ME 2110 D

The Georgia Tech Experience Final Report

Domino Effect:
Seunghwan Bae
Mike Goldstein
Rebecca Kwon
Robert Patterson

Submitted to:
Instructor: Kristi Mehaffey
TA: Amber Xu
July 27, 2016
 1

Executive Summary
The Georgia Tech Experience is a competition in which all Mechanical Engineering
Students at Georgia Tech must participate in. The competition has become notorious for its ever
changing style and constraints, demanding students to build autonomous machines to complete
various tasks.
For this semester’s Georgia Tech Experience Competition, a team’s machine had to be
able to complete the three tasks of obtaining good grades, getting sleep, and returning the T back
to the Tech Tower. Obtaining good grades requires the machine to retrieve the A into the
transcript zone as well as expelling the F from the designated team zone. Getting sleep requires
the machine to retrieve pillows completely into the zone. Finally, returning the T back to the
Tech Tower includes transporting two T’s into Tech Tower area. The encompassing problem
will be to successfully execute all aspects of the Georgia Tech Experience Competition.
The goal for the Georgia Tech Experience was to design and build a machine that would
successfully accomplish all of the tasks for the competition, and ultimately win the competition.
The designed machine had to be robust and provide reliable performance during testing and
building phase as well as the competition. The machine had to outperform other machines at the
competition and appeal to the judges for maximum points.
The problem was analyzed using problem understanding tools such as the house of
quality and function tree. Concept solutions were produced by creating and analyzing a
morphological chart. The systems were evaluated by analyzing design requirements and
comparisons. The evaluation matrices indicated that the Domino should be the final solution for
the Georgia Tech Experience machine. The Domino was the most optimal of the concept
solutions based on high theoretical score value (73 points) and robustness. The Domino features
simple and robust solutions, such as linear bearings and hinges, for the different tasks of the
competition. Pneumatics and actuators used for the machine are minimal to prevent
entanglement of wires and complexity of code.
The final machine placed third in the fourth round at the Georgia Tech Experience
competition with a total of three wins. The Domino Effect received a total score of 23.67 out of
30 for the design review. For more complete and robust design for the machine, a more lenient
time constraint would be required. More attention to detail, for example, the T-holder, as well as
improvements in accuracy with more trials would have greatly enhanced the final machine.
 2

Introduction
To be successful at the Georgia Tech Experience, Domino Effect had to create an
autonomous machine designed to successfully get sleep, get good grades, and return the T back
to the Tech Tower. The Georgia Tech Arena is presented in Figure 1. The task of getting sleep
includes retrieving pillows into the team’s zone to receive 8, 6, and 4 points for the large,
medium, and small pillows respectively. To get good grades in the competition, the machine had
to retrieve the A into the team’s transcript zone and expel the F from the team’s zone. An A in
the transcript zone is awarded 15 points. An F in the transcript zone penalizes the team by -15
points while an F in the designated team zone is penalized -8 points. A partial F in the zone is
penalized -4 points. If the F is fully out of the zone, 0 points are awarded to the team. Finally, to
return the T, the designed machine had to be able to place the two T’s, each worth 15 points, in
the vertical region above the Tech Tower. The ultimate goal of the Georgia Tech Experience was
to obtain the most points and outperform other machines.
As presented in the house of quality in Figure 2, the highest ranking customer
requirement is to get pillows. Getting pillows is the most important requirement because
retrieving the two sets (large, medium, and small) of pillows from both sides of the zone results
in a total score of 36 points. This is much larger than the point assignments of obtaining the A,
expelling the F, or returning the two T’s. However, obtaining the A and returning the two T’s
also results in significant point values, and therefore are rated just below retrieving pillows in
customer importance. It is critical to note that failing to push the F out of the zone will result in
significant point loss, and therefore is also an important requirement. The challenge of this
project was to focus on receiving the most points as possible from all aspects of the Georgia
Tech Experience.
The function tree presented in Figure 3 presents all main functions and subfunctions of
the machine for the Georgia Tech Experience. One of the more difficult subfunctions to achieve
was accommodating for the changing location of the A and F. The A and F were to be placed
randomly, either on the left or right side of the team’s zone. The machine had to be able to
accommodate and adapt accordingly in less than the 3 minutes and 45 seconds setup time.
Another difficult subfunction to achieve was placing the two T’s in the Tech Tower area. This
task was difficult due to the requirement that the judges had to be able to remove the T’s from
the holder with one direction of motion.
 3

A list of specifications and requirements for the project is presented in the specification
sheet in Table 4. Of the listed specifications, an important requirement to focus on was to ensure
that the machine did not require part replacement before 5 uses. This ensured that during the
competition, the machine was robust and performed consistently. Other important specifications
are under the kinematics subsection of the specification sheet. These parameters and tolerances
were important during machining and building so that deployments were performed accurately
and with precision.
After understanding the problem thoroughly, a morphological chart is presented in Figure
5 and was drafted to offer multiple design solutions for each of the subfunctions generated in the
function tree given in Figure 3. The solutions for reaching the location of the A and F are almost
synonymous due to both functions being similar in mechanical design. The solutions include the
use of simple machines, mechatronics, and gravity. Solutions such as the sweep are repeated in
obtaining and retrieving the A, F, and pillows due to practicality and simplicity of the design.
The morph chart was used to create generate alternative solutions for a final system.
The design objectives for the machine were to create an ultimate machine that focused on
each aspect of the Georgia Tech Experience. One of the important points was to retrieve the
pillows on either side first to guard against other teams as well as claim the shared pillows before
other teams. Another important design objective was to keep the machine simple and robust to
optimize consistency and reliability.
System Description
The selected system, Domino, was determined to be the most effective design due to its
evaluation rating when compared to 4 alternative systems. Figure 5 demonstrates a collapsed and
deployed version of Domino and exposes all of its components. The machine’s overall
dimensions when collapsed are displayed in Figure 6 and allow for a one-inch tolerance on each
dimension, bringing its final dimensions to 11in. x 23in. x 17in. The subassemblies within
Domino are the A and F strikers, the two arms for obtaining pillows, and the T-Return
mechanism. Each of these subassemblies was inspired by the design solutions presented in the
morphological chart and made Domino, as a whole, rated best compared to alternative systems.
The A and F strikers, presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively, were inspired by
the sweeping design solutions shown within the morphological chart for both subfunctions of
getting the A and removing the F. Both strikers are equal in size and build, and are created by
 4

attaching a thin plank to the wire end of a mousetrap. Each striker is oriented differently to
accommodate for the direction of the force required to expel the F from the zone and retrieve the
A into the transcript zone. This solution provides a simple mechanism for two tasks and the
orientation of the mousetraps can be quickly manipulated to account for the changing position of
the A and F. The A and F strikers will be triggered by a tension force from connected string that
releases a pin hook and eye hook trigger system.
Domino’s design solution for obtaining pillows is provided in Figure 10. Two single
jointed arms with shoulder joints are initially positioned at an upright angle and are to be
deployed outward by a single pneumatic piston positioned behind the pillow arm pusher. The
pillow arms will then be rotated to the outer corners of the team zone by a DC motor on both
sides of the machine. This design solution was chosen for its size efficiency and reliability
compared to other solutions.
The third subassembly for Domino is the T-Return mechanism and is shown in Figure 9.
Linear bearings guide a wooden platform with the aid of gravity and a pneumatic piston towards
the Tech Tower. At the end of the tracks, an arm which sits on the platform is deployed by the
release of multiple mousetraps. On the far side of the arm is a T-holder that is designated to hold
the two T’s. Domino will be powered by the track and controlled by a program loaded into the
NI myRio. The program will include the use of two pneumatic pistons and a large and small DC
motor.
The theoretical expected score for the Domino is 73 points. The Domino is designed to
retrieve the A, Expel the F and return the two T’s for a total of 45 points. The small pillows are
avoided to ensure that the arms do not hinder the movements of the A-Striker and F-Striker, thus
the total points from the medium and large pillows obtained from either side are worth 28 points.
The Domino finalized at a cost of $45.89 and a total weight of 27.39 lbs. The cost and the
materials is outlined in detail in the bill of materials presented in Figure 12. The components of
the machine which were most expensive were the linear bearings, at $9.49 for each side, and the
two shoulder joints used to allow the pillow arms to swivel with two degrees of freedom (yaw
and pitch). Overall, the Domino is significantly under the budget of $100 which is an important
quality. The Domino offers a functioning machine for under half of the cost of other competing
machines.
 5

Concept Alternatives
Alternative concept designs were created using the morphological chart displayed in
Figure 5. Many of the alternative concepts use similar mechanisms, such as sweeping and linear
bearings, while others take less traditional approaches, such as using trap and reel methods to
obtain points.
The first alternative design presented is Tampered-With, shown in Figure 13. Tampered-
With includes a pendulum, triggered by the release of a string, to knock the F out of the zone, a
linear bearing mechanism to reach the T from a platform, a sweeping mechanism for the A, and a
single jointed arm to gather pillows. The sweeping mechanism for the A is triggered by a
mousetrap and string while the pendulum, linear bearings, and single jointed arm are triggered by
releasing a pin by the use of a pneumatic piston. The single jointed arm to gather the pillows will
be bent inwards by the use of another piston to slightly push the pillows into the zone. The
deployed view for Tampered-With is shown in Figure 14.
Displayed next, in Figure 15, is the concept alternative, Slider-Man. This machine is the
only alternative system that provides mechanisms to gather pillows from both sides. The
deployed view for Slider-Man can be seen in Figure 16. The pillow gathering mechanism sweep
inwards triggered by mousetraps. It also presents a hinged arm that is flipped by the use of a
pneumatic piston. This arm is placed on the platform, guided by linear bearings, to transport the
two T’s to Tech Tower. The two striker flaps on the platform operate in a similar manner as
Domino’s subassembly for obtaining the A and expelling the F.
Stag Beetle, presented in Figure 17, features a simple mechanical design and is the only
concept alternative without linear bearings. The Stag Beetle uses a hinged double arm feature to
strike away the F and gather pillows from one side. The hinged double arm will be rotated by the
use of a piston. A net in the middle of the machine will deploy outward and trap the A from its
position and reel it into the transcript zone using a spool fixed to a DC motor. The two T’s are
delivered by a basket and pulley mechanism that will deploy and hang above Tech Tower. The
pulley mechanism will also be activated by the use of another DC motor. The expanded view for
the Stag Beetle is presented in Figure 18.
Game of Thrown is depicted in Figure 19 and Figure 20. Game of Thrown features a
linear bearing and pneumatic piston catapult system to launch the two T’s onto Tech Tower. It
also uses a rake-like arm to gather the pillows in from one side using a DC motor and a rolling
 6

cylinder released from a ramp by a mousetrap to expel the F. The machine has a rotating, single-
hinged arm to sweep out and transport the A into the transcript zone.

Concept Evaluation Method

After creating the alternative concepts, evaluation matrices were used to decide which
designs best fulfilled each requirement. A 1st level evaluation matrix is given in Figure 21 and
was created to compare the alternative designs to the Domino. When compared, Slider-Man is
the most similar to the Domino due to identical point functions, quick setup, and cost. The Stag
Beetle has the most characteristics that are better than the Dominos such as ease of build and
ease of boxing, yet fails to excel in design criteria that pertain to scoring points. Although the
Stag Beetle has more positive points than the other alternative solutions, the Slider-Man has a
better net relationship than the Stag Beetle. However, the difference is negligible being a total of
-2 for Slider-Man and -3 for the Stag Beetle when compared to the Domino.
The 1st level evaluation matrix shows that the selected system Domino lacks rigidity and
robustness when compared to alternative systems. The robustness of Domino was improved by
observing what made these alternative systems more robust. For instance, Domino uses the most
mousetraps which are notorious for losing rigidity and structural strength over time. The design
team took action to implement replacement mechanisms for these questionable traps so that the
final system, Domino, could be as robust and reliable as possible for the final competition.
A 3rd level evaluation matrix, presented in Figure 22, was created to give a numeric
value to each design criteria and to calculate relative totals for each system based on the
fulfillment of all criteria. The Stag Beetle ranks high in the evaluation matrix due to its
advantages in cost effectiveness, safety, quick setup, simple design, quick boxing, and easy
positioning. However, in order to be considered as a viable design, the mechanisms for
obtaining points and overall robust and adaptable design must be improved. The Slider-Man
also ranked high compared to Tampered-With and Game of Thrown. Ultimately, the highest
ranking design was Domino, ranking just above Stag Beetle due to its advantages in completing
the heavier weighted tasks of getting pillows, obtaining the A, and pushing the F out of the zone.
Domino also ranks highly in robustness compared to alternative designs and further validates the
decision to build it as the final machine.
 7

Performance Results
Previous experience for subsystem trials are a vital asset to the team’s success. Primarily,
deciding on a device that can be improved over time was given the utmost importance. Table 23
presents the total scores for individual performance rounds. Although having the lowest score,
Rebecca Kwon’s overall structure and design was used for both weeks of subsystem testing,
which allowed for more testing time and improvement. Rebecca Kwon’s overall structure
included the use of support pillars, a rectangular base board, and linear bearings. In the past,
creating subsystems that could not be viably combined with future subsystems was a mistake that
lost time and points. Furthermore, repeated practice revealed that larger margins of error are
needed to complete the task under pressure. Mike Goldstein’s systems were complex and relied
on precise boxing and triggers, resulting in a DQ from the final round due to time constraints.
Finally, a simple, reliable mechanism was found to reduce errors significantly, shown by Robert
Patterson, and Seunghwan Bae’s notable performances by using simple rolling and flipping
motions. Collectively, this knowledge allowed for improved design selection and construction
for the team project.
Practice trials for the team preliminary contest indicated that the simple piston flipping
mechanism used for the two T’s and smacking used for the A proved to be easy to make, yet
effective. Although retrieving the A proved to be the most difficult during trials, the rotating
Tech Tower during the contest was not accounted for during the contest, and thus the machine
unexpectedly failed to hold the two T’s. Results from the team preliminary contest are featured
in Table 24. During the team preliminary contest, the machine scored a total of 105 points out of
a high score of 135. The more iteration and practice Domino Effect has deploying the final
system, the more reliable the team, and the machine, will perform during final competition.
For the team qualifying round, Domino Effect averaged a score of 3.25 out of a class
maximum of 44 as presented in Table 25. This resulted in a seed number of 19. Of the rounds in
the qualifying contest, there was one disqualification due to the set up time limit. The A- Striker
was over the overall dimensions for the machine, and had to be removed in order to quickly
adapt to the situation. Due to the dimensional constraints as well as the lack of cable and tube
management, the Domino was completely reconstructed for the Georgia Tech Experience
competition.
 8

After the Domino was completely reconstructed, trials during studio were run to improve
accuracy and precision. Trials conducted prior to the Georgia Tech Experience competition are
presented in Figure 26. Although the Domino was theoretically expected a total score of 72
points, the average score the Domino received during trials was 46.7 points.
Project planning tools such as the Gantt chart have greatly aided in the success of the
build of the machine. Due to correct following of the Gantt chart presented in Figure 27, the
team was able to have relative success during the team preliminary contest. During the build and
design phase for the team qualifying contest, the machine experienced unexpected difficulties in
trigger mechanisms and machine maintenance. However, in order to follow the Gantt chart as
well as perform well in the team qualifying contest, the necessary adjustments were made to
ensure success. The Gantt chart was strictly followed to ensure that the final machine was
completed in a timely manner.
Final Georgia Tech Experience Competition performance results are presented in Table
28. The Domino was awarded first place in the first round and second place in the second round.
The Domino also received first place for the third round. The Domino Effect ultimately placed
third place in the fourth round. The average score for the competition was 39.5 which was lower
than the trial run average. Some of the problems that the Domino experienced were that the DC
motor stalled when the pillow arms were blocks by opponents’ machines and the T-holder failed
in the 4th round, which resulted in a loss of a potential 15 awarded points.

Conclusion
In order to design and create a machine for the Georgia Tech Experience competition, a
thorough understanding for the problem and design requirements were needed. It was analyzed
that the most important requirements were to obtain the maximum amount of points possible
while also meeting competition rules and restrictions. It was revealed that the Domino would be
the final design used for the competition due to its strengths in obtaining the most points.
Preliminary results from the team preliminary contest revealed that the simple design of the
Domino had promising results. After the machine was entirely rebuilt for the Georgia Tech
Experience competition, the machine was cleaner and more robust.
Teamwork and organization are two key factors for success at the Georgia Tech
Experience competition. Good organizational skills, such as a checklist for set up, are crucial for
 9

the competition. Efficient and quality teamwork is also significant for successful project process.
The Domino Effect possessed both qualities and worked diligently to meet all task deadlines and
time constraints.
In future work, it will be necessary to improve on efficiency and attention to detail. If the
design is outlined with more detail, it will improve on machining time as well as reduce mistakes
produced during the building process. The problem understanding tools, planning tools, and
machining skills obtained from the Georgia Tech Experience Competition will be pragmatic for
future studies and in industry.
 Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Overhead View of the Georgia Tech Arena [1]

 +
−
Correlations
+ + −
+ − +
Positive +
Negative −
+ − −
No Correlation
− − − +
+ + +
Relationships + + −
Strong 5 + + + +
Moderate 3 + + + −
Weak 1 + + − + −
− + − − + −
Column # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Requirements
Engineering

Pillow Arm Deployment Time

Measurement/Inspection(in)

Reaching F/A Distance

Interface/Ease of Use

A Transcript Accuracy

Reaching T Distance
Machine Endurance
Within Budget
Set Up Time
Score Points

Consistency

Easy to Box
Run Time
Customer
Requirements
(Explicit and
Weight

Implicit)

10 Get Pillows 5 1 1 3 3 5 1 1
9 Obtain A 5 3 3 1 3 3 5 1
8 Push F out of Zone 5 3 3 1 3 3 5 1
9 Return Two T's 5 1 1 3 3 1 5
8 Be Robust 3 1 3 5 5 5
7 Reliable/Repeatable 3 5 3 3 3 3 3
6 Maintanence - Easy to Fix if Broken 3 5 1 5 1 3 3 3 3 3
5 Cost Effective 1 5 1 3
6 No Damage to Track 3 3 3
7 Easy/Quick Setup 5 5 1 1 3
9 Autonomous 3 3 3 1 5
8 Within Time Limit 1 5 5 5 5
7 Precise Positioning 5 3 5 1 3 1 1 5 1
1 Aesthetically Pleasing 3 1
6 Optimized Total Volume 1 3 5 5 1
8 Safety 3 5 5 1 1
Small Pillows, Return Ts, Get A, Remove F)

1 team member to box, 1 Team member to

10 Consecutive Trials
Machine Isolated System Set up <1min
Target Score: 81 Points (2 Large, Med,

Perform without Maintenance ≥ 5 trials

Min 12 in Forward, Min 9 in. parallel to

≥ 90% Successful Trials

≤ (23"x11"x17") ±0.5"

Min 1.16ft Vertically

Min 2.5 ft Forward;
guide, Max 20 sec.

Transcript font
<3 Min 45 Sec

≤ 40 Sec
Performs consistently for ≥

≤ 2 Sec
≤ 100$

Target

Max Relationship 30 27 31 15 21 24 22 17 25 26 21 17 15
Technical Importance Rating 256 211 230 100 125 196 193 113 194 194 151 128 106
Relative Weight 12% 10% 10% 5% 6% 9% 9% 5% 9% 9% 7% 6% 5%

Figure 2: House of Quality for the Georgia Tech Experience Machine [2]
Figure 3: Function Tree for the Georgia Tech Experience Machine
 Table 4: Specification Sheet for the Georgia Tech Experience Machine
Changes D/W Requirement Responsibility Source
Win the Georgia Tech Experience Competition

Geometry
7/2/2016 D Overall Dimensions: ≤ (23in x 11in x 17in) ±0.5 in/dim. Design Team Studio 3 Diagram [6]
6/18/2016 D Transcript Zone: 2.5ft x 2.5ft Design Team Studio 3 Diagram [6]

Kinematics
7/12/2016 D T Deployment: (|x| <0.5ft, 2.5ft < y < 3ft, z > 1.16ft) Rebecca Kwon Studio 3 Diagram [6]
7/12/2016 D Reaching F: (9in < x < 12in, 12in < y < 15in) Mike Goldstein Studio 3 Diagram [6]
7/12/2016 W Displacing F: Min. 24in (+y and x direction) Mike Goldstein Studio 3 Diagram [6]
7/12/2016 D Reaching A: (9in < x < 12in, 12in < y < 15in) Seunghwan Bae Studio 3 Diagram [6]
7/12/2016 D Acceptable A Displacement: Min 1.083 ft (-y direction) Seunghwan Bae
7/12/2016 D Reaching Past Closest (Large) Pillow Min 2.06 ft * Robert Patterson In-Lab Measurments y
7/12/2016 D Reaching Past Furthest (Small) Pillow Min 2.33 ft * Robert Patterson In-Lab Measurments
Acceptable Pillow Displacement: Min 1in toward Zone from x
7/12/2016 D original position Robert Patterson In-Lab Measurments
*measurements according to figure directions
z
Forces
6/18/2016 W Maximum Total Load Support ≤ 25lbs Robert Patterson Design Team
7/2/2016 D Small DC Motor Weight: 0.39lb Robert Patterson ANAHEIM [4] Part # BDSG-37-30-12V-5000-R100
7/2/2016 D Large DC Motor Weight: 0.44lb Robert Patterson ANAHEIM [4] Part #BDSG-37-40-12V-5000-R75
7/2/2016 D Empty Pressure Tank Weight: 1.20lbs Robert Patterson FESTO [3] Part # CRVZS-0.4
7/2/2016 D Piston Weight (x2): 0.41lb Robert Patterson FESTO [3] Part # ESNU-20-50-P-A
7/12/2016 D A Weight: 0.154 lb Mike Goldstein In-Lab Measurements
7/12/2016 D F Weight: 0.176 lb Mike Goldstein In-Lab Measurements
7/12/2016 D T Weight: 0.159 lb Mike Goldstein In-Lab Measurements
Small Pillow Weight: 5.4 g
Medium Pillow Weight: 9.8 g
7/12/2016 D Large Pillow Weight: 18.2 g Mike Goldstein In-Lab Measurements

Component Specs
7/2/2016 D Unloaded DC Output Speed: 73 rpm Rebecca Kwon Motor Spec Sheet [7]
7/2/2016 D DC Stall Torque: 1.5 N·m Rebecca Kwon Motor Spec Sheet [7]
7/2/2016 D Working Range of IR Sensor: 4 to 30 in Seunghwan Bae OEM [8]
7/2/2016 D Air Tank Operating Pressure: -0.96 to 16 bar Robert Patterson FESTO [1] Part # CRVZS-0.4
7/20/2016 D Air Tank Volume: 0.4 L Robert Patterson FESTO [1] Part # CRVZS-0.4
7/12/2016 D Actuator Pressure Range: 0 to 120 psi Robert Patterson GRAINGER [10] Part # 6JJ52
7/12/2016 D Large Solenoid Max Stroke Length: 1" Seunghwan Bae OEM [9]
7/12/2016 D Rated DC Motor Torque: 0.5 N·m Rebecca Kwon Motor Spec Sheet [7]
7/12/2016 D MyRio Min Power Requirement: 14 W Seunghwan Bae National Insturments [5]

Energy
7/12/2016 D Max Pressure Tank Energy: 640 J (16atm x 0.4L) Design Team FESTO [3] Part # CRVZS-0.4
7/12/2016 D Arena Wall Mount Voltage: 110 V Design Team Standard
7/12/2016 D Gravity: 32.2ft/s² Design Team Standard
7/12/2016 D Max Number of Mousetraps: 5 Seunghwan Bae Standard

Materials
6/18/2016 W Base Supports ≥ 25lbs Seunghwan Bae Design Team

Maintenance
6/18/2016 W Lasts ≥ 5 uses before part replacement Design Team Design Team

Safety
6/18/2016 D Deployment remains ≤ 3.5ft Perimeter of Arena Rebecca Kwon Standard

Cost
6/18/2016 D Materials Cost ≤ $100 Robert Patterson Standard

Operation
6/18/2016 D Setup Time ≤ 3min 45sec Mike Goldstein Standard
6/18/2016 D Run Time ≤ 40sec Design Team Standard
6/18/2016 D Breakdown Time ≤ 2min 20sec Seunghwan Bae Standard
7/2/2016 D MyRio Reboot Time ≥ 20sec & ≤ 25sec Design Team In-Lab Trials
Figure 5: Morphological Chart for the Georgia Tech Experience Machine
 17 in

in
23
11
in

Figure 6: Selected Concept- Domino (Collapsed)

 myRio
n
- R etur m
T is
ec han Pneumatic Piston
M x2

23 in

DC Motor x2

Striker

Pillow Arms F- Striker 27 in

34 in

Figure 7: Selected Concept – Domino (Expanded)

 Connected String

Pin hook Trigger

Thin Plank

Eye hook Trigger

Mousetrap

A Striker

Figure 8: A-Striker of the Selected Concept Domino

 Pin hook Trigger

Connected String

Mousetrap

Eye hook Trigger

Thin Plank

F- Striker

Figure 9: F-Striker of the Selected Concept Domino

 Pneumatic Piston

Pillow Arm Pusher

Shoulder Joints DC Motor

Joint

Figure 10: Pillow Arms of the Selected Concept Domino

T-Holder
Linear Bearings

Pneumatic Piston

Arm
Wooden Platform

Mousetraps

Figure 11: T-Return Mechanism of the Selected Concept Domino

 Table 12: Bill of Materials for Selected Concept Domino
Bill of Materials: Project/Product Development
Project: The Georgia Tech Experience

Engineering Team: Rebecca Kwon

The Domino Effect Mike Goldstein
Seunghwan Bae
Robert Patterson

Date: 7-22-2016

Functional
Analysis Mfg. + Other Analysis
Module/ Part Description/
# Name Qty Unit Cost Function Mfg. Process Dimensions Mass Material
A-1: Lumber
Materials
Home Depot - Thickness = 3/4 in;
Provide Load Lumber & Length = 23 in; 4.83 lbs
A-1-1 Baseboard 1 $2.74 Support Composites [3] Width = 11 in (2.75 lb/ft^2) Birch Plywood
Provide Load Home Depot - Thickness = 2 in;
Support and Lumber & Length = 15.6 in; Prime Kiln-Dried
A-1-2 Leg Supports 4 $0.45 Structure Stability Composites [3] Width = 4 in 2.11 lbs Whitewood Stud
Prevents T Arm Home Depot - Thickness = 2 in;
Deployment and Lumber & Length = 11 in; Prime Kiln-Dried
A-1-3 Back Ceiling 1 $0.32 Adds Stability Composites [3] Width = 4 in 1.48 lbs Whitewood Stud
Supports and
Restrains
Pneumatics and Pneumatic Home Depot - Thickness = 1/2 in; Hobby Board Kiln
Wire Restraint Pistons and Lumber & Length = 7 in; Dried S4S Poplar
A-1-4 Platform 1 $1.23 Wires Composites [3] Width = 5 in 1.49 lbs Board
Attaches to
Linear Home Depot - Thickness = 1/2 in; Hobby Board Kiln
Bearings and Lumber & Length = 6 in; Dried S4S Poplar
A-1-5 Platform 1 $0.93 Supports T Arm Composites [3] Width = 4 in 1.02 lbs Board
Pressure Treated
Thickness = 1/4 in; Pine (Home
Transports T's Home Depot - Length = 20 in; Depot
A-1-6 T Arm 1 $0.15 to Tech Tower Paint Dept. [3] Width = 1 in 0.32 lb Paint Stick)
Pressure Treated
Thickness = 1/4 in; Pine (Home
Provide Impulse Home Depot - Length = 6 in; Depot
A-1-7 Striker 2 $0.15 to A or F Paint Dept. [3] Width = 1 in 0.11 lb Paint Stick)
Pressure Treated
Retrieve Pillows Thickness = 1/4 in; Pine (Home
Located on Home Depot - Length = 40 in; Depot -2 Paint
A-1-8 Pillow Arm 2 $0.15 Corners of Arena Paint Dept. [3] Width = 1 in 0.64 lb Sticks)
B-1: Bearings
B-2: Brackets
Transports
Platform into Home Depot - Slide Length = 22 in;
Arena on Linear Tools and Width = 1/2 in;
B-1-1 Linear Bearings 2 $9.49 Path Hardware [3] Height = 1 in 2.1 lbs Stainless Steel
Acts as Swivel - Home Depot - Length = 2 in;
Pillow Arm 2 DOF (pitch and Toos and Width = 1.5 in;
B-1-2 Shoulder Joint 2 $3.49 yaw) Hardware [3] Height = 1.75 in 0.32 lb Stainless Steel
Restrains Home Depot - Length = 3/2 in;
Materials to a Building Width = 1/2 in;
B-2-1 Corner Brace 2 $2.67 90 degree angle Materials [3] Height = 3/2 in 0.21 lb Zinc Plate
Restrains Home Depot - Length = 5/2 in;
Double Wide Materials to a Building Width = 1/2 in;
B-2-2 Corner Brace 1 $3.97 90 degree angle Materials [3] Height = 5/2 in 0.39 lb Zinc Plate
C-1: Fasteners
Home Depot -
Restrains Toos and
C-1-1 Wood Screws 16 $0.11 Not Counted
Wood Materials Hardware [3] Length = 2.5 in; 0.04 lb Carbon Steel
Short All Home Depot -
Purpose Restrains Toos and
C-1-2 Screws 20 $0.08 Not Counted
Various Materials Hardware [3] Length = 5/8 in 0.03 lb Carbon Steel
Carriage Bolts Home Depot -
w/ Secures Toos and
C-1-3 Nuts 6 $0.20 Not Counted
Various Materials Hardware [3] Length = 2 1/4 in 0.08 lb Stainless Steel
Home Depot -
Distribute Toos and
C-1-4 Flat Washer 6 $0.08 Not Counted
Pressure of Nut Hardware [3] Diameter = 3/8 in 0.03 lb Stainless Steel
Secure Various
Materials and Home Depot -
C-1-5 Zip Ties 12 $0.06Not Counted Components Electical [3] Length = 8 in 0.01 lb Polyethylene
D-1:
Miscellaneous
Materials
Provide Source Stainless Steel
of Home Depot - Length = 4.25 in and Pressure
D-1-1 Mouse Traps 5 $0.49 Torque/Energy Outdoors [3] Width = 2.1 in 0.12 lb Treated Pine
Pulls Pillow
Thin White Arms and Pulls
D-1-2 Ribbon 4 $0.10 Trigger Hooks efavormart.com[4] Length = 25 in 0.01 lb Satin
Total Cost: $45.89 Total Weight: 27.39 lbs
 14 in

in
20

9 in
Figure 13: Alternative Design 1 - Tampered-With Collapsed
 Linear Bearings

Released String

Pendulum

Single Jointed Arm

Pneumatic Pistons

myRio

Sweeping Mechanism
Figure 14: Alternative Design 1 - Tampered-With Expanded
 17in

n
23i

11
in

Figure 15: Alternative Design 2 - Slider-Man Collapsed

 Linear Bearings

myRio

Pneumatic Piston

DC Motor

Hinged Arm

Striker Flaps

Figure 16: Alternative Design 2 - Slider-Man Expanded

 16in

n
23i

11
in

Figure 17: Alternative Design 3- Stag Beetle Collapsed

 DC Motors

Pneumatic Piston

Net

myRio
Hinged Double Arms

Basket

Pulley

Figure 12: Alternative Design 3- Stag Beetle Expanded

 17in

23in
10.5

Figure 19: Alternative Design 4 - Game of Thrown Collapsed

 Linear Bearing

Catapult
Mechanism

DC Motor

myRio

Mouse Trap
Ramp Pneumatic
Piston

Rake-Like Arm Single-hinged arm

Figure 20: Alternative Design 4 - Game of Thrown Expanded

Concept 1 2 3 4

Design Criteria
Domino Tampered-With Slider-Man Stag Beetle Game of Thrown
Get Pillows - S - -
Obtain A - - - -
Push F Out of Zone D - S - -
Return the T - S - S
Be Robust A - - - -
Reliable/ Repeatable - - S -
Maintainable -Easy to fix if Broken T + + + +
Cost Effective + S + -
Safety U S S S -
Easy/ Quick Setup S S + +
Autonomous M S S S S
Within Time Limit S - S S
Precise Positioning - S - S
Easy Boxing S S + S
Easy to Build S + + +
Adaptability to A & F - S - -

∑Same 6 10 4 5
∑+ 2 2 4 3
∑- 8 4 7 8
Net -6 -2 -3 -5
+ = Better Than Datum - = Worse than Datum s = Same as Datum

Figure 21: 1st Level Evaluation Matrix

Concept 1 2 3 4 5

Design Criteria Importance

Tampered-With Slider-Man Stag Beetle Game of Thrown Domino
Get Pillows 10 2 4 3 2 4
Obtain A 9 3 3 3 2 4
Push F Out of Zone 8 2 4 2 3 4
Return the Ts 9 2 3 2 3 3
Be Robust 8 3 2 3 3 4
Reliable/ Repeatable 7 1 2 3 2 3
Maintainable -Easy to fix if Broken 6 3 3 3 3 2
Cost Effective 5 3 3 4 2 3
Safety 6 4 4 4 2 4
Easy/ Quick Setup 7 2 2 4 3 2
Autonomous 10 4 4 4 4 4
Within Time Limit 8 4 3 4 4 4
Precise Positioning 7 1 4 3 4 4
Easy Boxing 10 4 3 4 3 3
Easy to Build 7 2 3 4 3 2
Adaptability to A & F 9 1 4 3 3 4

Total 41 51 53 46 54
Relative Total 0.167 0.208 0.216 0.188 0.220
4= Very Good 3= Good 2= Satisfactory 1= Just Tolerable 0= Unacceptable

Figure 22: 3rd Level Evaluation Matrix

Table 23: Performance Results for Individual Competitions

Remove F & Gather Pillows
Remove F (Manual Activation) (Automated) Three Trial Total from
Task Three Trial Total from -30 to 0 -30 to 54

Mike Goldstein -4 -26

Seunghwan Bae -4 22

Robert Patterson -16 -10

Rebecca Kwon -26 -24

 Table 24: Performance Results for Team Preliminary Contest
Contest Run 1 2 3 Total Class Max
Points 30 (Returned 30 (Returned 45 (Returned 105 135
1 T, Retrieved 1 T, Retrieved 2 Ts,
A) A) Retrieved A)

Table 25: Performance Results for Team Qualifying Contest

Team Average Seed Class Max Average
3.25 19 44

Figure 26: Performance Results from Trials in Studio

 Figure 27: Gantt Chart
Gantt Chart
Dates
Week of June 20 Week of June 27 Week of July 4 Week of July 11 Week of July 18
Task M T W Th F Sa Su M T W Th F Sa Su M T W Th F Sa Su M T W Th F Sa Su M T W Th F Sa Su M T W Th F
Project Understanding and Planning
Create HOQ & Function Tree F
Develop Specification Sheet I
Develop Planning Tools N
Planning Report and Presentation A
Research Subfunctions L
Study Old Competition Builds
Research Machining/Mechatronics Methodology
Compare Findings
Individual Device Competition C
Develop Solutions O
Create Morphological Chart M
Develop Initial Design Concepts P
Create Evaluation Matrices E
Evaluation Report and Presentation T
Manufacture Full Machine I
Create 3D CAD Models T
Build Machine I
Decorate Machine O
Test and Iterate Builds N
Preliminary Contest
Qualifying Contest
Finalize Design
Adjust Prototype
Finalize CAD Drawings
Practice Deployment of Machine
Preliminary Report
Final Report and Presentation

Table 28: Performance Results from the Georgia Tech Experience Final Competition
Maximum Practice Score Round1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4
Getting Pillows 28 17.68 14 8 18 14
Returning T 30 29.2 30 30 30 15
Obtaining A 15 3.15 15 0 0 15
Removing F 0 -3.26 -15 -8 -4 -4
Total 73 46.77 44 30 44 40
 References
[1] Georgia Institute of Technology, "Overhead View of Georgia Tech Arena," Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, 2016.
[2] C. Battles. (2016, June). “QFD House of Quality Template.” Schrodinger's Ghost.com
[Online]. Available: http://www.schrodingersghost.com/?cat=54.
[3] Festo - USA. (2016, June). [Online]. https://www.festo.com/cms/en-us_us/index.htm
[4] Anaheim Automation. (2016, June). [Online]. http://www.anaheimautomation.com/
[5] National Instruments. (2016, June). [Online]. http://www.ni.com/en-us.html
[6] George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering. “The Georgia Tech Experience,”
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2016. [Online]. http://2110.me.gatech.edu/sites/
default/files/documents/Studios/studio3_georgiatech.pdf
[7] Kenny. “Large Motor Specs”. (2016, June). [Online]. http://2110.me.gatech.edu/sites/
default/files/documents/dk-37r545123000-41k.pdf
[8] Acroname. “Sharp GP2Y0A21YK0F Wide Beam IR Distance Sensor Kit”. (2016, June).
[Online]. https://acroname.com/products/SHARP-GP2Y0A21YK0F-IR-PACKAGE?sku=R301-
GP2Y0A21YK
[9] McMaster-Carr. “Sealed Linear Solenoids”. (2016, June). [Online]. http://www.mcmaster.
com/#solenoids/=13gcaa7
[10] Grainger. (2016, June). [Online]. https://www.grainger.com/