Report
Report
Report
L3 Final Report
G ROUP 7
www.imperialjumpingrobot.weebly.com
Minglun DAI
CID: 00731629
Marc E MMANUELI
CID: 00732254
Jan F IGALA
CID: 00731892
Tereze G AILE
CID: 00731562
Mehmood H ASSAN
CID: 00731501
Juan L ARREA
CID: 00732526
Marcus R OSE
CID: 00730955
Supervisor:
Mirko KOVAC
Matlab trajectory
During modelling, a point mass assumption was adopted coupled with an estimated weight of 30 grams.
The equations used for theoretical calculations are as follows taken from the applications handout:
1
y(t)
x
(t) =
ACd cos arctan
(x(t)
2 + y(t)
2)
(1)
2m
x(t)
y(t)
1
2mg + ACd sin arctan
(x(t)
2 + y(t)
2)
(2)
x
(t) =
2m
x(t)
These equations were solved with a 4th order Runge Kutta method. The theoretical take off velocity
was calculated to be 8ms1 - this is twice as much as required. However, this is not possible since
friction losses and inefficiencies of the motor impact the performance. The maximum distanced jumped
is predicted to be 1.75m. The graphs obtained for the trajectory are shown below.
Spring calculations
For the spring, we used the equation 12 mv 2 = 12 kx2 . We had already calculated the robot size and
approximated that required spring compression is 3cm. Subsequently, the equations were arranged to
find out the value of the spring stiffness knowing m, v and x from previous calculations. The value of K
was determined as 0.9N mm1 . This is a fairly high spring compression stiffness and after conducting
tests we decided to go for a spring with a lower K value so that a small motor could compress the spring.
(a) Prototype 1
List of prototypes
Prototype 1: Spring was too stiff for motor and manufacturing wasnt accurate due to many separate
glued parts. The inner piston was made from a syringe plunger
Prototype 2: Inner piston designed and printed to hold rack and to reduce friction
Prototype 3: Gear, feet and motor holders printed as one part with the main tube. The spring was
made smaller and less stiff. These modifications reduced the weight from 42g to 26g.
Prototype 4: A worm drive guard was designed to stop the worm drive from moving off axis when
turning the spur gear.
(a) Prototype 7
Merit Function
4.39
Futher improvements
The robots performance could have been improved in numerous ways outlined below.
More budget for buying 2 motors: test one motor to its limit for better understanding of maximum
compressible length of the spring.
Remove leg holders from the tube to save weight.
Replace RF receiver with a working 2.4Ghz receiver, which will reduce the weight by 2g.
Reprint tube with hole cutouts for weight saving and use finite element analysis to ensure the
material is not subjected to critical stresses.
Appendix
Costing
Our overall expenditure for the project was 129.32. The project went over budget for a couple of reasons:
There was a minimum order charge and postage cost for the springs. They were ordered before
the workshop announced that they could order in springs for us.
In order to keep the weight down micro digital receivers were bought (28 each) and the cheapest
suitable transmitter was bought (17).
At all points in the project the cheapest parts were obtained. The worm drive and all gears along
with the motor were sourced from Hong Kong.