University of Southampton Malaysia Campus
DESIGN REPORT
JB SHORE (Eurobot 4) Team Members: Krystal, Mubarak, Syed, Naqi, Faris, Ameen, Adha, Adib, Shaun 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction a.
3 3
Group’s Aim
2. Conceptual Design Study and Selection of the Final Design a. b. c. d.
How the team prioritised the requirements How the concept sketches were generated How the mechanisms were chosen The Final Design
3. Mechanical and Electrical Systems Design Process a.
Mechanical Systems i. Selection of Components ii. Mechanisms iii. Finite Element Analysis b. Electrical Systems i. Power Supply ii. Power for Components iii. Wiring Connections
3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 8 9 9 10
4. Manufacturing Processes and Robot Assembly
11
a.
Manufacturing Process i. How manufacturing was done ii. Tolerance b. Robot assembly i. Primary Robot ii. Secondary Robot
11 13 13 14
5. Programming and Testing Performed
15
a. Component Testing and Programming b. Mechanism Testing and Programming c. System Testing and Programming
15 17 18
6. Bill of Materials and Costing Report
19
7. Team’s Performance, Future Improvements and Recommendations
20
8. Information Relevant to Design and Development of Robot
21
9. Conclusion
21
10. Appendix a. Appendix 1 i. Binary Weighted Matrix ii. Morphological Chart iii. TRIZ b. Appendix 2 i. Technical Drawings c. Appendix 3 i. Strategy Map d. Appendix 4 i. Gantt Chart
2
1. INTRODUCTION This Eurobot project is Year 2 design project which is 90% of the module. This project is aimed to get students to work together in their group and work well as a team, as well as develop a better understanding on programming and designing a robot that is able to carry out certain tasks. This project will further develop the student's skills on Solidworks (CAD), FEA and Arduino.
The Group's Aim The aim of this project i s toproducea well -thought-through andsmartrobot(s). The robot(s) shoul d be able to performallfour main tasks –collecting blocks, collecting seashells, fishing and closing thehut doors. Also, to include a parasol which will open at the end of each match to earn bonus points. At the same time, the cost of
manufacturing the robot(s) should be under RM400.00 and abide by allthe Eurobot Rules. The main aim of the team was to win the Eurobot competition by getting the highest number of points.
2. CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY AND SELECTION OF FINAL DESIGN How the team prioritised the requirements Based on the project outline and marks distribution, the project requirements were set using the Binary Weighted Matrix (BWM) (Appendix 1.1). This was to ensure the concept design produced was focused on the team’s target and could perform the tasks as expected. The requirements were set by all the team members
and was guided by the marks breakdown in Eurobot Project Outline 16/17. The project requirements: 1. Innovation (22.22%) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Smallcost form factor (19.44%) Low (16.67%) Simple design (13.89%) Construction quality (11.11%) Accuracy (8.33%) Robustness (5.56%) Appearance (2.78%)
How the concept sketches were generated To harness the creativity of all the members, everyone produced at least one concept design which was guided by the ranking of requirements. Each member should be creative in finding solutions to the tasks given. In the concept drawing, explanation of the mechanism should be included to ensure that the design was understood by all members. This acts as a platform for all members to give out their ideas, hence making sure no possible solutions were overlooked. It was advisable for the team to look at previous Eurobot competitions’ designs as a reference to get a rough idea as to how to design a well-designed robot.
How the mechanisms were chosen In a meeting, every member presented their concept design and the reason for choosing each mechanism. List of components inside the mechanism were listed, to approximate the cost for each design. After all the designs were given a thorough explanation, members got to critic the designs, if it was necessary, and list out their pros and cons.
3
A morphological chart (Appendix 1.2) was used to group all the proposed mechanism performing the same task. Each mechanism for the task was compared directly in terms of innovativeness, robustness, cost and simplicity. From there, one mechanism for each task was to be selected for the final concept design. Then, an initial strategy map was drafted. From the map, it was concluded that one robot would not be able to perform all the tasks within 90 seconds. By referring to TRIZ (Appendix 1.3), a problem-solving tool, the contradiction can be solved by doing segmentation. Therefore, the team decided to have two robots. This enabled the robots to carry out all the tasks in 90 seconds. The next step was to detail out every mechanism selected by listing out the exact components required. By referring to the technical specification of each component, the best components were selected for each mechanism.
The Final Design From the list of mechanisms selected, they were split into two robots. The grouping was done based on the position of the tasks on the map. Since the hut and blocks were nearby, the door pusher, weight mover, shovel and gripper were combined in the primary robot. On the other hand, the fishing area was around the seashells area, so the fishing mechanism and flapper were combined in the secondary robot. Lastly, since the secondary robot has more space available than the primary robot, the parasol mechanism was designed in the secondary robot. Then, the final design of the 2 robots were sketched properly. From the sketching, a detailed CAD drawing of both robots were produced. The process took more than a month for the arrival of components to get the correct dimensions. Also, some minor adjustment were made afterwards as the manufacturing and testing were done. Simultaneously, a rough estimate of the total cost of this project was generated and updated from time to time. This was to make sure the project was within the budget. From the estimation, the budget was just enough excluding the cost of 3D printing. This means the team had a high risk of exceeding the budget.
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS Detailed designs with proper dimensions of the robots and components used can be seen in the technical drawings attached in the (Appendix 2).
4
3. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Mechanical system Selection of components MOTOR SPG30E
20K
30K
60K
120K
200K
270K
Rated Load Torque (Nm)
Type
0.127
0.177
0.294
0.490
7
14
Rated current (mA)
<680
<600
<560
<650
<500
<650
169±17
112±11
55±5.5
28±2.8
16.9±2
12.5±1
Rated Load Speed (rpm)
Resolution of 60 counts per 90 counts per 180 counts per 360 counts per 600 counts per 810 counts per encoder main shaft main shaft main shaft main shaft main shaft main shaft output revolution revolution revolution revolution revolution revolution For this project, a motor was needed with the following characteristic 1. low current (does not drain battery too fast) 2. high rpm (quick enough to finish tasks in 90 seconds) 3. high resolution of encoder output (for accuracy since only using odometry for navigation) Therefore, out of all the motors available, the best motor that fits the description needed was SPG30E 30K for the primary robot (since it needs to move faster) and SPG30E 60K for the secondary robot (as it needs to be more accurate). This can be seen in the comparison in the table above. Besides that, the lower accuracy of SPG30E 30K was compensated by pairing it with MD10C which proved to help in the accuracy when navigating. Lastly, since the weight of the robot was moderate, a high torque motor was not a requirement.
Motor types
TowerPro MG946R Metal
TowerPro SG90 Micro
FC-130RA-10300 Small
Gear Servo
Servo
DC Motor
Yes
Yes
Yo
4.8 - 6V (DC)
4.8 - 5V (DC)
4.5-12V (DC)
Speed
0.17 s/60° at 6.00V (no load)
0.12 s/60° (no load)
180000 rpm
Torque
1.0296 Nm (at 4.8V)
0.1765 Nm
3.83x10-3 Nm
180°
180°
continuous
Compatible
with
Arduino
servo library Operating voltage
Rotation angle
The servo motor was chosen because of its high torque, feedback control and can be programmed easily. For all the mechanisms, torque from the small DC motor was not sufficient. Therefore, the servo motor was chosen instead of the cheaper small DC motor, which was initially suggested. The current consumption was also lower than 200mA, hence it can be powered directly by Arduino.
5
Modified Servo Motor - Steps Two plastic servo motor were required to move in continuous rotation for the weight mover and pusher mechanism. This was because the mechanism needed to convert the rotation of servo motor to translation motion, hence it requires more than 180° rotation. Below was the procedure taken to modify the servo motor to achieve the continuous motion. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
The top and bottom housing of the servomotor was removed. A picture of the mechanism inside was taken as a reference. The coggs were removed so that the screw insides can be easily removed. The potentiometer was taken out - to be modified. The potentiometer was plugged into the receiver where the servo will rotate.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
The dial of the potentiometer was rotated until the motor stops (where Vout = 0.5Vin). The potentiometer dial was glued. A small protruding plastic that limit the rotation of servo motor on the cogg was cut. The cogg was placed back to its srcinal position. All the electronics were placed back inside the servo motor housing.
The second servo motor modification was unsuccessful as the dial was not glued at the right spot (at step 7). The problem was ratified by replacing the potentiometer with two equal valued resistors. A potential divider circuit was constructed by using two resistors. This ensures that the Vout equals to 0.5Vin, hence enabling the continuous rotation. Then similar steps were repeated from step 8 till 12.
Mechanisms used Primary robot
Weight Mover o
The weight mover had two compartments. The left compartment housed a modified servo motor, rack and pinion while the right compartment houses the weight and supported by a caster. The servo motor was secured inside the moving weight via a built-in slot. Some glue was applied to secure it permanently in place. The pinion was fixed on the servo motor via a servomotor horn which was also glued. The rack was fixed on the stationary platform. The whole structure had to be 3D printed due to its complexity. To increase strength, it was printed with the finest resolution and highest print density. From the team’s estimation, the structure will be able to cope with the compressive loads applied during application.
o
When the servo motor rotates, this causes the whole weight mover structure to move. Motion of the weight causes the centre of gravity of the robot to shift and hence tilting it backward or forward. A small angle was required for shovelling and the shovel needs to be lifted when it is not in use (to prevent the robot from getting stuck and slipping).
Shovel o
Steel plate was used in manufacturing the shovel because it is the thinnest and rigid material available in the workshop. Initially, aluminium plate was considered but it was not stiff enough compared to steel. The edge of the shovel was grinded and sharpened with a portable grinder as it needs to be thin enough for the shovel to scoop 6
the blocks. The shovel was chosen because it is easy to manufacture and low cost. It works together with the weight mover and the pusher to scoop and deliver the blocks to the designated area.
Pusher (modified servo motor – continuously rotation) o
The pusher mechanism consisted of a simple rack and pinion arrangement. The pinion was connected to a modified servo motor while the rack was secured to a pusher. A housing for the rack was designed to allow motion in one direction. All the parts (except to the plank) had to be 3D printed as they have a complex shape and does not carry large load.
o
The mechanism converts the continuous rotation motion of a servo motor into translation motion of the rack. The pusher, which was connected to the rack, moves forward to push the blocks on the shovel into the designated area.
Gripper o
The gripper mechanism used two metal gear servo motor with high torque. Two servos were used to provide more clamping force with the blocks. A threaded metal rod was used to provide rigid connection between the servo motor on one end and a 3D-printed block gripper on the other. A gripper joint was designed to provide a strong connection between servo motor, servo motor horn and the rod. The block gripper was designed to have an elliptical base so it can take two or three blocks in a row. A flat block gripper would have more area of contact but can only take a fixed number of blocks (either 2 or 3). Some sponges and blue tack were added to the surface of the block gripper base to provide a better grip. A thick servo motor holder was also designed to mount the servo motor firmly to the robot base. It had an enclosed design to provide a rigid support and prevent the servo motor from rotating out of the holder. The servo motor holders, connectors and block gripper were 3D printed due to their complex geometry. Besides, the servo motor holder needed to be precise in dimension to fit the servo, hence 3D printing was more suitable.
o
The gripper arm will clamp onto the bottom block because of the rotation of the servo motor. The servo motor was kept in tension as the blocks were dragged into the designated area to prevent any clamping force being loss. When the robot reaches the designated area, the servo motor will then reset to the initial position, releasing the blocks.
Secondary robot
Fishing rod o
The fishing arm was designed as an I-beam with a servo motor connected on one end. An I-beam shape was chosen to save weight while maintaining rigidity of the structure. This mechanism was chosen as it is reliable and at the same time could perform the task given in a shorter period of time (the robot does not need to reposition each time it goes fishing). On the fishing end, small stacks of plywood were attached to increase the reach into the fishing tank. Magnets were attached to the rod to attract the magnetisable rings on the 7
fish. The I-beam was 3D printed to make it light. This was because the torque available from servo motor was just enough to pull apart magnet and fish. A modular design was chosen where the fishing mechanism can be moved to the left or right side depending on the starting area. This was done to save cost and can be done within three minutes of preparation time. o
The mechanism was housed inside the robot with a small opening, that was big enough for the I-beam to pass through while the fish were not. Planks attached to the outer housing of the robot pushes the fish so it falls inside the net when the I-beam was retracted inside the robot. By putting the fishing arm on the side, fishing can be done easily as there was no need for the robot to rotate to send the fish caught into the net.
Parasol o
The parasol mechanism consisted of a vase and rod. The rod was spring loaded into the vase and secured in place by a pin. On the top of the rod, a paper parasol was attached. A few centimetres above the parasol was a wooden beam to stop the parasol from flying out of the vase. The pin was connected to a micro servo motor via a string. A micro servo was chosen due to its high torque and low cost. The vase and rod were 3D printed as they need the correct shape and geometry to fit while the wooden beam was laser cut since it needs to be strong to withstand the impact of rod.
o
After 90 seconds have passed during the match, the micro servo motor will be triggered to rotate causing the pin to dislodge out, releasing the spring-loaded rod. The upward motion caused the parasol to open
and the wooden beam prevented it from exceeding the limit. Pull start mechanism (both robots) •
The robot must be started by pulling a cord of 500mm length. Therefore, a pull start mechanism was designed using an ultrasonic sensor. The robot was programmed to stop if an object was within 100mm from the sensor. Hence, a plank connected to a cord was used to cover the sensor. To start a match, the cord will be pulled causing the plank to move sideways. Since nothing is obstructing the sensor, the robot will start to move.
A strategy map followed by each robot is attached (Appendix 3).
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (FEA) Gripper (Primary Robot)
Figure 2
Figure 1
8
Figure 1 shows that there is not much stress on the servomotor and its holder when torque is applied. Therefore, the servomotor and its holder is able withstand the pressure produced by the servomotor. Whereas Figure 2 shows that there will a small displacement of the servomotor when the torque is being applied. Hence, it can be neglected as the value will not exceed 1mm.
Fishing Rod (Secondary Robot) Figure 3 indicates that the fishing arm is able lift the fish (load) applied. High stresses will be concentrated at the bottom of the arm where it is connected to a servomotor. While Figure 4 shows that when it is applied Fi ure 3
with load, the edge of the fishing arm will have the greatest displacement. This was because the fish were being pulled there. This would not cause a problem as the maximum displacement is only around 1mm. Figure 4
Shovel (Primary Robot) Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 5 shows that the load (blocks and cone) can be lifted easily without damaging the shovel. There is not much stress applied other than the inner area of the shovel (greatest stress will be). Figure 6 indicates that the shovel will experience a displacement throughout its lifting area. The greatest displacement would be at the tip. Fortunately, the
displacement value is very small which is negligible.
Electrical system Power Supply The distribution of the power supply is crucial as supplying more than the voltage stated of the component will damage it. Worst case scenario, the component will be unusable. The team encountered a problem whereby the voltage regulator of the Arduino was burned. The problem was identified where the lead acid battery voltage was more than 12V after charging, which was bigger than the Arduino's voltage regulator operating range (7V 12V). The solution was to switch the voltage regulator with a different regulator with a higher operating range (7V – 25V).
Power for Components In both the primary and secondary robots, only DC geared motors, servo motors, and ultrasonic sensors were used. The voltage range for the servo motor used was 4.8V to 6V, hence it can be powered directly by 5V pin from Arduino. The ultrasonic sensor was also powered by the 5V output of the Arduino. Both the servo motor and ultrasonic sensor required less than 200mA current, so it will not exceed the 5V pin current output. Besides that, the DC geared motors required bigger current supply hence it was powered via MD10C for the primary robot and Motor Shield for the secondary robot. The MC10C and Motor Shield were powered directly via the 9
12V battery. The encoder, which has a voltage range of 5V to 24V, was also connected to the 12V battery. This was done to reduce the number of components connected to the 5V pin from Arduino. By doing this, the amount of current had to be shared between multiple servos and ultrasonic sensor where it was sufficient and no problem arose from the components including the encoder.
Wiring Connections Below are the schematic diagrams of the wiring for the primary and secondary robot respectively. Primary Robot Connections
Secondary Robot Connections
10
4. MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND ROBOT ASSEMBLY How manufacturing was done The aim was to produce a low-cost robot that can be easily manufactured, with the machines and tools available in the workshop – 3D printer, laser cutter, driller, lathe machine, guillotine shear cutter and milling machine.
As shown above, before considering the manufacturing process, the final design of the robots had to be checked thoroughly once more on Solidworks. This was to ensure that all parts fit inside the robot and all the robot perimeter are within the limit stated in the Eurobot rules. Also, all the materials used to manufacture each part had to be concluded and analysed using Finite Element Analysis (FEA). The analysis had to be done before it can be manufactured to prevent any failures from occurring as the FEA simulation ensures that the designed parts are able to withstand the normal loading conditions with no significant deflection or failure. During the analysis process, a problem was encountered with the 3D printed parts. The FEA package did not have the data for 3D printed ABS. Therefore, normal ABS material was used for the FEA analysis. This led to a huge error in the strength approximation from Solidworks and strength observed during the real testing. So, a safety factor was considered to make sure that the design was sufficiently strong enough to withstand the loading under normal condition. Once the material for each part had been chosen, the next step was to consider the possible manufacturing processes for the robots. A table was formed to categorise the manufacturing process. Table of Manufacturing Equipment Used Equipment used
Parts manufactured
3D Printer
Fishing rod (I-beam), parasol vase, parasol rod, rack, pinon, rack holder, weight mover, block gripper, gripper joint, bottom motor housing, servo motor holder
Laser Cutter
Panels for robot housing, pusher, door pusher, pull start plank
Pillar drill
Holes on robot housing, flapper, weight mover
Other tools
Flapper and gripper rod
Before going into the workshop, a detailed list of things required to do and the objectives were listed out to make sure that the workshop session was utilised fully. This will help the group to achieve the necessary goals. The tasks were all equally divided and delegated to each member in the design team, ensuring that the team was productive, avoiding any member being idle. The material for the body of both robots were initially chosen to be MDF. However, during the first manufacturing workshop, the MDF board provided were not big enough. Ultimately, it was changed to plywood, since it does not influence the overall dimension and structure rigidity. However, the CAD drawings and dimensions were changed a bit due to depth difference of these two materials. The parts were cut using a laser cutter, as shown in the table above. This manufacturing process was done fast, saving a lot of time during the workshop, allowing other necessary manufacturing processes to be carried out. 11
Below is a table of both the primary and secondary robot components with the material used. Table of Component and Material Used Material Steel Sheet Plywood MDF Paper ABS (3D Printed)
Component Flapper, Shovel Panels for robot, Pusher Wall Pusher Parasol Motor Holders, Rack, Pinion, Parasol Vase, Parasol Rod, Motor housing, Weight mover, Gripper, Fishing Rod
3D printing took a very long time and had a very high chance of failing, so both of these were taken into account during the manufacturing process. Manufacturing Process Flowchart A brief explanation of the manufacturing process taken is explained in the flowchart.
12
Tolerance In all manufacturing processes, tolerances are crucial as it could lead to improper fits during assembly. The holes on the both the robot housing were drilled using the milling machine. The holes drilled were with tolerance of +0.5mm. For example, if the technical drawing states that the hole was of diameter 3mm, then the hole drilled will be 3.5mm so that the screws were able to fit through the hole smoothly. For the rack and pinion design, the fit that was required was a clearance fit, to allow smooth motion. Since the design of the rack and pinion was quite complex, it was 3D printed because the tools and materials in the workshop were not sufficient to manufacture it. Unfortunately, the tolerance of the 3D printer was not specified, so the design was estimated to try to achieve a clearance fit. Hence, the hole in rack was made a bit bigger than the rack's external size. Besides that, for the servo holder for the fishing rod, gripper servo compartment and the general servo holders needed to be tight fit. This was because the servo gear needs to fit with the holder tightly to ensure that it does not wobble during motion. As mentioned earlier, a major problem was faced where the 3D printed part was too tight causing it to break when the servo motor was fitted to the holder. Therefore, the design was redimensioned with bigger dimensions. Therefore, to securely hold the servo motors, super glue was applied to make sure it fit securely. To connect the connector and servos, epoxy was used for the fishing rod while super glue was used for others to ensure they are firmly secured.
Robot Assembly In order to finalise the assembly of both robots, a discussion was necessary. One main objective when assembling the robot was to ensure that it was neat and presentable. The part that will be the messiest would be the electronic wiring connections. Using the wiring diagram (electrical systems), the best path for each component was selected. Some components that had no fixed position was moved to make sure the connection was neat. Once all the parts were manufactured, all the electronics were assembled to find the best possible way to connect them to the Arduino board and the breadboard. Below are pictures of the assembly of the primary and secondary robot in more detailed.
Primary Robot EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON
LEVEL 3P INFRARED SENSOR
LEVEL 2P
WALL PUSHER
LEVEL 1P
SHOVEL WHEEL
13
GRIPPER
LEVEL 2P
LEVEL 1P
MD10C
INFRARED SENSOR
BREADBOARD
PINION
SERVO MOTOR DC MOTOR
BATTERY HOLDER
SERVOMOTOR HOLDER
LITHIUM ION BATTERIES
LEVEL 3P PINION
WEIGHT MOVER CASTOR
Secondary Robot
MAGNET
LEVEL 2S
PUSH START BUTTON
LEVEL 1S
LED ACID BATTERY
PARASOL
ROD VASE FISHING ROD
EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON
ARDUINO
SERVO MOTOR
14
DC MOTOR
5. PROGRAMMING AND TESTING PERFORMED In order to make the robots move, the programming section is very important. The aim for the programming team is to be able to sketch a code with the least amount of error occurring, especially during the competition. Therefore, testing was performed on each component provided to ensure that they work perfectly and are not faulty.
Programming and Testing of Each Component: Servomotor – normal and modified It was connected to the Arduino according to the connections provided in the lab. Then the codes were uploaded to check whether it worked . The programming team sketched a function for each mechanism that used a servo motor. For two mechanism in the primary robot that required the servomotor to rotate continuously, same code was used. Stationary point, high and low value were determined using angle value. Duration of clockwise rotation and anti-clockwise rotation were controlled by a delay() function.
Magnetometer Lab code was uploaded into Arduino board and the heading from the magnetometer readings were compared with an electronic compass. The magnetometer readings were noisy with of 10° fluctuation which was more not accurate enough. Hence, the team decided not to use it.
Ultrasonic sensor After uploading the code from the Arduino, the serial monitor was opened to check whether the ultrasonic sensor was working well with the codes. The monitor would display the distance of the obstacle in front of it. If an obstacle was 8 cm or less from the sensor, the robot would stop.
DC motor The primary robot and secondary robot were using the SPG 30E-30K and SPG 30E-60K DC motor respectively. SPG 30E-30K and SPG 30E-60K DC motor were driven by motor drive (MD10C) and motor shield respectively. Test conducted were driving forward and backward motion of DC motor and update encoder value simultaneously. Afterwards, from encoder value, the number of ticks needed for one complete rotation was taken, then the number of ticks were converted to the distance travelled/angle rotated with respect to robot’s movement. The coding was made easier by using distance and angle as the input for further adjustment. To ensure that both motors’ rotation speed were the same, the left motor was taken as the reference and the value of the power supplied to the right motor was changed accordingly so that both wheels will rotate at the same speed. Although the power supplied was the same, it does not necessarily give out the same rotation speed for
both wheels. 15
How the Libraries/Lab Code are Obtained (list of libraries) •
The basic codes were obtained from the 10 Arduino labs that were done during the first semester of the computing module. Further elaborations of the codes were from self-studies that the programming team did from books, online videos and articles.
•
Reference: github.com - search Eurobot
Concept used - Coordinate navigation system with PID a s control loop feedback mechanism Coordinate navigation system (dead rec koning) Initial position (x,y) and orientation were determined before starting. Desired destination, xg, yg could be determined by using pythagoras and trigonometry calculation as shown in diagram below.
The calculation involved was to find the goal angle with reference to x-axis and distance between robot and goal destination. Angle range were kept at –180° to 180° to ensure that the robot will not rotate more than 180°, reducing error in orientation. The x and y coordinate position of robot are updated using the encoder value as the robot advance towards the destination. This navigation concept was easier compared to moving straight and rotate function. The calculations were computed internally instead of calculating manually.
Implementation of PID
16
Control diagram for the navigation + PID
More detail
on
PID
library
used:
http://brettbeauregard.com/blog/2011/04/improving-the-beginners-pid-
introduction/. PID testing – tuning for Kp, Ki and Kd were the most important part to avoid any instability of the robot which could lead to huge errors (slipping again). The main testing was to ensure that the robot move from one point to another accurately. Realising that slipping of wheel was the major error in the navigation part, the robots were then made to move at a slightly low speed at starting point and the end point.For accuracy testing, a
straight line (chose 60cm) was drawn with perpendicular line constructed at the end point. The robot was then tested to move straight for 60cm and rotate 90 degrees clockwise, then 180 degrees anti-clockwise. Steps were then repeated several times.
Mechanism Testing and Programming Most components were working perfectly. The next step was test to test the mechanism and carry out specific task. Most of problem occurs due to components connected to interrupt pins or wires were faulty. Hence, this required multiple checks and adjustment before the mechanism can start to work. Testing were done before releasing robot to playground to make sure all mechanism works well.
System Testing and Programming Since the robots will be moving around in playfield area, all the important points must be measured (using measuring tape, because the actual dimension different from the blueprint). The robots were placed at all the important coordinates, then the x and y values were measured (values measured from center of the two wheels).
It is important to ensure all components were working as intended. For instance, our experience from using one pin for ultrasonic sensor and interrupt pin simultaneously was result in error. Simple test was conducted before 17
robot release in the playground. The robot was tested to move for a short distance then rotate, and move all mechanism available in each robot then the robot move straight and rotate again. This was to ensure all mechanism are working perfectly and can be called at any time. Afterwards, all measured coordinates were inserted to make sure that the robot is able to navigate accurately to the desired spot. Error due to odometry accumulate over time mostly due to slipping hence minimum speed was maintained. Another alternative is to bang the wall to realign the robot and reset the coordinate. This proved to be a good trick but takes up a lot of time if it was done multiple times. Another problem was faced when trying to reach a certain position. If the robot did not reach the desired value, it will not break out of the loop and proceed to next command (explained further in future improvement). Obstacle avoidance code was able to stop the motor when an object was detected within 8cm from the robot. It will remain stationary until the object moves away.
18
6. BILL OF MATERIALS AND COSTING REPORT At the start of this project, a budget of RM400 was given to help finance the cost of designing and building robot(s). However, the team realised that that the budget will not be sufficient to build two robots towards the end. Therefore, it was necessary to find a sponsor in order for this project to proceed further. Fortunately, the team managed to secure a sponsorship from a local company called SuperCrane where they sponsored RM100. Below is a detailed list of materials used during this project as well as their costing.
Supplier
Item Name
Quantity used Buy Price per Set (RM) Total Item Cost
Cytron Breadboard
2
1
9.01
9.01
Cytron SPG30E-30K Motor with Encoder Cytron SPG30E-60K Motor with Encoder
2 2
0 2
0.00 78.44
0.00 156.88
Cytron Standard-size RC servo MG946R
4
1
37.10
37.10
Cytron TowerPro SG90 Micro Servo
1
1
8.48
8.48
Cytron Magnetometer compass)
HMC-5883L
(digital
1
0
14.84
0.00
Cytron Magnetometer compass)
HMC-5883U
(digital
1
0
21.20
0.00
Cytron Transistor 2N2222
4
0
0.42
0.00
Cytron Diode 1N4007
4
0
0.21
0.00
Cytron DC Jack (Female) to DG126 Converter
1
1
2.00
2.00
Cytron Female-Female wire
1
1
4.50
4.50
Taobao Emergency start stop button Cytron DC Geared Motor Bracket
2 4
0 2
1.36 14.00
0.00 28.00
Cytron Plastic Wheel for SPG30/SPG50 (80mm)
4
2
15.90
31.80
Cytron Castor (metal, 43mm)
3
2
10.60
21.20
Cytron Li Ion Battery Holder 3x18650
2
0
3.82
0.00
Cytron Magnet Ring OD10mm x H3mm
8
8
1.27
10.16
Workshop 3D Printing /g
430
430
0.20
86.00
Workshop Plyboard (500 x 400 x 5 mm)
4
4
6.00
24.00
Workshop Steel sheet (500 x 400 x 0.6 mm)
1
1
33.60
33.60
Workshop M8 threaded rod (1000 mm)
1
1
4.00
4.00
Total Cost (RM)
456.73
From the table above, it can be seen that some components were used but not bought as they were provided by the University from the previous odometry project. With a credit of RM500 (including the RM100 from the sponsor), the team managed to produce and design two functioning robots with the required components within the new budget.
19
7. TEAM’S PERFORMANCE, FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Team's Performance After the Eurobot competition, the performance of the team was evaluated. It was noted that the team was very well organised and managed. This was because the team was divided into three subgroups (design, programming and report team) from the beginning of the project. This ensured that the tasks were carried out well throughout the whole project with limited amount of difficulties. Since there were three subgroups, each team were able to set their own objectives and cover more areas leading to a better functioning robot. Because all the teams were well managed and organised, all the objectives set were met within a short period of time. For example, the programming team were able to do more research and understand the codes for all the components in detailed, hence enabling the programming part for the robots to be easy. Also, the programming team managed to implement PID which increased the accuracy of both the robots. While the design team, with the help of the report team, were able to come up with innovative yet simple designs for the robot. The report team, on the other hand, were able to start on the report so it was not done last minute. Lastly, the team was always optimistic, which is a plus point, as it gave the team the drive to performance well to reach the ultimate goal - winning the Eurobot competition.
Robot Performance During the competition, the primary robot did not manage to perform at its fullest due to lack of power supplied. The problem was identified where the robot was tested too many times before the competition, causing power of the robot to be low. Besides that, when the robot hit the wall of the playing field during the second match of the competition, the robot thought that it has not reached the distance set, so it did not manage to break out of the loop leading to it getting stuck. This problem was solved where the solution was to check the encoder value, when the robot gets stuck, and program it where when there is no change in value, the robot will break out of the loop. This was successful during the last match of the competition. In addition, it was able to close both hut door with ease and with no problem whatsoever. To the team's surprise, the secondary robot was able to perform better than expected. It managed to collect more fish than initially thought of. The parasol mechanism worked well and the parasol also managed to open at the end of each match. Overall, both the primary and secondary robot managed to perform well and it met the team's expectations.
Future Improvements There were several things that could have been done better and been improved to perform well during the competition. One of the things that could be improved is optimising the codes used where the robot is able to break out of the loop when it gets stuck. Furthermore, intelligence could be included which helps the robot detect an obstacle and plan a new path to avoid it. Besides that, it was difficult to control the speed of the robot, especially after the battery have been charged. In the future, control systems could be looked into to help resolve this problem. In this project, the primary robot had two servo motor which controls the gripper, one for each. A way to improve this will be to use one instead of two servo motors two control both grippers. This will help to save the cost of buying another servo motor. Other than that, one of the main thing that could be 20
improved would be estimating the budget and try to reduce it as much as possible. So that external funding like sponsorship is not required. In addition, in terms of the team's performance, time management could be improved as the task required to be done was quite packed towards the end, leading to work being done improperly which can be seen in the initial Gantt chart at the start of the project and the final Gantt chart produced (Appendix 4). Lastly, a way to improve the wiring connections of the components could be to use a software that finds the best possible and neat way for the connections.
Recommendation Firstly, it is highly recommended to list out the necessary components and material required to build the robot as soon as possible so that the budget can be estimated at the early stage of the project. Also, to find other possible ways to design the robot and research on the components before buying them. This would help ensure that the project will be within the budget provided and that no wrong component is bought. Second, before concluding the final design, it is important to know what equipment and materials are provided in the workshop. This will prevent any major changes to the design during the manufacturing stage. Moreover, it should be taken into account that the size of the map provided will be different compared to the actual playing field. Therefore, it is important to test the robot regularly on the actual playing field. Also, it should be noted that some rules may be changed at the very last minute. So, the robot should be designed and programmed where it is able to adapt to changes made easily. 8.
Information Relevant to Design and Development
The sizes of the blocks in the playing field were not the same, therefore making it difficult to use a shovel to pick up the blocks. The team believes that using a shovel is not practical after numerous failed attempts. In addition, the materials provided in the workshop were not sufficient enough, hence restricting a number of ideas. The robot would be able to perform much better if there were more sensors provided. 9.
Conclusion
The team performed well during the Eurobot competition, staying optimistic throughout. Because of that, the team managed to win. Everyone in the team was happy with the result. Though there are room for more improvements which can be achieved with more time and resources.
21
APPENDIX Appendix 1 1.1 Binary Weighted Matrix (BWM)
22
1.2 Morphological Chart
23
1.3 TRIZ
24
Appendix 3 Strategy Map
25
26
24 23
26
9
28 20
22 29 25
27
19
12
17
3 21
13
2
1 30
16
10
15
4
NO
PART
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
EXTENDEDDOORPUSHER PULLSTARTPLANK FRONT WALL SERVOMOTORHOLDERTYPE2 SERVOMOTOR GRIPPER JOINT BASE OF SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2 GRIPPER ROD
5
TOTAL 1 1 1 2
3 2 2 2 2 WHEEL 2 6 DC MOTOR HOLDER 2 PINION FOR PUSHER 1 RACK FOR PUSHER 1 SHOVEL 1 SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 1 1 BASE PLATFORM 1 BACK WALL 1 CASTER WHEEL 2 DOOR PUSHER 1 11 ULTRASONIC SENSOR 1 MIDDLE AND TOP PLATFORM 2 RACK OF WEIGHT MOVER 1 WEIGHT MOVER 1 14 EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON 1 BREADBOARD 1 BATTERY HOLDER 2 SOLIDWORKS Educational Use Only ARDUINO BOARD Product. For Instructional 1 BATTERY 6 BLOCK PUSHER 1 RACK HOUSING FOR PUSHER 1
18
7
BLOCK GRIPPER
8
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
EUROBOT DR.JOE LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD,ABS, STEEL,MDF
SCALE
1:5
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
SURFACE FINISH
PRIMARY ROBOT
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
1
No OFF
1
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
-
DRAWING NUMBER
11
REVISION
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
SCALE
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 1:5 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD,MDF, ABS,STEEL
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
ISOMETRIC VIEW SHEET
2 2
No OFF
-
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
21
DRAWING NUMBER
REVISION
140
5
15
4 0 4 0 2
110
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
01/05/2017
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
PLYWOOD
SCALE
1:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
PULL START PLANK SHEET
3
No OFF
3
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
2
DRAWING NUMBER
31
REVISION
22.43 30
0 3
60
8
1 6 . 5 5 1
3.50
8 4 . 9 1
126.87°
8 4 . 4
DRAWN BY
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
01/05/2017
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
ABS
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY
A3
SCALE
2:1
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
BLOCK GRIPPER
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
4
No OFF
4
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
9
DRAWING NUMBER
4
REVISION
1
77
0 5 . 3
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
01/05/2017
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
DR.JOSEPH
EUROBOT LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
STEEL
SCALE
2:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
ROUGH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
GRIPPER ROD
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
5
No OFF
5
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
8
DRAWING NUMBER
5
REVISION
1
245
5
5 4
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
01/05/2017
PROJECT
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
EUROBOT
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
PLYWOOD
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SCALE
1:2
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
EXTENDED DOOR PUSHER
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
6
No OFF
6
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
1
DRAWING NUMBER
6
REVISION
1
21
1 R 1
22
9 16.38 R
7 7
7
R5 .25 3.50
3 8 . 0
4.30
4.70
2
.0
4
° 2
2
1
24.19
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
4 1
R2
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
SCALE
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
EUROBOT LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
5:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
GRIPPER JOINT
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
7
No OFF
7
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
6
DRAWING NUMBER
7
REVISION
1
200
5
26
87
0 3 1 0 5 . 6 1
1 1 3
5 8
0 7 . 3
0 7 . 2 2 1
5 4
10 45
22.50
DRAWN BY
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY
A3
SCALE
1:2
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
TITLE
BACK WALL
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
8
No OFF
8
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
17
DRAWING NUMBER
8
REVISION
1
200
5
10
26
88
5 6
0 5 . 0 1
10
10
65
5 4
0 5 . 3
9 8 . 0 3 0 9
6
1 8 . 8 3
6 2
4
5 2
55
0 8 . 9
35
12 21.70
DRAWN BY
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
FEEG2001 SUPERVISOR
DR. JOSEPH
LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
DATE
01/05/2017 MATERIAL
PLYWOOD
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY
A3
SCALE
1:2
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
BASE PLATFORM
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
9
No OFF
9
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
16
DRAWING NUMBER
9
REVISION
1
200
180 26
0 3 . 7
87
0 3 1
0 5 . 6 1
5 8 1 1 3
10
0 7 . 1 5
1 7
0 7 . 3
98
0 3 . 2 1
10 41
5 DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
05/01/2017
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
PLYWOOD
SCALE
1:2
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
FRONT WALL
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
10
No OFF
10
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
3
DRAWING NUMBER
10
REVISION
1
200
10 5
0 1
45 0 7 . 3
5 7 1
0 2 1
5 5 1
5 2
0 1
10
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001 01/05/2017
1:2
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
SUPERVISOR
EUROBOT
DR.JOSEPH PLAYWOOD SMOOTH LIFTON
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
PROJECT
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
MATERIAL
SCALE
TEXTURE
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
MIDDLE, TOP PLATFORM
OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
11
No OFF
11
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
21
DRAWING NUMBER
11
REVISION
1
165
5
0 1 1
9 5 7 . 0 1
72.50
20
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
PLYWOOD
SCALE
1:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
BLOCK PUSHER
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
12
No OFF
12
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
26
DRAWING NUMBER
12
REVISION
1
4.50
5 5 2 . 4
2
2.50 174
26.50
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2 001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH
EUROBOT LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
SCALE
1:2
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
RACK HOLDER FOR PUSHER
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
13
No OFF
13
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
30
DRAWING NUMBER
13
REVISION
1
8 1
5.66
1.69
R 0 5 . 3 1
0
0 .5
11
16.84
0°
9
0.62
165
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
SCALE
1:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
SURFACE FINISH
RACK FOR WEIGHT MOVER
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
14
No OFF
14
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
22
DRAWING NUMBER
14
REVISION
1
0 2
4.72 1.69
11 0°
0 5 . 0 5 . 3 1
4 9
0.62
22.17
131.33
175.66
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
SCALE
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
EUROBOT DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
1:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
SURFACE FINISH
RACK FOR PUSHER
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
15
No OFF
15
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
13
DRAWING NUMBER
15
REVISION
1
46 R
R2
2
0 3
R2
0
25
4 1
2 5.68
16
34.64
20 50 5
4 0 1
40 DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
SCALE
FEEG 2001 01/05/2017 2:1
PROJECT
SUPERVISOR
EUROBOT
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
BASE OF SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2
OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
161
No OFF
6
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
7
DRAWING NUMBER
16
REVISION
1
20.70 32.70 36.70 46 50
R2
R2 7 3 . 8
R4 .50
8
6 1
0 2
40 3
0 4
R4
5
R 2
R
2
3
DRAWN BY
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE NAQI(JB SHORE)
A3 JB SHORE EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
DEPARTMENT
DATE
SCALE
FEEG2 001 01/05/2017 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY
2:1
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
SURFACE FINISH
SERVOMOTOR HOLDER TYPE 2
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
No OFF
17
17
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
4
DRAWING NUMBER
17
REVISION
1
5 7
10
10
0 2
0 5 . 3
0 2 1
0 9
0 6
5 1 1
0 3
12 9.3 9°
100 200
200 DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
01/05/2017
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
STEEL
SCALE
1:2
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
STEEL SHOVEL
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
18
No OFF
18
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
14
DRAWING NUMBER
18
REVISION
1
45
35
4 1 0 5
0 5
34 36
22
80 70
9 28 4.50
0 5 . 7
7 3 1
0 7
1 1
0 8
1 6
9 4
0 5 . 1 6
2 3
6 1
5° 13
R 1
R 1
22
23.71
180 19
2
85
9 2 . 5 1
4 2
7 1 .
1
9 1
4 R
28 DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG 2001 01/02/2017 SUPERVISOR
DR.JOSEPH LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
MATERIAL
ABS
SCALE
1:2
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
WEIGHT MOVER
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
No OFF
19
19
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
23
DRAWING NUMBER
19
REVISION
1
200
30
5 4
DRAWN BY
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No
N/A PROJECT
EUROBOT
NAQI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY
A3
JB SHORE DEPARTMENT
DATE
FEEG2001
01/05/2017
SUPERVISOR
MATERIAL
DR.JOSEPH PLYWOOD LIFTON
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SCALE
1:1
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
TEXTURE
SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE
DOOR PUSHER
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
20
No OFF
20
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
19
DRAWING NUMBER
20
REVISION
1
15 14
4 10
25
11 17 12
26 24 23
8 21
1
20
9 B
3
B
C DETAIL C SCALE 2 : 5 13
19
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Part Wheel Caster wheel Flapper Fishing I-Beam DC motor Dc motor holder Dcmotorbase Ultrasonicsensor Infraredsensor Servomotor Servomotor holder Micro servomotor Magnet bar Arduinoboard Breadboard Leadacidbattery Vase Emergency push start button Circular magnet Fishing I-Beam wood extension Front wood part Bottom wood part Left side wood Right side wood Middle wood part Vase rod
2
2
Total 2 1
6
18
5
1 1 1
16
1 1 4
22
1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2
7
1 2 2
SECTION B-B DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY : MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
A3
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
DATE: 10 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1:5
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: PLYWOOD, ABS, STEEL, MAGNETIC ALLOY
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
ALLDIMENSIONS IN mm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A
TITLE
SECONDARY ROBOT
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
21
No OFF:
21
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
-
DRAWING NUMBER:
21
REVISION
1
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI( JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
A3 EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 1 MAY 2017
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: PLYWOOD, STEEL, MDF, MAGNETIC ALLOYS
SCALE: 1:5
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
SURFACE FINISH
TITLE: ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECONDARY ROBOT
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
22
No OFF
22
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
-
DRAWING NUMBER
22
1
REVISION
214
5
255.59 48
0 5 . 3
20 810
2 2
1 1 4
5 4
28
10
0 5 .
3 0 1
0 1
1 2
20.95 7 5
4 0 3
0 2
30
79 5
DRAWN BY: JB SHORE
DO NOT SCALE
A3 EDMC JOB No
DEPARTMENT: FEEG 2001
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1:2
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm
MATERIAL: PLYWOOD
TEXTURE: SMOOTH SURFACE FINISH
ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLE SS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
PROJECT: EUROBOT SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton Faculty of Engineering and the Environment TITLE: BOTTOM ROBOT
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
SHEET
23
No OFF
23
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
22
DRAWING NUMBER:
23
REVISION
1
3
6
2
0 2 . 5
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No : N/A
DRAWN BY : MUHAMMAD ADIB IBRAHIM (JB SHORE)
DEPARTMENT : Mech Eng. FEE
DATE : 1 MAY 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SCALE :
EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR : DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL : MAGNETIC ALLOY
10 : 1 TEXTURE : SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT :
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
TITLE
SURFACE FINISH
CIRCULAR MAGNET
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
No OFF
24
24
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
19
DRAWING NUMBER
24
REVISION
1
35 18
5 9
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No : N/A
DRAWN BY : MUHAMMAD ADIB IBRAHIM (JB SHORE)
DEPARTMENT : Mech Eng. FEE
DATE :
SCALE :
1 MAY 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
PROJECT :
SUPERVISOR :
EUROBOT
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL : MDF
2:1 TEXTURE : SMOOTH
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS
TITLE :
FISHING I-BEAM WOOD EXTENSION
OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
25
No OFF
25
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
20
DRAWING NUMBER
25
REVISION
1
214
145
5
5
20
0 3 4 7 0 . 5 3
0 1 1
22
96
0 2
10 3
4 5 5 5 9 2
6 6
0 3
3 2
0 2
5 7
4.50
12
88.50 107
20 30
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI( JB SHORE)
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1:2
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: PLYWOOD
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
A3
ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
SURFACE FINISH
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
TITLE: FRONT ROBOT
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
26
No OFF
26
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
21
DRAWING NUMBER:
26
REVISION
1
170 0 3
25
20 6 2
5 1 1
15 20
1 2
0 3
5
4
4 8
0 0 3
0 9
3 9
0 3
0 2
0 5
8 20
9
50
35
20 127
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No : N/A
DRAWN BY : Muhammad Adib Ibrahim (JB SHORE)
DEPARTMENT : Mech Eng. FEE
DATE : 12 APRIL 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SCALE : 1:2
PROJECT :
SUPERVISOR :
MATERIAL :
TEXTURE :
EUROBOT
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
PLYWOOD
SMOOTH
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
Title
LEFT FRAME
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
27
No OFF
27
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
23
DRAWING NUMBER
27
REVISION
1
214
5
35
30 3
5 3
0 2
4
2 2
5 6 1 0 2
40 40
4
0 2
0 2
8
20
2 6
5 30
30
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
A3
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1:2
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: PLYWOOD
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SURFACE FINISH
TITLE: MIDDLE ROBOT
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
28
No OFF
28
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
25
DRAWING NUMBER:
28
REVISION
1
18
5
9
0 5 . 7
5
0 3
5 1
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MUHAMMAD ADIB IBRAHIM( JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
A3 EDMC JOB No:N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 26 APRIL 2017
SCALE; 2:1
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: MAGNETIC ALLOY
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SURFACE FINISH
TITLE: MAGNET BAR
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
No OFF
29
29
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
13
DRAWING NUMBER:
29
REVISION
1
3.13
3.63
6 2
0 2
0 1
6
7
45
6 1
6 2
6 3
6.50
80
66
5
0 1
10
60
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY : MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI
DATE :
EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng FEE
PROJECT :
SUPERVISOR :
MATERIAL :
TEXTURE :
EUROBOT
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
ABS
SMOOTH
11 APRIL 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SCALE : 1:1
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
SURFACE FINISH
DC MOTOR HOLDER
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
30
No OFF
30
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
6
DRAWING NUMBER:
30
REVISION
1
9.24
0 1 1
TRUE R2.50
7 2
82
0 4 . 9
75
10 55
0 2
6
43
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI( JB SHORE)
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1:1
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: STEEL
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
A3
ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SURFACE FINISH
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
TITLE: FLAPPER
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
31
No OFF
31
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
3
DRAWING NUMBER:
31
REVISION
1
35
0 5 4 2
17.50
0 5 . 3 5 1
0 5 . 4 7
5 2
0 1
13
12
18
3
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI( JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
A3 EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1 :1
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: ABS
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
SURFACE FINISH
TITLE
VASE FOR PARASOL
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
32
No OFF
32
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
17
DRAWING NUMBER:
32
REVISION
1
0 3 2
0 2 2
18
34
6 R
7
2 1
4 .7
°
0 1
5
R3
DETAIL Front Part SCALE 1 : 1
DETAIL Motor Connection SCALE 1 : 1
0 R1
185 220 230
0 2
0 1
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY : MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI(JB SHORE)
DATE :
EDMC JOB No: N/A
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
PROJECT :
SUPERVISOR :
MATERIAL :
TEXTURE :
EUROBOT
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
ABS
SMOOTH
11 APRIL 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SCALE :
DETAIL Back Part SCALE 1 : 1
1:2
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
SURFACE FINISH
FISHING I-BEAM
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
33
No OFF
33
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
4
DRAWING NUMBER:
33
REVISION
1
5 2 5
6 2
5 1 1
15
20
1 2
0 3
5
4 8
0 0 3
0 9
20
4
3 9
0 5
0 2
0 3
3 9
20 9
50
35
8
DO NOT SCALE
EDMC JOB No : N/A
DRAWN BY : Muhammad Adib Ibrahim (JB SHORE)
DEPARTMENT : Mech Eng. FEE
DATE : 12 APRIL 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SCALE : 1:2
PROJECT :
SUPERVISOR :
MATERIAL :
TEXTURE :
EUROBOT
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
PLYWOOD
SMOOTH
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
Title
RIGHT FRAME
SURFACE FINISH ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
34
No OFF
34
ASSEMBLY NUMBER
24
DRAWING NUMBER
34
REVISION
1
6
4
5
9
20 4
3.22
5
5
5
5 .5
9 .0 4
°
DETAIL SCALE 4 : 1
3
0 5 . 0 4
8 3
0 5 . 0 4
0 5 . 7 5
R2
2
7 1
1
0.50
DO NOT SCALE 0 2
0 1
40 50
DATE :
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
PROJECT :
SUPERVISOR :
MATERIAL :
TEXTURE :
EUROBOT
DR JOSEPH LIFTON
ABS
SMOOTH
11 APRIL 2017
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SCALE : 2:1
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A
5
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
DRAWN BY : MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI( JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY : JB SHORE
A3
SURFACE FINISH
SERVOMOTOR HOLDER
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
35
No OFF
35
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
11
DRAWING NUMBER:
35
REVISION
1
6
6 1
4 8 . 0 5
0 R1 6 6 . 8
5 2 . 8 5
0 5 . 4 3 1
0 5 . 3
5 1
8 16
DO NOT SCALE
DRAWN BY: MOHD ADHA ABDUL HADI(JB SHORE) DESIGNED BY: JB SHORE
A3
TOLERANCES UNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment
ANGULARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm
DEPARTMENT: Mech Eng. FEE
DATE: 11 APRIL 2017
SCALE: 1:1
PROJECT: EUROBOT
SUPERVISOR: DR JOSEPH LIFTON
MATERIAL: ABS
TEXTURE: SMOOTH
ALLDIMENSIONS INmm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only
UNIVERSITY OF
Southampton
LINEARDIMENSIONS X = +/- 0.5mm X.X=+/- 0.25mm X.XX=+/- 0.1mm
EDMC JOB No: N/A
SURFACE FINISH
TITLE: VASE ROD
ALLOVERUNLESS OTHERWISESTATED
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES
IF IN DOUBT PLEASE ASK
SHEET
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
36
No OFF
36
ASSEMBLY NUMBER:
26
DRAWING NUMBER:
36
REVISION
1