Difference between revisions of "Team F"
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
===Team Fα=== | ===Team Fα=== | ||
Team members: Isaac, Christine, Lindsay | Team members: Isaac, Christine, Lindsay | ||
+ | |||
Team Fα's initial design involved several triangle cut-outs across the robot arm template. The triangles would provide support to the arm while removing much of the extraneous mass. In the center of the arm, where the most support was needed, the triangles were smaller. Towards the front and back of the arm, where the least support was needed, the triangles were larger. | Team Fα's initial design involved several triangle cut-outs across the robot arm template. The triangles would provide support to the arm while removing much of the extraneous mass. In the center of the arm, where the most support was needed, the triangles were smaller. Towards the front and back of the arm, where the least support was needed, the triangles were larger. | ||
===Team FΩ=== | ===Team FΩ=== | ||
Team members: Greg, Andrew | Team members: Greg, Andrew | ||
+ | |||
The premise of Team FΩ's design was to do away with extraneous portions of the given design. The result was a curved, ''s''-shape piece that cut off the portions past the pre-cut notches under the hypothesis that these areas did not help the piece resist deformation. The curved structure was intended to eliminate the corners created by the notches so that stress could not focus on any particular spot. | The premise of Team FΩ's design was to do away with extraneous portions of the given design. The result was a curved, ''s''-shape piece that cut off the portions past the pre-cut notches under the hypothesis that these areas did not help the piece resist deformation. The curved structure was intended to eliminate the corners created by the notches so that stress could not focus on any particular spot. | ||
Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
==Design Development== | ==Design Development== | ||
− | Step 1 was to find the ideal arrangement and orientation of triangle cuts in the center of the arm. | + | Step 1 was to find the ideal arrangement and orientation of two triangle cuts in the center of the arm. |
Middle Bar Test 1 | Middle Bar Test 1 | ||
Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
Score: .268 | Score: .268 | ||
− | Middle Bar Test 2 provided the lowest score and became the base model for | + | |
+ | Middle Bar Test 2 provided the lowest score and became the base model for step 2, which was to cut out a substantial, trapezoidal section near the applied force. An additional trapezoidal section was | ||
+ | added towards the top of the arm as well. Each of the Cut Tests we performed involved different arrangements and sizes of the trapezoidal cuts. | ||
+ | |||
Cut Test 1 | Cut Test 1 | ||
Line 58: | Line 63: | ||
Score: .199 | Score: .199 | ||
− | Cut Test 3 provided the lowest score and was used as the base model for the | + | |
+ | Cut Test 3 provided the lowest score and was used as the base model for the step 3, where we tested different depths of shelling. | ||
+ | |||
Shelling Test 1 | Shelling Test 1 | ||
Line 70: | Line 77: | ||
Score: .197 | Score: .197 | ||
− | Shelling Test 2 provided a better score; however, it was only marginally better than the score without any shelling | + | |
+ | Shelling Test 2 provided a better score; however, it was only marginally better than the score without any shelling at all. The small difference was still desirable, so Shelling Test 2 provided the base for the fourth and final step: lightening holes and filleting. | ||
+ | |||
Lightening Holes and Filleting Test 1 | Lightening Holes and Filleting Test 1 | ||
Line 76: | Line 85: | ||
Volume: .59 | Volume: .59 | ||
Score: .196 | Score: .196 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lightening Holes and Filleting Test 2 | ||
+ | Displacement: | ||
+ | Volume: | ||
+ | Score: |
Revision as of 15:42, 26 September 2012
Contents
Members
Preliminary Designs
Team Fα
Team members: Isaac, Christine, Lindsay
Team Fα's initial design involved several triangle cut-outs across the robot arm template. The triangles would provide support to the arm while removing much of the extraneous mass. In the center of the arm, where the most support was needed, the triangles were smaller. Towards the front and back of the arm, where the least support was needed, the triangles were larger.
Team FΩ
Team members: Greg, Andrew
The premise of Team FΩ's design was to do away with extraneous portions of the given design. The result was a curved, s-shape piece that cut off the portions past the pre-cut notches under the hypothesis that these areas did not help the piece resist deformation. The curved structure was intended to eliminate the corners created by the notches so that stress could not focus on any particular spot.
Synthesis of Designs
The team decided to base the final design primarily on Team Fα's preliminary design because it performed better with virtually the same volume. The main quality that we tried to incorporate into our new design was the use of triangles in the central region of the piece, between each of the notches. We also cut away the portions past the notches, like in Team FΩ's design.
Design Development
Step 1 was to find the ideal arrangement and orientation of two triangle cuts in the center of the arm.
Middle Bar Test 1 Displacement: .298 Volume: .95 in^3 Score: .280
Middle Bar Test 2 Displacement: .2922 Volume: .95 in^3 Score: .277
Middle Bar Test 3 Displacement: .2682 Volume: .95 in^3 Score: .255
Middle Bar Test 4 Displacement: .2824 Volume: .95 in^3 Score: .268
Middle Bar Test 2 provided the lowest score and became the base model for step 2, which was to cut out a substantial, trapezoidal section near the applied force. An additional trapezoidal section was
added towards the top of the arm as well. Each of the Cut Tests we performed involved different arrangements and sizes of the trapezoidal cuts.
Cut Test 1
Displacement: .358
Volume: .7 in^3
Score: .250
Cut Test 2 Displacement: .29 Volume: .72 Score: .209
Cut Test 3 Displacement: .277 Volume: .72 Score: .199
Cut Test 3 provided the lowest score and was used as the base model for the step 3, where we tested different depths of shelling.
Shelling Test 1
Displacement: .4195
Volume: .50
Score: .210
Shelling Test 2 Displacement: .323 Volume: .61 Score: .197
Shelling Test 2 provided a better score; however, it was only marginally better than the score without any shelling at all. The small difference was still desirable, so Shelling Test 2 provided the base for the fourth and final step: lightening holes and filleting.
Lightening Holes and Filleting Test 1
Displacement: .3339
Volume: .59
Score: .196
Lightening Holes and Filleting Test 2 Displacement: Volume: Score: