
regolith free. Components that do need to be kept regolith-free should be
designed so that removal of the regolith can be done rapidly and easily with
minimal disassembly of the robotic assembly.
Materials
• The materials used in the construction of the robot must be easily fabricated,
readily available, and contain properties that sustain the necessary forces
determined for the component for which it will be manufactured to produce.
• Materials exposed to the regolith must resist rapid corrosion induced by the
coupling of the abrasive properties of the material and exposure to the
atmosphere and the oxidation process.
Ergonomics
• The robot must be light enough that it can be lifted and placed onto and off
the Sandbox surface with relative comfort and relative ease of two to four
individuals using a team lift technique.
• Critical components should be able to be accessed comfortably and with very
little physical effort.
• All control apparatus required to operate the robot through teleoperation
should be located such that it is comfortable and easily to accessed by the
“pilot”.
Finish
The robot is representing each of the students involved, the advisor,
Milwaukee School of Engineering, and all of the sponsors and corporate contributors
of the project. Therefore, the robots final configuration will be attractive and give
the impression of a quality, well engineered product. However, the functionality of
the robot outweighs the appearance of the robot, and the visual aspects of the robot
shall not interfere with the robot’s operation.
Safety
The process by which the robot navigates the Sandbox, excavates the
material, and deposits the material into the collector shall not pose a threat of
danger to person farther than 25 centimeters away from the device while in normal
operation.
Design Time
The Lunar Regolith Excavator Student Competition takes place May 25-28,
2011. A fully functioning robot will be completed by May 4th to allow two full
weeks of strategy deployment and testing of the systems’ integration.
Background Research
Excavation
Rotary Excavator
A plurality of sets of an excavating vessel and an associated soil discharging
plate are mounted on an endless rotary member in an excavator in such a manner
that said excavating vessel goes behind said associated soil discharging plate and
the free end is placed well into the excavating vessel. The free end can discharge
the soil at a predetermined position.
Linear Excavator
An excavating apparatus having a prime mower with a longitudinal centerline
and a main frame with an engine, a ground drive system and an excavation boom
operatively attached thereto wherein the excavation boom has a first end and a
second end. 1st end is pivotally attached to the main frame along a main frame pivot
axis. Main frame axis is transverse to the longitudinal centerline of the prime mover.
A head shaft is attached to the 2nd of the boom. The excavation drum is mounted
onto the head shaft in a manner that the excavation drum cooperates with the
excavation chain and a fixed cutter pattern to stay in consistent alignment with the
fixed cutter pattern.
Figure 4: Linear Excavator
Bucket Conveyer
Bucket conveyor provided with a frame having upwardly inclined spaced
parallel guide rails which support the bucket for up and down movement along the
inclined guide rails.
Bucket Conveyer
Bucket conveyor comprises a drive pulley and at least one guide pulley with
endless traction cable means engaged over the guide pulley and the drive pulley. A
bucket member of a conveyor trough has an axle thereon each side and with a
pulley on the axle. In one embodiment the pulley is pivotal on the axle and in
another embodiment the pulley is fixed on the axle. In addition the construction
includes a guide pin on the trough on each side of the axle and the endless traction
cable is trained around each guide pin and has a loop engaged over the pulley
between the pins. Construction is applicable both for a fixed bucket in respect to the
traction cable or a bucket that pivots or swings in respect thereto and in which the
bucket pulley is rotatable on its bucket axle.
Frames/Linkages
Construction Machine
United States Patent No. 5,006,988, Construction Machine
While this patent was not related to an autonomous machine, it provided several
key points pertinent the framework of a mobile vehicle that is subjected to loads,
such as:
Frame Design
There are countless options for frame designs. This research report will only be able
to scratch the surface. The two areas of frame design that will be focused on in this
report will be overall frame styles, cross-sectional areas of support rods, and
attachment methods.
If the four corner post method is used then it will have to be stabilized by methods
such as
Attachment Methods
Methods to attach the perpendicular members of the frame include
• Welding
• Brackets with Bolts
• Socket
• Clamps
• Snap mechanism
• beam
• Tube
• Rod
• Hollow shapes
• Solid shapes
Patent # 4,049,082 contains different cross-sectional area styles made from a thin
material. This patent was for strut or gusset supports, but could potentially be used
in any support rod on the excavator.
Figure 8: Cross Sectional Area Styles
Patent #2,546187 is for a window frame, but the tube style design could be useful,
and a light weight metal mesh might be able to add some axial structural support.
Patent #6,604,710 is for light aircraft frame, the method for connecting
perpendicular rods might be useful.
Figure 10: Light Frame-Perpendicular Connections
The sensor could be very useful for the project, especially if incorporated into a
camera system.
5790241
Load Cells
A load cell generally uses a mechanical system, a strain gauge, and an electronic
amplification device. As force is applied to the mechanical system, it is then
transferred to the strain gauge. The strain can then be converted into an electrical
output and then amplified to tell how much force was originally applied.
The main location that a load cell could be used is in the measuring of the hopper.
As regolith is dumped into the container, the team needs to know when the
minimum competition requirements of weight have been met.
Shimazoe et al. [inventor], June 19 1984, “Load Cell,” United States Patent
4,454,771
How is it Formed?
The lunar regolith is formed as a result of tiny impact reactions. Microscopic
metirites impact the moon’s surface as such intense speeds the particles eventually
fuse together. This is why the surface material is said to behave much like glass
powder.
Figure 12: Diagram of the formation of Lunar Regolith
Health Risks
The Lunar Regolith is very fine and irregular shaped with very sharp edges. These
sharp edges allow it to stick to anything, including the inside of lungs. This also
gives the material very abrasive properties, as well as a health risk when inhaled.
Feasibility
All of the concepts derived from the ME490 portion of the design process have been
found to be feasible. The concerns with concept lie mainly with the mobility system.
As seen in last year’s competition, wheeled robots were not able to perform as
effectively as their tracked counterparts. The wheels did not have enough contact
surface area so the shear force on the surface of the regolith overcame the amount
of force required to keep the regolith together. This resulted in much sliding and a
loss of traction. The concerns with concept 3 are also with the mobility system.
Last year’s team performed a large amount of engineering on the track system and
in effect pioneered the technology of track systems here at MSOE. Using a screw-
drive mobility system would require a large amount of resources to design and test.
The team has decided to use its resources on other aspects of the design so the
track system from last year was reverse engineered and will be used again this
year.
By going with concept 2 the team has chosen to build a robot very similar to the
robot used in last year’s design. The performance of the 2010 robot in the
competition was very promising, with a few major setbacks. The team this year
hopes to tackle those setbacks and build an award winning robot.
Detailed Design
The Manatee Mining Systems Team has chosen to build on the 2010 MSOE Robotics’
team design because of its proven ability in field last year. One element from the
2010 robot that will not be modified is the track system. This allowed resources to
be focused on the excavator, the structure, and the sensor systems associated with
the robot. One issue that did arise with the track system was the lack of
documentation left behind by the 2010 team, this lead to the reverse engineering of
the track system. A complete model of the robot can be viewed in Figures 2 through
5.
The Excavator
Just as in previous years, the excavator apparatus was chosen to be bucket-chain
system. This allows for a minimum amount of components, while retaining a quick
excavation rate. By using a bucket-chain excavator the need for an additional
conveyor or digging apparatus is negated. The bucket chain excavator is capable of
digging the regolith up, and conveying it up to the hopper. Two other excavation
methods were chosen as possible alternatives; a brush collection system, and a
machine using a bucket-wheel excavator in conjunction with a conveyor belt.
The 2010 team demonstrated that a bucket conveyor could quickly fill up a hopper
as large 32kg within a few minutes, so in the interest of weight conservation the
digging width of the excavator was reduced to approximately 350mm. This
reduction in width allowed the team to exchange the reduction in width for an
increase in the overall length of the excavator.
Figure 17: A complete model of the excavator.
Nomenclature
ah = blade acceleration in horizontal direction [m/s2]
ahR = horizontal robot acceleration [m/s2]
av = blade acceleration in vertical direction [m/s2]
an = radial acceleration [m/s2]
at = tangential acceleration [m/s2]
c = soil cohesion [N/m2]
d = depth of excavation [m]
Fside = side friction [N]
Fblade = friction on the blade [N]
g = gravitational acceleration [m/s2]
T = total excavation force [N]
q = surface surcharge [N/m2]
KPE = dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient
K0 = earth pressure coefficient at rest
LW = length of failure wedge at surface [m]
PP = passive earth pressure [N]
w = width of excavation blade [m]
W = tool length [m]
Wb = weight of excavation blade [N]
Ws = weight of soil wedge [N]
α = inclination angle of blade [°]
αp = inclination angle of failure wedge [°]
β = inclination angle of side friction [°]
β1 = external friction angle [°]
γ = unit weight of soil [N/m3]
δ = friction angle between soil and blade [°]
ϕ = internal friction angle [°]
φ = inclination angle of acceleration [°]
θ = shear plane failure angle [°]
ρ = mass density of soil [kg/m3]
ε = tool angle [°]
v = robot driving speed [m/s]
r = radius of motion of blade [m]
n = rotation speed of blade [1/min]
dmax = maximal digging depth [m]
ω = angular velocity [1/sec]
ϛ = scoop angle [°]
Introduction
For a scientific way of designing excavation machinery it is necessary to calculate
the resistive force of the material. To separate material, the excavation blade must
overcome the resistive force. Since the task is to excavate lunar regolith which is a
soil material the research was focused on force calculation models that are based on
soil mechanics.
Research has shown that there are different models available to calculate
excavation force but all of them were limited to specific application range and
excavation parameters. To get the most accurate result for the desired excavation
operation it was necessary to compare all of these methods and pick a model that is
most suitable for the own excavation operation.
For calculation of excavation force of the bucket chain system the Zeng Model
(Zeng, 2006) was picked since it was considered to be the most suitable Model for
the own realization of excavation.
The Zeng model is the only one that takes the tool acceleration under consideration.
For a worst case calculation we have to consider an acceleration of the blade wile
excavating.
Figure 18 shows the excavation blade and the resulting failure wedge in front of the
blade.
This model assumes that the soil in front of the excavation blade will form a triangle
during the digging process. The triangle represents the shape of failed soil wedge
depicted in Figure 18. According to this model, the excavation force T (Figure 20),
which is applied by the blade in the excavation process, is expected to face the
resistive force F (Figure 18).
This resistive force is defined by several soil parameters like the soil cohesion (c) or
the internal friction angle (ϕ), pressure of soil located within the failure wedge (γ), as
well as the soil above the failure wedge (q), which in means for this specific
excavation process is meant to be very small. The material dependent parameters,
for JSC-1A, have been already tested and defined by the company ORBITEC, which is
a leading subsystems integrator and high technology development company based
in Madison.
Since all excavation force calculations were developed for linear movement of the
blade it was necessary to accommodate the Zeng model to make it more suitable
for a rotational movement of the blade. Figure 19 shows the principal function
structure of the bucket chain system.
Figure 19 excavation blade
All calculations were done for the worst case scenario to get a higher safety factor
against failure because of a to small predicted excavation force.
Calculation
Theory
For the horizontal robot acceleration of we assume that the excavation speed v is
reached after a specific time t.
ahR=vt (1)
Assuming a constant rotation speed for the excavation process means that
tangential acceleration of the bucket at = 0. The radial acceleration can be
calculated in the following way.
an=r∙ω2 (2)
av=an∙cosς+at∙sin(ς) (3)
ah=ahR+an∙sinς+at∙cos(ς) (4)
φ=tan-1ahg+av (5)
αp=-φ-ϕ+tan-1tanϕ-φ+C3EC4E (6)
Where
C3E=tanϕ+φtanϕ+φ+cotϕ+α+φ1+tanδ-φ-αcotϕ+α+φ (7)
C4E=1+tanδ-φ-α∙tanϕ+φ+cotϕ+α+φ (8)
Lw=d∙tanα+1tanαp (9)
PP=0.5KPE∙1+avg∙γd2W+2cdW∙KPE+KPEqdW (11)
The horizontal and vertical components of the total excavation force are given by
Tx=-Fblade∙sinα-PP∙cosα-δ-Fside∙cosβ+Wbg∙ah (12)
Ty=Fblade∙cosα+Wb+PP∙sinα-δ+Fside∙sinβ+Wbg∙av (13)
Fside=Lw∙cd+K0qd∙tanϕ+K0γ∙tanϕ∙d23 (14)
The total excavation force is calculated by knowing the horizontal and vertical
components of it
T=Tx2+Ty2 (15)
Results
All calculations were based on data for material parameters provided by ORBITEC(,
2007) or the Lunar Sourcebook(Heiken, 1991) and represent feasible values for the
lunar soil.
Figure 19 shows, that the inclination angle (α) and the digging depth (d) are both
functions of the scoop angle (ϛ). Therefore the excavation force (T) is also a function
of the scoop angle.
Experimental Setup
An experimental set up was developed, to prove the reliability of the analytically
calculated excavation force. The experimental measurement of the excavation force
should ensure that the accommodation of the Zeng model was made accurate
enough to provide reliable values. Figure 24 shows the 3D model for the test
apparatus.
Experimental test are planned for the first week of the Spring quarter 2011.
Experimental procedure
1 As a first step it is necessary to align the lowest bucket edge with the regolith
surface and set this position as the zero.
2 A measurement of the torque in the zero position is necessary to determine
the friction torque of the system.
3 Now the bucket can be lowered by a predefined value (5mm) to initiate the
next experimental run.
4 Power the actuator measure the torque while rotating the shaft preferably at
a constant velocity.
5 Plane the surface of the regolith to the zero value.
6 Repeat step 4 -5 (four times).
7 Now go back to step 3 and lower the bucket again by the predefined value
and repeat all further steps until you reach the final excavation depth of
35mm.
8 Average the values for the different digging depths.
9 Subtract the torque measured in the zero position from the averaged values.
10 Compare results to analytical calculated values for the excavation force.
M=0
Fx=0
Fy=0
M=0=Fs)x1.178m-Fs)y0.208m-FA0.56m-W(0.06m)
Fx=0=Fs)x-FA)x-FB)x
Fy=0=FA)y+FB)y+Fs)y-W
Where Fs is the excavation shear force and FA and FB are the forces on location A and
B respectively, and W is the weight of the excavator.
Figure 25: Free body diagram of the excavator
Using the force balance the final forces were found to be:
Fa)x=364.9N ←
Fa)y=64.35N ↑
Fb)x=175.1N →
Fb)y=53.8 ↑
It is important to keep in mind that there are two sets of mounting locations at A & B
so the total force at each location is effectively cut in half.
Se=KaKbKcKdSe'
Sf=KaKbKcKdKeSf'
Ka=aSultb
Noting that the surface of the shaft is machined, a = 4.51 and b = -0.265. Ka =
0.835.
The temperature of the environment also plays a role in the failure of a steel shaft,
however for this case the temperature of the environment was assumed to be room
temperature or 23ᵒC. Kd=1
Another factor involved is the reliability factor. For this project an excavator
reliability of 99.9% was assumed. For this level of reliability, Ke = 0.753.
The shaft design requires that there be a step in the shaft. Because of the step
extra calculations must be performed. The stress concentration factor is found with:
Kf=1+qkt-1
Keeping in mind that the major diameter and the minor diameter are 15mm and
12mm respectively and the radius of the fillet is 0.2mm, Kt can be found using
Figure 26, Figure E-2 in Shingley and Norton.
Figure 26: Finding the stress concentration factor due to the step in the shaft
Figure 27: Notch-sensitivity factors for steels. (From Shingely and Norton)
Using the values from Figure 26 and 27, Kt = 2.9 and q – 0.55, Kf = 2.045.
Sult)s ≅0.8(Sult)
Sm ≅0.90(Sult)s)
Using the modified endurance strength Sm, factors needed to calculate the life of the
shaft can be calculated.
b= -13logSmSe
loga=logSm- 3(b)
Both a and b are found to be 1004.06 and -0.127 respectively, and the stress in the
shaft can be found using the basic equation for bending stress in a beam:
σa'=32Maπd3(Kf)
Where the moment Ma is found using Figure 28 and the equation for the total
alternating moment, shown below Figure 28:
SN=aNb
The expected life of the driven shaft was found to be approximately 66,000
rotations. With the expected velocity of the shafts being only 37rpm, the expected
life of the shaft is approximately 1800 minutes, or 120 competitions.
The Bearings
The estimated life of the bearings used in the excavator was calculated using the
loadings estimated using the Zeng model shown above. The equation for the
fatigue life of a bearing in millions of cycles is given as:
L=L10C10Pa
Where a = 3 for ball bearings and 10/3 for cylindrical and tapered bearings. The
maximum life, L10 is assumed to be 106 rotations and the equivalent force on the
bearing (P) is defined as:
P=XVFr+YFa
Where v = 1 because the inner ring of the bearing will rotate. Fr is the radial force
and Fa is the axial force. For this analysis the axial force on the bearings was
assumed to be negligible. The X and Y components are both found using Table 5
shown below.
Since the axial load is zero, the value for Fa/C0 will also be zero resulting in X = 1
and Y = 0.
P=11215.325N+00= 215.325N
C10 is a characteristic of the bearing. The bearings have a bore of 12mm and a C10
of 6.89kN as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Dimensions and Ratings for Single Row 02-series Deep-Grove and Angular Contact
Ball Bearings
L=106cycles6.89kN215.325N3=3.276×1010cycles
Using the same velocity estimate that was used with the shafts (approximately
37rmp) yields a life of 1684.67 years. This confirms that the bearings will not fail
due to fatigue during the competition.
The Structure
Frame
The entire frame of the robot can be distinguished as two frames, the lower frame
and the upper frame:
Upper
Frame
Lower
Frame
Figure 29: Upper and Lower Frame
Lower Frame
The lower frame is a modified version of last year’s lower chassis design. On the left
and right side of the lower frame are the track portions to be situated on top of the
drive tracks. Interconnecting framework and space for necessary control modules
and excavation system can be seen in the midsection between the two tracks. The
primary function for the lower frame is to provide a basis for the high stress vertical
posts partial to the upper frame, which will be welded to the lower frame. A major
modification was a length reduction in the two members that connect the track
pieces at the rear of the frame, this was done to accommodate for the narrow
excavation unit. At a maximum length of 0.7m and width of just under 1m, the lower
frame is designed to meet specifications for space and weight.
Upper Frame
Excavator Support
The upper frame design supports the excavator directly from the base of the lower
frame with two vertical supports. Connected to the two vertical posts by pin are
members which allow the angle of the mounted excavation unit to be changed
manually.
Hopper Support
Extended vertically from the rear of the lower frame are another pair of posts
responsible for the majority of the hopper support. These posts are connected to the
vertical posts supporting the excavation unit by horizontal framework. The hopper
is supported eccentrically due to clearance needed for the linear actuators
associated with the dumping mechanism.
In its entirety, the frame is an extremely important entity to the robot because it
joins three major components together: the excavator, the hopper, and track drive
system. Not only does the frame have to be designed to withstand the loads brought
on by these components, the frame has to remain stable while these components
are performing their necessary functions, simultaneously.
Engineering Analysis
Weld Analysis
Despite a few pins and fasteners, welding is going to be the primary joining process
for the members in the frame. It therefore becomes very important, from an
engineering design standpoint, to determine the best and strongest welds to use, as
well as what type of loads may cause the welds to fail.
Assumptions
– The welds that join the members of the lower frame can be neglected for
analysis, or assumed strong enough for their intended function.
– Attention will be focused on the high stress welds: Where the vertical posts
meet the lower frame
Analysis
The vertical posts are considered the high stress members because the front posts
take much of the load from the excavator and the rear posts take much of the load
from the hopper. These loads are dissipated along the member though various
fasteners and finally the weld, where it is transferred elsewhere to the lower frame.
Figure 30 provides a visual representation of these weld locations.
Figure 30: Rear Support Welds and Front Support Welds
For these vertical posts, the main objective for the analysis was to determine if this
type of weld, a parallel fillet weld, is feasible for the loads considered, or if an
alternative type of weld, such as a perpendicular weld or modified T joint weld
(where the end of the vertical post is welded to the top of the lower frame at one
instance, instead of the side at several instances) is a better choice.
To simplify analysis, each vertical hopper support was subjected to a compressive
load equal to half of the maximum load seen if the hopper were to be completely full
of regolith.
F=392.2N For a parallel fillet weld, the maximum shear force on the
3.175 minimum throat area of the weld can be determined by
the following equation:
19.4mm
Weld analysis for the front vertical posts was approached the same way as the rear
posts. Assuming that each post was to take half of the maximum compressive load
generated by the excavator, the maximum shear stress at the minimum throat area
would be:
τ=1.414Fhl=1.414*161.45 N3.175 x 10-3 m(19.4 x 10-3m*4)=926.6 kPa
Observing the shear stress at the throat area is beneficial because if failure of the
weld were to occur due to compression, this is where it would occur. Based off of the
shear stress calculations, which were calculated using maximums loads at worst
case scenarios, the stresses are still well below tolerances of the weld, concluding
that the parallel fillet weld would be a suitable choice.
Another welding option for the vertical post would follow in the form of a T joint
weld, which can be seen in Figure 32:
T-joints are actually more commonly seen when two large plates are being joined
together. If this method were to be implemented instead of the parallel fillet, one
would be welding together two pieces of equal cross-sectional area, which would
make for a more difficult weld. Grooves are often beveled in T-joints for improved
stability, a task that requires additional machining and skill. This weld would also be
more susceptible to bending moments due to the cantilever-like orientation that the
weld creates.
1 Edgar, Julian. "AutoSpeed - Beginners' Guide to Welding, Part 1." AutoSpeed - Technology, Efficiency,
Performance. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
<http://autospeed.com/cms/title_Beginners-Guide-to-Welding-Part-1/A_108738/article.html>.
Figure 33: The typical loading scenario of the hopper
Bending
Since the weight of the hopper is both eccentric in the x and y directions as seen in
Figure 35; the highest stress will occur on a corner of the post. The stress at this
corner will be both the bending moment from the eccentric loading and the
compressive stress that would be seen in a centric loaded member.
Figure 35: The top view of the hopper given full capacity
Worst Case
P M xy c P M y2 + M x2 c
σ cr = σ xy = + = +
A I A I
[ (784.3N )(5.73cm)] + [ (784.3N )(26.8cm + 6.54cm) ]
2 2
784.3N 13.34cm
σ cr = +
0.8716cm 2 0.8739cm 4
σ cr = 377.3MPa
FoS = 1.35
Typical Case
P M xy c P M y2 + M x2 c
σ cr = σ xy = + = +
A I A I
[ (784.3N )(5.73cm)] + [ (784.3N )(13.4cm + 6.54cm)]
2 2
784.3 N 13.34cm
σ cr = +
0.8716cm 2 0.8739cm 4
σ cr = 114.3MPa
FoS = 4.44
Buckling
Both ends of the hopper support post will be welded to cross members, thus in terms of column
analysis the posts can be considered fixed-fixed with an effective length half that of its actual
length (see Figure 36).
According to the Manual of Steel Construction, there are two different modes of
buckling failure. The first happens in the “intermediate” range and the second
happens in the “slender” range. The maximum length given the previously
calculated bending stresses is desirable, thus the first calculation will be in the
slender range.
I 0.8739.1cm4
r= = =1.01 cm
A 0.8716 cm2
π 2E π 2E π 2E
σ cr = = ⇒ L = 2 r
1.92σ cr
2 2 cr
Leff Lcr / 2
1.92 1.92
r r
Worst Case
π 2E π 2 (200GPa)
Lcr = 2r = 2(1.01cm) = 52.2cm
1.92σ cr 1.92(377.3MPa )
Typical Case
π 2E π 2 (200GPa)
Lcr = 2r = 2(1.01cm) = 94.8cm
1.92σ cr 1.92(114.3MPa )
The worst case stress gives a maximum length of 52.2 cm, but the longest unsupported section
will be 49cm. The second portion of the buckling calculations will determine the factor of safety
in terms of stress. However, it must be first determined if the 49cm section is in the slender or
intermediate range.
Since Cc is greater than L/r, the member is in the intermediate range. The factor of safety can be
found using the following formula.
3
5 3 L/ r 1 L/ r
FS = + −
3 8 Cc 8 Cc
3
5 3 24.3 1 24.3
FS = + −
3 8 88.2 8 88.2
FS = 1.77
To solve for the unknown reactions the sum of the forces and the moments was determined. Since
all of the forces are pivoting around the middle support pin, R2x is assumed to be 0.
∑F x =0
R1x + R3 x − 97.3 N = 0
∑F y =0
−29.4 N − 252.1N + Ry = 0
∑M R1 x =0
+0.478m (sin12o )29.4 N + 0.359m(sin12o )100.6 N − 0.172m (sin12o )48.1 N
−0.516m (sin12o )48.1N − 0.873m (sin12o )51.8 N − 1.058m (cos12o )97.3 N
+0.688m (cos12o ) R3 x
⇒ R3 x = 158.3 N
⇒ R1x = 61N
Due to excavator centroid’s location in the z-axis in Figure 5x, additional moments on the
components supporting the excavator are:
Assuming a worst case scenario where all the forces are supported by the
middle pin, the forces on the pin will be as follows:
Moment − xx
−29.4 N (0.17m) − 252.1N (0.24m ) = −65.5 Nm
Moment − yy
97.3N (0.24m) = 23.4 Nm
Moment − zz
29.4 N (0.72m) sin(12o ) + 252.1N (0.11m ) sin(12 o ) = 10.1Nm
Force − y
−252.1N − 29.4 N = 281.5 N
Force − x
−97.3 N
Using this worst case scenario, the excavator beam was analyzed in Ansys. The length of the
beam used was the actual length of the beam between the middle pin support and the fixed lower
support on the lower frame.
Figure 38: The excavator beam analyzed in Ansys
Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 508Mpa for the steel tubing, the factor of
safety for the excavator support beam is 1.98.
Bracket Analysis
Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 270Mpa for aluminum, the factor of safety
for the hopper support bracket is 4.6.
Excavator Pin and Pin Support
The excavator pin and pin support assembly is designed to allow the excavator system to pivot
when manually adjusted for a different angle of attack. The assembly will be primarily tasked
with supporting the direct weight of the excavator and the moment that it induces in the zz-axis as
in Figure 10x.
Given loading conditions if the middle support for the excavator was the only support, the
excavator pin support and its pin were analyzed in Ansys.
Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 270Mpa for aluminum, the factor of safety
for the excavator pin support is 7.8. Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of
508Mpa for shaft steel, the factor of safety for the excavator pin support is 1.6.
Given the typical loading conditions of 158.3 N in the horizontal direction and a moment of
15.5Nm acting around the yy-axis, the excavator side supports were analyzed in Ansys. In Figure
43 the far right hole was considered a fixed support and the far right hole was where the force and
moment were applied.
Figure 43: Excavator side supports as analyzed in Ansys
Based on the Ansys analysis and an elastic strength of 270Mpa for aluminum, the factor of safety
for the excavator side support is 5.4.
Experiments/Tests Performed
Upon receiving the stock tubing for the frame, strength and hardness tests
will be performed to verify its material rating. Additional experiments that
may be preformed will be buckling/bending tests on the stock frame material.
The Hopper
The Hopper consists basically of 2 sidewalls, a backwall, a flapgate, 2 linear
actuators and 2 ropes.
The hopper has to fulfill the requirements of volume and strength. The dumping
concept has to ensure that the excavated regolith is dumped at a height of at least
1m into the collector’s box, furthermore it has to be guaranteed that all of the
regolith slides out without any complications in a short time.
Volume:
The necessary volume of the hopper has to be capable of at least 15 kg. This
amount of regolith has to be dumped in the collector in 15 minutes. Therefore it is a
goal to gain this amount in one run, because of this short time. The volume was
restricted by interfaces with the excavation/conveying system and the structure.
Moreover it was decided to have already the hopper at the necessary height for
dumping, which is 100mm above the wall of the collector, so 1100mm above the
surface. This decision was made to keep the hopper dumping system as simple as
possible, so that no devices are needed to lift the hopper.
Figure 44: Hopper geometry
Anyway there were restrictions in the height because of the collector’s wall and
above the hopper because of the excavation/conveying system. The hopper was
restricted in the width by the overall dimensions of the robot (Width: 1m x Length:
0.75m x Height: 2m) and therefore by the supporting beams of the structure. Finally
it was limited by the in the length/depth by the excavation/conveying system and
once more by the overall dimensions. Some other dimensions played a role in the
design and the volume of the hopper. One was the width of the excavation buckets
which was determined to be 355.6 mm (14”). The
necessary volume the hopper has to have is
Vmin=20,000,000mm3=20 liter with respect to a minimum of
15kg of regolith simulant and the density of δ=0.75 g/cm3
(Black-Point-1: for fluffy composition=>worst case). All
these variables created the dimensions of the hopper.
A=πr24=π300mm24=70685.83 mm2
V> Vmin
The round shape was chosen in order that the regolith will easily slide out. Although
this decision decreases the volume it can be an advantage for the center of gravity
for the whole excavation robot. One problem could be the tip over of the robot, so
therefore a smaller volume is more helpful for the center of gravity and
consequently for the lunar excavator.
Comment: The volume of the hopper is 2 times bigger than the necessary volume
assuming that the excavated regolith is not compacted but rather fluffy. So the
hopper has to be at least capable of these 15kg, and it will be definitely more, if the
regolith simulant gets compacted, so that it has a density of 1.8g/cm3.
Center of gravity:
It is also important to know the center of gravity, because it influences the interface
between the supporting beams and the hopper. The center of gravity is shown in
xxx and can be calculated like the following:()
ys=s∙sinα=180.06mm∙sin(45°)=170.32mm
Material selection:
The material that will be used for the hopper, has to be chosen very carefully, due to
the restriction of 80kg for the entire excavator. Therefore the excavator has to be
very light, but it has also to resist the force of the regolith which acts on the hopper.
The worst case would be a fully loaded hopper where the regolith is compacted
(δ=1.8g/cm3) and with the volume of 40.7 liter, the mass will be 73.3kg which would
create a force of almost 719 N.
To accomplish all of these tasks improved-strength basic aluminum (alloy 3003) will
be used.
This is a general purpose manganese alloy that is the most widely used of all
aluminum alloys. The addition of Manganese increases the strength by 20% over the
1100 (pure aluminum) grade. This combines the excellent characteristics of 1100
with higher strength. It has excellent corrosion resistance. It is not heat treatable
and develops strengthening from cold working only. The AL 3003 alloy is readily
machined and is considered as having good machinability for the aluminum alloys. It
has excellent workability and it may be deep drawn or spun. It can be welded by all
conventional processes. This alloy is commonly used to make cooking utensils,
pressure vessels, builder’s hardware, decorative trim, mail boxes, awnings, siding,
storage tanks, window frames lithography plates and storage tanks. ()
The stresses, forces and deflections which act on the hopper walls will be calculated
later on.
Form Sheet
H12 at
Condition
25°C
Density 2730 kg/m3
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
Elastic
70-80 GPa
Modulus
Tensile
130 MPa
Strength
Yield Strength 125 MPa
Elongation 10 %
HB50
Hardness 35
0
Shear Strength 83 MPa
Fatigue MPa
55
Strength
Concept:
The flapgate is connected via both ropes to the backwall which is movable. The
linear actuators are attached to the sidewalls from outside and are able to open the
flapgate. So if the linear actuators start to open the flapgate, the regolith is falling
out of the hopper. After a while the backwall starts moving too, just in case if the
regolith doesn’t slide itself into the collector box. The sidewalls will hang on 2
supporting beams. The idea is to measure the weight of the hopper during
excavating with switches or sensors which are attached to these supporting beams.
Hatch seals at the edges of the backwall will close the gaps between the backwall
and the sidewalls. This ensures that the regolith isn’t able to flow through the gaps.
Although these hatch seals create friction, it has to be determined experimentally if
this concept works, or if other devices have to be considered. The following pictures
show steps while dumping the regolith.
movable
regoli
th
fla
rop
pivot
points
Figure 49: End of process
Deflection of backwall:
A Distance
V [mm3] Fg [N]
[mm2] [mm]
8701,8 4977438, 60
15 18 87,8916
0 0 0 300
By the means of the circular function the slope was determined, so that it was
possible to get FN.
fx=r-r2-x2=300-3002-x2
f'x=m=x3002-x2
FN [N] Distance α
[mm] [degrees m
] [slope] y x
90.67552 0 0 0 0 0
0.1005 1.5037688
89.30733 30 5.73917 04 68 30
0.2041 6.0612308
86.11583 60 11.537 24 66 60
0.3144 13.818239
81.09954 90 17.4576 85 57 90
0.4364 25.045458
74.2557 120 23.5782 36 3 120
0.5773 40.192378
65.57867 150 30 5 86 150
0.9801 85.757147
42.65578 210 44.427 96 14 210
1.3333
28.24977 240 53.1301 33 120 240
2.0647 169.23303
8.635824 270 64.1581 42 17 270
FNtotal=70
5.52
Table 9: Force acting normal on backwall and datasheet for circle function
A [mm2] FN Distance σ
[mm] [N/mm2]
17168,0 0
4 90.67552 0,005282
17193,1 30
5 89.30733 0,005221
17238,6 60
9 86.11583 0,005099
17311,5 90
6 81.09954 0,004911
17425,3 120
5 74.2557 0,00465
17608,5 150
3 65.57867 0,0043
17930,5 180
9 55.0563 0,003838
18622,6 210
4 42.65578 0,003207
23190,0 240
9 28.24977 0,00203
20563,8 270
4 8.635824 0,000963
0 0 300 0
Table 10: Stresses in backwall
r= 300 mm
h= 3 mm Iy
= 1282.5 mm4
b= 570 mm
Table 11: Values for deflection
621.6302
F= 742 N Iy=bh312
q0 1.319140 l=2πr4
= 412 N/mm q0=Fl
wx=q0l4360EIy3xl-10x3l3+7x5l5
471.2388
fm=q0l4153.3EIy in x=0.519l
l= 98 mm
Conclusion: The deflection of almost 5mm shows how the load affects the backwall
of the hopper. Therefore a support is needed to hold the load. This could be
accomplished by welding small aluminum sheets under the backwall to the
sidewalls.
Deflection of flapgate:
There are three categories of lateral earth pressure and each depends upon the
movement experienced by the vertical wall on which the pressure is acting.
Rest pressure develops when the wall experiences no lateral movement. This
typically occurs when the wall is restrained from movement such as a basement wall
that is supported at the bottom by a slab and the top by a floor framing system prior
to placing soil backfill against the wall.
Active pressure develops when the wall is free to move outward such as a typical
retaining wall and the soil mass stretches sufficiently to mobilize its shear strength.
Passive pressure develops when the wall moves into the soil, then the soil is
compressed sufficiently to mobilize its shear strength. This situation might occur
along the section of wall that is below grade and on the opposite side of the wall
from the higher section.
• Rankine
• Coulomb
Rankine theory:
• No adhesion or friction between the wall and soil
• Lateral pressure is limited to vertical walls
• Failure (in the backfill) occurs as a sliding wedge along an assumed failure
plane defined by φ
• Lateral pressure varies linearly with depth and the resultant pressure is
located one-third of the height (H) above the base of the wall
• The resultant force is parallel to the backfill surface
Coulomb theory:
• There is friction between wall and soil and takes this into account by using a
soil-wall friction angle of δ (δ ranges from φ/2 to 2φ/3 and δ=2φ/3 is
commonly used)
• Lateral pressure is not limited to vertical walls
• The resultant force is not necessarily parallel to the backfill surface because
of the soil-wall friction value δ
The Coulomb theory was chosen for the case of the hopper because of the
arguments discussed above. The Coulomb active and passive coefficients are
complicated expressions that depend on the angle of the back of the wall, the soil-
wall friction value and the angle of backfill. These values can be found in textbook
tables or by programmed computers and calculators.
The following variables and formulas were needed to determine the pressure on the
flapgate. ()
active earth pressure β 0 rad
coefficient (Coulomb rad
KaC theory) ϕ 0,785398163 (=45°)
ϕ soil friction angle η 0 rad
η wall angle rad
δ wall friction angle δ 0,523598776 (=30°)
β backfill slope γt 0,000017658 N/mm3
Pa active earth pressure H0 300 mm
γt soil backfill unit weight c 0,001 N/mm2
H0 height of the wall KaC 0,161957635
c cohesion of soil total Pa 0,127888277 N/mm2
Table 13: Variables for earth pressure
Table 14: Determined values
calculations
KaC=cos2φ-ηcos2ηcosη+δ1+sinφ+δsinφ-βcosη+δcosη-β2
Pa=0.5KaCγtHo-2cKaC
The two formulas above are needed to calculate the earth pressure. KaC represents
the active earth pressure coefficient and is dependent of the described angles which
can be found in textbook tables.
Pa represents the total pressure which occurs at the height of H0/3 from the bottom
of the wall. The term that is subtracted in the formula represents the cohesion
effects of the regolith (c: cohesion of regolith), this effect lowers the total pressure.
Figure 60: Active and passive cases
H0
A [mm] P [N/mm2]
0 0 0
8,57954E-
17100 30 05 17100
0,00017159 A= 0 mm2
17100 60 1 h= 3 mm
0,00025738 b= 570 mm
17100 90 6 14,671
0,00034318 F= 02 N
17100 120 2 0,0489
0,00042897 q0= 03 N/mm
17100 150 7 l= 300 mm
0,00051477
17100 180 3 E= 70000 N/mm2
0,00060056 Iy= 1282,5 mm4
17100 210 8 Table 16: Values for deflection
0,00068636
17100 240 3
0,00077215
17100 270 9
0,00085795
17100 300 4
Table 15: Determined stresses
Figure 61: Stresses in the flapgate
08
Figure 63: Deflection of flapgate 7,3355 0,02872615
1 150 1
8,8026 0,02786243
12 180 6
H0 10,269 0,02419688
F [N] [mm] w(x) [mm] 71 210 7
0 0 0 11,736 0,01793173
1,4671 0,00845734 82 240 7
02 30 7 13,203
2,9342 0,01619033 92 270 0,00957808
04 60 4 14,671
4,4013 0,02251872 02 300 0
06 90 8 Table 17: Determined deflection value
5,8684 120 0,02685054
Conclusion: As shown and determined in Figure 63, the deflection of the flapgate is
very small, so this device doesn’t have to be improved in respect to the calculations,
but there could still occur some failures. These failures will be determined in the
experimental phase in next quarter. A problem could be the closing of the flapgate,
so that there is no gap where the regolith could flow out. This problem could be
solved by hatch seals which also will be used for the side walls to close the gaps.
Moving backwall concept:
In this step, the centroid was calculated of the backwall. It was needed to see when
the backwall is in equilibrium. Therefore it could be determined if a device is
necessary to pull the backwall after dumping back in its previous position.
The backwall is an annulus piece. The radius and the thickness of the backwall are
needed. The distance of the centroid is calculated with the following formula: ()
y=38.197R3-r3∙sinαR2-r2∙α=38.197300mm3-297mm3∙sin45°300mm2-
297mm2∙45°=268.75mm
a=cosα∙y=190.03mm
a=b=190.03mm
The arc describes the backwall, the following calculations assume that the backwall
is very thin. Figure 66,Figure 67 and Figure 68 show the backwall in dumping
position. These positions helped to determine the necessary distances.
s=R2+R2=300mm2+300mm2=424.64mm→s2=212.32mm
y1=300mm2-212.13mm2=212.13mm
Figure 68: Backwall in dumping position 3
y-y1=268.75mm-212.13mm=56.62mm
x=212.13mm2+56.62mm2=219.56mm
cosγ=s2x→ γ=14.75°
β=45°-γ=30.25°
Figure 69 shows the backwall when it is in its equilibirum point.
cosδ=x12R→x1=302.26mm
When the centroid is on the vertical axis the, the backwall is in equilibrium. The
distance x1 was calculated by the means of an isosceles triangle. The value of
302.26mm describes that the backwall will be able to rotate over the centroid in
respect to the radius of 300mm where it would interfere with the pivot point of the
flapgate at the top of the hopper. Figure 71 shows where the centroid would be until
the backwall would interfere with the pivot point at the top.
Pivot point of
flapgate
Moment which acts on the backwall to fall because of gravity was determined as
follows:
m=Vback∙δAlu=πR2-r24∙w∙δAlu=π300mm2-297mm24∙572mm∙2730kgm3≈2.2kg
Mg=m∙g∙d=2.2kg∙9.81ms2∙0.000359m=7.7×10-3Nm
Linear actuators:
Two linear actuators will be part of the dumping system. There are located at the
outside of the sidewalls (one on the left side and one on the right side). Therefore
they are connected to the sidewalls of the hopper and also to the flapgate.
Therefore they must be capable of the excavated amount of regolith which will be
stored in the hopper. This is because the flapgate is connected via ropes to the
moving backwall and therefore the actuators have to lift all of it. The lifted mass is
round approximately 70kg. Another issue is the closing of the flapgate or in other
words the resistance of the actuators against the pressure. As seen in the diagrams
of the stresses in the flapgate. The highest stresses are in the bottom of the flapgate
and therefore the highest forces. That’s why the actuators have to be connected to
the flapgate as close as possible to the bottom. Although this creates a longer stroke
of the actuator, it is much more important to keep the gate closed.
The necessary opening angle for dumping will be determined in experiments. For
these calculations a an opening angle of 45° was assumed, but will be optimized, so
that if a smaller angle is possible, no time will be lost for dumping, that means
decreasing the dumping time.
The actuator should be in line with the pivot point at the flapgate where it is
connected, so that the stroke won’t be that large.
•
• Stroke=9”≈228.6mm
• Collapsed length=13.5”≈342.9mm
• Extended length=22.5”≈571.5mm
• Weight=1160g
• Input voltage=12 VDC 5 amp current draw at full load
• Load capacity=150lbs≈68kg
• Static load (minimum)=2 times max load
• Speed at no load=0.5”/sec
• Clevis ends=1/4” diameter
• Screw=ACME screw
• Gear ratio=20:1
• Duty cycle=20%
• Operation temperature range= -26°C to +65°C
• Limit switch: built-in (factory preset) non moveable
• IP Grade: IP54
• Safety certificate: CE, ROHS
A datasheet concerning the actuators can be found in the attachment. All properties
are listed there as well as the dimensions. Tables show important values like speed
or load capacity.
Conclusion: If possible experiments will be ran to try to use actuators with a smaller
load capacity to increase the speed of extending and retracting of the actuator and
therefore decreasing the dumping time. An issue could be installing at the sidewall
of the hopper and the exact position. Other manufacturers will be also contacted to
compare available actuators on the market.
Sensors and Other Electronics
In order to make a proper engineering decision when selecting sensors, the first
question that had to be answered was what needs to be measured. A list was
created ranking the most important to least important measurements. Further
research was then conducted on different methods and products that could be used
for these measurements. These were then ranked the most to least information for
the cost. The “cost” is a mixture of factors used in the selection of sensors. Money,
weight, size, time, and other factors all play into the cost. All factors and possible
sensors are listed in the sensor hierarchy found in Table 1.
Page 90 of 146
Table 18: Sensor Hierarchy
Page 91 of 146
Top to bottom - Most important to least important measurement
Left to right - Least information and cost to most information and cost
Navigation
No Measurement Bump Sensors LEDs Single Camera Dual Cameras Moving Camera Laser Mapper
Provides a 3D
Four LEDs used for
Micro switches and One forward camera, one map of the
Description No measurement orientation with the A single forward camera Camera with pan and tilt
piano wire reverse camera surrounding
overhead camera
area
0.07 Green
Cost ($) 0 2.37 See Cameras Worksheet
0.14 Red
Mass 0 See Cameras Worksheet
Length 0 1.10 in 0.339 in See Cameras Worksheet
Width 0 0.63 in See Cameras Worksheet
0.232 in diameter
Depth 0 0.41 in See Cameras Worksheet
One end of the wire
on a pivot, the other
Top corners of the
Mounting passes through a
excevator
hole and contacts a
switch
Advantages
Only useful when
near a wall or Placement could be
Disadvantages No navigation obstacle, requires difficult, could be Limited line of sight Bandwidth limitations Bandwidth limitations
more time to obscured by dust
construct
Product Link Allied Allied Green See Cameras Worksheet
Notes Snap Action Allied Red
Digging Depth
No Measurement Limit Switches Micro Switch String Potentiometer Linear Potentiometer Actuators with Feedback
Switches placed at Stationary roller
the top and bottom micro switch which Measures position using Measures position via Actuators with built in
Description No measurement
of the movement rides over graduated a coiled string varying resistance potentiometers
range bumps
275 to 495 depending on 30.00 more than base
Cost ($) 0 2.47 2.46 275
length actuator
Mass 0 0.3oz 0.3 oz 3 oz
depends on required
Length 0 1.09 in 1.09 in 3.45in
measurement length
Same as base actuator
Width 0 0.63 in 0.63 in 1.90in
0.38 in or 0.5 in diameter
Depth 0 0.40 in 0.40 in 1.85in
Along the bucket
Placed to contact the conveyer, bumps Along the bucket Alongthe bucket Replaces normal
Mounting
actuator rod attached to the conveyer conveyer actuators
conveyer frame
Advantages
Information limited
Disadvantages No measurement Minimal information by graduations, could
get jammed with dust
Hopper Weight
No Measurement Switches and Springs Strain Gauges Force Sensor
Limit switches used
Measure deflection
in conjunction with Electrical resistance
Description No measurement in the frame from the
springs of known changes with load
weight of the hopper
stiffness
Cost ($) 0 2.47 80 per pack of 10 660.35
Mass 0 0.3oz
Length 0 1.09 in 0.37 in Depends on load
Width 0 0.63 in 0.11 in capacity
Depth 0 0.40 in
On frame, near
Mounting Beneath hopper Beneath hopper
hopper
Advantages
Requires more time Can be difficult to
Disadvantages No measurement
to construct calibrate
Product Link Allied Omega Allied
Lever Switch, spring
Notes Max 8 V
figures not included
Page 92 of 146
Hopper Position
No Measurement Limit Switch String Potentiometer Linear Potentiometer Actuators with Feedback
Measures position Measures position via Actuators with built in
Description No measurement Detects closure
using a coiled string varying resistance potentiometers
275 to 495 depending on30 more than base
Cost ($) 0 2.47 275
length actuator
Mass 0 0.3 oz 3 oz 0.4 to 1.1 oz
depends on required
Length 0 1.09 in 3.45 in
measurement length
Same as base actuator
Width 0 0.63 in 1.90 in
0.38 in or 0.5 in diameter
Depth 0 0.40 in 1.85 in
On base of hopper Replaces normal
Mounting Along actuators Along actuators
along the door actuators
Advantages
Minimal
Disadvantages No measurement
measurement
Product Link Allied Racerparts Omega 0.38" Progressive Automations
Conveyer Rotation
No Measurement Micro Switch Hall-effect Sensor Rotary Potentiometer Rotary Encoder
Stationary roller
Stationary sensor Measures angular
micro switch which
Description No measurement detects one or more position via varying Measures rotation
rides over one or
magnets resistance
more bumps
Cost ($) 0 2.46 1.99 32.51
Mass 0 0.3 oz 17.6 oz
Length 0 1.09 in 0.08 in 0.484 in 1.89 in
Width 0 0.63 in 0.08 in
1.125 in diameter 2.99 in diameter
Depth 0 0.40 in 0.05 in
Mounting On axis
Advantages
Not necessarily
Could get jammed
Disadvantages No measurement applicable to continuous
with dust
rotation
Product Link Allied Allied Allied Trelectronic
Roller Lever Switch,
Notes Requires magnets
Requires bumps
Other
Motor Gearbox Piano Wire
Description CIM P80 Motor Planetary
Cost ($) 28 79.50 to 157.25 15.95 per 1 lbm cable
Mass 46 oz 30 to 61 oz
Length 4.32 in 2.5 to 4.5 in
Depends on gauge
Width 2.5 in
2.6 in diameter
Depth 2.5 in
Mounting
Advantages
Disadvantages
Product Link BaneBots BaneBots PianoSupplies
Price, mass, and
Notes length variations Guages
based on gear ratio
Page 93 of 146
Cameras
Motion Motion
Type Fixed 0-270Horizontal 0-270Horizontal Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
0-120Verticle 0-120Verticle
Manufacturer's Cost ($) 199.95 72.99 119.95 99.95 89.99 142.99 164.99
4.69oz 4.69oz
Mass 9.88oz 3.52oz (+4.27oz (+4.27oz
stand) stand)
Length 5.8125in 3.375in 7.7in 7.7in
Width 4.25in 3.375in 3.5in 3.5in
Depth 2.5in 1in 2in 2in
Max Resolution 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480 640x 480
Max Frame Rate (FPS) 30 25 15 30 30
Zoom 10x digital 10x digital 4x digital 4x digital
5V/2.5A 5V/2.5A
Power Source 9V DC(3.2W) 5V DC/2A 9V DC(1.7W)
(2.6W) (2.6W)
Outdoor rated,
Built in Wifi and Built in
splash proof, Built in Wifi and Built in Wifi
Advantages ethernet, night Wifi and
power over ethernet and ethernet
vision ethernet
Ethernet
Disadvantages
Product Link Panasonic hootoo Foscam Panasonic Linksys TRENDnet TRENDnet
Notes
Experimentation:
Cameras:
In order to determine how a camera could benefit the robot’s operation the sensor
sub-team devised 5 different experiments. These tests will determine how and if a
camera would be used.
1. Lag
2. Blur
3. Vibration
4. Movement
5. Driving
The lag test uses the Linksys network camera. While pointing the camera at
the computer screen and recording simultaneously, a tunnel effect of camera
windows is created. Swinging the camera away and back towards the screen
multiple times allows the frame rate, and the lag time of the camera to be found.
After completing the test it was found that the network camera had a lag time of
0.5 seconds.
Page 94 of 146
Using the same recording as the lag test, the blur dissipation time can be
found by counting the frames from when the camera stops moving until the motion
blur dissipates. It was found that the blur dissipates after 0.12 seconds.
In order to test the vibration of the camera, the network cam was mounted
on the robot, facing perpendicular to the direction of travel. A test board with black
and white horizontal stripes, was be set up along the distance of travel. As the
robot drove, a recording was taken. Using know values such as the distance to the
board, thickness of stripes, frame rate etc., the angular vibration magnitude and
average velocity can be found. The resulting angular vibration magnitude was
0.007576 rad, and the average velocity was 0.45454 rad/s.
The final tests are very similar. The movement test has the robot drive
around the lab while recording, then analyzing the video to determine if all of the
surroundings were in focus and identifiable. If the visual recording was clear, the
driving test could then be performed. The robot was driven around the lab using
only the camera as guidance. After the test was completed, it was determined that
it is feasible to drive the robot solely using one camera. There were minimal
collisions, and occasional pausing is required.
When the code was run, the following plot of deflections was created. As the
position of the load moves from the left end of the bar to the right, the deflection at
the left end decreases and the deflection increases at the right end. However, the
deflection at the switch, which is located at the midpoint, remains constant. This
system can be calibrated through the proper selection of springs and mounting
height of the switch.
Page 95 of 146
Figure 73: Center Aligned Switch
For comparison, the following plot was made with the switch positioned 1 cm left of
center. Here, accuracy is dependent upon the position of the load.
This system can be calibrated through the proper selection of springs and mounting
height of the switch. Beginning next term, the sensor sub-team will construct an
actual model for weighing the hopper to test structural rigidity and accuracy.
A simple solid model was created to show the planned layout of this system. The
C-bar will fit over the support rails on the structure, and the springs will fit into
shallow cuts on each supporting bar to ensure the springs do not move laterally.
The switch is located in the center of the bar.
Page 96 of 146
Figure 75: Hopper loading switch
Bump Sensors:
Due to the lag in the camera, and the possibility of a low visibility environment,
bump sensors could be placed on the lower robot for collision prevention. Multiple
configurations have been created for testing. These designs are still in sketch form,
but plans to begin simple construction and testing have been made for the
beginning of spring term.
Design Description
Page 97 of 146
Double ended plate, switches can be
wired in parallel or series.
No overlap required
Figure 78: Double-Switch Plate
Insures reset
Design Description
As drawn in table 18.
Page 98 of 146
Figure 82: Horizontal Switch Support
Bracket supports.
Current Design:
The current design of the navigational systems
consists of two Linksys network cameras, four Light
Emitting Diodes, and a minimum of five bump sensors.
The network cameras are the primary feedback to the
operator. One network camera will be positioned facing
forward and the other will be a rear facing camera. The
rear facing camera was included to reduce travel time Figure 85: Linksys Model
WVC80N-RM Network Camera
during competition. As the hopper is designed to
empty from the back of the excavator, it will be much
more efficient to drive the excavator in reverse to the
collection bin, rather than turning driving to the bin and
turning again. To reduce communication bandwidth, each
camera will be deactivated when not in use.
The bump sensors will detect collisions that occur Figure 86: A Limit
Switch
outside the visual range of the cameras. This additional
information will allow the operator to detect collisions and
minimize damage.
Page 99 of 146
The hopper will be balanced on a system of four springs and two switches will
inform the operator when the hopper is filled to capacity. A limit switch placed
beneath the hopper will let the operator know when the hopper is fully closed.
The excavator will use three rotary encoders. One encoder will be mounted to
the drive shaft of each track and the third will be mounted to the drive motor on the
bucket conveyer. These rotary encoders will provide angular position and velocity
feedback for their corresponding drive motors.
Possible Changes:
The current design of the sensor system may undergo some changes before
the competition this spring. During competition the average communication
bandwidth is limited to 5 mega bits per second. If the deactivation of cameras, while
they are not in use, does not reduce the communication bandwidth, then the rear
facing camera will have to be removed. Conversely, if the amount of communication
bandwidth used by the excavator is sufficiently below the limit, and if the budget
allows, the cameras may be replaced by cameras of a higher picture quality.
As weight is a major concern of this project, the rear facing camera may also
be removed due to weight constraints. Bump sensors may also be changed to a
simpler design or even removed to reduce the weight of the system.
MESeniorDesignProject
2011 Student Lunar Regolith Competition
Team: ManateeMininingSystems
Members: Rafael Ardnt
Jon Block
Zak Griffa
Mike Riley
David Swanson
Mike Varga
Ryan Waldman
Eugen Zinn
Date: 2/19/2011
QTY
Item Description Raw Material Source
Price $ % lbs kg lbs kg % Hours Hours
Y Mobility Gearbox P -80 Standard Gearbox (144:1) BaneBots 2 $163.50 $327.00 5% 3.30 1.50 6.60 2.99 0.0
Y Mobility Additional Hardware Bolts/Washers/Nuts/Rivets Local Hardware Store 1 $100.00 $100.00 2% 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Connecting link ANSI #35 Connecting Link With K-1Tabs 7321K3 McMaster Carr 40 $2.14 $85.60 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Idler sprocket No. of teeth 15, part No. 8255K12 McMaster Carr 6 $11.92 $71.52 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Aluminum channel 90 degree angle, part No. 4630T12 McMaster Carr 8 $8.37 $66.96 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility Single strand chain ANSI #35 Chain (10' length) McMaster Carr 2 $28.80 $57.60 1% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Y Mobility M otors 2.5" CIM Motor am-0255 (337W) Andy M ark 2 $28.00 $56.00 1% 2.82 1.28 5.64 2.56 0.0
Y Mobility Sides Frames 0.125 x6.00 x 24.00 6061Al Stock Speedymetals.com 4 $13.55 $54.20 1% 3.50 1.59 14.00 6.35 4.0 16.0
Y Mobility Aluminum stock Angle 6061Aluminum 1/4"x 2"x2"x 6ft Speedymetals.com 2 $26.90 $53.80 1% 6.66 3.02 13.32 6.04 0.0
Y Mobility Aluminum stock Angle 6063Aluminum 3/16"x2"x2"x 6ft Speedymetals.com 2 $25.20 $50.40 1% 4.99 2.26 9.98 4.53 0.0
N Mobility Labor Work performed by M obility Sub team 8 $45.00 $0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.0
Y Mobility Drive sprocket 32 Tooth 20mm DIA Bore, SP 40B32-N-20 MISUM I 8 $15.90 $127.20 2% 2.67 1.21 21.36 9.69 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
$0.00 0% 0.00 0.00 0.0
Environmental Impact
All Material Safety Data Sheet Information can be found in Appendix D.
Track system:
Table 22: Components included in the track assembly
Component Quantity
CIM Motor 2
P80Gearbox 2
ANSI #40Steel Sprockets 8
ANSI #40Chain 25ft
6061AluminumAlloyPlate 126ft
2
Roller Bearings 12
Max-Chain Aerosol 1
Component Quantity
6061AluminumAlloyFlat Stock 12ft
Roller Bearings 4
AluminumTimingBelt Pulleys 2
TimingBelt 1
3004AluminumAlloyBuckets 20
ANSI #40Chain 24ft
ANSI #40Steel Sprockets 4
15mmDia. Steel Drive Shafts 2
15mmDia. AluminumSupport Rods 4
ANSI #40Idler Sprockets 4
0.25" Thick6061AluminumPlate 2ft
Socket HeadCap Screws ~100
Linear Actuators 2
Linear Slide Rails 2
Hopper:
Table 24: Components included in the hopper assembly
Component Quantity
Linear Actuator 2
Hatch Seals 500mm
Rope/Cable 2ft
6061AluminumAlloyPlate
LINKSYSWirelessRouter 1
NiMHRechargeable Batteries 2
Microswitch 13
LEDs 4
RotaryEncoder 3
Springs 14
LinksysRefurbished WVC80N-RM 2
Wireless-N Camera
ALLEN BRADLEYEmergencySwitch 1
Electrical Connectors
Structure:
The structure is made out of 4340 Chromalloy Steel.
Drive:
• A single track module weighs approximately 30lbs. Exercise caution when
lifting.
• All machined components and sprockets may have sharp edges. Use
caution when transporting.
Excavation:
• Buckets blades, sprockets, and hopper may have sharp edges. Leather
gloves are recommended if handling these components.
• There is risk of serious injury due to the pinch points between sprockets
and chain, or between the excavator and the frame. Removing all sources
of energy is required before performing maintenance on these
components.
• Special precaution must be taken when the equipment is under operation
since rotational parts may cause serious injuries by contact.
• Do not apply any unnecessary loading on the equipment.
Electrical:
• The battery packs could weigh in excess of 10lbs each. Be careful when
lifting.
• The electrical control panel could weigh in excess of 15lbs and have the
potential of having some sharp edges. Fragile components will be
mounted to it. Handle with care.
• Many of the devices mounted to the electrical control panel are
susceptible to electrostatic discharge. Make sure to handle
panel/components with caution.
Drive:
• Dimensions of track modules are 29” X 5” X 6”.
• Store in a cool and dry location free of excessive moisture to prevent
corrosion of components.
Excavator:
• Dimensions of the excavator are 16in X 6ft X 6in.
• Store in a cool and dry location free of excessive moisture to prevent
corrosion of components.
• Do not store any objects on the excavator as external loading my shift
components out of alignment.
• Thorough cleaning after operation is recommended to keep parts clean of
build-up of contaminants. Avoid to storage equipment in dusty places to
preserve rotational equipment in optimal conditions.
Hopper:
• Dimensions of hopper are 22” X 12.2” X 16”
• Do not store any objects on the hopper as external loading may warp the
assembly.
Electrical:
• Make sure to store NiMH batteries in a temperature controlled location. If
storing the batteries for more than a year, cells must be charged at least
once a year.
• Make sure to store electrical panel within a temperature controlled
location.
Track System:
Parts to be reused
• 2 CIM Motors
• 2 P80 Gearboxs
• ANSI #40 Sprockets
• 6 Idler Wheels
• 12 Roller Bearings
Materials to be recycled
• Consult local regulations regarding the disposal or recycling of any
materials.
• Any metal framing or other metal components can be recycled at the
discretion of the team.
Excavator:
Parts to be reused
• 1 CIM Motor
• 1 P80 Gearbox
• 2 Linear actuators
• 4 Driven Sprockets
• ANSI 40 Chain
• 2 Drive Shafts
• 4 support shafts
• 4 Idler Sprockets
• 4 bearings
• 2 Timing Belt Pulleys
• 1 Timing Belt
• Fasteners
Materials to be recycled
• Consult local regulations regarding the disposal or recycling of any
materials.
• Any metal framing, buckets or other metal components can be
recycled at the discretion of the owner.
• Damaged screws, bolts, etc. may not be reused and must be recycled
Hopper:
Parts to be reused
• Rope
All aluminum can be recycled. The hatch seals may be reused, otherwise they must
be disposed of properly.
Electrical:
Parts to be reused
• LINKSYS Wireless Router
• 2 LINKSYS WVC80N-RM Wireless-N Cameras
• NiMH Rechargeable Batteries
• 4 LEDs
• 13 Microswitches
• 3 Rotary Encoders
• Some special purpose wires/connectors
Materials to be recycled
• Electronic Components
• Rechargeable NiMH Batteries
Timeline
Figure 91: Roller bearing designs complete with mounting apparatus. The excavator will
utilize the compact bearing design.
Figure 92: Timing belt pulley used to transmit power between the gearbox and the
excavator drive shaft.
Figure 93: Stepped drive shaft for the sprockets on both ends of the excavator.
Figure 95: Idler shafts used to add stability to the frame and also allow the idler sprockets
to function.
MotorSpecifications
Performance Physical
Model M4-R0062-12 Weight : 46 oz (1304g)
Operatingv : 6v - 12v Length - for motor : 4.32 in (109.6mm)
Nominal v : 12v Diameter : 0 in (0mm)
No Load RPM : 5310 Diameter : 2.6 in (66mm)
No Load A : 2.7A ShaftDiameter : 0.31 in (8mm)
Stall Torque : 343.27 oz-in 2424 mN-m Shaft Length : 1.4 in (35.6mm)
Stall Current : 133A
Kt : 2.58 oz-in/A 18.2 mN-m/A
Kv : 443 rpm/V
Efficiency : 65%
RPM - Peak Eff : 4614
Torque- Peak Eff : 45 oz-in 317.8 mN-m
Current - Peak Eff : 19.8A
Inductance : 0.023H
Structure
Lower Frame
Table 30: Lower Structure BOM
ITEM Length Length to order
Part Material Cross Section QTY.
NO. (mm) [mm]
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
1 Track700NC 700 8 5600
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
2 Track536NC 536 3 1605
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
3 Track172NC 172 8 1376
CHROMALLOY tubing
4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
4 Track140NC 140 8 1120
CHROMALLOY tubing
Trackadapter1 4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
5 51 4 204
NC CHROMALLOY tubing
Trackadapter2 4340 3/4 in x 3/4in
6 50 4 200
NC CHROMALLOY tubing
Upper Frame
II. Edward J. Cormier [inventor], 21 July, 1981, “Bucket Conveyor,” United States
Patent4,279,562
VI. Robert E. Pulfrey [inventor], 20 November, 1973, “Excavator for Graves and
the Like,” United States Patent 3,772,807
XV. Dooling, Dave. United States. True Fakes: Scientists Make Simulated
Moondust. , 2006. Web. 4 Oct2010. http://science.nasa.gov/science-
news/science-at nasa/2006/28dec_truefake/
XXI. [Online]
http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/show_aluminum.cfm?
ID=AA_3003&show_prop=all&Page_Title=AA%203003.