EQUILIBRATE SYSTEM UPGRADE

RIT Open Presentation

Group Members David Lahn: Project Manager/Camera

Structure Design Sado Borcilo: Camera Structure Design Diana Rodriguez: Foot Plate Track Design Natalie Ferrari: Foot Plate Analysis and

Design

Agenda• Current Product

• Customer Needs, Constraints • Engineering Specifications• Functional Decomposition

• Subassembly Details• New Design• Prototype Testing• Detailed Design Outputs• Results• Recommendations

• Final System Comparison• Questions

Current ProductCustomer

Need #Description Importance

CN1.0 Reduce Total Weight 1CN2.0 Increase Total Aesthetics 2

Customer Need # Description Importance

CN3.0 Total Ease of Use / set-up 1CN4.0 Total Stability 1CN5.0 Total Adjustability 1CN6.0 Total Functionality with software 1CN7.0 Total Portability 1

Customer Needs

Constraints:N

S

WE

Specs

CURRENT

Function Decomposition

Subassembly Division

Component #1Camera Structure

Component #2Foot Track Adjustability

Component #3Foot Plate Design

Camera Structure Design• Design Process

• Concept Development• Feasibility Analysis • Design Selection and Detail Design

Creation• BOM Creation• Ordered Parts• Prototype Build• Prototype Alteration• Testing

New Design

Prototype

Test Results (Theoretical)

Design Weight (lbs) Deflection (in) Cost ($)Original 15.97 0.64922 587.64Design 1 17.60 0.09581 273.37Design 2 9.74 0.86021 294.94Design 3 8.91 0.69977 231.30

Test Results (Actual) Original

Load Applied (5lb) Deflection (inches)Front 1 1/4Left 3Right 4 15/16

Collapse Load 4.34 lbs

NewLoad Applied (5lb) Deflection (inches)Front 0.75Left 4.5Right 4.25

Collapse Load 2.69 lbs

Plan to Meet Design Specifications

Specification (metric) Unit of Measure Current System Benchmark

Ideal Design Value

Proposed Design

Prototype Test Results Test Number Notes Successful

Total Weight lbs. 44lbs 35lbs 33lbs

Foot plate weight lbs. 4.35lbs / each 2.18lbs / each 2.83lbs / each 3.0lbs / each T-002 YESCamera structure weight lbs. 13.6 lbs 10 lbs 8.88 lbs 6.4 lbs T-002 YESFoot Track System Weight lbs. 9.12lbs 10lbs 10.09lbs 11.12 lbs T-002 YES Total Aesthetics Qualitative (1-10) 5 Camera structure aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 7 Cabling aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 8 Total Set Up Time seconds ≤ 300 s 300s 300 s

Mechanical Camera structure set up time seconds 78 75 75 75.6 T-007 Assembly conducted by average male of 22 years YESFoot plate removal time seconds 3 - 9s 2s 5s Total Stability Unintentional camera movement inches 3 < 3 3.2 4.5 T-001 Results are greatest deflection from a 5lb load YESUnintentional foot pad movement inches 0.05 <0.1 0.1 0.34 T-T-002 Results are greatest deflection from a 20lb load FAIL Total Adjustability Camera height adjustability inches 18.5" - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" YESFoot pads adjustability North - South inches 0" - 44" 0" - 44" 0 - 44" 0 - 44" YESFoot pads adjustability East - West inches 0" 0" 0 - 12" 0 - 12" YES Total Functionality Foot Plate Deformation under 165lbs inches 0.0181 < 0.02482 0.03606 0.0288 T-F-001 165lb load spread over center YESFoot Plate Max Stress PSI 5,500 5500 5900 >=5900 YES

Camera X distance from Edge of foot pads inches 44" 44" 44" 44" YES

Camera Y distance from center of foot pads inches 27" 27" 27" 27" YES Total Portability Total deployed footprint feet 50" x 60" 50" x 60" 50" x 60"

Total un-deployed size inches 48"x21"x8" ≤ 48"x21"x8" 48"x21"x8"

Recommendations Increase weight underneath vertical bar

to compensate for full displacement of vertical bar.

Increase length of feet extensions Possibly revert to T-shape structure, Y-

shape does not save significant material.

Foot Plate Track Design

Prototype

Plan to Meet Design Specifications

Specification (metric) Unit of Measure Current System Benchmark

Ideal Design Value

Proposed Design

Prototype Test Results Test Number Notes Successful

Total Weight lbs. 44lbs 35lbs 33lbs

Foot plate weight lbs. 4.35lbs / each 2.18lbs / each 2.83lbs / each 3.0lbs / each T-002 YESCamera structure weight lbs. 13.6 lbs 10 lbs 8.88 lbs 6.4 lbs T-002 YESFoot Track System Weight lbs. 9.12lbs 10lbs 10.09lbs 11.12 lbs T-002 YES Total Aesthetics Qualitative (1-10) 5 Camera structure aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 7 Cabling aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 8 Total Set Up Time seconds ≤ 300 s 300s 300 s

Mechanical Camera structure set up time seconds 78 75 75 75.6 T-007 Assembly conducted by average male of 22 years YESFoot plate removal time seconds 3 - 9s 2s 5s Total Stability

Unintentional camera movement inches 3 < 3 3.2 4.5 T-001 Results are greatest deflection from a 5lb load YESUnintentional foot pad movement inches 0.05 <0.1 0.1 0.34 T-T-002 Results are greatest deflection from a 20lb load FAIL Total Adjustability Camera height adjustability inches 18.5" - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" YESFoot pads adjustability North - South inches 0" - 44" 0" - 44" 0 - 44" 0 - 44" YESFoot pads adjustability East - West inches 0" 0" 0 - 12" 0 - 12" YES Total Functionality Foot Plate Deformation under 165lbs inches 0.0181 < 0.02482 0.03606 0.0288 T-F-001 165lb load spread over center YESFoot Plate Max Stress PSI 5,500 5500 5900 >=5900 YES

Camera X distance from Edge of foot pads inches 44" 44" 44" 44" YES

Camera Y distance from center of foot pads inches 27" 27" 27" 27" YES Total Portability Total deployed footprint feet 50" x 60" 50" x 60" 50" x 60"

Total un-deployed size inches 48"x21"x8" ≤ 48"x21"x8" 48"x21"x8"

Foot Plate Design

Design Iterations

Milled Design 4

Current Thin Plate Milled Design 1

Milled Design 2 Milled Design 3

Selected Concept

Using same aluminum, mill out material.

Proposed Design

Boundary Conditions and Force

Top

Bottom

0.1” diameter

0.1” diameter0.5 from top0.5 from side

Design Feasibility

Prototype

Material: RMC Rochester

Machining: Brinkman Lab

TestingExperimental Set Up

Results

Foot Plate Data

Design Plate Thickness (in)

Weight (lb)

Max Deflection (in)

Current 0.375 4.55 0.0181

Proposed 0.375 2.95 0.0288

Thin Plate 0.250 3.00 0.0507

Plan to Meet Design Specifications

Specification (metric) Unit of Measure Current System Benchmark

Ideal Design Value

Proposed Design

Prototype Test Results Test Number Notes Successful

Total Weight lbs. 44lbs 35lbs 33lbs

Foot plate weight lbs. 4.35lbs / each 2.18lbs / each 2.83lbs / each 3.0lbs / each T-002 YESCamera structure weight lbs. 13.6 lbs 10 lbs 8.88 lbs 6.4 lbs T-002 YESFoot Track System Weight lbs. 9.12lbs 10lbs 10.09lbs 11.12 lbs T-002 YES Total Aesthetics Qualitative (1-10) 5 Camera structure aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 7 Cabling aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 8 Total Set Up Time seconds ≤ 300 s 300s 300 s

Mechanical Camera structure set up time seconds 78 75 75 75.6 T-007 Assembly conducted by average male of 22 years YESFoot plate removal time seconds 3 - 9s 2s 5s Total Stability Unintentional camera movement inches 3 < 3 3.2 4.5 T-001 Results are greatest deflection from a 5lb load YESUnintentional foot pad movement inches 0.05 <0.1 0.1 0.34 T-T-002 Results are greatest deflection from a 20lb load FAIL Total Adjustability Camera height adjustability inches 18.5" - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" YESFoot pads adjustability North - South inches 0" - 44" 0" - 44" 0 - 44" 0 - 44" YESFoot pads adjustability East - West inches 0" 0" 0 - 12" 0 - 12" YES Total Functionality Foot Plate Deformation under 165lbs inches 0.0181 < 0.02482 0.03606 0.0288 T-F-001 165lb load spread over center YESFoot Plate Max Stress PSI 5,500 5500 5900 >=5900 YES

Camera X distance from Edge of foot pads inches 44" 44" 44" 44" YES

Camera Y distance from center of foot pads inches 27" 27" 27" 27" YES Total Portability Total deployed footprint feet 50" x 60" 50" x 60" 50" x 60"

Total un-deployed size inches 48"x21"x8" ≤ 48"x21"x8" 48"x21"x8"

Comparison of Proposed vs. CurrentSpec. # Source Specification (metric) Unit of Measure

Current System Value Ideal Value

Current Proposed

DesignImportance

SP1.0 CN1.0 Total Weight lbs. 44lbs 35lbs 33lbs 1SP1.1 CN1.1 Foot plate weight lbs. 4.35lbs / each 2.18lbs / each 2.83lbs / each 2SP1.2 CN1.2 Camera structure weight lbs. 13.6 lbs 5 lbs 8.88 lbs 2

SP2.0 CN2.0 Total Aesthetics Qualitative (1-10) 5 1SP2.1 CN2.1 Camera structure aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 7 2SP2.2 CN2.2 Cabling aesthetics qualitative (1-10) 5 10 8 2

SP3.0 CN3.0 Total Set Up Time seconds ≤ 300 s 300s 300 s 1SP3.1 CN3.1 Camera structure set up time seconds 300 200 270 1SP3.2 CN3.2 Foot plate removal time seconds 3 - 9s 2s 5s 2

SP4.0 CN4.0 Total Stability 1SP4.1 CN4.1 Unintentional camera movement inches 0.6492 0 0.7 1SP4.2 CN4.2 Unintentional foot pad movement inches 1

SP5.0 CN5.0 Total Adjustability 1SP5.1 CN5.1 / CN6.2 Camera height adjustability inches 18.5" - 57" 18.5 - 57" 18.5 - 57" 1SP5.2 CN5.2 Foot pads adjustability North - South inches 0" - 44" 0" - 44" 0 - 44" 1SP5.3 CN5.3 / CN6.4 Foot pads adjustability East - West inches 0" 0" 0 - 12" 3

SP6.0 CN6.0 Total Functionality 1SP6.1 CN6.3 Foot Plate Deformation under 250lbs inches 0.02482 0.02482 0.03606 1SP6.5 CN6.3 Foot Plate Max Stress PSI 5,500 5500 5900 2SP6.2 CN6.1 Camera X distance from Edge of foot pads inches 44" 44" 44" 1SP6.3 CN6.1 Camera Y distance from center of foot pads inches 27" 27" 27" 1

1

SP7.0 CN7.0 Total Portability 1SP7.1 CN7.0 Total deployed footprint feet 50" x 60" 50" x 60" 50" x 60" 3SP7.2 CN7.1 Total un-deployed size inches 48"x21"x8" ≤ 48"x21"x8" 48"x21"x8" 1

Additional Cost• Foot Plates $30 x 2• Foot Track $17.12• Camera Structure $165.48

- $587.64 = -$422.16

• =$ -345.04Estimated savings of $345.04 per unit.

Discussion/Questions?