Difference between revisions of "Team F"

From ENGR005_2012
Jump to: navigation, search
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 the second step which was to cut out a substantial, trapezoidal section near the end where the force will be. An additional section was added near the larger cut as well.
+
 
 +
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 third step which was to test different depths of shelling.
+
 
 +
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 a all. The small difference was still desirable, so Shelling Test 2 provided the base for the fourth and final step: lightening holes and filleting.
+
 
 +
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

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: