The PFADS Competition

1
The PFADS Competition

• Team JADS
• David Rosenberry
• Adam Yee
• ENGR 5 - Lab 5

2
Outline

• Problem Definition
• Introduction/Background
• Criteria and Constraints
• Project Objectives
• Design Process
• Preliminary Ideas
• Refinement
• Decision/Implementation

3
Outline

• Design Process continued
• Construction Testing
• Final Design Mechanism
• Results and Discussion
• Suggested Improvements
• Conclusions
• Acknowledgements

4
Introduction/Background

• Problem Design PFADS for UNICEF
• Parabolic Food Aid Delivery System
• PFADS must deliver Food Aid Package to target
  location

5

Introduction/Background
6
Introduction/Background

• Design Quality Based on FOM
• Figure of Merit
• Highest FOM score wins competition

7
Constraints

• PFADS
• Weight lt 10 lbs.
• Length lt 18 in.
• Width lt 18 in.
• Height lt 18 in.
• Cost lt 20.00
• Built using no pre-constructed materials

8
Criteria

• Hit target 10 feet away and maximize accuracy
• Go over 6 2 high wall
• Device launches when trigger hits barrier
• Complete device must remain behind barrier
• Minimize Weight (lt 10 lbs.)
• Minimize Volume (lt 18x18x18)

9
Project Objectives

• Design and construct a PFADS using the design
  process.
• Practice Teamwork
• Create and Give a Formal Presentation

10
Preliminary Ideas
Preliminary Ideas
Sean McNary
Adam Yee
John Yoshimura
David Rosenberry
11
Refinement

• Pros
• Simple Release Mechanism
• Weight of Launcher
• Materials Easy to Obtain
• Cons
• Accuracy of launch
• Low release angle
• FAP launch distance
• Total Volume of Device

Design 1
12
Refinement

• Pros
• Large, Stable Base
• Smaller Launch Arm
• Simple Trigger
• Weight of Launcher
• Materials Easy to Obtain
• Cons
• FAP Launch Distance
• Launch Accuracy
• Launcher Volume

Design 2
13
Refinement

• Pros
• Launcher Volume
• Launcher Weight
• Materials Easy to Obtain
• Cons
• FAP Launch Distance
• Launch Accuracy
• Incorporating Rat Trap in Launcher
• Low Launch Angle

Design 3
14
Refinement

• Pros
• FAP Launch Distance
• Launch Accuracy
• Materials Easy to Obtain
• Cons
• Launcher Volume
• Launcher Weight

Design 4
15
Decision/Implementation

• Every design relatively simple to construct and
  use obtainable materials.
• Designs 1-3 have similar launch mechanisms
• Steep launch angle reduces power of catapult
• Design 4s launch mechanism should be more
  consistent with additional modification (Frame
  with Rails).

16
Decision/Implementation

• Modification Frame with rails to guide PFAD.
• Design 4 selected to be constructed.

17
Construction and Testing

• First Design
• Weight 9 lbs.
• Height 17.5 inches
• Testing
• FAP launched over wall
• PFADS flipped over wall
• Problems
• High center of gravity
• Rolled down ramp fast

18
Construction and Testing

• Solutions
• To prevent PFADS flipping over wall
• Reduced Volume and Weight of PFADS to lower
  center of gravity
• Added brace with foam padding
• Removed wheels added skis to reduce speed

19
Final Mechanism (Side View)

• Total Weight 7 lbs.
• Key Features
• PVC frame with rails to guide FAP
• Metal rod unhooks gate latch to release FAP
• Skis to slide down ramp
• Foam Bumper
• Adjustable Launch Angle

20
Final Mechanism (Rear and Front View)
Total Weight 7 lbs.
21
Results/Discussion

• Finished 4th
• Final FOM 96.94
• Advantages
• Able to adjust launch angle
• Launched FAP over wall consistently
• PFADS remained behind ramp barrier
• Disadvantages
• Weight and Volume
• FAP hit target but rolled away

22
Suggested Improvements

• Use Lighter Materials
• Wood is a heavy material
• Construct frame using lighter material such as
  aluminum
• Improve Launch Angle Mechanism
• Dont use nails

23
Conclusions

• Key Criteria and Constraints
• Launch FAP over 62 wall to target with accuracy
• PFADS Mechanism
• Weight lt 10 lbs.
• Volume lt 18 x 18 x 18
• Use No Pre-constructed Materials

24
Conclusions

• Final Design
• Used Sling-shot mechanism to launch FAP
• Lighter and smaller than original design
• Trigger Metal rod pushed gate hook off an eye
  bolt
• PFADS remained behind barrier
• Launched FAP over wall consistently

25
Conclusions

• Mechanism Performance
• Successfully Launched During Both Trials
• Trial Distances
• 4 and 3.25
• Finished in 4th Place
• First FOM- 92.26
• Second FOM- 101.63
• Total FOM- 96.94

26
Conclusions

• Improvements
• Reduce weight and size of PFADS
• Improve Launch Angle Mechanism
• Improve accuracy by preventing FAP from rolling
  away from target

27
Acknowledgements

• Team JADS would like to thank the following
  individuals for their time and help
• Professor Saviz
• Professor Schultz
• Bob Pollard
• Adrian the Machinist
• ENGR 5 Introduction to Engineering Course Manual