P 20365 b Self Solving Rubiks Cube Caleb

P 20365 b: Self Solving Rubik’s Cube Caleb Shouse, Kenji Akaizawa, Mitchell White, Wonjae Kim, Matthew Yee, Josh Wang

Agenda ● ● ● Problem Statement Customer & Engineering Requirements via House Of Quality Functional Decomposition Benchmarking Feasibility: Prototyping, Analysis, SImulation Morphological Chart and Concept Selection Systems Architecture Design Flowchart Risk Assessment Next Phase Plans Questions?

Problem Statement ● A Rubik’s Cube is a 3 D puzzle combining simple mechanical manipulation and logic so that the cube can be rotated and the pieces can be changed from an original position to any other position, containing any possible combination of colors on its faces. ● Due to the resulting complexity, a human might not feasibly be able to find a solution in a reasonable time, if at all. ● The goal of this project is to create a robust prototype largersized Rubik's Cube capable of solving itself, by automatically returning to its original position in an expedient manner, as well as be capable of being solved manually.

Previous Phase Plans vs. Phase Accomplishments Previous Phase Plan: ● For the systems level design review phase, the mechanical engineers would like to have an initial CAD design, the electrical engineers would like to have a basic nature of the hardware and wiring thoughts, and the computer engineers would like to have a coding language selected, and experimentation with a Rubik’s cube algorithm in code. What was actually accomplished: ● ● Components were researched and compared using morphological analysis and Pugh charts. Feasibility analysis was performed on the main components supporting concepts that are developed using the morph chart. A concept was selected as the ideal solution with a few backup selections. A functional decomposition of the project was constructed using a function tree and a systems architecture.

House Of Quality

Functional Decomposition

Benchmarking

Feasibility - Microcontrollers u. Controller Arduino Uno Raspberry Pi 3 B+ Intel Edison Arduino Dimension 2. 7 in x 2. 1 in 3. 3 in x 2. 2 in x 0. 8 in 5 in x 2. 8 in x 0. 5 in Weight 25 g 50 g 152 g Speed 16 MHz 1. 2 GHz 500 MHz Power 5 V / 50 m. A 5. 1 V / 2. 5 A micro. USB 5 V / 32 m. A

Feasibility - Motors Motor Stepper Motor Servomotor Voltage Draw 6. 2 - 6. 6 V 4. 8 - 6 V Current Draw 0. 8 - 3. 0 A 160 - 180 m. A Torque 1. 0 - 63. 0 kg-cm 42 - 143 kg-cm Dimension Nema 11 - Nema 32 1. 57 in x 0. 78 in x 1. 43 in Weight 100 g - 4. 9 kg 43 g - 60 g Pole Count 50 - 100 4 - 12 Cost $10. 50 - $93. 75 $13 - $30

Feasibility Analysis - Power Consumption Total required voltage draw: ~5 V + ~6 V = 11 V => 11 V - 15 V Total required current draw ~32 m. A - 2. 5 A + ~170 m. A - 3. 0 A = 0. 202 A - 5. 5 A Required Battery Power: 2. 222 W - 82. 5 W

Feasibility Analysis - Weight Requirement Cube Material Plexiglass: Polycarbonate: Acrylic Nylon: 1. 18 g/cm^3 1. 20 g/cm^3 1. 19 g/cm^3 1. 14 g/cm^3 Dimension Requirement: ~10 in x 10 in per side => 3. 5 in x 3. 5 in per cube => 8. 89 cm x 8. 89 cm per cube ( 1. 2 g/cm^3 ) * ( 8. 89 cm^3 ) = 10. 668 g per cube ( 10. 668 g per cube ) * 9 cubes per side = 90. 012 g per side Apply 10% tolerance => 80 - 100 g per side ( 10. 668 g per cube ) * 26 cubes per Rubik’s cube = 277. 368 g total for solid cube

Feasibility Analysis - Weight Requirement (cont’d) Total Weight: < 10 lb, 4. 536 kg u. Controller weight: 25 g - 152 g Motors weight: ( 43 g - 4. 9 kg ) x 6 motors = 258 g - 29. 4 kg Total weight of cubes: 277. 368 g u. Controller weight + total weight of cubes = 277. 368 g + 152 g = 429. 368 g Total weight target - total weight of u Controller and cubes = 4. 536 kg - 429. 368 g = 4. 106 kg Weight allowance / number of motors = 4 kg / 6 motors = 666. 6 g / motor

Feasibility Analysis - Dimension Requirement Total Dimension: 10. 5 in x 10. 5 in Cube dimension: 3. 5 in x 3. 5 in Motor dimension: 3. 3 in x 2. 2 in x 0. 8 in - 5 in x 2. 8 in x 0. 5 in Total dimension - ( cube dimension + motor dimension ) = 10. 5 in - ( 3. 5 in + ( 3. 3 in - 5 in ) ) Total dimension allowance for motors = 2. 0 in - 3. 7 in

Feasibility Analysis: Theoretical Cost

Morphology Chart

Resulting Concepts From Morphology Chart

Motor Comparison Pugh Chart

u. Controller Comparison Pugh Chart

Concept Selection

Concept Selection

Final Selection

Systems Architecture

Flowchart

Risk Assessment

Project Plans

Plans for next phase As a team, by the next review would like to have begun prototyping for the purpose of engineering analysis, and have conducted more analysis and simulation regarding the feasibility of the final deliverable product. Along with this, we would like to have conceptual drawings and flowcharts encompassing the findings of the analyses. Through this we can create a basic bill of materials, denoting the materials required to create the final product. Risk assessment will again be considered to see if any new risks have appeared, or if the severity of others must be altered. Lastly, the team would like to consider what must be accomplished during the next phase.

Questions?