PantherBot Tool Changer

MAE 4193 Mechanical Design 1 Senior Design Preliminary Design Review Report

Prepared by:

2009 PantherBot Team Jameson L. Tai, William Rae, Justin Nunn Florida Institute of Technology 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida 32901

Submitted:

22 October 2008

Website: http://my.fit.edu/~ltai/pantherbot/

Page 1 of 31

Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Goals ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................. 5 Design Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 6 Design and Analysis......................................................................................................................... 7 Button Pusher (Tool 1) ................................................................................................................ 7 Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................... 8 Door Handle Twister (Tool 2) .................................................................................................... 10 Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................... 10 Doorway Clearance Tool (Tool 3).............................................................................................. 13 Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................... 13 Tool Storage Rack...................................................................................................................... 16 Planning..................................................................................................................................... 16 Detailed Drawings ......................................................................................................................... 18 Fabrication and Testing Plan ......................................................................................................... 22 Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 23 Team Organization ........................................................................................................................ 28 Scheduling ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Gantt Chart................................................................................................................................ 29 Milestones and Deadlines ......................................................................................................... 30 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 31 References ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Page 2 of 31

List of Tables
Table 1-Analysis Results for Tool 1 ................................................................................................. 8 Table 2-Analysis Results for Tool 2 ............................................................................................... 11 Table 3-Analysis Results for Tool 3 ............................................................................................... 14 Table 4-Material Selection Chart for Gripper Sleeves .................................................................. 23 Table 5-Material Selection Chart for Solid Metal Block................................................................ 24 Table 6-Material Selection Chart for Links in Tool 2 ..................................................................... 25 Table 7-Total Estimated Budget.................................................................................................... 27

List of Figures
Figure 1-Comprehensive list of features on the PantherBot, Courtesy MobileRobots, Inc. .......... 4 Figure 2-Basic dimensions of the PantherBot, Courtesy MobileRobots, Inc. ................................. 5 Figure 3-Elevator buttons, door handles, and door-opener panel................................................. 6 Figure 4-Schunk Robotic Arm with parallel gripper and webcam attachment .............................. 7 Figure 5-Tool 1 ................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 6-Tool 1 Stress-Stress Analysis ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 7-Tool 1 Displacement-Displacement Analysis .................................................................... 9 Figure 8-Tool 1 Strain-Strain Analysis ............................................................................................. 9 Figure 9-Tool 2 .............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 10-Tool 2 Stress-Stress Analysis......................................................................................... 11 Figure 11-Tool 2 Displacement-Displacement Analysis ................................................................ 12 Figure 12-Tool 2 Strain-Strain Analysis ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 13-Tool 3 ............................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 14-Tool 3 Stress-Stress Analysis......................................................................................... 14 Figure 15-Tool 3 Displacement-Displacement Analysis ................................................................ 15 Figure 16-Tool 3 Strain-Strain Analysis ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 17-Tool Rack....................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 18-Tool 1 Detailed Drawing ............................................................................................... 18 Figure 19-Tool 2 Detailed Drawing ............................................................................................... 19 Figure 20-Tool 3 Detailed Drawings.............................................................................................. 20 Figure 21-Tool Storage Rack Detailed Drawing ............................................................................ 21 Figure 22-Organization Breakdown Flowchart ............................................................................. 28 Figure 23-Gantt Chart showing project progress ......................................................................... 29

Page 3 of 31

Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of our project is to retrofit the PantherBot in order to give it the capability to open doors and press wall panel buttons, so that it can roam autonomously inside the F. W. Olin Engineering Complex. The PantherBot will be tested for these capabilities in May 2009.

Goals
The 2009 PantherBot Team currently has the following goals for this project: To apply our knowledge gained in class and properly apply them to this project To apply technical skills, communication skills, and the engineering design process into the project To operate safely while protecting the PantherBot, its operator(s), and any persons or objects the PantherBot may come in contact with To research on appropriate tools for the defined objectives and to adapt to current 6DOF robotic arm
Figure 1-Comprehensive list of features on the PantherBot, Courtesy MobileRobots, Inc.

Page 4 of 31

Background
The robot we will be operating on is the newest robot at Florida Techs Robotics and Spatial Systems Laboratory (RASSL). PantherBot, its name, is essentially a PowerBot, manufactured by MobileRobots, Inc. The current equipment
Figure 2-Basic dimensions of the PantherBot, Courtesy MobileRobots, Inc.

has the ability to autonomously map terrain, plot coordinates, as well as performing miscellaneous functions at a certain location after a full map is acquired. The robotic arm attached to the PantherBot platform is made by Schunk Intec, Inc. has a 6-DOF (degrees of freedom) work area equipped with a set of parallel jaw grippers as well as a webcam to ensure proper job handling. Also, there is a WiFi antenna in which jobs may be sent to the robot wirelessly. The PantherBot has a PIC microcontroller which controls the two main wheels which gives the PantherBot mobility as well as the emergency stops. There is a higher-level computer which processes functions such as the optical sensors which keep track of distance, SONAR sensors, the PTZ camera, as well as the laser range finder. There is also a higher-level PC, operated on Debian Linux operating system, which interfaces with the operators GUI as well as serving MobilEyes, ACTS and guiserver functions via 802.11b WiFi. This allows the user to send commands, view live webcam video feed, and other GUI-related functions wirelessly.

Page 5 of 31

Design Objectives
Our project aims to research, design, fabricate, test and optimize tools that allow the PantherBot to open doors and interact with button operated interfaces such as the elevator and the handicap accessible main door button. Our designs must at all times consider the safety of people near the robot, protect the building from damage and pre vent the robot from harming itself. The designs must take into consideration the requirement that tool changes and interactions be performed autonomously. To facilitate this, the components need to be designed so that the robot can maintain positive control of the tools at all times to maximize its capabilities with the feedback systems available. The tools must be stored on the robot without restricting access to any onboard controls or vents or blocking any sensors. All components fabricated for the robot must be visually complimentary and built to the high quality standards of the existing robot design.

Figure 3-Elevator buttons, door handles, and door-opener panel

Page 6 of 31

Design and Analysis

To open doors and push buttons, there will be three tools used to properly perform the functions. The first is a button pusher, which the parallel gripper will squeeze the button pusher to press elevator buttons and door panels. The second is a door handle opener, which will open the door and let the PantherBot into the doorway. The third is a door clearance tool, which provides enough clearance between the doorway and the door for the PantherBot to successfully move through the opening.
Figure 4-Schunk Robotic Arm with parallel gripper and webcam attachment

Button Pusher (Tool 1)

The button-pusher, henceforth named as Tool 1, will be used to push elevator buttons as well as push a handicap-accessible door-opener panel. Tool 1 will conform to the design objectives, in which neither the PantherBot base nor the Schunk
Figure 5-Tool 1

robotic arm will be pressing the button. The only motion will be generated by the parallel gripper, which will ensure that a limited amount of force will be exerted, protecting the PantherBot, the robotic arm, as well as the buttons. Tool 1 is operated via a spring-controlled sleeve over the parallel gripper. As the parallel gripper closes, the button-pressing contact, a soft foam cylinder will press the button. The webcam mounted adjacent to the parallel gripper will ensure accuracy of the contact point.

Page 7 of 31

Analysis Results The following are the results of a finite element method study of the button pushing tool. The study restrained the tool in the same way that it will be held by the gripper and exposed the tool to a five pound force on the button contact surface. This force exceeds the maximum force that would be put on the button by 150% which gives us an acceptable factor of safety and still meets our requirement of having the tool break before exerting enough force to damage the robot or the button it is interacting with.
Name Stress1 Type VON: von Mises Stress URES: Resultant Displacement ESTRN: Equivalent Strain Min 1.81338e-007 N/m^2 Node: 17020 0m Node: 13444 8.44084e-012 Element: 863 Location (-0.0566606 in, 0.326697 in, -1.26209 in) (0.0683394 in, -0.349484 in, -1.26209 in) (0.953545 in, -1.03112 in, 3.96925 in) Max 1.97135e+006 N/m^2 Node: 7912 3.5681e-006 m Node: 96 2.18046e-005 Element: 4903 Location (0.989925 in, -1.1163 in, 1.56981 in) (0.632369 in, -0.777007 in, 4.07072 in) (0.937067 in, -1.19041 in, 1.66872 in)

Displacement1

Strain1

Table 1-Analysis Results for Tool 1

Figure 6-Tool 1 Stress-Stress Analysis

Page 8 of 31

Figure 7-Tool 1 Displacement-Displacement Analysis

Figure 8-Tool 1 Strain-Strain Analysis

Page 9 of 31

Door Handle Twister (Tool 2)

The door handle twister, henceforth named as Tool 2, will be used to twist the door handle to open the door and provide initial the opening for the PantherBot. Because the parallel grippers output force is not enough to open the door by itself,
Figure 9-Tool 2

Tool 2 will contain a sleeve for one of the grippers jaws, and use a perpendicular motion given by the Schunk robotic arms last cube. The J-shaped hook will help secure the arms grip of the handle as well as help pull or push the door open. There are a couple of variations to this design, including an L-shape option instead of the J-shape, as well as making the hook rounded. We will proceed analysis with the current J-shape, and will revise our selection as our analysis continues. Analysis Results

The following are the results of a finite element method study of the hook door opening tool. The study restrained the tool in the same way that it will be held by the gripper and exposed the tool to a five pound force on the outermost contact surface of the tool. This force exceeds the force required to rotate a standard door handle by 150% which gives us an acceptable factor of safety and still meets our requirement of having the tool break before exerting enough force to damage the robot or the door handle it is interacting with. Depending on the results of our physical testing we may determine that it is necessary to increase the strength of this component to work with other doors.

Page 10 of 31

Name
Stress1

Type
VON: von Mises Stress URES: Resultant Displacement ESTRN: Equivalent Strain

Min
9.43383e-006 N/m^2 Node: 11781 0m Node: 171 6.61644e-011 Element: 4673

Location
(-0.421822 in, 2.3125 in, 0.688976 in) (0.617126 in, 2.3125 in, -0.813976 in) (-0.275081 in, 2.28463 in, 0.736424 in)

Max
7.24765e+006 N/m^2 Node: 14029 0.000249353 m Node: 1520 8.00352e-005 Element: 4153

Location
(6.04217 in, 1.34375 in, -0.25 in) (6.61713 in, 0.90625 in, -3.5 in) (6.04024 in, 1.23454 in, -0.217835 in)

Displacement1

Strain1

Table 2-Analysis Results for Tool 2

Figure 10-Tool 2 Stress-Stress Analysis

Page 11 of 31

Figure 11-Tool 2 Displacement-Displacement Analysis

Figure 12-Tool 2 Strain-Strain Analysis

Page 12 of 31

Doorway Clearance Tool (Tool 3)

The third tool is the doorway clearance tool, henceforth named Tool 3, which will provide the PantherBot enough clearance in the doorway such that it will not trip the PantherBots SONAR sensors as an impassable obstruction. The tool uses only one of the two jaws of the parallel gripper, similar to Tool 2s concept.
Figure 13-Tool 3

Tool 2 has a freely rotating axis with two wheels, which, once the robotic arm opens the door the rest of the way, the tool will help guide the door and help keep the door from prematurely closing on the robot. Analysis Results The following are the results of a finite element method study of the wheel tool. The study restrained the tool in the same way that the gripper will hold it and exposed the tool to a tenpound force on the wheels. This force exceeds the maximum force that would be put on the tool by 150% which gives us an acceptable factor of safety and still meets our requirement of having the tool break before exerting enough force to damage the robot or the button it is interacting with. As with the hook tool we may find it necessary to improve this structure to allow it to work with doors that have more spring force than the average door.

Page 13 of 31

Name
Stress1

Type
VON: von Mises Stress URES: Resultant Displacement ESTRN: Equivalent Strain

Min
6.77429e-005 N/m^2 Node: 14768 0m Node: 8447 7.08916e-011 Element: 6509

Location
(-2.77861 in, 1.79842 in, 2.99409 in) (-3.78084 in, 1.89842 in, 2.99409 in) (-3.11646 in, 1.84842 in, 2.9528 in)

Max
4.41638e+007 N/m^2 Node: 1106 0.000626395 m Node: 8141 0.00384754 Element: 3844

Location
(-2.47159 in, 1.69049 in, -0.431397 in) (-1.84843 in, -1.08279 in, -1.44372 in) (-2.31324 in, -1.09599 in, -0.395416 in)

Displacement1

Strain1

Table 3-Analysis Results for Tool 3

Figure 14-Tool 3 Stress-Stress Analysis

Page 14 of 31

Figure 15-Tool 3 Displacement-Displacement Analysis

Figure 16-Tool 3 Strain-Strain Analysis

Page 15 of 31

Tool Storage Rack

The tools need to be stored on the robot so that the arm can easily access them and they do not impede any of the robots onboard sensors. The storage system that we will be using for the tools is a static bracket which takes advantage of the spring
Figure 17-Tool Rack

system in the tools to hold them in place until the gripper squeezes and releases the pressure. In addition we will have a hanging rack that allows us to hold Tool 2 so that it is both accessible and maintains the necessary clearance from sensors despite its large footprint.

Planning
To efficiently design tools that will meet our objectives we are using a combination of computer aided design and physical prototyping. Using CAD allows us to visualize different mechanism options and ensure that they are able to meet our requirements for each task. Using a CAD model also allows us directly translate our designs into finite element analysis software for structural analysis and optimization. Physical prototyping is also important because it allows us to test mechanisms for fit and function before finalizing design and investing time and materials. The analysis is a combination of computer finite element analysis and hand calculations. For the tools with motion, the analysis starts with calculating optimal mechanics to produce the desired range of motion and to ensure that appropriate forces are being generated for the task. Computer models of the tools are then studied using FEA to determine if the components are

Page 16 of 31

capable of safely handling the forces placed on them. These studies also allow us to determine if the components are overbuilt and have areas that can be lightened or redesigned to improve the design. From this data, we are able to study the forces that will be put on the arm as it goes through a full range of motion. If the design falls outside of any of the requirements, we are able to determine that at an early stage and go through a series of optimizations before we put time and money into production.

Page 17 of 31

Detailed Drawings

Figure 18-Tool 1 Detailed Drawing

Page 18 of 31

Figure 19-Tool 2 Detailed Drawing

Page 19 of 31

Figure 20-Tool 3 Detailed Drawings

Page 20 of 31

Figure 21-Tool Storage Rack Detailed Drawing

Page 21 of 31

Fabrication and Testing Plan

Fabrication will be performed at the Florida Institute of Technology Machine Shop, located in Building 538. Certain fabrication of parts will be unnecessary, as they are readily available offthe-shelf at a price that would be lower than fabricating in-house. If this situation occurs, this team will purchase these parts instead. All team members have already passed machine shop training, as required by the Director of Laboratories at Florida Institute of Technology College of Engineering. In addition, all team members have gone through hands-on training interacting with the PantherBot, learning and understanding the safe usage, programming abilities, and remote access via the MobilEyes software. Since one of the design objectives of this project is to not block the normal operations of the robot nor create safety hazards from the use of the tool changer, the PantherBot, its Schunk robotic arm, its tools, and its tool changer must not damage any doors or wall panel buttons. Therefore, a testing rig will be necessary consisting of a replica of a handicapped-accessible door opener button, two sets of elevator buttons (one set to call an elevator, one set to direct the elevator to go to which floor), and a door handle similar to those used inside the Olin Engineering Complex. This testing rig will provide feedback to the team on the repeatability of the tools, ease of operation, and storage functions of the tool changer. This will also help optimize and fix any design flaws before any live testing interacting with doors and elevators inside the Olin Engineering Complex.

Page 22 of 31

Budget
Design Requirements Yield strength (kpsi) (Budynas & Nisbett, Surface 2008) Finish Abs Rel Abs Rel 34 0.85 80 0.8 24 0.6 60 0.6 35 40 32 0.875 1 0.8 100 85 80 50 1 0.8 5 0.8 0.5 Rectangular Tube stock Selection Factors Overall Rating

Cost/unit length (in) Abs Rel

Al 5052-H32 Al 3003 Al 6061 Stainless Steel (304) Steel (1018) Carbon Fiber

Machinability (%) Abs Rel 40 0.8 45 0.9 50 27 35 15 1 0.54 0.7 0.3

(1*A+5*B+4*C +3*D+2*E)/15 Availability Abs Rel 0 0 0 0 10 10 9 0 1 1 0.9 0

0.483333333 0.42 0.979060606 0.713691769 0.846666667 0.226666667

0.275 0.571 0.262

0.9527273 0.4588441 1

Table 4-Material Selection Chart for Gripper Sleeves

The weight factors for the materials are 1 for yield strength, 5 for finish, 4 for price, 3 for machinability, and 2 for availability. The forces that the tools will be experiencing are very small, and all the selections for the materials far exceed what is needed. Since part of the requirements for the tools used is that they have to be aesthetically pleasing, a high value is used for the finish of the parts. Price is always a weighty consideration. Since currently the total budget isnt known, we must assume very few funds and plan for keeping cost to a minimum. The parts we will need to create will only need basic machining. Since many prototypes will be needed though, the ability to easily produce these is important.

Base Vendor Price McMasterCarr(36") 18.65 0.518055556 Metals Depot(48") 13.2 0.275 OnlineMetals(36") 11.05 0.306944444

Rectangular Tubing Pricing Al 6061 Steel Stainless Steel Base Base Price/length Price Price/length Price Price/length 41.81 1.161388889 12.56 0.261666667 N/A N/A 31.28 63.36 20.58 0.86888889 1.32 0.57166667

Table 5-Cost Analysis Table for Rectangular Tubing

Page 23 of 31

Al 6061 is the optimum choice for this part. It is easily obtained in the desired size we want, and it will visually match the robot very nicely. Tube sizes used were what were closest to our projects needs. Both McMaster-Carr and Online metals offered 36 long tubes, while Metals Depot offered 48 tubes. For AL 6061, the dimensions were 1"x 1.5 and .125 thick. For Steel the dimensions were 1x1.5x36 from McMaster-Carr, and 1.25x1.25 from Metals Depot, Online metals not have a usable size. Stainless Steel tube sizes were 1.25x1.25 from all three manufacturers. For the material selection chart, the best price was used in the cost comparison between the other materials.

Solid metal block Design Requirements Yield strength (kpsi) Surface (Budynas & Finish Nisbett, 2008) Abs Al 5052-H32 Al 3003 Al 6061 Stainless Steel (304) Steel (1018) Carbon Fiber 34 24 35 40 32 Rel 0.85 0.6 0.875 1 0.8 Abs 80 60 100 85 80 50 Rel 0.8 0.6 1 0.85 0.8 0.5 0.802 7.17 1.37 1 0.111855 0.5854015 Selection Factors

Overall Rating

Cost/unit volume (in^3) Abs Rel

Machinability (%) Abs 40 45 50 27 35 15 Rel 0.8 0.9 1 0.54 0.7 0.3

(1*A+5*B+4*C+3*D+2*E) /18 Availability Abs 0 0 10 9 10 0 Rel 0 0 1 0.9 1 0 0.447222222 0.4 0.9375 0.586523322 0.718978102 0.205555556

Table 6-Material Selection Chart for Solid Metal Block

The weight factors for the blocks of metal are 1 for yield strength, 5 for surface finish, 4 for price, 5 for machinability and 3 for availability. The forces that this tool will undergo are very small in comparison to the yield strength of the part. Since all tools used for this project must be aesthetically, surface finish is quite important. Since large blocks of metal are hard to acquire, price for this was very heavily weighted. Machining solid blocks of metal down into the final shape can take quite some time. Having a material that is fast and easy to machine is very

Page 24 of 31

important for us in this regard, thus it was given a very high weight factor. As previously mentioned blocks of metal are not as readily available, so availability is very important.
Metal Block Pricing Al 6061(8x8x2)in Steel(8x8x2)in Stainless Steel(9x6x3)in Base Base Base Price Price/Volume Price Price/Volume Price Price/Volume 102.69 0.802265625 174.97 1.366953125 581.81 3.591419753

Vendor McMasterCarr(36")

Table 7-Cost Analysis Table for Metal Block

Al 6061 clearly exceeded all other material selection for this product. It was significantly cheaper than all other material selections, and its ability to be easily machined makes it an ideal choice. Only provider that was found that carried Metal blocks of sufficient size was McMasterCarr. The desired size for the metal block was 8x5x2. For each material the closest match was found. The cost per volume was used for comparing the prices of the different materials.
Material Selection Chart for Links Design Requirements Yield strength Item# 9135K 116 9134K 116 4490T 14 8992K 11 8895K 219 2153T 28 Size (LxWxT) 72x1x0.1 25 72x1x0.1 25 72x0.25x 0.125 72x0.5x0. 125 72x0.25x 0.125 12x0.5x0. 125 Abs* 28 16-21 25 30-45 55100 Rel 0.233 0.154 0.208 0.312 0.645 Surface Finish Abs 80 60 85 85 90 Rel 0.888 0.666 0.944 0.944 1 Cost/unit length (ft) Abs 5.801 5.635 0.38 1.911 1.736 13.34 Rel 0.065 0.067 1 0.198 0.218 0.028 Selection Factors Machinability (%) Abs 20 20 80 40 80 10 Rel 0.25 0.25 1 0.5 1 0.125 Overall Rating (5*A+4*B+3* C+2*D+1*E)/ 15

Availability Abs 7 6 10 9 10 4 Rel 0.7 0.6 1 0.9 1 0.4

Al 5052-H32 Al 3003 Al 6063 (rounded) Stainless Steel (304) Steel (W1) Carbon Fiber

0.407914499 0.315987134 0.721296296 0.52244107 0.725706441 0.530511966

120 1 50 0.555 * Using mid-range for relative calculation

Table 8-Material Selection Chart for Links in Tool 2

The weight factors for the materials are 5 for yield strength, 4 for finish, 3 for price, 2 for machinability, and 1 for availability. The purpose of these links will be to hold the mechanism together as the robotic arm squeezes the parallel grippers. Therefore, yield strength will be of

Page 25 of 31

upmost importance. Since the links will need to be smooth, a relatively higher value is used for the finish of the parts. Cost is then factored, followed by the ease of machining the metal bars into the right size, followed by availability. Since Al 6063 and Steel W1 are only 0.004 apart in the overall ratings, the determining factor in material selection will come from modeling analysis of Tool 2. If Al 6063 will not place the tool in harm by buckling, then Al 6063 will be a very cost-effective alternative. However, if Al 6063 has a danger of buckling within our operating range, then Steel W1 will be used, as it has a yield strength of almost four times that of Al 6063. While performing material selection, the team also attempted to find aluminum and steel stock for specified size requirements besides McMaster Carr, but could not find similar sizing for comparison. This is most likely because our application of using 1/8 by 1/4 links is not a very popular size, which makes acquiring quotes for price comparison difficult. List of websites attempted included http://www.onlinemetalsupply.com/, http://www.saf.com, http://www.hardwareworld.com, http://newyorkmetal.com, and others online including eBay and other outlets. Overall Budget For this project we have an estimated budget of $950. That majority of this money will be needed for the metal that will be used to build the PantherBot tools. We expect to need bushings for the construction of the different tools, as well as bearings for at least one of our designs (specifically, Tool 3). Once the tools have been constructed, they will need to be coated

Page 26 of 31

to prevent damage to both the PantherBot and the school facilities. We plan on using materials such as plywood for our prototyping as it is cheap and easy to build with. We will require an assortment of screws, bolts, washers, and springs to hold our prototypes and final designs together, as well as material to weld some pieces together. Currently these are all that we foresee us needing, but as our designs develop and change, we may be required to garner materials not previously foreseen.
Category Metals Bushings/Bearings/Shafting Miscellaneous Hardware Surface finishing Prototyping Test Stand Hardware Total Budget
Table 9-Total Estimated Budget

Allocated Budget $400.00 $100.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $850.00

Page 27 of 31

Team Organization
Since this project only has three members, all three members will be involved in all aspects of the design, analysis, production, and testing phases of this project. However, the following is a main breakdown of the six key areas of the project in which we have tasked one person to personally oversee.

Jameson L. Tai (Team Leader)

Research Justin Nunn

Design William Rae

Analysis William Rae

Fabrication Jameson L. Tai

Testing Jameson L. Tai

Finances Justin Nunn

Figure 22-Organization Breakdown Flowchart

As stated in the above figure, the overall financial coordination will be overseen by Justin Nunn, who will also be in charge of overseeing the research process needed for the PantherBot to open doors and press buttons. The ideas resulting from the research process will then be overseen by William Rae during the design and analysis phases. Jameson L. Tai will be overseeing the fabrication and testing of the designs and will make adjustments as necessary.

Page 28 of 31

Scheduling
Gantt Chart

Final Design Testing Final Design Fabrication Prototype Testing Prototype Fabrication Final Report Final Presentation Design Research Robot Training Machine Shop Training Preliminary Design Review Report Preliminary Design Review Presentation Design Research Project Review Presentation Research 18/08/2008 07/10/2008 26/11/2008 15/01/2009 06/03/2009 25/04/2009
Start Date Completed Remaining

Figure 23-Gantt Chart showing project progress

As shown on the Gantt Chart, we are currently on schedule and are on track to completing the project on-time. At this time, the project is finishing up the analysis portions and cost analysis for material and parts ordering. We expect to begin the prototype fabrication after that, finishing in the beginning of the spring semester along with prototype testing. Full fabrication is expected to begin in February 2009, along with testing in March 2009. The project should be on-time for the Senior Engineering Design Showcase in April 2009.

Page 29 of 31

Milestones and Deadlines

Complete research in door opening techniques o Pushing door o Pulling door Present tool design Present tool changer rack design Machine Shop Training Robot training Preliminary Design Review o Presentation o Report Analysis on tools and tool changer Final Presentation Final Report Prototyping Fabrication Prototyping Testing Fabrication Testing Showcase (22 October 2008) (22 October 2008) (November 2008) (03 December 2008) (03 December 2008) (January 2009) (January 2009) (March 2009) (March 2009) (April 2009) (September 2008) (September 2008) (October 2008) (October 2008) (October 2008) (October 2008)

Page 30 of 31

Conclusion
The team will continue to analysis process of this project and will continue refinement of the designs so that it will be effective, efficient and cost-effective while maintaining our design objectives. The project is currently on-track with our Gantt Chart and will proceed with ordering respective materials for machining after completion of analyses. The project is to begin its fabrication process in Spring 2009 and is scheduled to be in testing for the latter part of Spring 2009, as well as completion of the project by May 2009.

References
Budynas, R. G., & Nisbett, K. J. (2008). Shingley's mechanical Engineering Design. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Callister, W. D. (2007). Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Office of Creative Services, F. I. Florida Institute of Technology Seal and Logo. Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne. Office of Creative Services, F. I. PantherBot Logo. Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne.

Page 31 of 31