The design report entitled ArchEnemy Combat Robot has been examined by the
... The ArchEnemy senior design team is designing and manufacturing a ...
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY PARKS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, AVIATION AND TECHNOLOGY
ArchEnemy Combat Robotics Team Senior Mechanical Engineering Design Project Jesus Dominguez Sean Holder Greg Keogh Alex Shim
4/26/2011
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Parks College of Engineering, Aviation, and Technology Saint Louis University Capstone Design Report Approval (To be attached as first page in the design report) Design Team Members: Jesus Dominguez Sean Holder Greg Keogh Alex Shim
The design report entitled ArchEnemy Combat Robot has been examined by the undersigned committee of three faculty members. Each faculty member finds this report to be complete and satisfy the design objectives, design constraints, and one or more realistic constraints. Faculty Name: _________________________________ Signature:
___________________________________ Date: ____________
Faculty Name: _________________________________ Signature:
___________________________________ Date: ____________
Faculty Name: _________________________________ Signature:
___________________________________ Date: ____________
Department Chair: ______________________________ Date: _____________
Saint Louis University ArchEnemy Combat Robotics Team
At the 2011 Robogames competition From left to right: Sean Holder, Greg Keogh, Jesus Dominguez, Alex Shim
Thank you to our sponsors
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 – Design Phase (Senior Design Fall 2010) Chapter
Page
Abstract
1
Introduction
2
Value
3
Needs Analysis
4
Design Process
7
Conceptual Design
11
Weight Distribution
16
Calculations
17
Components
21
Internal Layout
25
Conclusion and Future Work
26
Section 2 – Manufacturing Phase (Senior Design Spring 2011) Chapter
Page
Addition Design Phase Activities
27
Design Changes prior to manufacturing
27
Finalized Design
29
Manufacturing Process, Difficulties and Process Driven Changes
30
Testing
39
RoboGames results and experience
42
Lessons Learned and Design Modifications
44
Team Member Experiences and Conclusions
49
Appendix A – Opponent’s Characteristics Matrix
56
Appendix B – Robot Type Ratings
60
Appendix C – Project Budget
63
Appendix D – Combat Robot Rules and Regulations
37
Appendix E – Modes of Failures
85
Appendix F – Dimensional Drawings
88
References
101
Acknowledgements
102
SECTION 1 – DESIGN PHASE (SENIOR DESIGN FALL 2010)
ABSTRACT The ArchEnemy senior design team is designing and manufacturing a combat robot. The combat robot is a 120 remote controlled robot that will compete in a series of one on one survival of the fittest battles, where the objective is to mechanically disable the opponent. The competition will be held at the 2011 RoboGames in San Mateo California on April 15-17, 2011. The robot will be configured as wedge shape with a drum weapon. The drum is a spinning cylinder with two steel bars on the edges of the cylinder. The drum will spin at around 2000 RPM, storing energy so when an opponent approaches the steel bars or teeth will hit the robot with a huge impulse which will send the opponent flying into the air and then crashing into the ground. The drive train will be comprised of two drive motors, two wheels, and a motor controller. The calculations for the drive train specifications which were needed to create a robust and aggressive robot are located in the calculations section. These calculations helped determine what motors and wheel diameters are needed. All motors, motor controllers, and remote parts have already been ordered and received. The robot helps showcase SLU as a top engineering program and sheds positive light on the universities resources and strong academics. RoboGames is the world’s largest open robot competition, and the universities presence with a strong robot will reflect the quality of the schools engineering resources. The robot project will also be a testament of the senior design team’s creativity and problem solving in the fields of material science, mechanics of materials,
1
statics, dynamics, finite element analysis, computer aided engineering, and electrical engineering. The second half of the senior design project consisted of manufacturing, refining design, and then competing. The majority of the semester was spent manufacturing and solving the problems found when trying to assemble the parts. The robot design and assembly was completed in time for the Robogames, however there was not too much room for testing which could have avoided some of the issues seen in combat. The robot survived for almost an entire battle but the weapon failed due to a bending force applied along one of the shafts that rotated the weapon. The passive ramp weapon was then used to ram to opponent, but the opponents’ weapon was able to get in between the armor plates. Overall the project was successful since the robot made it to the games and was strong enough to put up a good battle. Experience was all that was lacking in the design process but if the team was to do it again they would be able to compete much harder. INTRODUCTION Competition robotics has become an increasingly popular area for engineers to publically showcase their engineering capabilities. There are several open robotic competitions worldwide but according to the Guinness world records, RoboGames is considered the world’s largest open robotic competition. RoboGames was founded in 2004 by David Calkins. The RoboGames event offers several competition categories, some of which include Robot Soccer, Humanoids, Robot Sumo, Bot Hockey and Combat Robots. The combat robot category is a competition that promotes physical conflicts between mechanical robots that often ends in the incapacitation of one of the competing robots. A combat robot is radio controlled robot designed to compete in a three minute survival of the fittest type battle. The robot battles occur in a 1300 square foot 2
enclosed arena that has clear walls constructed thick lexan plastic and arena floor composed of sheets of one quarter of an inch thick hardened steel. The goal of the combat robot is to avoid opponent’s weapons, defend and withstand impacts from opponent’s weapons when clash occurs. Furthermore, a combat robot must have the ability to mechanically attack and inflict maximum damage upon opponents. Within the combat category there are several weight classes that range from 5.3 ounces to 220 pounds with the 220 pound and 120 pound class drawing the most spectator interest. The 120 pound class of combat robots receives the most interest from competitors and thus contains the largest competitor pool. Therefore, the 120 pound competition class will be the focus of Saint Louis University’s combat robot team’s design. The ArchEnemy, SLU’s combat robot, will compete in the 2011 RoboGames which will be held in San Mateo, California between April 15 and April 17, 2011. VALUE A combat robot benefits the student design team and St. Louis University’s Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology in several ways. Firstly, by participating in the RoboGames competition Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology will be showcased as a top engineering program by shedding positive light on the universities resources and strong academics. In addition, because RoboGames is the world’s largest open robot competition, the universities presence with a strong robot will promote a positive international opinion of the engineering school’s curriculum and program. Furthermore, the design team will develop a robot that is composed of mainly mechanical components. Because of the intensity of the robot’s mechanical design aspects, the majority of the mechanical engineering curriculums will be employed during the design of the ArchEnemy. The robots electronics and drive train incorporate elements of Mechatronics, Electrical Engineering, and Scientific Programming 3
curriculums. The weapon component of the combat robot is a perfect illustration of where the curriculum of Dynamics is put into action. Furthermore, the armor and the structural foundation of the combat robot must have the strength and fatigue life to protect the robot which the fundamentals of the curriculum tough in Statics, Mechanics of Solids, Machine Design, Computer Aided Engineering, Finite Element Analysis, and Material Science. Additionally, the combat robot project could potentially present the design team with many engineering problems at will be required to be solved during the design, fabrication, assembly and testing processes. The ArchEnemy project is a way to incorporate all previous learned curriculums in one very interesting, fun project. NEED ANALYSIS The need analysis was divided into four sections. Structure, weapon, drive system, and electronics. Each section is equally critical to the correct functioning of the robot and has been given the same importance and level of attention. The structure must have a low center of gravity to provide the robot with stability and maneuverability, and to make it harder for other robots to flip it. Our team has come up with an invertible design so in the event of the robot being flipped it will continue moving normally. Two dead points are still present on the sides of the robot. Special geometry will be included to make it impossible for the robot to fall and stay on its side, thus being unable to move. Due to the extreme nature of combats, the robot will have to withstand falls and hits from the opponents and successfully dissipate the energy to avoid damage. It’s expected that the robot will be hit with enough force to be launched several meters into the air. The structure must hold all the internal elements in place, protecting the electronics and isolating vibrations.
4
The weapon, located on the front side and consisting of a high speed rotating drum is designed to deliver hits to the opponent. Its large mass and consequently high moment of inertia about the revolving axis make it ideal for storing kinetic energy that would otherwise be hard to deliver all at once. The weapon, connected to a motor, has to spin up fast enough to be competitive. A spin-up time of more than 4 seconds would make it really hard to deliver hits to the opponent before it runs into us, stopping our weapon and rendering our attack unsuccessful. The motor is connected to the weapon via two pulleys and a V-shaped belt. The belt is smooth and is allowed to slip. The belts ability to slip when the weapon hits something allows the weapon to decelerate rapidly without transmitting too much force back to the motor. The drive train consists on two wheels and two geared motors plus a two channel motor controller. It is responsible for providing mobility to the robot. The drive train must be fast and powerful enough to move the 120lb robot with speed and agility. The wheels are located at both sides near the robot’s centre of gravity and are partially exposed following the competition regulation. The wheels are exposed on the top and bottom of the robot but are otherwise enclosed in the structure, protecting them from side attacks. Different amounts of wheels and combinations were considered, Ackerman being amongst them. Our team finally decided to use a two wheel differential setup. This configuration was chosen for its mechanical simplicity and maneuverability. Having only two wheels that can be controlled independently allows the robot to move in any direction, including rotating about its centre. It also makes it simpler to drive when the robot is upside down by just inverting two channels on the radio, which is done in seconds using two switches.
5
The last section on our need analysis covers the electronics. While they are relatively simple their correct functioning is critical. The electronics consist of batteries, motor controllers and the radio system. All of them have presented a challenge. Batteries need to both hold enough energy for a three minute match and also be able to provide with enough peak current to supply the motors at certain moments of high current demand. Not every kind of battery found can do both. Generally bigger batteries that can hold more energy, like acid based batteries in cars are not capable of providing with more than 30 Amps continuously, and each of the three motors in the robot can demand up to 150Amps at certain moments. For this reason two NiCd batteries will be used in parallel. This configuration doubles the capacity and maximizes the current available for the motors. The motor controllers must be able to handle the currents that the motors will demand. They also must include several failsafe options for security, including a master kill switch and stopping the motors in case of signal loss. The radio system used must operate in the 2.4GHz range for two reasons. First, new radios that operate at this frequency have several security measures that avoid interferences and signal loss. One of the measures is frequency hopping and emitter-receiver pairing. Using 2.4GHz radios eliminates the need to use and change crystals constantly to avoid interferences with other contestants. Another characteristic of 2.4GHz radios that our team will take advantage of is the smaller wavelength that allows the signal to travel through small orifices in the metal robot structure without the need of a big antenna.
6
DESIGN PROCESS The design process of the ArchEnemy consisted of several design phases. The first design phase was the research phase. The research phase was divided into three aspects. The first aspect of the research phase was to explore the strengths and weaknesses of past competitors of the 120 lb. weight class. The main tool used for was YouTube, which provided the team access to videos of the majority of competitions from 2006 to 2010. All the videos for the 2006-2010 Robogames matches were watched for a variety of weight classes. In addition episodes available on YouTube from the 1990’s television series, “Battlebots” were watched as well. The videos allowed the team to evaluate the strengths of the winners and weaknesses of the losers when they faced off against many different types of combat robots. The characteristics that the winning and losing robots possessed were taken into consideration as the design process progressed and were compiled into an opponents’ characteristics matrix as seen in Appendix A. In addition, the video aspect of the research phase led to the development of a robot type rating table shown in Appendix B. Although understanding potential competitor’s strengths and weakness is important, a thorough understanding of the combat class competitions rules is required and was the another aspect utilized during the research phase of the design process. By knowing the rules and regulations of the competition the design team can avoid integrating unacceptable aspects into the ArchEnemy’s design which could lead to being disqualified from the competition. Appendix D the complete rule set for the combat robot category. Another aspect of the research phase was to obtain knowledge gathered by other teams through their experience during past competitions. This aspect of the research phase is important to the ArchEnemy team because this is the first time a senior design team has competed in Robogames. The method used to obtain competitors knowledge of their experiences was to visit past RoboGames competitor’s
7
websites and forums. This aspect of the research phase provided the ArchEnemy team insights into other team’s experiences, both positive and negative, from when they have previously competed. Learning from other teams mistakes has and will continue to play an important role in the ArchEnemys design process. The research phase of the design process led to next design phase which is the conceptual design phase. The second design phase was the conceptual design phase which began when the design team determined that due to the infinite possibilities of robot design, one feature of the robot should be selected as the foundation of the ArchEnemy’s design and the remainder of the robot would be designed around that feature. The feature we decided base the ArchEnemy’s design around was the weapon. In order determine what type of weapon to implement on the ArchEnemy, the tables of each team member’s personal preference in Appendix B were utilized. These tables rate the various types of weapons based on each team member’s personal preferences of weapon effectiveness. Based on the weapon preferences and effectiveness the vertical spinning drum weapon design was chosen for the robots weapon. The conceptual design processes is discussed further in a later section titled “Conceptual Designs”. After the determination of the weapon type in which to base our robot design, calculations for the internal components of the robot were completed which initiated the third phase of the design process. The calculations for the internal components led to the selection of components that could satisfy the design calculations. The components chosen were ordered and their sizes were used to aid in the layout of initial chassis design. Refer to the section titled “Calculations” for additional information about the calculations that were performed and to the section titled “Components” for more information about the components selected for use in the ArchEnemy. 8
Developing a project budget became the fourth phase or the design process. During this phase the team developed a potential list of products, fees and additional costs that should be expected as we build, test and take the robot to the RoboGames competition. Appendix C shows the project budget which has been modified several times because of price changes, addition and reductions to the list. Currently we have raised approximately $3000.00 which leaves $3,500.00 to fundraise next semester. We have several potential leads for funds and will further pursue them at the start of the second semester. The final design phase accomplished in the first semester of senior design was the exploration of chassis design and the optimization of a potential weapon design. A conceptual chassis was designed in Abaqus and a Finite Element Analysis was performed. The analysis function was to determine how a potential chassis design would respond when subjected to an impulse hit of 125 lbs. In addition the analysis would provide data on whether or not the chassis would resist failure when subjected to the impact. The impulse was applied as a point force for duration of 1 microsecond and the corresponding stress wave propagation was determined and visualized to aid in determining the effectiveness of the conceptual design. An example of the stress analysis is shown in Figure 1: Abaqus Analysis Results below.
9
Figure 1: Abaqus Analysis Results
The potential design for the ArchEnemys weapon consisted of an aluminum cylinder with circular cuts made along the main axis at 90º and the cross section is shown below in Figure 2 below. Using Pro Mechanica, a finite element optimization was performed.
Figure 2: Potential Weapon Cross Section
10
The objective of the optimization is to find the best values of D1 and D2 for minimum displacement. We want to maximize the YY polar moment of inertia, the moment of inertia of the weapon when you rotate it around its main axis. With a greater moment of inertia, more kinetic energy can be stored, which produces a greater hit to the opponents. We also need to ensure the total mass is less than 4kg and that the maximum Von Misses Stress in any part of the weapon is not greater than 150MPa (a safety factor of 1.8). The applied force was estimated to be 11000 Newtons, which may seem very large, but becomes realistic when distributed along the edge of the cylinder. The resulting stress visualization is shown in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Optimized Stress Visualization
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS From Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 which are the preference and weapon effectiveness data, it was chosen that the most desirable weapon configuration would be a vertical spinner. The horizontal spinner was determined to be equivalent in weapon effectiveness as the vertical spinner; however it was deemed that the vertical spinner would have more advantages. These advantages allow the robot to be more compact thus increasing mobility, and minimizing gyroscopic forces while having an effective drum weapon system. 11
Figure 4: Drum Bot Weapon Dynamics Diagram Figure 4: Drum Bot Weapon Dynamics Diagram above is
a representation of a basic drum bot dynamics
which shows how the weapon is used against an opponent. In the first depiction it illustrates the attacking drum bot hitting the opponent with the bar and rotating drum, which transfers the drums angular speed to a linear force thus producing a vertical velocity and acceleration. Furthermore, the upward force produces a moment on the opponent robot and also angular velocity which lifts the robot in the air and causes it to rotate about its center of gravity. Our datum conceptual design incorporates the drum bot weapon and also utilizes a pivoting ramp for rear protection. Through analysis of various past battles in the RoboGames competitions, a very vulnerable area was the rear portion of the robot.
12
Figure 5: Conceptual Design #1 (Datum Design) – Front View
Figure 6: Datum Conceptual Design #1 (Datum Design) - Isometric View
Figure 1
and Figure 4 above show the first conceptual design and how this concept would be rated
as a low offensive and medium defensive combat robot. This concept is tagged with these ratings because the main weapon is medium sized with respect to the other conceptual designs. Also the effective radius of the weapon is limited. The ramp at the rear of the robot is at a higher angle therefore more force is transferred into the internal components of the robot when an opponent is successful at delivering a hit. Additionally, since the robot has a pivoting ramp the amount of mechanisms increases, thus adding potential points of failure. However, there are some advantages to this design. In the event of a flip, the robot can still function, as the drive wheels are large enough for the top and bottom sides of the robot. Lastly, the center of gravity is in the ideal position, further towards the back which prevents the probability of a flip from a rear attack.
13
Figure 7: Conceptual Design #2 – Front View
Figure 8: Conceptual Design #2 - Isometric View
Conceptual design #2, shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 above, is rated as high offensive and medium defensive design. This conceptual design is a more weapon oriented as the drum is much larger with respect to the other two conceptual designs. The advantages of this design are that the weapon effectiveness is much larger due to larger drum, and the ramp is integrated with the whole structure. However, there are significant disadvantages which prevented us from ultimately choosing this design. The two most important disadvantages include the complicated wiring and extra mechanism of adding four independent drive wheels to the system. This allows for two more points of failure. Secondly, because of such odd shape of the design, the amount of fabrication required is extensive, and may cost a large amount of money.
14
Figure 9: Conceptual Design #3 - Front View
Figure 10: Conceptual Design #3 - Isometric View
Lastly, our third conceptual design, shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10 above, is a medium offensive and high defensive robot. The main difference between the datum conceptual design and conceptual design #3 is the shallower ramp angle and a larger drum. We believe that the small design changes to the datum design will provide a safe compromise for each of the components in terms of damage, defense and ease of build. The advantage for this design is that it has less mechanism because only a single set of wheels are required and thus less points of failure with respect to the other designs. The robot is also reversible and the ramp is fully integrated with the structure which allows for added strength. A few points to note include that although the ramp angle is shallow, it is angled throughout the whole portion of the robot therefore the drive wheels must be much larger to be able to be reversible. The volume in which all of the components must fit is also smaller; therefore efficient part configuration is crucial. The strengths and weaknesses of each of the conceptual designs are summarized as shown in the Conceptual Comparison below. As shown in Table 1 below, it has been decided that the third conceptual design is the most suitable design for our application. 15
Table 1: Conceptual Design Evaluation
Matrix
WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION Table 2: Weight Distribution by System
Table 2 above shows our preliminary weight allocation. With a maximum of 120 pounds, these are typical weight values for a combat robot and historically, many combat robots have followed this trend of weight distribution. A final weight calculation and distribution chart will be solidified when parts and subsystems are fully determined. As shown in the chart above, our weapon consists of around 30% of the weight (36 pounds) and therefore will be optimized 16
for maximum strength and weight through various analyses. Secondly, the drive train, also at 36 pounds includes the weight of the motors, two of which drive the wheels and one which drives the motor. Specific weight distributions will include the weight of gears and belts as well as wheels. The structure will also account for 30 pounds of the robot; this includes our proposed tubular structure and the additional plating. Lastly, batteries and electronics will take up 18 pounds of the total allocated weight. The batteries and the motor controllers are the two items which will weigh the most in this category. CALCULATIONS In order to estimate the robot’s maximum speed, acceleration, and energy consumption some calculations were made using real data from the parts being used and estimations on driver aggressiveness, battery capacity and friction between wheels and steel floor. Wheel radius Wheel AVG RPM Robot’s Weight Motor’s gear ratio Friction coefficient Motor’s stall torque Motor’s I no load Motor’s I stall Battery Capacity Driver aggressiveness Match duration Gravity 17
Knowing the robot’s weight, the force each wheel supports can be calculated as
Taking into account the friction coefficient and wheel radius, each wheel has a torque before skid of
This gives the robot a maximum acceleration of
And a maximum speed of
In order to estimate the motor’s current consumption a new variable must be introduced. This variable is the motor torque constant, Kt, which is a measure of the motor’s current consumption as a function of the torque.
Knowing this, the maximum current consumption for each motor before the wheels skid is
18
One has to note at this point that there is a 2 multiplying because there is a 2:1 ratio between the motor’s gearbox output shaft and the wheels. This gives us a total peak consumption of
Assuming a 50% driving aggressiveness and a 3 minute match, a mean consumption can be estimated for the whole match as
Considering the use of a 4500mAh battery, our robot would have autonomy of
Note that these calculations are only for the drive train and they don’t take into account the weapon motor. Calculations for the weapon motor were hard to estimate before finishing the design of our weapon.
19
20
COMPONENTS The following are the current components which have been chosen for our combat robot. Careful consideration and calculations have been performed to verify the best choices for our components. Because the measurements are known for each of these components, they have already been modeled in PRO-ENGINEER for future layout purposes. Radio control system
Figure 11: Spektrum DX5e Transmitter and Receiver
The radio control system chosen for our system shown in Figure 11 above is the Spektrum DX5e model which features 5 channel operation. Theoretically our robot can be controlled with two channels, one channel for direction and one channel for throttle however because additional features may be included into our robot, we have decided on a 5 channel radio controller. Typically, these transmitters are relatively cheap compared with other parts; therefore a 5 channel is suitable for our needs. An advantage of the Spektrum DX5e model is that it runs on 2.4 GHZ frequency which eliminates the possibility of radio interruption and electromagnetic interference which is present in FM type radios. Another large deciding factor in the choice of this transmitter was the easy access to servo switching. When our robot is flipped, because it is important to quickly switch all the functions to run the opposite way, a button which can be pressed is needed physically on the 21
transmitter. As shown in the picture below, the Spektrum DX5e allows for switching of all five channels by flipping buttons which are conveniently located on the transmitter below the control sticks. Accompanying the transmitter, we chose the Spektrum AR500 receiver which is recommended by the manufacturer to be paired. Motors First, we have chosen two identical motors for the drive train and one motor for the weapon. Each of these motors meets our power specifications and has the ability to make our robot competitive. The motors chosen are: NPC T-64 and AMPFLOW A28-400 respectively. The NPC T-64, shown in Figure 12, is rated for either 24 V or 36 V operation. This motor is a 0.7 HP reversible motor that utilizes a permanent magnet. The motor is provided with a 20:1 gear reduction which will deliver a no load Rpm of 230 Rpm. The NPC T-64 weighs approximately 13 pounds.
Figure 12: NPC T-64 Drive Motor
The AMPFLOW A28-400, shown in Figure 13 below, is also rated at both 24 V and 36 V operation. This motor is a 4.5 HP motor that utilizes a Neodymium permanent magnet. This motor runs at 4,900 Rpm and weighs approximately 6.9 pounds.
22
Figure 13: AmpFlow A28-400 Weapon Motor
Motor Controllers In order to control the motors, for direction and speed control, an interface between the power source and the motor is needed in our robot. These electronic devices are called motor controllers and we have chosen two (one for each type of motor) to control the drive and weapon motors. Both of the motor controllers satisfy our shock and power requirements and allow for reversibility in the event of our robot flipping over. The motor controllers chosen are the Sidewinder motor controller and the Victor 885 Motor. The sidewinder motor controller will be used for the operation of the drive motors. The sidewinder is a very versatile motor controller, shown in Figure 14 with many built in features that will make controlling our drive system simple. The Victor 885 motor controller, shown in Figure 15 is for the operation of our weapon motor and does not have the features as the sidewinder but they are not necessary because the operation of the weapon motor is rather simplistic.
23
Figure 14: Sidewinder Motor Controller
Figure 15: Victor 885 Motor Controller
Batteries Lastly, the batteries we have chosen to power our motor also meets all the necessary power requirements and is built specifically for our application of combat robot competition. The batteries are protected in a special casing and also meet shock requirements as well. We have chosen Nicads or Nickel Cadmium batteries because they are generally stable batteries and easy to operate with a low chance of failure. We chose the 24V NiCd Battlepack offered by Robot Marketplace shown in Figure 16 below.
24
Figure 16: 24 V NiCd Battle Pack
INTERNAL LAYOUT The following is a model of our preliminary layout on our chassis in PRO-ENGINEER. As shown below, with all the parts currently ordered, this will be the approximate layout of our components on a chassis. In the front of the chassis is our weapon motor. Behind our weapon motor are our two drive motors and the necessary motor controllers are located behind these motors. Lastly, the two battery packs to power our robot will also be in the back of the chassis next to our motor controllers.
Figure 17: Internal Layout
25
The layout shown in Figure 17 above is subjected to change as this is only preliminary because changes are expected as the robots structure is fabricated. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK The ArchEnemy design, fabrication and testing phase are divided between two semesters. The progress achieved during the first semester was acceptable but fell short of the design teams original expectations. During the first semester the design team has accomplished the following: researched all past competitors, researched all the various types of robot and weapons, developed three conceptual designs, selected a conceptual design to further pursue, created a project budget, performed calculations for critical electronic and mechanical components, researched and selected components that meet the specifications required by our calculations, purchased and received the components selected and developed a schedule for the second semester of senior design. The only goal that was not achieved during the first semester of senior design was to have a drive train system operational by the end of the semester. Although this goal was not achieved we make huge strides towards achieving our goal of completing the ArchEnemy on time.
26
SECTION 2 – MANUFACTURING PHASE (SENIOR DESIGN SPRING 2011) ADDITIONAL DESIGN PHASE ACTIVITIES After the first section of the report was submitted additional design activities were completed prior to the start for the spring semester. Mainly various robot components were ordered from various companies. The items ordered are parts of the robot which our team designated to be used in the manufacturing of ArchEnemy. Because a few areas of the design were not finalized at the time, some parts could not be ordered until other design decisions have been made. These items included most of the electronics, drive and weapon motors. At this point, the frame was not fully designed and had many redundancies and unnecessary members. After a few weeks of design decisions and contemplation the frame and weapon design were finalized near the start of the spring semester. The most important part of the project was having a static design. Once a static design was created, manufacturing commenced. DESIGN CHANGES PRIOR TO MANUFACTURING The primary design change that occurred prior to manufacturing was the configuration of the welded tube frame members. The cause for this major design change is attributed to the team’s and their mentor’s dissatisfaction with the complexity of the preliminary frame designs.. The preliminary design was driven primarily by the mounting locations of motors and ease of access. Because the NPC drive motors had mounting positions which created unnecessary structural members in our initial frame design, several iterations of the frame were created to provide a simpler, more elegant design for ease of manufacture, in terms of welding and ease of access and interchangeability of parts. As shown below, in Figure 18 and Figure 19, the initial proposed design was much more complex than that of the finalized design. Upon concluding on
27
the finalized frame design both the team members and their mentor were relieved at new design simplification.
Figure 18 - Preliminary Frame Design
Figure 19 - Final Frame Design
The new design shown in Figure 19 allowed the team to remove unnecessary weight and redundancies to the frame. From the previous conceptual designs, this type of frame resembles conceptual design #1 with the exception of the pivoting ramp. Although our design took into account the reversibility factor, the ramp would only serve purpose when the combat robot is right side up. In addition to the original design, angled side bars protecting the wheels were also incorporated into the design as one of the weak points of several robots in the competition was due to immobilization of the wheels. The benefits of the angled sides near the wheels are discussed later in the lessons learned section. Lastly, the ramp structural members were also
28
designed accordingly for mostly ease of interchangeability of our electrical components that would be housed below these structural members. FINALIZED DESIGN
Figure 20 - Finalized ArchEnemy Design
The finalized design components include; Frame: The frame was greatly simplified for ease of interchangeability and reduction of unnecessary structural members Weapon: The new weapon incorporated a hollow-center cold rolled steel plate weighing approximately 20 pounds. For the competition, rectangular titanium inserts were bolted onto the tips of the weapon for decreased deformation upon contact. The weapon was measured to be rotating at 3880 RPM with the Ampflow motor running at 100% capacity. The weapon was driven by two belts ordered from McMaster Carr and two pulleys.
29
Armor: The top and bottom armor plates are made of 6061-T6 Aluminum. The side and ramp portions of the armor consist of Titanium plates. Drive: The drive motors consists of two NPC T-64 motors with turned down wheels directly bolted. A gear reduction or gearbox was deemed unnecessary for driving the robot. Electronics: Three different Lithium Polymer batteries were designed to power our robot. The design called for two independent power sources onboard, one for the weapon and one for the drive motors. To power the drive motors, two lithium polymer batteries were used and to power the weapon, one lithium polymer battery was used. Also incorporated into the circuit and as per safety requirements, two main power kill switches (one each for the weapon and the drive motors) were used.
MANUFACTURING PROCESS, DIFFICULTIES AND PROCESS DRIVEN CHANGES The manufacturing process began with the construction of the square tubular beam structure. This process involved cutting the 3/4” square beams to the various lengths required to 30
form the main body, and the 5/8” square beams used for the ramp. Groups of beams were then laid on a flat surface and held in place using C-shaped and right angle clamps in order to be welded as seen in Figure 21 below.
Figure 21 - Weld Clamping configuration
TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) welding was chosen initially as it gives the user more control over the welding process, which is especially important when welding beams with thin walls, and can potentially create stronger welds. This method was dropped in favor of MIG (Metal Inert Gas) welding for being easier to learn in the short time our team had. While MIG doesn’t give the user such a fine control over the welding process, it proved to be suited for our wall thickness, and the resulting welds were deep and strong enough.
31
Figure 22 - MIG welding in process
The welding process started with groups of beams forming flat surfaces, which were then welded together in order to form the final 3D structure. The order in which the welds were performed and how the beams were clamped down proved to be critical to minimize the deformations associated with welding.
Figure 23 - Both ArchEnemy's Frame
Two full structures were manufactured, as seen in Figure 23 above, the second frame on the right included corrections to the design that were found during the creation of the first frame (mainly deformations due to welding). Both structures were fully functional but our team focused on the second one due to time constrains.
32
The next stage consisted on attaching the NPC-T64 motors to the structure to form the drive train. The motors were supposed to fit tightly between two beams of the structure, but due to the motor’s casing being cast aluminum, its walls were not perfectly squared and had to be milled down as Jesus is seen doing in Figure 24 below.
Figure 24 - Milling Cast Aluminum Motor Housing
With the motors in place it was time to attach the wheels. The wheels we purchased were intentionally oversized so we could fine tune their size as the last details of our design dictated the final robot’s height. In order to reduce their diameter the wheels were placed in the lathe and turned down manually with a file. Figure 25 below shows a wheel as purchased on the left and the turned down version on the right.
33
Figure 25 - Wheel Samples
Having a functional drive train, the next stage consisted on building the weapon system. This was by far the most time consuming process, as most parts of the weapon system were made out of machined aluminum. One major design change was made at this point. In order to ensure that the weapon mounts are parallel (thus allowing the shaft to align correctly with the bearings) and knowing that the structure was not perfectly square due to welding deformations, we decided to build an integral weapon system that could be entirely disassembled from the structure maintaining its integrity. This was achieved by mounting both weapon mounts to a connecting aluminum plate. This plate would serve a triple function. First: it would ensure that both weapon mounts were indeed parallel. Second: it would serve as a mount for the weapon’s motor, and lastly it would serve as a protective wall to isolate the interior of the robot from any debris that could go past our weapon. The two weapon mounts were milled down from two blocks of T6061 aluminum using a milling machine. The holes for the shaft and housing the bearing were made on a CNC. This had the advantages of eliminating our end mill size limitation and ensuring enough precision to align the bearings with the weapon shaft. Parts of the weapon mounts were milled down after the fact in order to reduce weight.
34
The triangular corners were also machined out of aluminum and attached to the weapon mounts through threaded holes. The completed weapon mounting structure is seen in Figure 26 below.
Figure 26 - Weapon Mounting Structure
The weapon itself also underwent several design changes. The most important one being the change from aluminum cylinder with steel inserts to a full steel block. The main reason we decided to change designs was our inability to find the right size aluminum cylinder at a reasonable prize. Most metal providers don’t sell cylinder of such thick walls and diameters. One solution would have been to have 6ft made for us, but the price was out of our reach. As an alternative we decided to go with a machined block of cold rolled steel. This had the advantages of being cheap, maintaining a good mass to moment of inertia ratio and being relatively easy to manufacture. Two versions of the weapon designs are shown in
Figure 27 - Two Weapon Designs
The steel block was machined to bring it down from an uneven 3” x 10” x 8” to a perfectly square 2”x6.5”x9”. The completed square block is shown in 35
Figure 28 - Steel Weapon Block
The center of the block was emptied out to reduce weight and maximize moment of inertia. The result was a square ring with 2” x 1.5” walls weighting 19lb, Figure 29.
Figure 29 - Completed Weapon
The weapon was manufactured using a milling machine, and the two holes for the shaft were made with a CNC. Similarly to the weapon mounts, the CNC gave us enough precision and allowed us to drill a slightly undersized hole so the shaft could be press-fitted and fixed with a pin. The shaft was purchased because our team didn’t think we could make it straight enough using the lathes on our workshop. This, on retrospect, might have been a mistake, as the shaft we purchased proved to be too soft for the intended application, and was one of the first things to fail. Figure 30 illustrates the purchased shaft with a pre-manufactured keyway. 36
Figure 30 - Weapon Shaft with keyway
Heat treating of the weapon-shaft system was considered for a while, but ended up being discarded for lack of heat treating equipment at SLU and fear of deformations, which at such advance stage of development would have been disastrous for our project.
Figure 31 - Pulley manufacturing
Several pulleys were manufactured in order to transfer power from the motor to the weapon, Figure 31 . We decided to machine the pulleys in order to save money and weight, as the only affordable pulleys we could find were made out of cast iron. Also by machining our own pulleys we could adapt them to our needs. More precisely, we built double belt pulleys with keyways, eliminating the extra space for a set screw. Different pulley diameters were tested until we settled for two 2.75” pitch diameter pulleys for a 1:1 ratio. 37
The next stage was mounting the electronics and batteries on a plate under the ramp. Three battery holders were manufactured out of bent sheet aluminum and covered in foam to protect the delicate Li-Po Batteries. A simple method was devised to lock the batteries in place, which consisted on a threaded rod going though two holes on opposite walls of the battery holder. Several configurations were devised to minimize space and protect the electronics. The two motor controllers were mounted on two vertical aluminum plates behind the wheels on both sides of the robot. The plates were mounted to the beamed structure using three bolts. The battery holders (two for the drive train batteries and one for the weapon battery) were placed on an aluminum plate located horizontally under the ramp. The aluminum plate was attached to the structure using bolts which also went through the bottom aluminum cover. The last part of our manufacturing process, cutting the titanium plates, had to be outsourced due to the difficulty of machining titanium using regular tools. The 1/8” thick plates were taken to a water jet cutting company along with detailed drawings. When we received our cut titanium we noticed that some of the holes were cut slightly smaller than needed (due to an error on the company’s part) and had to be made bigger on our workshop. Drilling the bigger holes was a challenge, and we learned that the best way is to use slow spindle speeds and high pressure. This prevents the titanium from heating up too much and building a layer of oxide that is harder than the tools we used to cut it. When our titanium plates were ready they were laid down and clamped on place on the robot structure. This allowed us to precisely mark the holes on the structure without fear of misalignments. After all the holes were drilled, each one was fitted with a weld nut. With the plates mounted and every bolt in place, the weld nuts were welded to the structure. Several shims 38
were added under the side titanium plates and welded to the structure in order to accommodate for the geometry of our structure. This allowed us to reduce the gaps between the plates, which would otherwise have compromised the integrity of the robot. Figure 32 below shows ArchEnemy completely assembled and ready for competition.
Figure 32 - Completed ArchEnemy ready for competition
TESTING The design can be broken into four categories weapon, drive train, structure, armor, and the electronics. The internal structure of the robot was welded steel tubing, the weldments were made using a MIG welder, and a large worry was the welds were not penetrating the metal. Penetration of the metal refers to the level of melting that occurs between the two tubes being welded in addition to the extra material the MIG welder adds on to the welds. The level of penetration can be controlled by the amount of voltage applied through the welder as well as by the amount of time the welder is left in contact with one area of the metal. Many test tubes were welded and the level of penetration was observed visibly from looking at the coloration around the welds after they had cooled and by looking at the welds as the welder just left them to see 39
how much of the material was glowing from the heat. When a satisfactory level of practice was completed a few test pieces were then clamped into a vice and hammered in the same location until they fractured. Each test piece fractured in another part of the material and each weld held strong. From there the tubular structure was welded then was dropped repeatedly from distances of about 6-8 ft and stood on by each group member just to assure the group of its strength.
Figure 33 - Welding the Structure
The electronics and the drive train were tested simultaneously. The drive train batteries were put in series and connected to a motor controller, which was connected to the drive motors. The motor controller was also connected to the receiver for our remote controller. The circuit was also connected through a kill switch that can close the circuit any time a red key is not locked into the switch. The kills switch is primarily a safety device to ensure that the robot cannot move or power up without the group being aware. The circuit was connected outside the robot with no wheels attached to the motors in order to test the circuit and to make sure the batteries were not overheating and to ensure the circuit worked. The circuit was then attached to
40
the robot frame and the wheels were fastened to the motors. The fame was driven around gently for many rounds, then driven at max speed for several rounds. The weapon was the last part of the robot to be completed, and was tested as the drive train was outside the robot, and was circuited in a similar manner as the drive train, with its own separate kill switch. The weapon was set in place on a countertop and the held in place and was run in the forward and backward directions at slow speeds and at top speeds. From there the weapon was mounted with the drive train in the robot and was tested on some wooden blocks. The results of that test warranted some adjusting of the shaft collars that held the shaft for the weapon to rotate around in place. Then the weapon with the drive train was tested again on a wooden pallet and was deemed operational enough to work on completing the rest of the robot. The armor was titanium plates that had to have their cuts and holes drilled outsourced to a water jet cutter which posed for some time delays since the group had to wait for them to complete their work in order to complete the robot. The results of waiting for the armor which warranted waiting to complete the robot caused a large loss in testing time. There wasn’t significant time to complete all the details of the robot and to test at the level needed for a battle robot competition. This was the groups first time manufacturing a project of this scale so the time needed to manufacture as well as the issues and changes in the designed robot to the actual robot were very underestimated. The appropriate amount of testing needed before entering the competition was not able to take place given the circumstances.
41
ROBOGAMES RESULTS AND EXPERIENCE The Robogames were held in San Mateo California about 15 minutes south of San Fransisco. The group and the robot flew from Saint Louis to San Francisco, with the exception of the batteries, that look very similar to bombs, which were shipped ahead to be picked up from a fed ex office there. The group flew southwest airlines and thus was able to each take two 50lb bags. The bags were filled to their maximum weight with robot parts, redundant parts, as well as assembly and repairing tools. The group’s flight out there left at 6a.m, which forced the group to be at the airport around 4a.m. to allow appropriate time for TSA to look over the interesting parts going through. Arriving at that time meant the group had to have all the parts packed and ready by 3:30a.m. which made for an interesting experience especially since there were many late nights before that night finishing up the robot.
Figure 34 - You want me to carry what?!!
After arriving and successfully obtaining all eight bags the group then picked up their batteries and headed to the Robogames. They spent the greater part of the morning and early afternoon assembling the robot and getting it ready for the safety inspections, which required the robot to be disarmed and immobile unless the kill switches discussed earlier were activated. The 42
weapon had to be mechanically immobilized, and the robot had to stop moving when the remote was turned off. The robot also was weighed to make sure it was within the weight category. The next phase of the inspection involved running the robot in the arena, to ensure all parts operated correctly and nothing would blow up or break when beginning the rounds the next day. The group passed all the inspections without a hitch and then spent time viewing the other competing robots safety inspections. The next morning, Friday, April 15th was day one of the Robogames. The team had a bye for round one, which proved to be a curse since the team would be up against a robot that proved itself once already. The match took place around six so the teams tried to enjoy the rest of the games and competitions, but it was hard to do so because nerves were running high.
Figure 35 - A Besta
The match began and Jesus Dominguez Cobreros was chosen to be the teams driver. Jesus and Greg Keogh brought the robot in and activated it while Sean Holder and Alex Shim found good locations to film. The robot facing the Arch Enemy was a robot with a vertical spinning flywheel made of hardened steel. The robot has competed for five years and had a large and experienced team. Arch enemy went weapon to weapon with them and delivered a few good hits right away, yet one hit involved both weapons hitting at the same time causing one of our 43
hardened steel shafts to bend, locking Arch Enemy’s weapon in place. The team designed for a weapon failure however and then went after the competitor with Arch Enemy’s ramp. For the combat category the Robogames scores aggression heavily, more so than damage. The team was going for the aggression points and repeatedly rammed the other robot with their ramp in an attempt to break their weapon on the ramp or against the wall. The ramp being made of titanium plates and the other robots weapon being made of steel caused huge white sparks to be sent across the arena, much to the onlookers delight. The competitors’ weapon did not break, but instead got in between the connections of the plates and caused a fracture in the titanium plates. The fracture grew with each hit and eventually the entire back plate and some of the steel tubing of the frame flew off into the arena. The competitors’ weapon then destroyed the drive train motor controller and Arch Enemy had to tap out since it could no longer drive. The match was close until the plates fractured, and Arch Enemy fought hard and put on a good show. The team was disappointed in the loss but proud of the robot’s performance. The team was dejected for the rest of that day but woke up with the intention of fixing the robot as best they could and fighting again. The team got to work but then had only thirty minutes before their next battle and was far from ready. They forfeited and then enjoyed the rest of the Robogames. LESSONS LEARNED AND DESIGN MODIFICATIONS The first lesson learned is to manufacture early. The team spent the majority of the time designing and deciding which weapons, armor, features, components, and the basic look of the robot. This was much needed, but there was not much time to spend in the end on manufacturing. This resulted in a lack of time for testing and practicing driving which is imperative for success in the robogames. The driver is expected to clock around three hundred hours of driving with the 44
robot to be considered ready for combat but our team clocked somewhere around 9 to 10 hours of driving. Also the weapon was not adequately tested before combat due to a pressing need to complete other areas of the robot so the robot could function. If the weapon went through a more rigorous test then the shaft that bent in battle may have bent in testing and an appropriate solution could be created. Although the shaft was a 1 inch thick cold rolled steel purchased directly from Mcmaster-Carr, we did not anticipate a shaft failure due to the amount of force required to bend it. Therefore a large part of participating in this competition is through estimating the different kind of failures that could happen to your robot, even if they seem implausible to happen. Initially, before we took the weapon system apart, all of our team members did not anticipate a shaft failure, but a bearing failure. We were proven wrong when we took apart the system. The second lesson learned is experience is key. Once you participate in the games and see the robots and how they are made and how intense the weapons are then you get an idea of what is needed out of the robot you bring. An idea for future teams if they decide to compete in the Combat categories is to bring an underclassman that is committed to robots to the competition and include them in the manufacturing and design so that they would have a good grasp of where to take the project and where to improve the design. It would be a difficult task to be handed a large amount of welded metal, motors, wires, batteries, with little to no idea how they connect and where they fit in and work. Our group has gone through much learning in a compressed timeframe to make this happen. A lot of the skills were learned throughout the year and more impressively what looked like a mountain of things to do before the competition, became smaller and smaller as we worked on a team as a whole.
45
Another lesson is making the robot as compact and minimalist as possible. The larger the robot, the thinner the armor to protect the outside is. Maximize the armor and maximize the weapon. The team maximized the weapon yet due to the size of the drive motors and the desire to incorporate a ramp the armor was only1/8” thick where it should have been ¼”. Most of the successful combat robots consisted of a thick unibody design. For example, one of our competitors, Touro and Touro Maximus, robots in the 120lb and 220lb classes respectively, used a uni-body construction of thick aluminum almost an inch thick. Although this allowed for their opponents to hit the armor as many times as they wanted, the robot stayed intact while it delivered force to the opponent’s weapons as well. This was a major advantage to the team because although their armor material was not the strongest type, they had the thickness to compensate. Although the armor ablated in a few parts, overall the robot was intact and no significant damage was present. It is important to note that even though they had a one inch thick armor, there was one occasion when the armor was sheared from a weapon hit, therefore no matter how thick the armor is there will always be some kind of damage. Our armor was designed as separate plates for ease in assembly; however that caused the armor failure. The spinning weapon of A Besta was able to get in under the plates and then repeatedly hit them, which caused a large fracture and ultimately caused the ramp plate to go flying leaving all the electronics exposed and allowing for our drive train motor controller to fail. A better design for our armor is to create a seamless construction of the armor. This year’s winner from the University of Toronto, called TSA Inspected consisted of a ramp only design. Upon observation, this design is seamless and has very minimal points where the opponent can catch a corner to tear the armor. So it is recommended that through the design process a significant amount of armor simplicity and seamlessness is taken into consideration. 46
Due to our desire for a ramp and a weapon and to the size of the drive motors, we decided upon making a tubular truss as the internal frame. The issue with this design is that a truss system needs to have enough redundant frame parts and a welder on hand to repair the frame when it is damaged from a fight. Due to lack of funding as well as resources to get additional parts to the competition, we were not able to compete in the next round. It is imperative that if a truss design is used that additional welding equipment and spare parts be available on-site. This was the case for another competitor, the Mortician which used the tubular structure. As soon as their match was over and they sustained tubular damage, the team quickly located the spare parts and welded on-site allowing the robot to compete within a 20 minute period. Therefore, different consideration into our frame design is recommended if there aren’t enough resources for support equipment. Thick aluminum blocks are very light and very strong and could be a good substitute for the truss structure. The weapon design included an axle design that contained two separate shafts. A viable design modification would be to use only one continuous shaft that extended from the left bearing to the right bearing. This modification may prevent the shaft from bending thus causing a catastrophic failure as the team experienced during their one and only battle. Furthermore the shaft should be verified that it is hardened with the use of the Rockwell hardness machine. This would verify that the shaft purchased was indeed hardened. In additions, the bearings that supported the weapon axle should be placed as close to the spinning weapon as possible. This modification would limit the amount of bending moment present and also may prevent shaft failure. Doing this would increase the amount of force required to bend the shaft. It is incredibly important to have redundant parts of all key components. The team had redundant armor, but did not have a redundant motor controller for the drive train, and did not 47
have redundant shafts. These errors resulted in the team not being able to compete with the same robot in the next match. Instead the team was trying to compete with a junk heap that would ram into other robots. If a team is to take the project on next year, which is the hope that Arch Enemy has, then they fortunately will have lots of leftover components allowing for a purchase of more redundant parts. The last lesson learned is to not be afraid to take on a senior design project of a larger scale. The scope of this project was enormous and as a result it took up an enormous portion of the team’s senior year. However the team will all agree that this experience and the effort and the reward of seeing the design come together and work is the most rewarding experience undertaken. The project was almost not approved in the very beginning, finding funding at first was difficult and as stated earlier the scope was huge. However once the faculty was shown how mechanical the project was and how beneficial the project was to the university the faculty all came on board and all shared a little pride in the work the team put in.
48
TEAM MEMBER CONCLUSIONS ALEX SHIM’S EXPERIENCE
As a graduated Aerospace engineer from Parks, and pursuing the mechanical engineering degree, I was able to see the differences in the two different design classes. As expected, aerospace design projects are purely theoretical for obvious reasons and there was not much construction and manufacturing incorporated into the classes besides making models for applications such as wind-tunnel testing. The mechanical engineering design class gave me a more “hands-on” experience which required much more effort and work than my design class in the previous year. A large part of the design process includes manufacturing and additional design problems arose from construction. Another aspect of the senior design project that I haven’t experienced as an AE major was obtaining funding. Our combat robot required around $4000 worth of funding for construction and $4000 for travels. Earning money through the
49
school and outside organizations such as ASME and Missouri Space Grant was a good experience. Working on this project was exciting and the group’s enthusiasm was upheld throughout the whole semester working on the goal of entering the Robogames competition. Manufacturing our design and seeing a concept come into fruition kept our motivation and inspiration. It was also very helpful that the competition was in mid-April, in sync with around the time that our final product from the senior design project was due. Although our robot did not make it very far into the competition, for a first time experience at the Robogames, I think we did very well. Some of the combat robots didn’t even survive the first few seconds the match and the fact that we had a robot system functioning until the very end, is a testament of how much work we had accomplished in the past few months. It was a little disheartening to see our work disassembled in two minutes and fifty seconds, however watching the awesome videos of our match has made up for the loss. All in all, it has been a pleasure working with my other teammates: Jesus, Sean and Greg.
50
JESUS DOMINGUEZ’S EXPERIENCE
In one sentence: This has been the most exciting, intense, and educational project we have done in our entire college experience. I’m very glad we picked a project that involved everything from design to manufacturing and testing. We have all learned very important lessons at every stage of the development of our project, one of the first ones being that many things will have to change along the way, and one has to be flexible enough to adapt to those changes. The initial design stage is beautiful, but often too idealistic, no matter how realist you try to be, so you have to be ready to compromise some things in order to achieve others. The second thing learned is that everything always takes more time than you initially expect. This goes for conceptual design, final design, and specially manufacturing. You have to account for human factors and third parties your project depends on. Whether it is how long it
51
will take you to machine some part, to how long some material will take to arrive, you always have to allocate extra time if you don’t want to be caught off guard. We have learned how incredibly competitive Combat Robotics is. If we had to do this again, apart from some design changes, we would be ready to rebuild our robot on site. Not only take more redundant parts but literally bring a second robot. We saw grinders and welding equipment, and all we had was a hand drill and some tools. The process doesn’t end when you bring the robot to the competition. The process ends when you get it out of there. The most important thing I have learned is how satisfying it is to bring a project from concept to product. It is hard and at times very frustrating, but the more you suffer, the more fulfilling it is. GREG KEOGH’S EXPERIENCE
I had an amazing experience working on the Arch Enemy Senior Design team. The project scope was enormous. It involved everything generating funding, designing with only a 52
120 pound weight restriction, manufacturing, buying supplies, buying and determining the internal components, assembling then re-manufacturing when the assembly pieces didn’t fit. I especially enjoyed the manufacturing when pieces would come together and the long hours spent cutting tubing to the exact sizes or the time spent drilling holes through hardened steel would become worth it. I also enjoyed how much the project made the group spend time together. The many late nights and long hours spent working toward a common goal made for an unforgettable year. Another part of the project that made working on it so great was the knowledge of what we were doing and what we were making. The idea of what we were turning out was more than enough motivation to work and keep the excitement up. The Robogames themselves were nerve racking as we put our hard work into that arena knowing that it could be destroyed in one fell swoop. Yet after watching our robot fight as hard as it did I was never more proud of our teams work. The experience of going somewhere awesome like San Francisco to compete with the world’s best robot makers was a great reward to everything that was needed to go into the project. The project in my eyes was more of a project management and a manufacturing project and less of a design and analysis, which I found enjoyable since so much of what I have done in school has been purely analysis, based. I have learned more from this one project than I have from any class in just the level of problem solving needed to get our robot to where it needed to be. My only regrets were the amount of classes I needed to take to graduate this year because it limited how much I could work on the project. If I could have changed anything about the Senior Design program and class I would figure out a way to make it a two year course so we
53
could do this all over again with a better robot, especially after learning from our mistakes the first time. SEAN HOLDER’S EXPERIENCE
At the start of the first semester in senior design I was concerned with the type of project that I would be married to for the entire year. After forming groups in senior design my fears began to transform into excitement when my group mates and I selected the area of robotics. Robotics has always been a fascination of mine and now I would be able to explore this area for the remainder of my college career. Furthermore, when the design group started to focus in on combat robotics myself and the rest of the design group was so enthusiastic about the project we had selected. This enthusiasm lasted throughout the entire semester which was amazing because I have seen several other design groups’ excitement about their project drop which is unfortunate. The other aspect of designing a combat robot was the intensity of the manufacturing aspect which I have always enjoyed. All of the second semester of senior design
54
was spent in the machine shop with only a couple hours spent in the classroom Lastly, this project was also heavy in coordination and project management which is an important aspect for a senior in college to be exposed to as we head into the workforce shortly. In entirety this was the best senior design project that I have could imagined being tasked with because it was amazing to design and build a combat robot to compete in Robogames 2011.
55
APPENDIX A: OPPONENT’S CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX
56
Table 3: Opponents’ Characteristic Matrix Opponents’ Characteristic Matrix Weapon Type
Weapon Category Flywheel
one spinning wheel with inward cuts for surface contact
Weapon orientation vertical and front
Circle Strafe Dark Cyde DoomBa Drag Racer FlapJack Gadsen Kraken Poppy Professor Chaos Terminal Velocity The Mortician
rotating drum hydraulic lift Defensive
one cylinder rotating around Hydraulic arm that pops! and ramp Ramp
front vertical front Front
2 mobile wheels and two front free spinning wheels four wheels four wheels 2 wheels, non-sheilded
hydraulic lift
hydraulic arm that pops
front
4 wheels
Defensive
ramp
front
4 wheels
Flywheel rotating mass rotating mass
front Front Front
Touro TSA Inspected Wolverine 4
rotating drum Defensive Saw
very thick notched flywheel rectangular mass (vertical orientation) slightly wedged shaped high-mass high RPM rotation (horizontal orientation) one cylinder rotating around Ramp and strong wheels 2 saw blades
four wheels 2 wheels in the back 2 Wheels, non-shielded solid rubber with holes 2 wheels 2 wheels, non-shielded 2 wheels / 1 Bearing in front
A Besta
Front Front Hztl. and front
Mobility
57
Table 4: Opponents' Characteristic Matrix (Continued)
A Besta Circle Strafe Dark Cyde DoomBa Drag Racer FlapJack Gadsen Kraken Poppy Professor Chaos Terminal Velocity The Mortician
Opponents’ Characteristic Matrix (Continued) Geometry Mobility Location square with front lifted up, back symmetric on top and bottom aluminum plates covering from all sides square low to ground front Plexi-glass and front metal ramp square with ramp in front four corners thick metal plates on ramp left and right sides Armor mechanics behind wheel
torn to pieces arm broke, robot shattered
plates on all sides
Trapezoidal
outside
rammed against wall by tsa inspected
ramp in front is thick metal
Square
outside on sides
tsa inspected
sturdy all around thick frame and plexi-glass Plexi-glass and thick steel tubing
Square Triangle with weapon in front Triangle with weapon up front square with chamfered corners Ramp front
inside robot Back Back (left and right sides) inside robot
Touro
aluminum plates covering from all sides
TSA Inspected
thick skin of 3mm AR500 steel armor (what the U.S. Army uses to shield against IED's Plexi-glass and thick frame
Wolverine 4
Mode of Death lost control
Triangle with weapon in front
Back (left and right sides) back
broken blade blade stopped rotating
#1 Broken Blade from weaponweapon strike / #2 Bent weapon arm
58
Table 5: Opponents' Characteristic Matrix (Continued)
A Besta Circle Strafe Dark Cyde DoomBa Drag Racer FlapJack Gadsen Kraken Poppy Professor Chaos Terminal Velocity The Mortician Touro TSA Inspected Wolverine 4
Opponents’ Characteristic Matrix (Continued) Strengths Weaknesses spinning blade causes a lot of damage, symmetry keeps loses control easily, mobility, lifts on one him alive side when turning NONE VISIBLE Armor, ineffective weapon for opponent arm won some battles lifts up easily, not very destructive weapon
could be effective if arm got under
not a lot of wheel power, arm was inneffective in battle
strong armor
not very destructive
vertical rotating blade can cause big damage
Known to break itself due to vertical weapon orientation. Gyroscopic issues none visible
high rpm large mass, total carnage, can work when flipped Defensive, and thick armor, great driving skills 30 pounds of cutting blades @ 2500 RPM / Fast and Maneuverable
none visible Blades are too small
2010 record 1-2 0-2 2-2 1-2 1-2 0-1 2-2 2-2 0-2 4-2 2-2 3-2 4-2 5-0 1-2
59
APPENDIX B: ROBOT TYPE RATINGS
60
Table 6: Robot Type Personal Preference Ratings
Team Member Sean Jesus Greg Alex
Rammers Wedges 4 2 5 6 7 3 4 3
Average Rating
5
Robot Type Personal Preference Ratings Ranking 1-15 (1 = Most Preferred) Thwack Overhead Thwack Spear Horizontal Lifters Launchers Bots Bots Bots Spinner 7 6 8 12 15 8 4 7 9 15 6 5 10 11 14 6 7 9 8 13
3.5
6.75
5.5
8.5
10
5 2 4 1
14.25
3
Robot Type Personal Preference Ratings (Continued) Ranking 1-15 (1 = Most Preferred) Vertical Spinner 1 3 1 5 2.5
Saw Bots Drum Bots Hammer Bots Clamper Crusher Flamethrower 3 11 10 9 13 14 12 1 13 11 14 10 9 2 8 12 13 15 14 2 10 11 12 15 9.5
4
10.25
10.75
13
13.5
61
Table 7: Robot Damage Effectiveness Personal Preference Ratings
Team Member Sean Jesus Greg Alex
Rammers 3 2 2 3
Average Effectiveness
Robot Damage Effectiveness Personal Preference Ratings Rating 0-5 (5 = Most Effective) Overhead Thwack Wedges Lifters Launchers Thwack Bots Bots 4 3 4 4 1 2 3 2 4 3 5 2 4 3 3 3
2.5
3.25
2.75
3.75
2.75
Spear Bots
Horizontal Spinner
1 2 1 3
1 2 1 2
5 4 5 5
1.75
1.5
4.75
Robot Damage Effectiveness Personal Preference Ratings (Continued) Rating 0-5 (5 = Most Effective) Vertical Spinner 4 4 5 3 4
Saw Bots Drum Bots Hammer Bots Clamper Crusher Flamethrower 5 4 3 1 2 1 2 4 3 3 3 1 2 5 2 2 2 1 3 4 3 2 2 1 3
4.25
2.75
2
2.25
1
62
APPENDIX C: PROJECT BUDGET Table 8: Project Budget
ITEM DESCRIPTION Kill Switch Robot Structure and Armor Drive Gears & Pulleys Wheels Chains/Belt DC Weapon Motor DC Wheel Motors Motor Controller (weapon) Motor Controller (wheels) Batteries
RC Transmitters RC Receivers Hardware Material Shipping Costs MATERIAL SUBTOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION Airline Tickets Hotel Robot Shipping Crate Robot Freight Cost Rental Car Competition Entry Fee COMPETITION AND TRAVEL SUBTOTAL
ROBOT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS MODEL/DETAILS COMPANY COST/UNIT Hella Master Power Switch Robot Marketplace $17.99 Steel and Aluminum Stock Shapiro Supply $800.00 Undecided $150.00 8" or 10" Colson Rubber Wheels Robot Marketplace $11.00 8mm pitch timing V belt Undecided Ampflow A28-400 Robot Marketplace $359.00 NPC - T64 Geared Motor Robot Marketplace $289.11 IFI Vex Pro Victor 885 Sidewinder Brushed Speed Controller NiCd Spektrum DX5e 5Channel 2.4Ghz Radio Spektrum AR500 Receiver Fasteners, adhesive and electrical supplies -
QUANITIY
SUBTOTAL
1
$17.99
1 1
$800.00 $150.00
8
$88.00
1 1
$50.00 $359.00
2
$578.22
Robot Marketplace
$179.00
1
$179.00
Robot Marketplace Undecided
$409.00 -
1 1
$409.00 $500.00
Robot Marketplace
$59.00
1
$59.00
Robot Martketplace
$10.00
1
$40.00
Fastenal
-
1
$200.00
-
-
-
$100.00 $3,530.21
COMPETITION AND TRAVEL DETAILS COMPANY Flights from STL to Southwest Airlines SFO (Free Checked Bags) 4 Nights (April 14 Crown Plaza Foster April 18, 2011) City Wooden Crate Home Depot Round Trip Fed Ex Mini Van Combat Robot Middle Weight Class RoboGames
COST/UNIT
QUANITY
SUBTOTAL
$425.00
4
$1,700.00
$110.00
4 1
$440.00 $100.00 $400.00 $400.00
$120.00
1
$120.00 $3,040.00
PROJECT TOTAL COSTS Middle Weight Combat Robot Competition and Travel Costs GRAND TOTAL
$3,530.21 $3,040.00 $6,570.21
63
APPENDIX D: COMBAT ROBOT RULES AND REGULATIONS (WWW.ROBOGAMES.NET) 1. GENERAL 1.1. All participants build and operate robots at their own risk. Combat robotics is inherently dangerous. There is no amount of regulation that can encompass all the dangers involved. Please take care to not hurt yourself or others when building, testing and competing. 1.2. This rule set is designed to for adjustment by each event depending on its safety concerns. 1.3. If you have a robot or weapon design that does not fit within the categories set forth in these rules or is in some way ambiguous or borderline, please contact this event. Safe innovation is always encouraged, but surprising the event staff with your brilliant exploitation of a loophole may cause your robot to be disqualified before it ever competes. 1.4. Compliance with all event rules is mandatory. It is expected that competitors stay within the rules and procedures of their own accord and do not require constant policing. 1.5. Each event has safety inspections. It is at their sole discretion that your robot is allowed to compete. As a builder you are obligated to disclose all operating principles and potential dangers to the inspection staff. 1.6. Cardinal Safety Rules: Failure to comply with any of the following rules could result in expulsion or worse, injury and death. 1.6.1. Radios may not be turned on at or near events for any purpose without obtaining the appropriate frequency clip or explicit permission from the event. 1.6.2. Proper activation and deactivation of robots is critical. Robots must only be activated in the arena, testing areas, or with expressed consent of the event and it's safety officials. 1.6.3. All robots must be able to be FULLY deactivated, which includes power to drive and weaponry, in under 60 seconds by a manual disconnect. 1.6.4. All robots not in an arena or official testing area must be raised or blocked up in a manner so that their wheels or legs cannot cause movement if the robot were turned on. Runaway bots are VERY dangerous. 1.6.5. Locking devices: Moving weapons that can cause damage or injury must have a clearly visible locking device in place at all times when not in the arena. Locking devices must be painted in neon orange or another high-visibility color. Locking devices must be clearly capable 64
to stopping, arresting or otherwise preventing harmful motion of the weapon. 1.6.6. Weapon locking pins must be in place when weapon power is applied during a robot's power-on procedure. This includes all powered weapons regardless of the power source or weight class. 1.6.7. It is expected that all builders will follow basic safety practices during work on the robot at your pit station. Please be alert and aware of your pit neighbors and people passing by. 2. WEIGHT CLASSES This event offers the listed weight classes in section 2.1. There is a 100% weight bonus for nonwheeled bots. (Non-wheeled robots in the 340 class may receive a 35% bonus. There is no weight bonus for shufflers or other forms of locomotion which are predicated on rolling - see 3.1.2 for a definition of a non-wheeled robot.) 2.1. Bonuses: Rolling
Walking
150 gram 300 gram 1 pound
2 pound
3 pound
6 pound
30 pound 60 pound 60 Pound 120 Pound 120 pound 240 pound 220 pound 440 pound
2.2. Event-specific Weight Classes and Bonuses. This event does not define any additional weight classes or bonuses. 2.3. 1 & 3 lb Autonomous Combat: This event offers a separate class for 1 & 3 lb autonomous fighting robots.
65
2.3.1. Arena: The 1 & 3 lb Autonomous class fights in an 6' x 6' polycarbonate enclosed arena with a 5' x 5' black fighting surface surrounded by a 2" wide white border. 2.3.2. Autonomous robots must be fully autonomous. Use of a radio-control device for failsafe is allowed but it must provide NO OTHER FUNCTION than a failsafe signal. 2.3.2.1 Robots are started and stopped by use of the above failsafe. 2.3.2.2 Robots must stop motion and weapons when failsafe is activated, for safe removal from arena. 2.3.3. Autonomous robots must be self-contained, with all sensors and computing resources onboard and included in the weight. External sensors, computers, etc. are not allowed. 2.3.4. The additional Autonomous robot rules found in Section 5 apply to the 1 & 3 lb Autonomous class. 3. MOBILITY 3.1. All robots must have easily visible and controlled mobility in order to compete. Methods of mobility include: 3.1.1. Rolling (wheels, tracks or the whole robot) 3.1.2. Non-wheeled: non-wheeled robots have no rolling elements in contact with the floor and no continuous rolling or cam operated motion in contact with the floor, either directly or via a linkage. Motion is "continuous" if continuous operation of the drive motor(s) produces continuous motion of the robot. Linear-actuated legs and novel non-wheeled drive systems do not qualify for this bonus. 3.1.3. Shuffling (rotational cam operated legs) is allowed. 3.1.4. Ground effect air cushions (hovercrafts) is allowed. 3.1.5. Jumping and hopping is allowed. 3.1.6. Flying (airfoil using, helium balloons, ornithopters, etc.) is not allowed. 4. ROBOT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 4.1. Tele-operated robots must be radio controlled, or use an approved custom system as described in 4.4.3. Radio controlled robots must use approved ground frequencies in the 900/2400 for the United States . 4.2. Tethered control is not allowed. 4.3. Pre 1991 non-narrow band radio systems are not allowed. 66
4.4. Radio system restrictions for this event with corresponding weight and or weapon restrictions: 4.4.1. Radio systems that stop all motion in the robot (drive and weapons), when the transmitter loses power or signal, are required for all robots with active weapons. This may be inherent in the robots electrical system or be part of programmed fail-safes in the radio. 4.4.2. All robot radio systems must be coded mated pairs between transmitter and receiver. This means that no other transmitter, operating on the same frequency, can communicate with your receiver and your transmitter cannot send signals to any other receiver than your own. Examples of such systems are Spektrum, IFI, and XPS XtremeLink - these are just examples and should not be taken as a comprehensive list or an endorsement. 4.4.3. If you are using a home built control system, or a control system not covered here, you must first clear it with this event. 4.4.4. Toy radio systems are not allowed at this event for any robots. 4.4.5. RC systems on the AM band are not allowed at this event for robots up to 12 lbs without active weapons. 4.4.6. All robots MUST use a radio system with digitally coded 900 MHz or 2.4GHz systems (for example Spektrum), or an approved custom control system. 4.5. This event does not require a separate power switch for the radio, but it is encouraged. 4.6. This event has not reserved frequencies/channels for testing and safety. 5. AUTONOMOUS/SEMI-AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS Any robot that moves, seeks a target, or activates weapons without human control is considered autonomous. If your robot is autonomous you are required to contact this event before registration. 5.1. Autonomous robots must have a clearly visible light for each autonomous subsystem that indicates whether or not it is in autonomous mode, e.g. if your robot has two autonomous weapons it should have two "autonomous mode" lights (this is separate from any power or radio indicator lights used). 5.2. Robots in the 12 pound or under classes are exempt from the remaining rules below, but safe operation, arming, and disarming must be demonstrated in safety inspections. 5.3. The autonomous functionality of a robot must have the capability of being remotely armed 67
and disarmed. (This does not include internal sensors, drive gyros, or closed loop motor controls.) 5.3.1. While disarmed, all autonomous functions must be disabled. 5.3.2. When activated the robot must have no autonomous functions enabled, and all autonomous functions must failsafe to off if there is loss of power or radio signal. 5.3.3. In case of damage to components that remotely disarm the robot, the robots autonomous functions are required to automatically disarm within one minute of the match length time after being armed. 6. BATTERIES AND POWER 6.1. The only permitted batteries are ones that cannot spill or spray any of their contents when damaged or inverted. This means that standard automotive and motorcycle wet cell batteries are prohibited. Examples of batteries that are permitted: gel cells, Hawkers, NiCads, NiMh, dry cells, AGM, LIon, LiPoly, etc. If your design uses a new type of battery, or one you are not sure about please contact this event. 6.2. All onboard voltages above 48 Volts require prior approval from this event. (It is understood that a charged battery's initial voltage state is above their nominal rated value) 6.3. All electrical power to weapons and drive systems (systems that could cause potential human bodily injury) must have a manual disconnect that can be activated within 15 seconds without endangering the person turning it off. (E.g. No body parts in the way of weapons or pinch points.) Shut down must include a manually operated mechanical method of disconnecting the main battery power, such as a switch (Hella, Wyachi, etc) or removable link. Relays may be used to control power, but there must also be a mechanical disconnect. Please note that complete shut down time is specified in section 1.6. 6.4. All efforts must be made to protect battery terminals from a direct short and causing a battery fire. 6.5. If your robot uses a grounded chassis you must have a switch capable of disconnecting this ground. ICE robots are excepted from this rule if there is no practical way to isolate their grounding components. It is required to contact this event for this exception. 6.6. All Robots must have a light easily visible from the outside of the robot that shows its main power is activated. 68
7. PNEUMATICS 7.1. Example diagrams of typical pneumatic systems in robots over 30lbs: 7.1.1. CO2 based systems http://www.botleague.com/pdf/GeneralPneumaticsCO2.pdf 7.1.2. High Pressure Air (HPA) based systems http://www.botleague.com/pdf/GeneralPneumaticsHPA.pdf 7.2. Pneumatic systems on board the robot must only employ non-flammable, nonreactive gases (CO2, Nitrogen and air are most common). It is not permissible to use fiber wound pressure vessels with liquefied gasses like CO2 due to extreme temperature cycling. 7.3. Systems with gas storage of 2 FL OZ or less are exempt from the remaining rules in this section provided they comply with the following: 7.3.1. You must have a safe way of refilling the system and determining the on board pressure. 7.3.2. The maximum actuation pressure is 250 PSI or less. Some systems may be excepted at the event organizers' discretion, see Section 7.15. 7.3.3. All components must be used within the specifications provided by the manufacturer or supplier. If the specifications aren't available or reliable, then it will be up to the EO to decide if the component is being used in a sufficiently safe manner. 7.4. You must have a safe and secure method of refilling your pneumatic system. All pressure vessels must have the standard male quick disconnect for refilling or have an adapter to this fitting. Standard paintball fill fittings available at many retail outlets and online. For specs see Part#12MPS from Foster, http://www.couplers.com. 7.5. All pneumatic components on board a robot must be securely mounted. Particular attention must be made to pressure vessel mounting and armor to ensure that if ruptured it will not escape the robot. (The terms 'pressure vessel, bottle, and source tank' are used interchangeably) 7.6. All pneumatic components within the robot must be rated or certified for AT LEAST the maximum pressure in that part of the system. You may be required to show rating or certification documentation on ANY component in your system. 7.7. All pressure vessels must be rated for at least 120% of the pressure they are used at and have a current hydro test date. (This is to give them a margin of safety if damaged during a fight.) If large actuators, lines, or other components are used at pressures above 250psi these will also need to be over-rated and are requiredto be pre-approved for this event. 69
7.8. All primary pressure vessels must have an over pressure device (burst/rupture disk or over pressure 'pop off') set to no more than 130% of that pressure vessels rating. (Most commercially available bottles come with the correct burst assemblies, use of these is encouraged) 7.9. If regulators or compressors are used anywhere in the pneumatic system there must be an (additional) over pressure device downstream of the regulator or compressor set for no more than 130% of the lowest rated component in that part of the pneumatic system. 7.10. All pneumatic systems must have a manual main shut off valve to isolate the rest of the system from the source tank. This valve must be easily accessed for robot de activation and refilling. 7.11. All pneumatic systems must have a manual bleed valve downstream of the main shut off valve to depressurize the system. This bleed valve must be easily accessed for deactivation. This valve must be left OPEN whenever the robot is not in the arena to ensure the system cannot operate accidentally. 7.11.1. It is required to be able to easily bleed all pressure in the robot before exiting the arena. (You may be required to bleed the entire system if it is believed that you have any damaged components.) 7.12. All pneumatic systems must have appropriate gauges scaled for maximum resolution of the pressures in that part of the system. (There must be gauges on both the high AND low-pressure sides of regulators.) 7.13. If back check valves are used anywhere in the system you must ensure that any part of the system they isolate can be bled and has an over pressure device. 7.14. Any pneumatic system that does not use a regulator, or employs heaters or pressure boosters, or pressures above 2500psi must be pre qualified by this event. 7.15. Please note that some pneumatic systems with very low pressures (below 100 total PSI on board), small volumes (12-16g CO2 cartridges), single firing applications, or pneumatics used for internal actuation (as opposed to external weaponry) may not need to comply with all the rules above. You are required to contact this event if you would like an exception. 8. HYDRAULICS 8.1. Robots in the 12 lb class or lighter are limited to 250psi and there must be an easy way to determine this pressure. 70
8.2. Hydraulic system pressure (In the actuator/cylinder) must be limited to 10000psi/ 700bar by way of a maximum pressure relief valve 8.3. A hydraulic test point is a mandatory fitment to allow verification of a robots maximum system pressure. A team will need its own test gauge and hose. 8.4. Hydraulic fluid storage tanks must be of a suitable material and adequately guarded against rupture. 8.5. Hydraulic fluid lines and fittings must be to USA Standards and/ or to European DIN specifications. 8.6. Hydraulic fluid lines and fittings must be capable of withstanding the maximum working pressures used within the robot. 8.7. Hydraulic fluid lines must be routed to minimize the chances of being cut or damaged. 8.8. Hydraulic accumulators (pressurized oil storage devices) are banned in whatever form they may take. 8.9. All hydraulic systems must use non-flammable, non-corrosive fluid and must be designed not to leak when inverted. 8.10. Please note that some simple low pressure and volume hydraulic systems, like simple braking, may not need to adhere to all the rules above. You are required to contact this event if you would like an exception. 8.11. Care needs to be taken when building a hydraulic system that consideration is given to bleeding the system of air. Trapped air in the hydraulic system will degrade the performance of the system and may make a robot violate rule 8.8 9. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES (ICE) AND LIQUID FUELS 9.1. No internal combustion engines are allowed at this event. 10. ROTATIONAL WEAPONS OR FULL BODY SPINNING ROBOTS 10.1. Spinning weapons that can contact the outer arena walls during normal operation must be pre-approved by the event. (Contact with an inner arena curb, or containment wall is allowed and does not require prior permission.) 10.2. Spinning weapons must come to a full stop within 60 seconds of the power being removed using a self-contained braking system. 11. SPRINGS AND FLYWHEELS 71
11.1. Springs used in robots in the 12 lbs class or smaller are excepted from the rules in this section. However safe operation and good engineering are always required. 11.2. Any large springs used for drive or weapon power must have a way of loading and actuating the spring remotely under the robots power. 11.2.1. Under no circumstances must a large spring be loaded when the robot is out of the arena or testing area. 11.2.2. Small springs like those used within switches or other small internal operations are excepted from this rule. 11.3. Any flywheel or similar kinetic energy storing device must not be spinning or storing energy in any way unless inside the arena or testing area. 11.3.1. There must be a way of generating and dissipating the energy from the device remotely under the robots power. 11.4. All springs, flywheels, and similar kinetic energy storing devices must fail to a safe position on loss of radio contact or power.} 12. FORBIDDEN WEAPONS AND MATERIALS The following weapons and materials are absolutely forbidden from use: 12.1. Weapons designed to cause invisible damage to the other robot. This includes but is not limited to: 12.1.1. Electrical weapons 12.1.2. RF jamming equipment, etc. 12.1.3. RF noise generated by an IC engine. (Please use shielding around sparking components) 12.1.4. EMF fields from permanent or electro-magnets that affect another robots electronics. 12.1.5. Weapons or defenses that stop combat completely of both (or more) robots. This includes nets, tapes, strings, and other entanglement devices. 12.2. Weapons that require significant cleanup, or in some way damages the arena to require repair for further matches. This includes but is not limited to: 12.2.1. Liquid weapons. Additionally a bot may not have liquid that can spill out when the robot is superficially damaged.
72
12.2.2. Foams and liquefied gasses 12.2.3. Powders, sand, ball bearings and other dry chaff weapons 12.3. Un-tethered Projectiles (see tethered projectile description in Special Weapons section 13.5) 12.4. Heat and fire are forbidden as weapons. This includes, but is not limited to the following: 12.4.1. Heat or fire weapons not specifically allowed in the Special Weapons section (13.2) 12.4.2. Flammable liquids or gases 12.4.3. Explosives or flammable solids such as: 12.4.3.1. DOT Class C devices 12.4.3.2. Gunpowder / Cartridge Primers 12.4.3.3. Military Explosives, etc. 12.5. Light and smoke based weapons that impair the viewing of robots by an Entrant, Judge, Official or Viewer. (You are allowed to physically engulf your opponent with your robot however.) This includes, but is not limited to the following: 12.5.1. Smoke weapons not specifically allowed in the Special Weapons section (13.3) 12.5.2. Lights such as external lasers above ‘class I' and bright strobe lights which may blind the opponent. 12.6. Hazardous or dangerous materials are forbidden from use anywhere on a robot where they may contact humans, or by way of the robot being damaged (within reason) contact humans. 13. SPECIAL WEAPON DESCRIPTIONS ALLOWED AT THIS EVENT 13.1. Tethered Projectiles are not allowed at this event. 13.1.1. If allowed tethered projectiles must have a tether or restraining device that stops the projectile and is no longer than 8 feet. 13.2. Heat and Fire are allowed at this event. The subsequent rules in this section apply when heat and fire are allowed. Flame weapon rules are subject to change to comply with local fire regulations and fire officials. 13.2.1. Fuel must exit the robot and be ignited as a gas. It cannot leave the robot in a liquid or gelled form or use oxidizers. 73
13.2.2. Fuel types allowed are propane and butane, the maximum quantity allowed is 4 fl oz in robots up to 30 lbs, 8 fl oz for robots 60 lbs and above. 13.2.3. The fuel tank must be as far from the outer armor of the robot as practicable and be protected from heat sources within the robot. 13.2.4. The ignition system must have a remotely operated shut-off that allows the operator to disable it using the radio control system. 13.3. Smoke Effects are allowed at this event. 13.3.1. Small smoke effects may be used, please contact the event if you plan on using it. 14. MATCH RULES 14.1. Match Duration Matches shall be 3 minutes long of active fight time, exclusive of any time-outs. 14.2. Match Frequency A Combatant is allowed no less than 40 minutes to prepare for the next match. This time is calculated from the time the Combatant leaves the post-match staging area. If the Combatant fails to return to the pre-match staging area when called after the allotted time the Combatant may be forced to forfeit. It is recommended that any routine maintenance (ie: battery charging) should be capable of being performed well within this time period. In extreme cases the 40 minute time period may be lengthened at the discretion of the event organizers. 14.3. Determining a match winner. A robot loses a match when one of the following occurs: 14.3.1. The robot is knocked out or cannot show sufficient mobility as defined below. 14.3.2. The driver of the robot surrenders (see "Taps Out" below.) 14.3.3. Should both robots in a given match become incapacitated in the arena and neither robot has entered the Death Zone, the match will go to a judges' decision. 14.3.4. A robot that is deemed unsafe by Tournament Officials after the match has begun will be disqualified and therefore declared the loser by TKO. The match will be immediately halted and the opponent will be awarded a win. Should the disqualified robot manage to remedy the problem and has yet to compete in the loser's bracket, they will be allowed to return to combat as would any other robot who has one loss. This is subject to approval by the highest ranking 74
Tournament Official on site at the time of the disqualification. This rule is designed solely around the safety of spectators, Combatants and tournament staff. 14.3.5. All other matches will be decided by judges' decision. Judges' decisions are final. 14.4. Knock-outs and Mobility 14.4.1. Knock-out The referee will declare a knock-out when the robot does not show any controlled translational movement after the opponent has ceased attacking for 5 seconds and fails to show controlled translational movement on request by the Referee. The robot will be issued a 10 second countdown. If the robot continues to be unable to show controlled translational movement and the opponent still does not attack, then at the end of the 10 second countdown the robot will be issued a loss by KO. Any attack by the opponent, or controlled translational movement of the Robot will reset the time for this determination. 14.4.1.1. Controlled Translational Movement Movement is "controlled" is the driver of the robot can move the robot across the arena floor by manipulating the remote control, or if an autonomous robot can move across the arena floor on its own. Orbiting a fixed location on the floor does not constiture "controlled translational movement". The referee shall decide if movement is "controlled". As with all official decisions, the referee's call is final. 14.4.2.1. Shut Down Any robot entering the Death Zone must immediately and completely shut down. This is a safety matter being employed to protect the spectators as well as protecting the arena safety wall from excessive damage. Shut down shall at a minimum constitute release of all controls, switching off all weapons and if the situation warrants, turning off the transmitter to engage the fail safe. 14.4.2.2. Contact with the Outer Arena Wall During the course of combat a robot may be brought into contact with the outer arena wall. Intermittent contact is allowed if, in the opinion of the Referee, the integrity of the outer wall is not threatened. If the contact continues for an extended period or if the Referee believes the integrity of the outer wall is threatened the Referee will halt the match so the robots can be repositioned so as to no longer threaten the arena integrity. Restart will be via the "Neutral 75
Corner" procedure as described below. 14.4.3. Pinning & Lifting Robots may not win by pinning or lifting their opponents. Officials will allow pinning and / or lifting for a maximum of 15 seconds per pin/lift then instruct the attacker to release the pinned/lifted opponent. An attacker that does not stop a pin or lift when requested by the Official may be deemed the match loser at the sole discretion of the referee, unless the two robots are stuck together. 14.4.3.1. Cornering Keeping an opponent trapped in a corner shall be considered a pin, even if the attacker is not in continuous contact with the cornered opponent. 14.4.3.2. Releasing a Pinned Opponent If an opponent is held pinned (or cornered), the attacker must move far enough away after releasing the opponent that the opponent has an opportunity to escape for the pin/corner to be considered released and the pin timer stopped. "Far enough away" will vary by arena and event, since arenas are of different sizes. 14.4.4. Stranding / High Centering A robot may be intentionally stranded by its opponent on an arena feature (floor seam, arena bumper or wall, etc.) Stranded robots have 5 seconds to free themselves, after which time they shall be given a 10 second countdown and issued a loss by TKO. 14.4.5. Stuck or Entangled Robots Matches will be paused to separate robots in the event that they become stuck together in the arena. 14.4.5.1. Arena Stranding Hazards It may be possible for a robot to get stuck on or under some part of the arena through its own action. Each combatant will be granted one free release from an arena feature per match. The first time a combatant becomes stuck through either its own actions or due to actions of the opponent, the Referee will stop the match and the arena crew will free the stuck combatant. If the combatant becomes stuck again in the same match, no intervention will take place. 14.4.5.2. Neutral Corner Restart Before restarting a match that has been paused to release stuck robots, the robots will be driven 76
to neutral corners of the arena if directed to do so by a Tournament Official, at their discretion. If a robot is unable to move (or cannot move well enough to be easily driven to the indicated corner) it will be left in position. 14.4.6. Tapping Out Should a Combatant determine their robot is damaged to the point they wish to end the match, they will notify the Tournament Official of their intent. At that point the Official will ask the Combatant to confirm he/she wishes to end the match. If the Combatant says "Yes", the Official shall instruct the opponent to cease attacking and back away from the Combatant's robot. The Combatant tapping out will be deemed the loser and a win will be awarded to the attacker by TKO 14.4.7. Forfeit Should a fully registered Combatant forfeit or be disqualified prior to the beginning of a match, their opponent shall be awarded a win. 14.4.8. Special Considerations for Multi-Bots Robots consisting of physically separate, independently controllable segments are referred to as multi-bots. As long as at least one of a multi-bot's segments is still able to show movement when requested to do so, that combatant is still considered "alive". To score a knock-out against a multi-bot, 60% of the multi-bot's segments must be incapacitated or eliminated. 14.5. Power of Officials Combatants must follow the instructions of Tournament Officials at all times. This is necessary to maintain the safety of everyone at the tournament. Circumstances beyond the scope of these rules and guidelines shall be up to the Officials' decisions. All Officials' decisions are final. 15. Match Judging A panel of judges will determine the winner of matches in which time expires before one combatant is defeated as defined in the Tournament Rules and Procedures. The number of judges on the panel shall be an odd number (three) to eliminate the possibility of ties. Judges' decisions are final. 15.1. Qualifications Judges must be completely familiar with the Official Rules governing the tournament.
77
Judges must be familiar with the scoring system and Judging Guidelines as defined here. Judges must be reasonably conversant with combat robot design and construction. 15.1.1. Responsibilities Each judge shall officiate in a given robotic combat Tournament with complete impartiality and fairness, respecting and abiding by the rules that govern that tournament, in the true spirit of sportsmanship. Each judge is responsible for keeping track of the Combatants during the course of the match. Many Combatants look similar, it is the responsibility of each judge to keep them straight and award points correctly. Each judge is expected to take careful note of existing damage when Combatants enter the arena. Existing damage must not be counted against a Combatant in the event of a judges' decision. Judges must watch the entire match and award points accordingly. Judges are allowed (and encouraged) to take notes during a match to assist in scoring. 15.1.2. Referee / Judge Foreman One member of the judge's panel will be designated the Judge Foreman. The Judge Foreman will ensure that all other judges are conforming to the guidelines as set forth herein. The Judge Foreman may participate in scoring judges' decisions or simply act as the Referee, depending on the number of judges available. The Judge Foreman will ensure that all Combatants conform to the tournament rules. Warnings and instructions from the Judge Foreman will be issued to the Combatants verbally during the matches. Should a Combatant fail to comply, the Judge Foreman will stop the match and the violating Combatant shall be deemed the loser. The Judge Foreman will determine the point at which a knockout countdown is to begin based on the strict interpretation of the rules. When a 10 second countdown is warranted by the Judge Foreman, the non-responsive Combatant will be notified and the countdown will begin. The arena announcer will start the countdown at 10 and count down to 0. If the non-responsive robot has not displayed sufficient translational movement as described in the rules, the Combatant will be declared the loser. 15.1.3. Conduct Judges will clearly identify themselves as such.
78
Judges will not consult with each other or the audience while watching or scoring a match. Judges will not drink alcoholic beverages during their session judging. 15.2. Judges' Decisions: Scoring When a match does not end in the elimination of one of the Combatants as defined by the Tournament Rules and Procedures the winner shall be determined by a Judges' Decision. In a Judges' Decision the points awarded to the Combatants by the panel of judges are totaled and the winner with the majority of points is declared the winner. 15.2.1. Point Scoring System Points are awarded in 2 categories: •
Aggression - 5 points
•
Damage - 6 points
All points must be awarded - each judge will determine how many points to award each Combatant in each category, according to the Judging Guidelines (see below). The maximum possible score a Combatant receives is 11 * (number of judges). Thus, a single judge will award a total of 11 points, and a 3 judge panel will award a total of 33 points. 15.2.2. Judging Guidelines 15.2.2.1. Scoring Aggression Aggression scoring will be based on the relative amount of time each robot spends attacking the other. Attacks do not have to be successful to count for aggression points, but a distinction will be made between chasing a fleeing opponent and randomly crashing around the arena. Points will not be awarded for aggression if a robot is completely uncontrollable or unable to do more than turn in place, even if it is trying to attack. Sitting still and waiting for your opponent to drive into your weapon does not count for aggression points, even if it is an amazingly destructive weapon. Robot must show translational movement toward their opponent for it to be counted as aggression. Awarding Aggression Points
79
•
5-0: a 5-0 score shall be awarded only when one of the robots never attempts to attack the other, and the other consistently attacks.
•
4-1: a score of 4-1 shall be awarded in the case of significant dominance of attacks by one robot, with the other only attempting to attack a few times during the match.
•
3-2: a 3-2 score shall be awarded when o
Both robots consistently attack the other.
o
Both robots only attack the other for part of the match.
o
Both robots spend most of the match avoiding each other. In this case it will be up to the judge's discretion to decide which robot made more attempts to make attack the other.
o
A Combatant who attacks a full-body spinner (e.g. intentionally drives within the perimeter of the spinning weapon) is automatically considered the aggressor and awarded a 3-2 score in the case where either robots consistently attack, or both robots consistently avoid each other.
o
There can be no ties in aggression. Judges must decide that one robot is more aggressive than the other.
Note: a Combatant is considered a "full body spinner" if the robot cannot be attacked without moving within the perimeter of the spinning weapon. 15.2.2.2. Scoring Damage Judges should be knowledgeable about how different materials are damaged. Some materials such as Titanium will send off bright sparks when hit but are still very strong and may be largely undamaged. Other materials such as Aluminum will not send off bright sparks when hit. Judges should not be influenced by things like sparks, but rather how deep or incapacitating a "wound" indicates. Judges should be knowledgeable about the different materials used in Bot construction and how damage to these materials can reduce a Bot's functionality. Judges should not to be unduly influenced by highly visual damage that doesn't affect a Combatant's functionality effectiveness or defensibility. For example, a gash in a Combatant's armor may be very visible but only 80
minimally reduce the armor's functionality. Judges should look for damage that may not be visually striking but affects the functionality of a Combatant. For example: •
a small bend in a lifting arm or spinner weapon may dramatically affect its functionality by preventing it from having its full range of motion
•
bent armor or skirts can prevent the Combatant from resting squarely on the floor, reducing the effectiveness of the drive train
•
A wobbly wheel indicates that it is bent and will not get as much traction.
•
Cuts or holes through armor may mean there is more damage inside.
Trivial: •
Flip over (or being propelled onto bumper, ramp, or other obstacle) causing no loss of mobility or loss of weapon functionality, except where flipping causes full loss of mobility and robot is unable to show translational movement.
•
Direct impacts which do not leave a visible dent or scratch.
•
Sparks resulting from strike of opponent's weapon
•
Being lifted in the air with no damage and no lasting loss of traction.
Cosmetic: •
Visible scratches to armor.
•
Non-penetrating cut or dent or slight bending of armor or exposed frame.
•
Removal of non-structural, non-functional cosmetic pieces (dolls, foliage, foam, or "ablative" armor).
•
Damage to wheel, spinning blade, or other exposed moving part not resulting in loss of functionality or mobility.
Minor:
81
•
Flip over (or being propelled onto bumper or other obstacle) causing some loss of mobility or control or making it impossible to use a weapon.
•
Intermittent smoke not associated with noticeable power drop.
•
Penetrating dent or small hole.
•
Removal of most or all of a wheel, or saw blade, spike, tooth, or other weapon component, which does not result in a loss of functionality or mobility.
•
Slightly warped frame not resulting in loss of mobility or weapon function.
Significant: •
Continuous smoke, or smoke associated with partial loss of power of drive or weapons.
•
Torn, ripped, or badly warped armor or large hole punched in armor.
•
Damage or removal of wheels resulting in impaired mobility
•
damage to rotary weapon resulting in loss of weapon speed or severe vibration
•
damage to arm, hammer, or other moving part resulting in partial loss of weapon functionality.
•
Visibly bent or warped frame.
Major: •
Smoke and visible fire.
•
Armor section completely removed exposing interior components.
•
Removal of wheels, spinning blade, saw, hammer, or lifting arm, or other major component resulting in total loss of weapon functionality or mobility.
•
Frame warping causing partial loss of mobility or complete loss of functionality of weapon system.
•
Internal components (batteries, speed controller, radio, motor) broken free from mounts and resting or dragging on the arena floor.
•
Significant leak of hydraulic fluid. 82
•
Obvious leaks of pneumatic gases.
Massive: •
Armor shell completely torn off frame.
•
Major subassemblies torn free from frame.
•
Loss of structural integrity - major frame or armor sections dragging or resting on floor.
•
Total loss of power.
Post-Match Inspection Judges may request the combatant's to demonstrate operability of their robot's drive train and/or weapon following the end of the match, before the arena doors are opened. Judges may inspect the Combatant's robot after a match to determine how best to award damage points. If a judge needs to examine one or both of the Combatants robot's before awarding damage points, he or she will notify the Stage Manager or other designated official immediately after the end of the match. The inspection will be conducted by the entire panel. The judges will not handle the Combatant's robot. The driver or a designated team member will handle the Combatant's robot. A member of the opponent's team will be present during any such inspection. Awarding Damage Points Scoring of damage points is based on relative grading of each robot's damage. •
6-0: a 6-0 score shall be awarded when: o
one robot suffers nothing more than trivial damage, and the other is at least significantly damaged
o
one robot has suffered major or massive damage and the other is no more than cosmetically damaged.
•
5-1: a 5-1 score shall be awarded when: o
one robot suffers at least minor damage and the other suffers major or worse damage
o
One robot has suffered cosmetic damage and the other has suffered at least significant damage. 83
•
4-2: a 4-2 score shall be awarded when: o
both robots have suffered nearly the same level of damage but one is slightly more damaged than the other
•
3-3: a 3-3 score shall be awarded when: o
both robots have suffered the same level of damage, or
o
neither robot has even cosmetically damaged the other
Damage that is self-inflicted by a robot's own systems and not directly or indirectly caused by contact with the other robot or an active arena hazard will not be counted against that robot for scoring purposes.
84
APPENDIX E – MODES OF FAILURE
85
86
87
APPENDIX F – DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS
88
8
7
6
4
5
1
2
3
ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
F
DESCRIPTION Frame Weapon Sub Assembly Drive Train Assembly Motor Controller Plate Sidewinder Motor Controller Victor Motor Controller 22.2 V Weapon Motor Battery 14.8 V Drive Train Battery Electronics Mounting Plate
QTY. 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1
F
E
E
8
8
9
7
D
D
5
C
6
4
4
3
3
C
1
B
B
2
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only. 8
7
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
6
5
4
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
3
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR. MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
Main Assembly SIZE DWG. NO.
C
FINISH
REV
1
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:8 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
2
1
A
8
7
6
4
5
1
2
3
ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
F
DESCRIPTION Weapon Motor Plate Weapon Motor Bracket Weapon Motor Weapon Motor Plate Bracket Flat Weapon Weapon Mount Weapon Mount Corner - Left Weapon Mount Corner - Right Weapon Motor Pulley Weapon Bearing Weapon Shaft Collar Weapon Pulley
QTY. 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
F
E
E
5
5
12 D
8
11
10
6
6
10
11
D
7
1
C
4
3
9
2
B
C
4
2
B
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only. 8
7
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
6
5
4
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
3
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR. MFG APPR.
Weapon Sub-Assembly
Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
C
FINISH
REV
1
2
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:8 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
2
1
A
8
7
6
4
5
1
2
3
ITEM NO. 1 2 3
PART NUMBER NPC-T64 Wheel Assem_7.8 NPC Mount
DESCRIPTION Drive Train Motor Wheel with Rim Drive Train Mounting Bracket
QTY. 1 1 1 F
F
E
E
1
2
D
D
C
C
3
B
B
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only. 8
7
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
6
5
4
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
3
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR. MFG APPR.
Drive Train Sub-Assembly
Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
C
FINISH
REV
1
3
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:4 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
2
1
A
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
D
D
1.375
R.250
3.000
C
C
B
.125x.125 KEYWAY
72.00°
B
.500 TYP. .125
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR.
Weapon Motor Pulley
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
4
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
REV
2
1
A
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
D
D
1.375
R.500
3.000
C
C
B
72.00°
.500 TYP.
B
.250x.250 KEYWAY
.125
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED
Weapon Pulley
ENG APPR. MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
1
5
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
REV
2
1
A
8
7
5
6
4
2
3
1
D
D
5/16-18 x 1" TYP. 4
1.500
1.500
.332 THRU
1/4-20 x 1" TYP. 2 3.500 C
C
7.000
2.000 CBORE 1" DEEP B
B
.750
4.625
1.400 THRU
1.500
2.000 x 0.70 DEPTH
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR.
Weapon Mounts
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
REV
6
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
A
2
1
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
D
D
8.750
2.000
C
C
R.500 .312 THRU TYP. 2 3.175
6.000
1.000
B
B
5.835
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED
Flat Weapon
ENG APPR. MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
7
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
REV
2
1
A
8
7
6
4
5
1
2
3
F F
60.00°
E
E
D
D
24.250
C
C
27.000 .750 TYP.
20.913
.332
7.000
60.00°
B
20.163
11.133
23.883 24.883
21.883
19.508 19.883
16.096
10.296
7.508
6.383
5.133
3.133
1.383
0
0
9.938
B
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only. 8
7
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
6
5
4
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
3
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
C
FINISH
REV
1
8
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:4 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
2
A
Frame
ENG APPR.
1
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
D
D
.125
C
C
7.000
B
B
1.250 5.750
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR.
Motor Controller Plate
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
9
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
REV
2
1
A
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
2.500
D
D
.750
.375
C
.375
1.750
C
1.250
.350
B
B
.350
.750
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR.
Weapon Motor Bracket
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
REV
10
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 2:1 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
A
2
1
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
D
D
5.000
C
C
4.630
1.250
B
1.250
1.750
.750
2.000
B
5/16-18 1" DEEP
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR.
Weapon Corner Supports
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
REV
11
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
A
2
1
8
5
6
7
4
2
3
1
D
D
C
C
1/4-20 THRU TYP.
3.250
5.500
B
B
1.350
8.550
1.125
11.250
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACH BEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL
A
SolidWorks Student Edition. For Academic Use Only.
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF . ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF IS PROHIBITED.
8
7
6
INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER:
5
MATERIAL
USED ON
NEXT ASSY APPLICATION
4
NAME
ArchEnemy
DATE
DRAWN
TITLE:
CHECKED ENG APPR.
Weapon Motor Plate
MFG APPR. Q.A. COMMENTS:
SIZE DWG. NO.
B
FINISH
12
1
SHEET 1 OF 1
SCALE: 1:2 WEIGHT:
DO NOT SCALE DRAWING
3
REV
2
1
A
REFERENCES: Various Authors. YouTube. 12 Dec. 2010. 12 Dec. 2010 . RobotMarketPlace. 12 Dec. 2010. 12 Dec. 2010 . RoboGames. 6 Dec. 2010. 12 Dec. 2010 . Riobotz. 1 Mar. 2010. 12 Dec. 2010 .
101
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THANK YOU TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR SUPPORT. Dr. Sridhar Condoor Dr. Arif Malik Dr. Sanjay Jayaram Professor Tom Bever Ms. Kay Bopp Mr. Frank Coffey Mr. Wesley Gibbs Mr. Martin Fielder Mr. Angel Hernandez Ted Larson – Ologic Bob Allen – Ologic Norm Domholt - NPC Robotics
102
