1 / 24

Team John Deere Final Presentation

Team John Deere Final Presentation. Josh Ebeling Jamari Haynes James June Mike Reno Ben Spivey Gary Twedt. Outline. Project Outline and Goals Existing and New Designs Analysis and Design Selection Prototype and Final Design Prototype Testing Conclusion. Project Goals.

gavril
Download Presentation

Team John Deere Final Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Team John DeereFinal Presentation Josh Ebeling Jamari Haynes James June Mike Reno Ben Spivey Gary Twedt

  2. Outline • Project Outline and Goals • Existing and New Designs • Analysis and Design Selection • Prototype and Final Design • Prototype Testing • Conclusion

  3. Project Goals • Modification of the Gator Utility Vehicle for handicapped accessibility • Limited or no operational interference • Ergonomic and easy to use for all potential users • Kit-ready final design

  4. Project Constraints • Must operate within existing layout of the Gator Utility Vehicle • Must allow sufficient space for driver and passenger to sit comfortably • Must allow full operation with both new controls and pedal controls • Must be no significant modifications or alterations to install device

  5. Description of Desired Motion • Brake Motion – normal motion of the brake pedal depression causes brake lever to raise up • Gas Motion – normal motion of gas pedal depression causes gas activator to be pulled down • Two motions must be combined for accessibility with one hand

  6. Existing Technology and Market • Current industry standard and most prevalent design is the Braun 3500 Hand Control • Easily integrated for a variety of car sizes and types – however, difficult for user to install • Less than desirable required dexterity and force to operate • Overall design concept desirable, application of product for specific use with the Gator not desirable

  7. Initial Designs and Comparisons • Initial design concepts included direct depression of both pedals by device (Designs 1 & 2) • One design concept included direct depression of only one pedal by the device, with the other pedal pulled down through the motion of a cable (Design 3) Design 2 Design 1 Design 3

  8. Final Design - Initial Selection • In order to take advantage of unique Gator design layout, a straight bar extending out from underneath the dashboard was selected • Rough prototype of design worked well • Analysis necessary to determine force needed to depress brake

  9. Engineering Analysis • Final Force: 50 lbs at a displacement of 30º • Pros: Design allows for monotonically increasing force • Cons: 50 lbs of force may be too much for users

  10. Final Design – Second Iteration • L-Bardesigned to give mechanical advantage to the user, allowing rotation of the Brake Lever with less force than straight bar • Pros: Force well within desirable range • Cons: Force is not monotonically increasing, contact between L-Bar and Brake Lever a point of failure, more space taken up by support, harder to install

  11. Engineering Analysis – Second Iteration • Maximum Force: 35 lbs at Maximum Displacement of 20º • Final Force: 28 lbs at Final Displacement of 33º • Decreasing force at the end of the force-displacement curve is extremely undesirable – disrupts the design more than the 50 lbs of maximum force for the straight bar • Further alteration of design possible – curving bar

  12. Final Design – Third Iteration • L-Barstill lowers Brake Lever, with less user-supplied force than straight bar • Curved bar designed to raise force necessary at end of force-displacement curve • Pros: Force well within desirable range • Cons: Force is still not monotonically increasing, contact between L-Bar and Brake Lever a point of failure, more space taken up by support, harder to install

  13. Engineering Analysis – Third Iteration • Maximum Force: 31 lbs at Maximum Displacement of 22º • Final Force: 30 lbs at Final Displacement of 34º • Decreasing force at the end of the force-displacement curve still present – even leveling of force displacement curve is undesirable according to Industrial Design group members • Straight bar provides best curve at small cost

  14. Final Design Selection • Force-displacement problems ultimately resolved in the selection of the straight-bar design over the L-bar design • Monotonically increasing force-displacement curve vastly more important to ergonomics than minor strength concerns

  15. Final Design Composition • Final design comprised of three main subsections: • Brake handle • Provides the user with mechanical advantage with which to operate brake • Brake clamp • Stabilizes brake handle • Gas clamp • Activates gas through tension on cable

  16. Final Design and Prototype Comparison • Final design matches prototype in nearly all ways – however, there are two key differences: • Brake Clamp modified for ease of machining at the expense of stability of the prototype • Range of motion of the gas handle is less than was desired

  17. Clamps and Stabilizations • Machined clamp connects to brake pedal lever with hose clamp • Provides significantly less lateral and rotational stability than the machined part for the Final Design • Stability issues solved with rudimentary cross-tied support Supports

  18. Demonstration of Motion - Brake Video of brake motion

  19. Demonstration of Motion - Gas Video of gas motion

  20. Acceleration Comparison • Lack of full play on the gas handle results in an inability to achieve full acceleration with use of handle – only a prototype flaw • Results for comparison: • Pedal average point-to-point travel time: 4.84 s • Handle average point-to-point travel time: 7.82 s Acceleration comparison videos

  21. Braking Comparison • Brake handle actual provides easier braking than pedals because of decreased necessary force • Results for comparison: • Pedal average point-to-point travel time: 1.755 s • Handle average point-to-point travel time: 1.635 s Braking comparison videos

  22. Possible Improvements • Improvements to the project are mainly limited to stricter adherence of the handle to the Final Design as drawn • Development of detailed product installation manual only possible last step

  23. Conclusion • In conclusion, group design met all project goals, including: • Operating within existing layout of the Gator Utility Vehicle • Allowing sufficient space for driver and passenger to sit comfortably • Allowing full operation with both new controls and pedal controls • All with no significant modifications or alterations to install device • Design considered a success

  24. Questions?

More Related