Prestige Worldwide

Final Design Report

ME 471 - Group 7
12/11/14
Toby Buckley
Arric McLauchlan
Travis Packer
Megan Simpson

I have neither given nor received any unauthorized assistance on this assignment

1
 Table of Contents
Section 1 - Executive Summary 4

Section 2 - Introduction 6

Section 3 - Coefficients of Friction 8

Section 4 - Drive Mechanism Concepts and Results 10

Section 4.1 - Concept #1: Vertical Cam 10

Section 4.1.1 - Vertical Cam Calculations 11

Section 4.1.2 - Vertical Cam Results 12

Section 4.2 - Concept #2: Bean Shaped Cam 13

Section 4.2.1 - Bean Shaped Cam Calculations 15

Section 4.2.2 - Bean Shaped Cam Results 16

Section 4.3 - Concept #3: Gear and Linkage 18

Section 4.3.1 - Gear and Linkage Calculations 20

Section 4.3.2 - Gear and Linkage Results 22

Section 4.4 - Drive Mechanism Comparison Chart 26

Section 4.5 - Drive Mechanism Testing 28

Section 5 - Pan Support Concepts and Results 29

Section 5.1 - Concept #1: Rolling U 29

Section 5.2 - Concept #2: Square-Box Method 30

Section 5.3 - Concept #3: Magneto 32

Section 5.4 - Pan Supports Comparison Chart 33

Section 5.5 - Pan to Pan Connection 34

Section 5.6 - Drive to Pan Connection 35

Section 6 - Mechanical Analysis 37

Section 6.1 - Bolt Analysis 38

Section 6.1.1 - Pan Bolt Analysis 39

2
 Section 6.1.2 - Drive Bolt Analysis 40

Section 6.2 - Modal Analysis 42

Section 6.3 - Structural Fatigue and Failure Analysis 44

Section 7 - Assembly 47

Section 8 - Cost Analysis 50

Section 9 - Elevator Pitch 53

Section 10 - Concluding Remarks and Recommendations 54

Section 11 - References 56

Section 12 - Appendix 57

3
 Section 1 - Executive Summary

A full design, analysis, and prototype build has been performed in the making of a

horizontal motion conveyor. The purpose of the conveyer system is to move cereal with even

distribution across the pan and optimized speed to allow for increased cooling. The design

consists of two major components: the drive mechanism and the pan supports.

The drive mechanism was designed to provide a slow forward acceleration followed by a

sudden jerk backward. By surpassing the cereal’s coefficient of friction during the backstroke,

the cereal does not return with the pan and over time experiences forward motion. In order to

accomplish this, the drive consists of a 5.5” linkage attached directly to the pan with a vertical

offset of 3.5” to create the difference in forward and backward acceleration. An axle driven by a

crank turned at a constant 10.68 rad/s provides power to the system. The linkage is connected to

the drive axle at a radius of 1.25” which translates into a 2” stroke length.

The pan system was designed to rigidly support the two pans while attaching them

together and connecting them to the drive system. By attaching aluminum angle brackets to the

bottom of the pan, the surface was kept smooth which allowed the cereal to move efficiently

with an even lateral distribution. These lateral supports also allow an arbitrary number of pans to

be connected serially to meet length requirements. In order to avoid bending and torsion, the legs

which connect to the base were 30” aluminum angle brackets. These brackets attach to sliders

similar to those used in a desk drawer that allow the pan to move in the horizontal direction only.

In order to attach the legs (and the drive) the use of two sets of 9/16” and 1/2” combination

wrenches are required and assembly takes less than ten minutes with two people.

A failure analysis of the bolts and the key structural members was completed along with

and a modal vibration analysis using ANSYS. Two different bolts were used in the design: 3/8-

4
16 in most applications and 5/16-16 in the top of the pan supports. The smallest safety factor

found was 85 allowing the bolts to be deemed safe for use in this application. Using Euler

buckling equations, the pan support legs were analyzed to ensure buckling would not occur. The

factor of safety in these members was found to be 1,589 indicating that buckling is highly

unlikely. In the modal analysis, the operating frequency was calculated as 1.7 Hz in the drive

analysis. While the closest mode is 1.76 Hz, testing revealed that vibration did not affect the

motion which indicates that resonance does not occur between the pan and drive.

An estimated cost of the design was found to be $390.38. This figure includes the cost of

2 bearings used to ensure that the axle of the drive mechanism spins freely but is fixed laterally,

4 sets of sliders that reduce the friction caused by the motion of the pan, adhesives for ensuring

structural rigidity, and the cost of raw materials and fasteners. Note that this figure accounts for

an assembly of only two pan sections and one drive mechanism.

Given the opportunity for improvement upon this design, Prestige Worldwide found that

there are some changes that could improve the quality and performance of the product. The first

is reducing the number of bolts used by welding components together where appropriate. Next is

modifying the pan support to consist of a single component to make the device more compliant

with the needs of a manufacturing plant. Overall, the horizontal motion conveyor design

proposed by Prestige Worldwide provides a practical, reliable, and safe solution for all cereal

motion needs. With minor modifications, the concepts outlined in this report are ready to

transition from a tested prototype to a commercially available product.

5
 Section 2: Introduction

Prestige Worldwide has designed a horizontal motion conveyor to be used to move cereal

down a conveyor system and into bins. A horizontal motion conveyor is often useful when

transporting small parts with sticky exterior coatings. This form of conveyor does not have a belt

that can be damaged by the sticky buildup left behind by the product as it is transported. This is

accomplished by creating constant movement of the product along the length of the conveyor.

The pan motion utilizes basic laws of physics dealing with friction and momentum to cause this

movement. Overall conveyor performance was evaluated using a collection bin at the end of the

pan. This bin is divided into even sections which were used to assess the transverse distribution

of the cereal across the pan.

The drive mechanism of the horizontal motion conveyor must accomplish the goal of

moving cereal approximately 3.5 ft. down a stainless steel pan. This is achieved by creating a

slow forward motion followed by a rapid retreat. The return causes the cereal to remain in place

relative to the inertial frame. Keeping in mind all necessary design parameters, three drive

concepts have been analyzed and will be discussed further in section 4.

The pan itself is made of a 22 gauge stainless steel, which has potential for being

problematic: because of the thin nature of the pan, the material is likely to experience high levels

of elastic deformation. This deformation is expected in the form of bending along the bottom of

the pan, excited by the motion of the drive mechanism. Avoiding this requires knowledge of the

natural frequency and mode shapes of the pan. The pan supports must provide stability to prevent

undesirable pan torsion that could impede forward motion as well as disrupt the even distribution

of the cereal. As welding components to the pan directly would cause warping in the thin sheet

steel, double sided tape and epoxy is used to attach pan to the supports.

6
 In the design of the pan support, it is important to consider the transfer of energy from the

drive mechanism to the pan. If the pan support resists the force of the drive mechanism in a

significant manner, the motion of the cereal is compromised. The weight of the pan support must

be minimized in order to facilitate minimum resistance to motion. Keeping in mind these

important design parameters, three pan support concepts have been analyzed. Each of the designs

is strong, lightweight, and allow for a high rate of energy transfer from the drive mechanism.

In order to validate the projected success of the pan support designs, some structural

analysis had been performed (both hand calculations and computer simulations) prior to

prototyping. Shear forces applied to the bolts were calculated to ensure that failure will not occur

during normal operation. This was accomplished by finding the reaction forces at each

connection in which bolts are used to secure two load bearing members. The hand calculations

predicted shear stress would be significantly less than that of the maximum rated yield stress of

the bolt and simulations confirmed this. Thus, the connections were be deemed to be safe for use.

Because the pan is thin and will be exposed to forces at high frequencies, a vibration analysis

was performed. Using ANSYS finite element analysis software, the natural frequencies of the

pan as well as the mode shapes are found to ensure that the driving force does not interfere with

these parameters causing undesirable vibration.

7
 Section 3 - Coefficients of Friction

The first step in drive concept design is to calculate the frictional force of a piece of

cereal. In order to do so a test was performed on the cereal. Cereal was placed on a pan and the

pan was titled, documenting the angle at which the cereal slides.(Figure 1). This was done with

10 pieces of cereal in a line along the pan with five trials of different cereal. The values of θmin

are when the first piece of cereal began to slide down the pan and θmax is when the final piece of

cereal slid all the way off the pan.

Figure 1: Friction Test Diagram

Table 1: Cereal Slippage

θmin θmax

Trial 1 30 40

Trial 2 30 33

Trial 3 31 36

Trial 4 30 40

Trail 5 30 31

The conclusion of this test is that the minimum slippage is at 30° and the maximum at

40°. Due to the necessity of non-slippage with forward motion, five degrees are added for safety,

resulting in an angle of 25° used to calculate the coefficient of static friction. Conversely, the

8
maximum angle of 40 is taken as-is due to the nature of the jerking backward motion. The values

of theta can now be used to calculate the coefficient of friction as shown in Equations 1 - 3.

Figure 2 shows the free body diagram and the calculations below it show how it was solved from

the angle of the pan.

Figure 2: Mass Slide Set-up

The friction force on the mass is equivalent to gravity acting on the mass on an angle of

the slope of the steel pan (Equation 1)

(1)

By equating forces along the incline, Equation 2 can be broken down into Equation 3

where is solved to be equal to the tangent of the angle that the cereal fell at.

(2)

(3)

The minimum and maximum coefficients of friction were calculated to be 0.466 and

0.839 respectively. Knowing these values, the team can now calculate the optimum accelerations

of the pan so that the cereal will move forward with the pan and then slide in place. These

calculations were used for all of the design concepts listed.

9
 Section 4 - Drive Mechanism Concepts and Results

Prestige Worldwide analyzed three drive mechanisms for the horizontal motion

conveyor. The following sections outline each concept and compare the designs.

Section 4.1 - Concept #1: Vertical Cam

The cam is in a vertical configuration and rotates about the Y-axis. Tangent to the cam is

a follower with a roller on the end for smooth motion. The roller moves solely in the horizontal

direction and is connected to the pan. As the cam is rotated it will push the follower out slowly

and then a reactionary force returns the follower to its original location with the needed jerking

motion. The reactionary force is assisted with an elastic cord system connecting the follower to

an adjacent support which is all shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Vertical Cam

There are many factors to consider when designing a drive system with many pros and

cons. The best parts of this design are that each piece is centered with pan and supports so no

moments are created. Also, it only has three moving pieces (not including crank system).

10
However, the required jerky movement necessitates an elastic band capable of supplying enough

reactionary force to move entire pan system backwards at sufficient speed. The fatigue of

repetitive cycling on the elastic band requires replacement after wearing out.

Section 4.1.1 - Vertical Cam Calculations

The Vertical Cam design will have a follower in the vertical direction in which the cam

will control the acceleration depending on the position. Figure 4 is an example of this with key

parameters shown.

Figure 4: Vertical Cam Design Parameters

The inputs parameters are the inner radius, outer radius, and number of drops per

rotation. In order to derive radius as a function of theta, an initial assumption that radius of the

cam is equal to displacement of the follower is made (Equation 4).

(4)

11
 By taking the time-derivative of both sides, an expression for velocity and then

acceleration is found (Equation 5-6).

(5)

(6)

By setting the pan acceleration multiplied by cereal mass equal to the frictional force,

masses cancel out and the max acceleration is found (Equation 7-8).

(7)

(8)

By integrating twice, setting the initial radius to ri, and setting c1 to zero (due to

smoothness), Equation 9 is found.

(9)

This design has multiple drops per rotation, at which the radius is ro at the angle of the

drop. So Equation 10a can be solved for angular velocity, giving Equation 10b.

(10a,b)

Section 4.1.2 - Vertical Cam Results

The cam itself will be made out of a hard plastic and coated to provide a surface with a

low coefficient of friction for the roller. The follower will consist of an aluminum post connected

to the pan with a plastic roller in contact with the cam.

Figure 5 shows the output of MATLABⓇ code (Appendix 2) used to generate the shape

of a cam that has inner radius of 3 inches, outer radius 7 inches, and 4 drops. The advantage of

12
having multiple drops per rotation is twofold: first, the angular velocity required to maintain max

acceleration is reduced per number of drops, and second, the more symmetric shape reduces

vibrations and torque on the axle by having a more centered mass.

Figure 5: Visualization of Four-Dropcam

Section 4.2 - Concept #2: Bean Shaped Cam

The bean-shaped cam follower drive mechanism concept is based on a simple push and

pull motion on the pan. The shape of the cam will facilitate a slow forward velocity on the pan

and a quick return. This is shown in Figure 6 below.

13
 Figure 6: Bean Cam Design

As the cam turns in the clockwise direction, the radius decreased rapidly, pulling the

follower back at a faster rate than when pushing it forward. The next step to this concept

involved the attachment for the follower to the cam.

The cam is supported by the axle that runs from the cam to the hand crank. The axle spins

freely by the support agreed upon by the design team for all concepts. The cam is aligned

through the center of the base, approximately 9” from the hand crank support. Finally, the hand

crank is to be a cylinder with an ergonomic handle that is to be spun away from the operator.

This design can be seen more in depth in Figure 7 below. The diameter of the hand crank is 6”.

14
 Figure 7: Different Perspective of Overview

This drive mechanism concept is relatively simple and will cause the required slow

forward motion coupled by a quick return. The use of a slot for attachment of the follower to the

cam instead of a spring or elastic force will yield greater fatigue strength over many cycles.

Unfortunately, the pin sliding through a slot on the cam allows room for error. In practice, the

pin could stick causing jerking motions to translate to the pan. This could cause motion that

would impede the cereal from moving down the pan.

Section 4.2.1 - Bean Shaped Cam Calculations

Using the found for the cereal, the relation for acceleration can be calculated using

Equation 11.

(11)

The represents angular acceleration, r is the radius of the cam from the point of

rotation, and is the acceleration of the follower arm. Angular velocity and acceleration is

15
another key factor in the design and using Equations 12 and 13 can lead to the calculations for

these values.

(12)

(13)

Equating 11 and 13 calculates the limit of acceleration by having it equal the acceleration

portion of frictional force (Equation 14)

(14)

Further manipulations of the equations give a relation for r and as shown in Equation

15 and 16.

(15)

(16)

Initial conditions for the bean shaped cam consist of and

(giving a three inch movement in every rotation) at (this angle is assigned based

on visualization of the unit circle) which creates equation 17 and .

(17)

Section 4.2.2 - Bean Shaped Cam Results

The cam itself will be made out of wood to provide a surface with a low coefficient of

friction for the pin. The follower will be 3” long and made of aluminum, while the pin that

16
connects to the cam will be a high density plastic material such as HDPE. Through using

MATLABⓇcode with inputs of and it was possible to create two graphs. The first graph

yielding the vs relationship is shown in Figure 8 while the following graph showing vs. r is

displayed in Figure 9. In Figure 8, the slope of the line is shown to be 0.12. This represents the

change in radius per radian. In Figure 9, the point (5.49,4.743) is noted. If initial conditions state

that the minimum radius is 2’’, the maximum radius will be 4.743’’. The minimum radius and

equations of motion in this design are very similar to that of the vertical cam design. The radius

will experience a sudden drop off after the maximum radius is achieved, creating the jerk back

needed for the pan motion. Figure 10 shows the slope of this drop. While the slope is 0.21, the

actual drop can exceed this value. Because the radius is calculated from the necessary

acceleration required to move the cereal, this design allows for full control over the acceleration

of the pan.

Figure 8: Bean Shaped Cam Rotation Radius vs Angle

17
 Figure 9: Bean Shaped Cam Rotation Change in Radius vs Angle

Figure 10: Bean Shaped Cam Rotation Change in Radius vs Angle Between

Maximum Radius and Start Radius

Section 4.3 - Concept #3: Gear and Linkage

A crank requires the input link which is attached to the flywheel for constant input

angular velocity. As this turns, it will push another link connecting the pan to the drive

18
mechanism (referred to as the “Pushing Link”). A simple prototype design is shown below in

Figure 11 to illustrate the resulting motion.

Figure 11: Gear and Linkage Overview

The first key feature is that instead of having the pan-linkage interface directly in line

with the input crank’s axis of rotation and the motion of the pan, it will be offset to one side. This

will create a difference in velocity and acceleration of the pan at its closest and furthest positions

relative to the crank allowing it to slide the cereal along the table by overcoming the static

frictional force. The second key feature is that instead of having the link constrained to a specific

location, a slot will allow the link to move a short distance without moving the table. The length

of this slot will be examined further at a later date along with the pan concepts. Adding this slot

allows the crank to build up speed before making contact with the pan. This build-up of speed

will help create a greater jerk as the link meets the end of the slot and the pan retreats.

19
Section 4.3.1 - Gear and Linkage Calculations

In order to do a detailed analysis of this concept, a governing equation of motion must

first be derived. Every equation of motion must be defined in terms of a coordinate system in

order for it to hold any meaning. The following equations are based on a coordinate system in

which the pan moves in the y-direction and is offset in the x direction. The purpose of these

equations is to find the position, velocity, and acceleration of the pan in terms of the input angle

0.

Equation 18 below is the governing equation for y-position the pan relative to the angle

of the input link0. Equation 19 shows the velocity of the pan and Equations 20a and 20b are the

resulting acceleration equations. Note that all of the aforementioned equations are for the pan

and account for the motion in the y-direction only. The x-direction is the horizontal position (or

x-offset) of the pan, shown in Equation 21a, and is a fixed position. Because it is fixed and

therefore a constant value, Equation 21a can be rearranged to solve for A in terms of 0 as shown

by Equation 21b. Equation 22 is the derivative of A with respect to (A) and then Equation 23 is

the second derivative of A with respect to (A).

(18)

(19)

(20a)

(20b)

(21a)

(21b)

20
 (22)

(23)

After deriving these equations, the position, velocity, and acceleration for a finite

series of input angles ranging from 0 to 2 radians were plotted on three-dimensional surface plots

for a range of link length ratios. With this set of data, the critical positions (the points that cross

the y axis are its minimum and maximum positions) for each length ratio could be found. Then,

the acceleration at each point could be found and compared. The best design is the one that

maximizes the difference in (the magnitude of) acceleration at the critical positions. This is

considered to be the optimal length ratio because the cereal needs to stick to the pan when it is at

the minimum position (i.e. the acceleration cannot break the threshold that results in the loss of

static friction) and must slide on the pan at the farthest position (i.e. the acceleration must break

the threshold that results in the loss of static friction).

With this optimal ratio found, the same plots could be converted from three-dimensions

to two dimensions by holding the length ratio at the calculated optimal value. This results in a

series of plots where 0 is the only independent variable, allowing a more detailed analysis of the

motion created by the x-offset .

While the best length ratio is the result of the acceleration differential at the critical

points, it does not account for maximum acceleration and the resulting loss of static friction.

Further analysis of the two-dimensional plots will show that this loss of static friction can either

21
hinder or aid the motion of cereal relative to the pan, depending on the direction of rotation of

the input link.

Section 4.3.2 - Gear and Linkage Results

This concept will consist of an aluminum bar attached to the bottom of the pan and to the

outside of a steel flywheel. The steel flywheel will connected to the crank using an axle made of

either PVC or aluminum. The slot feature will have the same effect on the cereal as the pan starts

to move forward, the velocity and acceleration of the pan at the closest point will be much

smaller and should not produce as great of a jerk or impulse.

The calculations discussed in section 4.3.1 have been performed that relate the length

ratio of the two links to the linear position, velocity and acceleration of the pan. After performing

these calculations, the position, velocity, and acceleration of the pan for a finite series of input

angles 0 ranging from 0 to 4 radians were plotted on three-dimensional surface plots for a range

of link length ratios. Figure 12 below shows the linear position of the pan with respect to the

angle of the driving link and the ratio of the link lengths. Figure 13 shows the velocity of the pan

and Figure 14 shows the acceleration of the pan, each with respect to the angle of the driving link

and the ratio of link lengths.

Figure 12: Linear Pan Position as a function of the length of the Pushing
Link and the Angular Position of the Driving Link

22
 Figure 13: Linear Pan Velocity as a function of the length of the Pushing
Link and the Angular Position of the Driving Link

Figure 14: Linear Pan Acceleration as a function of the length of the Pushing Link
and the Angular Position of the Driving Link

Using the data plotted in Figure 12, the critical positions were found. Using the critical

positions, the critical accelerations could be found and compared. These calculations indicate

23
that the greatest acceleration differential occurs when there is approximately a 2.1:1 ratio

between the lengths of the Driving Link and the Pushing Link. In other words, the Pushing Link

should be twice as long as the Driving Link. Using this ratio, the acceleration differential was

found to be 19.9 with an acceleration at the farthest position of (negative) 34.75

and an acceleration at the closest position of (positive) 14.87 . Assuming a total pan travel

of 4 inches is desired, an Driving Link length of 2 inches is required. Therefore the Pushing Link

should have a length of 4.2 inches to achieve the desired results.

Using the 2.1:1 ratio, the acceleration of the pan and the position of the pan (both with

respect to the input angle) were overlaid as shown in Figure 15 below. This figure indicates that

at the farthest locations the pan will result in near highest negative accelerations and that at the

closest positions it will have a lower positive acceleration.

Figure 15: Position & Acceleration vs. Angle of Link

24
 Further analysis of Figure 15 shows that this link ratio has two locations (angular

positions of the Drive Link) that result in the maximum acceleration. The first location is as the

pan approaches the farthest point. This means the cereal will start to slip about the time the pan

reaches the farthest point and starts moving in the opposite direction. The next position of

maximum acceleration occurs as the pan is retreating from the farthest location. At this position

the cereal will lose static friction and the pan will accelerate more than the cereal will result in a

net displacement of the cereal (relative to the pan) away from the drive mechanism. If the

angular velocity of the input link were reversed, the relationship of the acceleration to position

would also be reversed and the cereal would have a net displacement towards the drive

mechanism.

The advantages of this design are its simplicity and reliability (lack of fatigue). It is based

off the traditional slider-crank mechanism that has been utilized in many real-world applications.

Because it does not require the use of springs or other components that are prone to fatigue, this

design should react the same after many cycles as it will after the first.

Because this concept relies heavily upon angular accelerations between the two links, the

functionality of this design falls between a small range of angular velocities of the Driving Link,

While the flywheel and ratchet will aid in provided a consistent angular velocity, they do not

necessarily limit it to a specific range. This means it will be the operator’s responsibility to

ensure the velocity is within an acceptable range. If the input is turning too fast, the acceleration

differential will still be present, however, the acceleration at the critical position with the lowest

acceleration will be large enough to break the frictional force between the cereal and the pan

resulting in no net cereal motion. If the input is too slow, the larger acceleration will not be

enough to break the frictional force and the cereal will not move relative to the pan. Assuming

25
proper input, the cereal will flow smoothly down the pan. as previously stated, the flywheel does

not limit the angular velocity, but it does limit the angular acceleration. This means that once the

operator achieves an input velocity that is within the threshold range, the flywheel will help keep

the velocity within that range.

Section 4.4 - Drive Mechanism Comparison Chart

Table 2 below is a summary of the calculations and design that shows how each concept

compares to each other. The following are the parameters used to compare each of the drive

concepts:

● Manufacturability: The ease of manufacturing the concept

● Potential Acceleration: The ease of optimization of the acceleration of the pan

● Potential Velocity: The ease of velocity optimization with a constant input

● Risk: The possibility that the concept may fail or not work as intended

● Fatigue: The likelihood of components breaking

● Unique: Abstract concept compared to other designs

Table 2: Drive Mechanism Comparison Chart

Vertical Cam Bean Cam Gear and Linkage

Manufacturability 2 3 1

Potential Acceleration 1 2 3

Potential Velocity 2 1 3

Risk 1 2 3

Fatigue 3 2 1

Unique 2 3 1

Total 11 13 12
*Rated: 1 being the best and 3 being the worst

26
 According to the comparison chart the Vertical Cam drive is the best design when taking

the most influential factors into account. Because of this, Prestige Worldwide has chosen this

design to pursue. The objective performance of the horizontal motion conveyor is calculated as a

function of total volume transported, max variance, and total weight of the pan. Since only total

volume transported may be affected by the drive, the chosen drive must maximize this

parameter. Given the design’s low risk and amount of control over displacement, velocity, and

acceleration due to the cam’s shape, Prestige Worldwide is confident that the Vertical Cam drive

will maximize this portion of performance, compared to the other two designs.

27
Section 4.5 - Drive Mechanism Testing

Because of the similarities between the vertical cam and gear & linkage concepts,

Prestige Worldwide was able to test both of them before a final design was settled on. After

extensive testing, it was decided that the gear & linkage was actually the better design. This was

due to the simplicity of the design, its ease of fabrication and assembly, and its non-reliance on

springs that can wear out. Through testing it was also learned that having springs strong enough

to pull the pan backward for the vertical cam drive affected the user’s ability to provide constant

angular velocity. The gear & linkage did not experience this problem so it was clear after these

tests were performed which drive to pursue for the final design. In the end, an axle radius of 1.25

inches was used with a linkage length of 5.5 inches and vertical offset of 3.5 inches (Figure 16).

With these numbers in the MATLAB code, the maximum acceleration is 236 which

corresponds to 17.1 lbf that the pan exerts on the drive (Discussed further in section 6.1)

Figure 16: Drive Parameters

28
 Section 5 - Pan Support Concepts and Results

Prestige Worldwide analyzed three different pan support concepts to connect to the drive

then developed a prototype of the best design. The following sections outline each concept and

compare the designs.

Section 5.1 - Concept #1: Rolling U

The first concept consists of two metal U shaped bracket systems on each end of the pan

with a stainless steel rolling bracket that will connect the entire structures. As the pan is pushed

in the horizontal direction the pan will roll in a linear manner along the sliding path created by

the rolling bearings. As shown in Figure 17, the rolling bearing slides will attach to both the U

shaped brackets on the internal slide while the outer part of the slide will attach to the legs of the

system. This allows the legs to remain stationary while the pan is constantly moving.

Figure 17: Rolling U Diagram

29
 In order to better view some of the components a side view is shown below in Figure 18.

There are brackets along the sides of the pans that go underneath the pan design. The brackets

attach to metal bars that will have double sided tape along their length allowing the pan to form

to them perfectly.

Figure 18: Side View - Rolling U Diagram

The slides must be able to withstand a large amount of weight between holding up two

heavy steel pans and the bracket system to support them. Luckily most common drawer slides

have a 100 pound-force limit that works very well for this concept.

This design is great for stability and constrains all pan motion to the horizontal direction.

The U-shaped structure will provide sufficient support to prevent buckling of the pan sides. The

weight of the leg structure and all the metal components is one of the largest problems with this

design. The cost of the drawer sliders must also be taken into consideration with this design.

Section 5.2 - Concept #2: Square-Box Method

Concept two consists of two metal square boxes on each side of each pan with legs that

support the pans at the required height of two feet. There are metal bars connecting the squares to

each other and connecting the pans together. A connecting piece is placed facing outward toward

30
the drive mechanism that will have a roller on the end that the cam will roll on. A diagram is

shown in Figure 19 of how this concept will work. In this concept the legs are allowed to rotate

about a pivot point on the ground as well as at the pan connection point. This allows for a small

amount of pan motion in the horizontal direction.

Figure 19: Square-Box Method Concept Drawing

This is the simplest design with two support bracket systems that are attached to the pans

with four legs. This is the lightest and simplest to design and manufacture out of all the concepts.

However, this has the most risk with wobbling and other factors that might make it not worth

risking failure. Further analysis with additional ingenuity is required to make this concept

possible.

31
Section 5.3 - Concept #3: Magneto

Minimal friction can be achieved between the pan and supports by not having contact

between the pan and supports. Instead, by levitating the pan above the support using an array of

magnets attached to its underside, nearly all power delivered by the drive will be transposed into

the pan. In order for this design to work, the support must be topped be a diamagnetic material,

such as pyrolytic carbon or bismuth. The magnets and diamagnetic material will repel each other,

resulting in a stable levitation of the pan above the supports.

This design requires a table support system below the pan with the top of the table being

coated with the diamagnetic material as shown in Figure 20. When the drive applies a force to

the connecting rod, the pan will glide over the tables with no friction and a smooth motion.

Figure 20: Magneto Design Drawing

This design is the most unique design using the power of magnets to keep a floating

structure supporting the pans. It would also be the easiest set up as the pan would just stack on

top of the table. However, this could be the heaviest design for it consists of an entire table below

the pans and the weight of the magnets. It could potentially be the most expensive concept with

32
the cost of buying enough magnets to make it operate correctly. It can also be noted that this may

be impractical for industrial application as it has the potential to be an accident causing agent.

Section 5.4 - Concept Comparison and Results

Each concept needs to be compared in multiple categories in order to decide on the

optimum design for the pan support system. The following is a summary of the categories the

concepts were graded on and their definitions.

● Manufacturability: The ease of manufacturing the concept

● Ease of Set-up: How time consuming it is to set up the whole system

● Weight: The weight of the pans and it’s support system

● Risk: The possibility that the concept may fail or not work as intended

● Fatigue: The likelihood of components breaking

● Unique: Abstract concept compared to other designs

Table 3 is a summary of the calculations and designs that shows how each concept

compares to each other in each category. The best design will have the lowest total number of

points and the worst design will have the greatest number.

33
 Table 3: Comparison Chart

Rolling U Square-Box Method Magneto

Manufacturability 3 1 2

Ease of Set-up 2 3 1

Weight 2 1 3

Risk 1 2 3

Fatigue 1 3 2

Unique 2 3 1

Total 11 13 12
*Rated: 1 being the best and 3 being the worst

The first concept, “Rolling U” was selected as the objectively best pan design; a full

analysis is required to ensure the support system will not fail due to the forces the system

undergoes. Since the pan itself is very thin and prone to vibrations, ANSYS was used to perform

modal analysis on the pan and rigid support system to ensure the operating frequency of the drive

does not resonate with any nearby natural frequencies of the pan and support. What follows is

more detail on how the pans connect to each other and the drive.

Section 5.5 - Pan to Pan Connection

The connection between the two pans must be seamless enough to allow cereal to pass

over the joint while experiencing little to no resistance from that joint. The design must ensure

that the pans are completely level. In order to accomplish this, an angle bracket is epoxied on the

bottom edge of both pans. A bolt is placed on each end to bring the pans together evenly but

allowing easy disconnection (Figure 21).

34
 Figure 21: Pan to Pan Connector Bracket

The section outlined in red denotes the bolt holes for the connection. The angle bracket is

to be epoxied to the pan on the bottom to ensure a secure fit.

Section 5.6 - Drive to Pan Connection

The first pan has a back support with two functions. The first is to ensure that no cereal

bounces off the back of the pan, as this would mean that less cereal has the chance to traverse the

length of the conveyor. The second function is to help distribute the force of the drive

mechanism along the width of the pan. Uneven distribution could cause torsion in the pan and

impede the forward motion of the cereal.

35
 The back panel, represented by the black dotted line, attaches to the pan at the angle

bracket support that runs along its underside, shown by the blue bar in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Drive Mechanism to Pan Connection

In this drawing, the sliders attached to the pan supports are shown in blue, while the drive

connections are shown in red. The drive mechanism is represented by the blue gear with a purple

linkage. The linkage is attached to the force distribution bar by brackets that allow it to twist

about the ends as the gear rotates about the axle.

36
 Section 6 - Mechanical Analysis

Section 6.1 - Bolt Analysis:

Since the first concept, “Rolling U” has been selected as the objectively best pan design,

a full analysis is required to ensure the support system will not fail due to the forces the system

undergoes. Hand calculations are used to analyze the bolts on both the pan and drivetrain to

ensure maximum shear stress is well below each bolts respective yield stress. Since the pan itself

is very thin and prone to vibrations, ANSYS was used to perform modal analysis on the pan and

rigid support system to ensure the operating frequency of the drive does not resonate with any

nearby natural frequencies of the pan and support. For both bolt analyses the weight of the

support legs are neglected in order to maintain a simpler model.

The following is a complete bolt analysis for the entire system. The first section covers

the pan support system. The second section is the calculations for the drive mechanism bolts. In

order to evaluate the shear stress of acting on the bolts Equation 24 defines the shear stress which

is the summation of forces acting on the bolt divided by the bolt area [1].

(24)

The force in the x and y directions need to be evaluated using Equation 25 and 26 below.

These forces are based off the weights of the pan or drive mechanism assuming Earth’s

gravitational acceleration. The accelerations of the pan in the horizontal direction are calculated

in the last section of this report.

(25)

(26)

37
 The pan was weighed to be 28 lbs. which is also 28 lbf and the drive mechanism was

weighed to be at 8 lbs. and 9 ounces which is 8.5625 lbf. The mass is found by dividing the

recorded weight of the pan by the acceleration due to Earth’s gravity. The force in the horizontal

can be found by multiplying this mass by the pan acceleration during the rapid retreat of the pan.

Using the result of the drive analysis, the maximum forces of the pan acting on the drive is

Using Equation 24 which was found on Engineering Toolbox, the area of the bolts can be

calculated [2] . After identifying available bolt sizes and analysis of components, it was decided

to use a 3/8-16 bolts and 5/16-18 for the prototype and analysis [3]. In Equation 27, the D is the

diameter of the bolt and n is the threads per inch of the bolt.

(27)

Using the values above and Equation 27, the area of a bolt was calculated to be 0.0775

for the 3/8th bolt and 0.0524 for the 5/16th bolt. These areas will be used for the bolt

analysis in order to solve for the shear stress. Once these shear stresses are calculated they need

to be compared to the yield stress of the bolt in order to ensure that the bolt won’t fail. This also

allows the factor of safety to be found for the bolts using Equation 28 which is the shear yield

stress over the calculated shear stress. To obtain a rough estimate of shear yield stress, the

normal yield stress was divided by two. This resulted in the minimum shear yield stress for a

3/8th Grade 2 (low or medium carbon steel) bolt as 28.5 kpsi for bolts shorter than 0.75 inches

and 18 kpsi bolts that are longer [4].

(28)

38
Section 6.1.1 - Pan Bolt Analysis:

Figure 23 shows the basic structure of the pan support system that is used to keep the

pans elevated to 24 inches above the base. There are four vertical legs on each side that absorb

the total weight of the two pans. This support system is identical for each side of the pan which

means that the total pan weight (the sum of the weights of both pan sections) can be divided by

two in order to simplify the calculations by focusing on a single side.

Figure 23: Pan Support Diagrams

Unfortunately, the two pans do not weigh exactly the same, which means that a lumped-

mass analysis would be invalid. Instead, a free body diagram was drawn of the forces and

reactions, and the statically determinant problem was solved. The resulting forces in each leg are

shown in Table 4 below. The bolts connecting the pan supports to the pan are 3/8-16 bolts while

the bolts connecting the pan supports to the base are 5/16-18, which have a smaller bolt area.

This means that the 5/16-18 bolts will have a greater stress than the 3/8-16 bolts in the same leg.

Because bolts in the same leg experience the same force, shear analysis was performed only on

the 5/16-18 bolts. The reaction forces of the bolts were verified by performing ANSYS finite

element analysis on a two-dimensional model of the pan system.

39
 Table 4: Pan Support - Bolt Analysis

Reaction Force Area of Bolt Shear Stress Yield Shear Stress Safety
Force Factor

A 0.961 0.0524 18.34 28,500 1,554

B 5.881 0.0524 112 18,000 161

C 7.244 0.0524 138.25 28,500 206

D -0.0859 0.0524 (-)1.639 18,000 10,982

Section 6.1.2 - Drive Bolt Analysis:

Figure 24a shows the basic structure of the drive support system that is used to support

the drive mechanism and axle. There is one leg in the vertical direction in order to carry the load

of the drive and a member angled at 45 degrees to support the system in the horizontal direction.

Note that there are two bolts at the base of the vertical member. Both bolts are assumed to share

the same load. In order to ensure that the bolts in this design are strong enough, the bolt analysis

must be completed on this design using the assumed 3/8-16 bolts that are below 0.75 inches long.

Figure 24a: Drive Force Diagram Figure 24b: Drive ANSYS Model

40
 Now that the drivetrain support structure has been defined and the overall force has been

calculated, it is now possible to calculate the shear stress on all the bolts. The first step is finding

the forces acting on the structure which in the drive has a horizontal and vertical force acting on

it. In the horizontal direction the applied force is . In the vertical direction, the weight of

the drive is divided between the two sides results in a force of . Another important factor

is the diagonal member, which has an angle of 45 degrees. The forces and stresses acting on each

bolt are tabulated in Table 5. The forces are found using ANSYS analysis, the model of which

can be found in Figure 24b. The magnitude of the forces experienced at each bolt is found from

the reactions in the x- and y- direction at the corresponding node in the software. Because there

are two bolts at the base of the vertical member, it is assumed that they share the load at node A

equally and therefore each experiences half of the magnitude of the reaction forces. They are

denoted as A1 and A2 in Table 5.

Table 5: Drive Mechanism - Bolt Analysis

Force Area of Bolt Shear Stress Yield Shear Stress Safety

Force Point
Factor

A1 7.66 0.0775 98.8 28,500 288

A2 7.66 0.0775 98.8 28,500 288

B 17.63 0.0775 227.5 28,500 125

C 26 0.0775 335.5 28,500 85

Table 5 shows the bolts will not fail as the smallest safety factor is significantly higher

than the standard minimum factor that is deemed safe for use. The overall conclusion for the bolt

analysis is that the bolts may have been over engineered but will definitely hold up to the shear

forces that are acting on them even with many dynamic forces acting on the supports.

41
Section 6.2 - Modal Analysis:

Along with the structural analysis on bolts, modal analysis was performed using ANSYS

on the pan and rigid support structure to ensure our drive input will not excite any modes near

the driving frequency. It is important that resonance is not achieved with any modes because

otherwise the pan would vibrate drastically and compromise the intended movement of the

cereal. In order to know which range of frequency to obtain solutions for, the drive frequency

must be known. Using the MATLABⓇscripts developed for the drive analysis, the calculated

input frequency for our gear and linkage system is 1.7 Hz. The analysis itself was performed by

modelling the pan and attached supports as a single rigid body, and importing the IGES file into

ANSYS. Afterwards, the volume was meshed using the 3-d 20-Node Structural Solid element,

SOLID186. Material properties used for the stainless steel are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Stainless Steel Material Properties

Poisson's Ratio Young's Modulus (PSI) Density

0.305 2.76E+07 0.289

For simplicity, the material properties for stainless steel were used throughout the entire

model. Figure 25 shows the geometry and mesh of the pan and support system used in the

analysis.

42
 Figure 25: Meshed Pan and Support

After the geometry was meshed, a modal analysis was set up which found the first 20

modes within 0 - 10,000 Hz. Figure 26 shows a sample of the different mode shapes that occur

near our operating frequency.

Figure 26: Various Mode Shapes

Since the model was not constrained in any way, Table 7 shows that the first six modes

are the rigid body modes; three for displacement and three for rotation. Past that the frequency

starts to increase and different mode shapes result.

43
 Table 7: Mode Frequencies

SET # Frequency (Hz)

1 0
2 0
3 2.14E-04
4 3.32E-04
5 4.79E-04
6 7.95E-04
7 1.7573
8 4.862
9 6.0045
10 6.9496
11 8.609
12 9.1578
13 9.7472
14 10.418
15 11.366
16 12.645
17 13.079
18 15.626
19 16.27
20 19.848

By inspecting mode seven, it is clear that there is a mode close to our drive’s operating

frequency of 1.7 Hz, so it is possible that this mode is excited by the drive. However, after

testing with a full system prototype, it was confirmed that vibrations had a negligible effect on

the system and did not stop the cereal from moving as intended.

Section 6.3 - Structural Fatigue and Failure Analysis:

While a major objective of this design concept was to reduce weight in the pan support,

the structural stability must be considered when making material choices. The components of

highest concern are the legs of the pan support, as they carry the highest load. In order to ensure

their stability, the aluminum angle brackets were analyzed using Euler buckling equations [1].

The first step in this process is to analyze the geometry of the cross-section. The area and

44
moments of inertia are shown in Figure 27. For all calculations, the moment of inertia in the y

direction will be used as it is the smaller of the two. The smaller of the moments of inertia will

result in the critical load value that is most likely to fail.

Figure 27: Cross-section of Aluminum Angle Beam

These values are used to find the critical load applied to the beam axially (Equation 29).

(29)

With a Young’s Modulus (E) for aluminum of psi, and the beam length of 24

inches, it is found that the critical load for this beam is 11,514lb. In order to ensure that this is

correct, one must confirm that the Euler buckling formula is valid in this case. This is done by

finding the minimum slenderness ratio and ensuring that it is smaller than the slenderness

ratio of the system . In order to find , Equation 30 can be used and compared to the

value found in Equation 31.

(30)

45
 (31)

After finding that the slenderness ratios have met the required parameters, the factor of

safety can be calculated for each of the legs of the pan support system. Following the same

assumptions as in the bolt analysis section that the pans together weigh approximately 28 lbs.

and that the largest compressive force experienced is 7.244 lbs. Of this load, the factor of safety

formula from Equation 28 is used to find that F.S=1,589 for the legs. It is therefore safe to

assume that there will not be any material buckling in the pan support.

46
 Section 7 - Assembly

Ease of assembly was an important parameter while designing a pan support system; it

was crucial to ensure that the pans have an easy assembly that may be completed within 10

minutes. In the spirit of this design parameter, the pan support system was also designed to easily

allow multiple new pans to be connected together in series with an existing pan in a timely and

efficient manner. This makes expansions quick and easy so that the machinery can grow as

quickly as your company. Below is a step by step guide on how to assemble the pan and drive

system.

1. Attach the wooden part of the slider to the pan support legs and plexiglass. Slide the

5/16” bolts first through the wooden slider, then the aluminum leg, and finally through

the plexiglass. Secure the assembly with a washer and a nut and tighten it all together

(Note: do not over tighten as the plexiglass is fragile). This is done at both supports on

each side of the pan for every pan (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Pan to Pan Support Connection

2. Place the first pan in the series on the base at the end of the conveyer. This is where

cereal will drop off. The front legs should be placed 1.6 inches from the edge of the base

and the back legs 15.75 inches from the front legs. Loosely assemble the legs to the base

using two ⅜” bolts per leg. Place a single metal spacer around the top ⅜” bolt of each leg.

Ensure all the supports are completely vertical before tightening (Figure 29).

47
 Figure 29: Pan Supports

3. Place the next pan assembly in line on the base. Position the front legs 15.2” from the

first pan’s back legs. The back legs of the pan are placed 15.6” from the front legs.

Repeat the process of applying the aluminum spacers and bolts as was done with the back

pan. The two pans are coupled using a 3/8" bolt on each side. Figure 30 shows the full

support system for two pans.

Figure 30: Full Pan Support System

48
4. Place the drive mechanism on the base behind the pan series and position it 4.5” from

the last pan’s supports (Figure 31). Slide 3/8" bolts through the metal brackets on one

side and the wooden block on the other (Note: do not tighten bolts until told to do so). An

additional angle support is also bolted at a 45 degree angle from the main structure with a

3/8" bolt. Now that all bolts are located, apply washers and nuts to each bolt and tighten.

Figure 31: Drive Mechanism Position

5. Couple the drive to the pan system. Hold the extruded aluminum T-Slot fitting in place

between the two rails on either side of the last pan. Secure the fitting to the pan by

placing a 5/16” bolts through the metal rails on either side of the pan and fastening into

the end of the fitting.

6. Ensure all components are tightly bolted and turn the crank to ensure the system is

operating correctly.

49
 Section 8 - Cost Analysis

The project was designed to maintain low costs when it came to manufacturing and

producing the drive mechanism and pan supports. Different materials were considered for use in

order to find the most cost effective material that would hold up to the requirements. A large

amount of bolts are required but can be substituted with industrial strength epoxy or double-sided

tape. The best way to represent the costs of this system is to break it into a cost analysis of the

pan support and drive mechanism systems (Tables 8 & 9).

Table 8: Drive Mechanism System - Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

Cost ($) Total

Item Name Description Quantity Size Sourcing
per Unit Cost ($)

Perforated Framing Hot-Dipped 1 8’ 20.94 20.94 McMaster-Carr

Bracket Galvanized Steel [5]

Rigid Steel Straps Galvanized Steel 1 1” 10.22 10.22 McMaster-Carr

L = 60” [6]

Pillow Block Cast Iron/ Steel 2 1” bore 12.89 25.78 Amazon [7]
Bearing

Round Tube Multipurpose 1 OD: 1” 16.34 16.34 McMaster-Carr

6061 Aluminum ID: 0.9” L=2’ [8]

Plexiglass Acrylic 1 48” x 36” x 37 37 Home Depot [9]

.093”

T-Slot Fittings Aluminum 1 1” solid L= 2’ 8.35 8.35 McMaster-Carr

[10]
Estimated Drive Mechanism Cost Per Unit: $ 118.63

50
 Table 9: Pan Support System - Cost Analysis Spreadsheet

Cost ($) Total

Item Name Description Quantity Size Sourcing
per Unit Cost ($)

Angle Bracket 6061 Aluminum 5 8’ 18.97 94.85 McMaster-Carr

1” x 1” [11]

Perforated Framing Hot-Dipped 1 8’ 20.94 20.94 McMaster-Carr

Bracket Galvanized Steel [5]

Rectangle Tube 1” x 1” 1 t=⅛” 12.01 12.01 McMaster-Carr

6061 Aluminum L = 2’ [8]

Pan Material 22 gauge sheet 1 24” x 48” 30.48 30.48 Menards [12]
steel

Plywood 1 15/32” x 17.85 17.85 Home Depot

3-Ply RTD 4’ x 8’ [13]

Bolts / Washers/ Low Strength 1 box of ⅜” 28.23 28.23 McMaster-Carr

Nuts Steel each [14,15,16]

Bolts / Washers/ Low Strength 1 box of 5/16” 22.97 22.97 McMaster-Carr

Nuts Steel each [14,15,16]

Bolts / Washers/ Low Strength 1 box of #8 11.51 11.51 McMaster-Carr

Nuts Steel each [14,15,16]

Drawer Slider Steel 4 10” 6 24 Overstock [17]

Epoxy DP 100 - 1/6 6.76 oz 53.46 8.91 McMaster-Carr

Multipurpose [18]
Estimated Pan Support Cost per Unit: $271.75

Estimated Total Cost per Unit: $390.38

The drive mechanism costs roughly $118.63 for each new system but these are able to

provide power to multiple pans inline. The two pans and their supports costs roughly $271.75

and can be repeated any number of times. For an arbitrary amount of systems, Equation 32

shows the total cost with N as the number of pans required and M as the number of drives

required.

51
 Total Cost = N * Pan Cost + M * Drive Cost (32)

For an order of 10,000 units and assuming that a single drive can support 20 pan sections, the
cost of the pan system is $2,716,300 and the drive system is $59,315 which results in a total cost
of $2,775,615. However, if this was to be mass produced like in the example, there are many
ways to reduce costs by bulk buying from the manufacturer instead of online websites to reduce
costs.

52
 Section 9 - Elevator Pitch - Transcript

“This is Prestige Worldwide: Toby, Arric, Travis, and Megan. This is our design. The drive

consists of a crank and axle connected to a linkage, which connects directly to the pan. The key

to the drive is how the connection and axle are at different vertical heights. This is what causes

the different accelerations when going forward and pulling back. What it boils down to is three

parameters: axle radius, linkage length, and vertical offset. Axle radius determines strokes length

so we limited ourselves to a two inch stroke. Linkage length affects maximum acceleration in

both directions and the offset changes the difference in forward and backward accelerations. The

pan utilizes drawer slides for the horizontal motion with angle-brackets providing rigid support

for the pan surface. The rigid supports are setup in such a way that more pans can be connected

in series if needed. Prestige Worldwide! Investors? Possibly you!”

Marketing Logo is shown below in Figure 32.

Figure 32: Prestige Worldwide Logo

53
 Section 10 - Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

Over the course of the semester, Prestige Worldwide has worked towards designing,

analyzing, building, and testing a horizontal motion conveyor. With the culmination of the

project during the competition on design day, Prestige Worldwide is proud of the final design.

Now that the analysis and prototype have been completed, Prestige Worldwide is

confident in the results and designs. The “Rolling U” pan design has proved to be the optimum

choice with some minor modifications and compliments the Gear and Linkage drive mechanism.

Bolt analysis on the pan support system resulted in safety factors over 161 and over 85 for the

drive support system which shows that no failure will occur due to shear stresses. The overall

material strength analysis performed on the legs of the pan support resulted in a factor of safety

of 1,589. This gave Prestige Worldwide confidence that the legs would not experience failure

due to buckling and that infinite life has been achieved. The vibration analysis through ANSYS

confirmed that the operating frequency is removed enough from nearby modes that no

vibrational distortion should occur. While the operating frequency is 1.7 Hz and is close to a

mode, testing revealed that vibration did not affect the motion.

After the construction of the entire design and prototype testing it is clear that the design

and manufacturing of this horizontal motion conveyor was successful. During prototype testing,

great success was found in that the cereal moved down the length of the conveyor quickly and

evenly. Some additional modifications can be performed given more time to improve

performance. For example, the plywood used to attach the sliders to the pan support system

could be replaced with aluminum to reduce weight and eliminate wood in the industrial setting.

After much effort and many man-hours spent on this device, there are a few changes the

team would apply with more time and a larger budget. The major changes foreseen are to

54
develop a simpler and easier to manufacture sliding system, replacing the plywood slider

connections with aluminum. It would also be beneficial to create a pan support that consists of

one piece that is bolted directly into the floor instead of having multiple legs the must be aligned

during set up. The team suggests reducing the number of bolt connections, connecting pieces of

the drive by welding where appropriate. Finally, the drive mechanism could be improved by

adding an additional gear system. This recommendation would allow the user to expend less

energy by turning the hand crank more slowly while the same angular velocity is achieved by the

drive axle.

55
 Section 11 - References

1. Budynas, R., & Nisbett, K. (2014). Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design (10th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Series.
2. Bolt Stretching. (n.d.). In Engineering Toolbox. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bolt-stretching-d_1164.html
3. US Threads per Inch Table. (n.d.). In Bolt Depot. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from
https://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-information/Measuring/US-TPI.aspx
4. Bolt Grade Marking and Strength Chart. (n.d.). In Bolt Depot. Retrieved November 9,
2014, from https://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-information/Materials-and-Grades/Bolt-
Grade-Chart.aspx
5. Steel Angle Brackets: http://www.mcmaster.com/#metal-structural-framing-
angles/=uqiu8s
6. Steel Straps: http://www.mcmaster.com/#erasers/=uutswn
7. Pillow Block Bearings:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BBQAK0/ref=pe_385040_30332200_TE_item
8. Aluminum Rod: http://www.mcmaster.com/#aluminum-alloy-rods/=uqixfl
9. Aluminum Angle Brackets: http://www.mcmaster.com/#aluminum-angle-bars/=uqikgi
10. Plexiglass: http://www.homedepot.com/b/Building-Materials-Plastic-Sheets-Acrylic-
Sheets/N-5yc1vZc9x2/Ntk-Extended/Ntt-
plexiglass+sheet?Ntx=mode+matchpartialmax&NCNI-5
11. Extrusion T-Slotted Framing: http://www.mcmaster.com/#t-slotted-framing/=uutqy5
12. Sheet Metal: http://www.menards.com/main/tools-hardware/household-hardware/stock-
metal/weldable-steel-sheet-24-x-48-22-gauge/p-1466330-c-9215.htm
13. Plywood: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Unbranded-15-32-in-x-4-ft-x-8-ft-3-Ply-RTD-
Sheathing-166073/100067329?N=5yc1vZbqm7
14. Low Strength Steel Bolts: http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-cap-screws/=uusppt
15. Low Strength Steel Washers: http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-washers/=uusrqj
16. Low Strength Steel Nuts: http://www.mcmaster.com/#hex-nuts/=uut1ii
17. Drawer Sliders: http://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Full-Extension-10-inch-100-
lb-Ball-Bearing-Drawer-Slides-1-pair/5091412/product.html?CID=228583
18. Epoxy: http://www.mcmaster.com/#multipurpose-epoxies/=uutgsj

56
 Section 12 - Appendices

Appendix 1: Bean Shaped MATLAB Code

function[output]=cam_analysis(thetadot,r_min)
theta=[0:.01:2*pi];
theta_min=(25*pi)/180;
mu_min=tan(theta_min);
rprime=((mu_min*9.81.*theta)./(thetadot)^2)+(12/(7*pi))-((mu_min*9.81)/(2*thetadot));
r=((mu_min*9.81.*(theta.^2))/(2*thetadot^2))+(((12/(7*pi))-
((mu_min*9.81)/(2*thetadot))).*theta)+r_min;
plot(theta,rprime)
figure
plot(theta,r)
for these graphs I used thetadot=1 and rmin=2

Appendix 2:Vertical Cam MATLAB Code

%Script to calculate radius as a function of theta for the cam-follower

%drive system.

% Toby Buckley, 9/24/14

%constants:
delta = 4; %inches ro-ri
ri =3; %inches
h = 0; %inches

drops = 4; % number of drops in a rotation

theta_offset = atan(h/(2*ri));
theta_crit = 2*pi/drops-theta_offset;
mu_min = tan(25/180*pi);
mu_max = tan(40/180*pi);
gravity = 386.09; %inches/s^2

theta_dot = (theta_crit^2*mu_min*gravity/(2*delta))^0.5
frequency = theta_dot/(2*pi) % revs/s
period = 1/frequency % seconds/rev

r = zeros(360/drops+1,1);
theta = zeros(360/drops+1,1);

for i=1:360/drops
for j=1:drops

57
 theta((j-1)*360/drops+i) = ((j-1)*360/drops+i)/180*pi;
r((j-1)*360/drops+i) = delta * (theta(i))^2/theta_crit^2 + ri;

end
end

polar(theta,r);

Appendix 3: Gear Linkage MATLAB Code

n=64; %sets the size of the vectors and matrices

theta_o=linspace(0,4*pi,n); %creates a vector containing values of theta from 0 to 2*pi (in

radians)
r=3; %size of the driving link
ra=1; %provides a standard for comparison of the ratio
xa=-ra; %location of the slide in the x direction
l=linspace(r/2,5*r,n); %creates a vector containing length values of the pushing link from 0 to
2*pi
la=l/r; %creates a vector containing length ratios of the pushing link and the driving link
wo=6; %angular velocity of the driving link (in radians/second)

for i=1:n
for j=1:n
theta_a(i,j)=acos((xa-ra*cos(theta_o(i)))/la(j)); %creates a matrix filled with the values of
the angle between the pushing link and the x axis
wa(i,j)=(-ra*sin(theta_o(i)))/(la(j)*sqrt(1-(xa-ra*cos(theta_o(i)))^2/la(j)^2)); %derivative
of theta_a. Creates a matrix filled with the values of the angular velocity of theta_a
alpha_a(i,j)=(ra*cos(theta_o(i))*(xa^2+ra^2-la(j)^2)-
1/2*xa*ra*(cos(2*theta_o(i))+3))/(la(j)^3*(1-(xa-ra*cos(theta_o(i)))^2/la(j)^2)^(3/2));
%derivative of wa. Creates a matrix filled with the values of the angular acceleration of theta_a
ya(i,j)=ra*sin(theta_o(i))+la(j)*sin(theta_a(i,j)); %creates a matrix filled with the values
of the y location of the slider
va(i,j)=ra*wo*cos(theta_o(i))+la(j)*wa(i,j)*cos(theta_a(i,j)); %derivative of ya. Creates a
matrix filled with the values of the linear velocity of the slider

for i=1:n %This loop removes the values correlating to la lengths that are too short to work
(returned as complex numbers)
for j=1:n
if imag(ya(i,j))==0
continue
else
ya(:,j)=0;
va(:,j)=0;
aa(:,j)=0;
end

58
 end
end

surf(la,theta_o,ya)
xlabel('Ratio of Link Lengths')
ylabel('Angle of the Driving Link (Radians)')
zlabel('Location of the Slider (Units)')
title('Slider Position')

figure

surf(la,theta_o,va)
xlabel('Ratio of Link Lengths')
ylabel('Angle of the Driving Link (Radians)')
zlabel('Linear Velocity of the Slider (Units/s)')
title('Slider Velocity')

figure

surf(la,theta_o,aa)
xlabel('Ratio of Link Lengths')
ylabel('Angle of the Driving Link (Radians)')
zlabel('Linear Acceleration of the Slider (Units/s^2)')
title('Slider Acceleration')

% figure

% surf(la,ya,aa)
% xlabel('Length of the Pushing Link')
% ylabel('Position of the Slider')
% zlabel('Linear Acceleration of the Slider')

for i=1:length(theta_o);
ya_close=min(ya); %creates a vector of the closest positions of the slider for every length
of the pushing link
ya_far=max(ya); %creates a vector of the farthest positions of the slider for every length
of the pushing link
if ya(1,i)>0
theta_close=find(ya(:,i)==ya_close(i)); %Finds the element coordinate of the closest
position for every length of the pushing link
theta_far=find(ya(:,i)==ya_far(i)); %Finds the element coordinate of the closest position
for every length of the pushing link
else
theta_close=[1,1];

59
 theta_far=[1,1];
end
theta_c(i)=theta_close(1,1); %creates a vector filled with the value of the angle of the
driving link when the slider is at its closest position
theta_f(i)=theta_far(1,1); %creates a vector filled with the value of the angle of the
driving link when the slider is at its farthest position
vel_close(i,1)=va(theta_close(1,1),i);
vel_far(i,1)=va(theta_far(1,1),i);
accel_close(i,1)=aa(theta_close(1,1),i); %creates a vector filled with the acceleration of
the slider when it is at its closest position for every length of the pushing link
accel_far(i,1)=aa(theta_far(1,1),i); %creates a vector filled with the acceleration of the
slider when it is at its farthest position for every length of the pushing link
end

accel_diff=abs(accel_far)-abs(accel_close); %creates a vector filled with the difference between

the acceleration at the farthest location and the acceleration at the closest position for each length
of the pushing link
max_accel_diff=max(accel_diff); %finds the largest acceleration difference at the closest
position and the farthest position
vel_diff=abs(vel_far)-abs(vel_close); %creates a vector filled with the difference between the
velocities at the farthest location and the acceleration at the closest position for each length of the
pushing link
[la_max,theta]=find(accel_diff==max_accel_diff); %returns the element coordinate of the set-up
with the largest difference in acceleration at the closest and furthest points
la_best=la(la_max); %returns the value of the length of the pushing link used in the set-up with
the best acceleration differential

display('The Best Ratio of Pushing Link to Driving Link')

Best_Length_Ratio=la_best

display('Acceleration Difference')
display(accel_diff(la_max,theta))

display('Velocity Difference')
display(vel_diff(la_max,theta))

60