TEAM FTP

1
Project PFADS

• Kyle Harris
• Sang Huynh
• Bhupinder Shergill
• Eric Stolp

2
Overview/Outline

• Introduction
• Objectives
• Preliminary Ideas
• Refinement
• Decision
• Construction and Testing

3
Overview/Outline (continued)

• Results/Discussion
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements

4
Introduction

• Background
• Design and build mobile parabolic food aid
  delivery system (PFADS) to children in refugee
  camps

5
Introduction (continued)

• Objectives
• Device traverses 7 feet down an inclined ramp
• Device launches 4-3/8 x 4-3/8 x 5-1/2 package
  to target 10 feet away and over 62 wall located
  31/2 away from base of the ramp
• Practice Teamwork
• Practice Formal Presentation skills

6
Introduction (continued)
7
Introduction (continued)

• CONSTRAINTS
• Weight lt 10 lbs
• Launch 4-3/8 x 4-3/8 x 5-1/2 box
• Spend lt 20
• Fit within 18 x 18 x 18 container
• Mechanism cannot fall over ramp

8
Introduction (continued)

• CRITERIA
• Minimize weight
• Minimize dimensions
• Package clears 62 wall
• Package hits target 10 feet from base

9
Introduction (continued)

• Project Objectives
• Build device to launch FAP over wall
• Gain more experience in TEAMWORK
• Gain experience in FORMAL PRESENTATIONS

10
Preliminary Ideas

• Preliminary Idea 1
• Designed by Sang
• PROS
• Simple Design
• Simple trigger device
• Cheap
• Roll down ramp
• CONS
• Rat trap not support arm
• Inaccuracy in launch

11
Preliminary Ideas (continued)

• Preliminary Idea 2
• Designed by Eric
• PROS
• Surgical tubing
• Roll down ramp
• Trigger mechanism
• CONS
• Not gain enough momentum to launch
• Weight
• Dimensions

12
Preliminary Ideas (continued)

• Preliminary Idea 3
• Designed by Bhup
• PROS
• Power in release
• Trigger mechanism
• Accuracy in launch
• Roll down ramp
• CONS
• Dimensions
• Weight
• Instability in arm break off

13
Preliminary Ideas (continued)

• Preliminary Idea 4
• Designed by Kyle
• PROS
• Inclined height
• Trigger mechanism
• Strength in arm
• Roll down ramp
• CONS
• Inconsistency in springs break off
• Wooden bars break off

14
RefinementPreferred Ideas

• Preliminary Idea 2
• Why Preferred?
• Surgical Tubes for strength in launch
• Trigger mechanism
• Possible Problems
• Weight
• Dimensions
• May tip over

15
Refinement (continued)

• Preliminary Idea 4
• Why Preferred?
• Inclined Height
• Trigger mechanism
• Strength in arm
• Light in weight
• Possible Problems
• Inconsistency in springs
• Wooden bars crack due to pressure
• May need to make adjustments to arm
• May tip over

16
Decision

• Final Design
• Incorporated Prelim. Design 2 and 4 into Final
  design.
• PROS
• Inclined Height
• Surgical Tubing
• Trigger mechanism
• CONS
• May need to adjust arm frequently
• Wooden bars may crack due to pressure
• May Tip Over

17
Construction and Testing

• Used surgical tubing, drill, hammer, screws,
  wood, nuts, bolts, metal arms and hinges to
  construct device
• Took place in Wehymes and Southwest
• Tested launching mechanism of device in Khoury
  Hall, in Southwest, and in Wehymes.

18
Construction and Testing (continued)

• Final Design
• Height 13.25
• Length 10
• Width 9.25
• Weight 4lbs
• Basic design
• Tupperware container on metal arm surgical
  tubing causes arm to spring up and forward,
  shooting FAP once device hits 4 wall at base of
  ramp (triggered by shock of impact)

19
Results and Discussion

• Heat 1 Failure- FAP hit top of wall
• Heat 2 Failure- FAP hit top of wall
• Heat 3 (w/out wall) Distance was 6.67 feet
  past 10 ft marker
• Final FOM 83.41
• Result Placed 17th overall

20
Results and Discussion (continued)

• ADVANTAGES
• Slid down ramp easily
• Triggered every run
• Small size and volume
• Light in weight
• Device did not tip over

• DISADVANTAGES
• Package did not travel over the wall
• Package did not hit the 10 foot mark on 3rd
  attempt
• Surgical tubing lost strength after each run

21
Results and Discussion (continued)

• Suggested Improvements
• Two surgical tubes instead of one more support
  and strength
• Adjust arm to improve angle accuracy
• FAP clears wall and reaches target
• Raise platform level of device Higher
  inclination
• Re-design device
• upward cannon-type launcher rather than arm
  launcher better model as seen in competition

22
Conclusions

• Key Criteria
• Minimize rectangular volume of design
• Minimize weight
• Key Constraints
• Device must fit within an 18x18x18 container
• Device lt 10lbs

23
Conclusions (continued)

• Competition Performance
• Trial 1 Fail
• Trial 2 Fail
• Trial 3 6.67 ft off
• Final Result 17th Place out of 36

24
Conclusions (continued)

• Improvements
• Two surgical tubes
• Adjust arm to improve angle accuracy

25
Acknowledgements

• Professor Camilla Saviz
• Clarification of specifications
• Professor Kurt Schulz
• Clarification of specifications
• Introduction to Engineering Course Manual
• Guidelines to build device
• Bob Pollard
• Cut wood pieces for device