1. Measure Phase SENIOR DESIGN TEAM 25: PALM HARVESTER

2. Presenters Ricardo Aleman, ME Brian Newman, ME Yuze Liu, ME David Boswell, ECE Louis-Olivier Verret, IE Bolivar Lobo, IE Gianni Alessandria, IE 2 Ricardo

3. Project Review 1.Original team didn’t finish robot ( Class of 2012) 2.ME Team 25 assigned to project (Class of 2014) 3.Decided against 2012 design “King Climber” 4.Brainstormed Cart with Telescoping Pole 5.Built a small mechatronic prototype 6.Developed the Mechatronic Concept 7.Replaced Mechatronic with Manual Concept (CURRENT) Palm Harvester Goal Develop an effective, efficient, and economical oil palm harvester 3 Ricardo

4. King Climber – 2012 Concept CAD DESIGNASSEMBLED PROTOTYPE 4 Assembled prototype was never tested Ricardo

5. Cart with Telescoping Pole – 2014 Concept COMPONENTS Cutting Tool (A) Telescoping Pole (B) Tree Grips (C) Cart (D) Power/ Auxiliary System (E) 5 A B D & E Oil Palm Palm Harvester R = 5ft H ≤ 40ft h = 4ft Drawing not to scale C Ricardo

6. Small Mechatronic Prototype $150 from Home Depot & HobbyTown Gained better understanding of functionality Gained better appreciation of project’s complexity Starting point for in-depth design 6 Ricardo

7. Mechatronic Concept Based on small prototype Three DOF 1 – Pitch 2 – Translation 3 – Yaw Powered by DC motors with motor drivers Risks 3 DOF = complex & expensive Mechatronics = complex & expensive Too complicated Simplified Design Manual design = 2 DOF No mechatronics Cheaper & simpler Can be built & tested by April 7 1 2 3 Ricardo

8. Prototype 1.0 FALL SEMESTER Simple system  Design simple working system  Will cost half the budget  Manual components,  Poor ergonomics  It will be completely built and tested by January  Low risk SPRING SEMESTER Optimized system  If Prototype 1.0 is effective, optimize design  Potentially use electric winches  More ergonomic  Higher risk 8 This presentation will discuss the mechanical design of Prototype 1.0, but the ergonomics of the Prototype 2.0 Ricardo

9. Prototype 1.0 Overview A – Cutting Tool B – Telescoping Pole C – Tree Grips D – Cart with Legs 9 A B D C Ricardo

10. Cutting Tool Design 10 Brian

11. Cutting Tool Design In order to simplify the cutting tool, only two degrees of freedom were chosen: pitch and horizontal swivel 11 Brian

12. Cutting Tool Design Self-Locking Shoulder Screw Pivot Block 12 Brian

13. Cutting Tool Design Lazy Susan Welded Square Tubes Camera Angle Brackets 13 Brian

14. Cutting Tool Design Top platform swivels by pulling the attached ropes Pole saw rotates by pulling two other ropes 14 Brian

15. Cutting Tool Design Brian 15

16. Telescopin g Pole Design Brian

17. Telescoping Pole Design Original design called for 6”, 5”, 4”, and 3” diameter sections The 5” size is not readily available Instead, a 2” diameter section will become the smallest- sized tube Galvanized steel conduit will be used for the top section to add rigidity Thin-walled, weighs only 14 lbs The rest of the pipes will be Schedule 40 PVC 17 Brian

18. Telescoping Pole Design 18 6 in Diameter PVC 4 in Diameter PVC 3 in Diameter PVC 2 in Diameter Steel Brian

19. Telescoping Pole Design The total weight of the poles will be about 100 lbs 1/8” galvanized steel rope will be used Holds up to 1540 lbs in tension Corrosion resistant 2” diameter pulleys will be used, supported by L brackets These L brackets also act as stoppers, so the poles only retract to their designed heights Rope is attached to inner pole with small L bracket 19 Brian

20. Telescoping Pole Design High density poly-ethylene bars will be used to fill the gaps between poles This makes the structure much more rigid Outer Pole Inner Pole HDPE Bar 20 Brian

21. Telescoping Pole Design 21 Pivot Block Self-locking shoulder screw The pole can fold down Rotate with the pivot block The pole can translate through the hole of the pivot block Alignment Block

22. Telescoping Pole Design 22 Brian

23. Tree Grips 23 Ricardo

24. Need for Tree Grips System is 40 ft tall Total weight is ~200lbs About 100lbs is vertical System can tip over 3 out of 4 tubes are PVC PVC bending stress isn’t safe if the system is not absolutely rigid The PVC can break Need to design something that stabilizes the system to prevent tipping over and/or PVC fracture 24 Ricardo

25. Tree Grip Secures Cart to Tree 25 Ricardo

26. Tree Grip Design 26 Grips Close Pull the rope Close Procedure 1.Pull the rope 2.The grips close Ricardo

27. Tree Grip Materials 27 ¼” x 1” Aluminum bars (6 – 12in) 1” x 1” 80/20 Aluminum (4ft) Folding Bracket 2” OD Pulley Fixed pin 5” Spring Sliding Rope Attachment pin Ricardo

28. Tree Grip Budget 28 2 Tree Grips come out to $116 total Ricardo

29. Cart Design 29 Yuze

30. Need for Cart Modify a premade cart Large, soft wheels are mounted on the extension Two winches are fixed on the side of the cart Monitors will be put on the cart 30 Yuze

31. Cart Materials 31 Swivel Caster Rigid Caster Winch Monitor Modified cart Perforated Tube Yuze

32. Cart 32 Modified a pre made cart Edsal 24 in. W x 36 in. D x 32 in. H Steel Service Cart $80.95 Yuze

33. Cart Design-Extended legs 33 Extended legs with the maximum of length 3 ft and the minimum is 1.5ft Use perforated tube and lock pins to adjust the length Easy to transport and stable to use Detail: Perforated Tube (size:1 1/2" 6ft) $29.23 Perforated Tube (size:1 3/4" 6ft) $30.56 Locking pins $6.02 Yuze

34. Cart Design - Wheels 34 The two front wheels are swivel caster, easy to turn The two rear wheels are rigid, increase stability. Details: 10 In. Pneumatic Caster 10 In. Pneumatic Swivel Caster Yuze

35. Cart Budget 35 Yuze

36. Power Configuratio n David 36

37. Power Draw On-board Battery Monitor (~8W) Camera (~1W) Batter Pack Pole Saw (100 cuts) David 37

38. Power Supply 12VDC battery and charger $39.99 7 Amp Hour (84W-hr) 9.5 hours of use PROS Easy to replace No startup time 12VDC is compatible with auto electronics (car, camera) Quiet CONS Has to be recharged Runs out quicker than generator http://www.amazon.com/Spypoint-12-Volt- Rechargeable-Battery- Charger/dp/B002NYN7EM David 38

39. Camera & Monitor Durable $30.40 Requires waterproofing case 12VDC 8W Waterproof and durable Easy setup $13.64 Outputs video via RCA cable Waterproof 12VDC 60mA (.72W) David 39

40. Wiring Supply power from battery to camera 100 ft copper wires $20.00 Supply image from camera to monitor 50 ft RCA cables $11.49 David 40

41. Waterproofing Hose prevents tangling and waterproofs wires $30.00 50ft long, about 0.3” diameter Fits all power cables inside Liam Acrylic case with sealant Stores monitor Waterproof David 41

42. Example Pole Saw Black and Decker 20V Max Lithium Ion Pole Pruning Saw $159 at Home Depot Up to 100 cuts Cuts up to 6” thick branches 8” long cutting bar Pole can extend 6.5 – 10ft Includes battery & charger http://amzn.com/B00AZW9Y8C 42 David

43. Pole Saw Configuration Pole Saw will be cut in half Pushbutton used to activate cutting tool Wires will be used for connections David 43

44. Power Configuration 44

45. Parts List: Power and Electrical System PartQty Price Per Unit TotalSerial NumberDistributorComment 50-ft Blue Coil Hose1$29.99 27891AmazonWaterproof cables Waterproof Camera1$13.33 B005CTKYB4Amazon Monitor1$29.96 B007SLDF7OAmazon 12V Battery and Charger 1$32.99 B002NYN7EMAmazonFor camera 50 ft Video Cable1$11.49 B006IVGL80Amazon 100 ft Red Copper Wire1$10.77 7587K932McMaster Supply power to cutting tool and camera 100 ft Black Copper Wire 1$10.77 7587K931McMaster Supply power to cutting tool and camera Inline Hand Held Switch 1$5.99 26-5065 MCM Electronics Activate pole saw Total $145.83 David 45

46. Top Risks – Prototype 1.0 1. Thin Sheet Metal on Cart 2. Pole Stresses 3. System Weight 4. Concentrated stress on Pivot Bolts 5. Level Ground Ricardo 46

47. Risk 1: Thin Sheet Metal Cart Simplified analysis Thin stainless steel 150lb Load area is 10x16” patch Min. FOS is 6.55 Max deformation is 0.06" Cart handles 500lbs uniformly distributed, so keep an eye on concentrated stresses Ricardo 47

48. Risk 2: 40ft of Telescoping Pole Fixture stabilizes but concentrates stress on top tube With Fixture VS. No Fixture Ricardo 48

49. Risk 3: System Weight Total weight is 227lb  Can lower by optimizing weight of heaviest parts. Ricardo 49

50. Risk 4: Concentrated Pivot Stresses Do not raise pole if ground isn’t level Pivot Screw Ricardo 50

51. Risk 5: Non-Level Ground Need to ensure horizontal plane is truly horizontal Use Bullseye level If not level, be careful $12.10 Do not raise pole if ground isn’t level Ricardo 51

52. Industrial Aspects 52

53. 53 Louis

54. 54 Louis

55. 55 Louis

56. 56 Louis

57. 57 Louis

58. Mini Prototype VS Final Prototype 58 Louis

59. Project Budget 59 Louis

60. Updated Human-Machine Interface Focus on simplicity by selecting hand operated motions. Increased human labor. Overall analysis of the ergonomic risks involved with each task Bolivar 60

61. Setup of the Pole Heavy Solutions Automate task More than one operator Bolivar 61

62. Rolling the Cart Inputs: Floor to hand height: Shoulder level Frequency: 1/2 min. Push distance Inclination or terrain issues Output Initial force allowed: 31 lbs. < x < 48 lbs. Sustained force allowed: 9 lbs. < x < 31 lbs. Bolivar 62

63. Cranks as Control Activation Mechanism Gripping the tree Extending the pole Bolivar 63

64. Extending the Pole Handle dimensions Length 3.0 – 5, 3.75 preferred Diameter 1.0 – 1.5, 1.0 preferred Turning radius If below 100 rpm 7.5 -20.0 Above 100 rpm 5.0 – 9.0, 2.5 preferred Bolivar 64

65. Gripping the Tree Handle dimensions: Length 1 – 3, 1.5 preferred Diameter.4 –.625,.5 preferred Turning radius: If below 100 rpm (for this crank it most likely will be under 100 rpm) 1.5 -5.0, 3.0 preferred Bolivar 65

66. Ropes as Control Activation Mechanism Rotate the device Cut the fruit Inputs: Distance of pull: 7 feet Frequency: 1/6s Floor to hand height: elbow level Output: Maximum force recommended Initial Force: 35 lbs. Sustained force: 15 lbs. Bolivar 66

67. Prototype 1.0: Feasible Prototype 2.0: Ergonomic Bolivar 67

68. Strengths Simple Safer than conventional climbing Portable Waterproof Easy to use/low training costs Environmentally harmless Low power consumption Economical Opportunities Rising demand for palm oil Increasing concern for the safety of human personnel Lack of competition Threats Cutting tools and complex motions at large heights Human error Weaknesses Total process takes longer than conventional climbing operations Stability concerns Still lacking fail safe system Intense human labor required Gianni 68

69. Fall Schedule 69 Ricardo

70. Spring Schedule 70 Ricardo

71. Summary Cart with Pole instead of tree-climbing robot Designed manual prototype (1.0) Completing procurement next week If Prototype 1.0 works, make 2.0 later 71 Ricardo Prototype 1.0

72. Questions? 72