Team 23 Enterprises Presents Outline of Presentation Objectives

Team 23 Enterprises Presents… ™

Outline of Presentation Objectives / Parameters l Robot Prototype Design l l Hardware l Software Cost and Feasibility l Prototype System Analysis l Evaluation and Conclusion l

Objectives • To demonstrate the feasibility of an autonomously operated robotic retrieval system (AORRS) • To move manufactured products from specified storage locations to a centralized repository within a warehouse facility

Parameters operate within 12” wide corridor l travel to a calculated “home location” l minimum running velocity of 0. 5 ft/s l total average velocity of 0. 3 ft/s l travel to bins l transmit a signal at bins l return to home location. l

Robot Design Lucky III (Final Design)

Preliminary Hardware Design l Design X l l No turning / locked axles Operated on 1 motor Distance based on time Lucky I l l l 2 drive wheels plus 2 guiding wheels lifting motor to allow turning Distance and turning based on time

Preliminary Hardware Design (cont. ) l Lucky II l l 2 drive wheels plus 2 guiding wheels More stable and accurate lift motor mechanism Synchronizing drive wheel mechanism Distance and turn based on time

Lucky III (Final Design) Two Chassis Design l 4 wheels per Chassis (2 drive / 2 guiding) l Light Sensor Odometer System l Lift motor for changing chassis l

Lucky III special features… N/S chassis Lucky III w/ 2 chassis design E/W Chassis

Light Sensor Odometer Lift Mechanism / Guide Rails

Accurate Turning

Software Design (Fortran) Start l l Inputs bin information from the user Creates a C header file Outputs movement map Map is well formatted and easy to use Input Calc Home Loc. Valid Home Loc. ? No Adjust Home Loc. Yes Bubble. Sort Output Stop

Software Design (C) l l User-defined functions Easy to modify Measures distance with light sensors Only runs necessary motors #define #define NUMBINS 4 NUMRETR { 2, 3, 2, 1} LOITERTIME 15. 0 XPOS { 5, 2, 3, 3} YPOS { 3, 7, 5, 5} HOMEX 4 HOMEY 6 FORCE 7

Start Input Move to home I = 0 Is I < Number Incr. I of Bins? No Yes I 2 = 0 Is I 2 < Number of Incr. I 2 Retrievals? Yes No Move to bin Loiter and transmit Return Home Stop

Cost and Feasibility Production cost of a single robot: Part Quantity Price Subtotals RCX Motor Light Sensor Misc. parts (total) Assembly 1 3 2 - $85, 000 $10, 000 $5, 000 $85, 000 $45, 000 $20, 000 $10, 000 $5, 000 Total $165, 000

Man Hours Purpose # Team members Hours spent Subtotal Subtask 1 robot construction and programming 4 12 48 Subtask 1 presentation 3 3 9 Subtask 2 robot modifications and programming 4 3 12 Subtask 2 presentation 4 3 12 Complete robot redesign and construction 1 9 9 Subtask 3 robot programming and testing 4 16 64 Subtask 3 presentation 4 3 12 Brick OS meeting 1 1 1 Subtask 4 robot programming and testing 4 5 20 Subtask 4 presentation 2 3 6 Complete robot redesign and construction 1 16 16 Final robot programming and testing 4 18 72 Independent programming 1 2 2 Transmission and distance testing at office hours 2 3 6 Preparation for final presentation 3 2 6 Final presentation 4 3 12 Total 307

Development Cost and Breaking Even l Development cost = (307) × ($17, 000) = $5, 219, 000 l To Break even: ($250, 000) × # of Robots = ($165, 000) × # of Robots + ($5, 219, 000) ] # of Robots ≈ 62 l This is a reasonable number of robots

Replacing Standard Forklifts l Cost to operate 1 forklift for 1 year l 2 operators/hr × 24 hrs/day × 349 days/yr × $18/hr = $301, 536 per year/forklift l Robot = $0 l Multiplied by 62 forklifts (only break even) Almost $19 million difference.

Replacing Standard Forklifts l Pros l Save money l Never get tired l Flat rate (no inflation, benefits, etc. ) l Cons l Technicians l Loss require more training of jobs l Loss of human judgement

Prototype System Analysis l Mechanical design (positive aspects) l l l Two chassis-system Light sensor odometer system Use of higher motor speeds and gearing-down Reliable lifting mechanism Programming design (positive aspects) l l l Use of functions for every operation (C program) Extensive testing (both Fortran and C) Simplistic use of language minimizes errors (Fortran) Use of format statements to perfect movement map (Fortran) User-Friendly (Fortran)

Prototype System Analysis l Mechanical design (negative aspects) l Design was relatively frail l Incapable of turning l Room for improvement of light sensor odometer system l Slight tire slippage l Programming design (negative aspects) l Minimal error trapping (both Fortran and C)

Evaluation and Conclusion We felt that we had the correct focus for this project— eliminate or minimize error l Areas Error was eliminated or minimized: l l Turning l Distance traveled l Going straight l Areas where error remains l Average velocity and time to travel to a bin

Evaluation l Overall, Lucky III performed well l l Earned 90 / 100 pts. Shortcomings l l Robot required redress Some time predictions inaccurate Conclusion l l Our robot prototype outperformed that of others by a significant margin. The design we used would be successful in a real warehouse setting, with minimal modifications.

Don’t be a fool, stay in school!