Mid Term Presentation ME 4182 Submitted 6/21/06 Yuki Miyasaka, Anthony Palladino, David Price,...
-
Upload
christopher-anthony -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Mid Term Presentation ME 4182 Submitted 6/21/06 Yuki Miyasaka, Anthony Palladino, David Price,...
Mid Term Presentation
ME 4182Submitted 6/21/06
Yuki Miyasaka, Anthony Palladino, David Price, Whitney Price, Ricky Sandhu
The Problem
Landscaping is a common enjoyment among homeowners. Heavy boulders are very common on property; however, almost impossible to move. If one wants to move a heavy rock, they have 2 choices:
1. use brute force and risk hurting themselves
2. rent a bobcat, figure out how to get it home, tear up the grass moving
it, etc
Neither option is very easy or practical.
The Goal
• create a cart capable of loading and unloading a large rock, and relocating it to different places within the yard. It would be designed to accommodate up to a 300 lb rock.
• to be able to be used for anything else that is heavy or cumbersome to move; similar to the function of the flat carts that you push around in Lowe’s or Home Depot while shopping.
• Our idea would be marketed to the average homeowner with landscape needs. The individual could either rent or buy this device and easily store it in a garage or shed when not in use.
Possible Solutions
Inclined Plane
Possible Solutions
Levered Cart
Possible Solutions
A Frame Cart
Possible SolutionsFork Lift
Possible Solutions
U Cart
Possible Solutions
Spider
Patent Search
• Bobcats– Not easy to transport to home– Tears up lawn while using
• Rock Jaw– Needs heavy machinery
to operate– Not available for home owners– Heavy and expensive
Pairwise Comparison
Machine size Expense
Manueverability
Rock Gripping
AbilityEase of
Use Safety Stability
Ability to Handle Diff. Rock Sizes Dummy
Machine Size - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Expense 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Manueverability 0 0 - 1 0 0 1 1 0Rock gripping
ability 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0
Ease of Use 0 0 1 1 - 1 1 1 0
Safety 0 0 1 1 0 - 1 1 0
Stability 0 0 0 1 0 0 - 0 0
Ability to Handle Different Rock Sizes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 0
Dummy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -Sum 1 2 5 7 3 4 7 7 0
Normalized 0.125 0.25 0.625 0.875 0.375 0.5 0.875 0.875 0
Selection Analysis
Key:
5::+1::-
Characteristics Ch
ara
cte
ris
tic
Im
po
rta
nc
e
We
igh
ted
V
alu
e
1 Machine Size 1 0.125 2 0.25 1 0.125 4 0.5 3 0.375 4 0.5 4 0.5 1 0.1252 Expense 2 0.25 3 0.75 3 0.75 4 1 1 0.25 5 1.25 4 1 1 0.253 Manueverability 5 0.625 3 1.875 3 1.875 4 2.5 4 2.5 3 1.875 3 1.875 2 1.254 Rock Gripping Ability 7 0.875 2 1.75 2 1.75 4 3.5 4 3.5 3 2.625 3 2.625 5 4.375
5Ability to handle different
rock sizes 7 0.875 2 1.75 5 4.375 3 2.625 2 1.75 3 2.625 3 2.625 4 3.56 Ease of Use 3 0.375 1 0.375 2 0.75 3 1.125 2 0.75 3 1.125 3 1.125 1 0.3757 Safety 4 0.5 2 1 2 1 4 2 4 2 3 1.5 3 1.5 4 28 Stability 7 0.875 3 2.625 4 3.5 3 2.625 3 2.625 5 4.375 4 3.5 4 3.5
SUM 4.5 18 10.38 22 14.13 29 15.88 23 13.75 29 15.88 27 14.75 22 15.38NORMALIZED SCORE 0.3773 0.5136 0.5773 0.5000 0.5773 0.5364 0.5591
PERCENTAGE 37.73 51.36 57.73 50.00 57.73 53.64 55.91
U C
art
A F
ram
e
Le
ve
r C
art
Selection Analysis Matrix
Ro
ck
Ja
w
Fo
rkli
ft
Inc
lin
ed
Pla
ne
Sp
ide
r
Moving Forward-Modified Forklift Design-
Rock DensitiesMaterial Specific Gravity
Andesite 2.5 - 2.8 Basalt/Traprock 2.8 - 3.0 Coal - Anthracite 1.3 Coal - Bituminous 1.1 - 1.4 Copper Ore 2 Diabase 2.6 - 3.0 Diorite 2.8 - 3.0 Dolomite 2.8 - 2.9 Earth (dry) 1.6 - 1.8 Earth (wet) 2 Gneiss 2.6 - 2.9 Granite 2.6 - 2.7 Gypsum 2.3 - 2.8 Iron Ore 4.5 - 5.3 Lead Ore (Galena) 7.5 Limestone 2.3 - 2.7 Marble 2.4 - 2.7 Mica, schist 2.5 - 2.9 Quartzite 2.6 - 2.8 Rhyolite 2.4 - 2.6 Rock Salt 2.5 - 2.6 Sandstone 2.2 - 2.8 Shale 2.4 - 2.8 Slate 2.7 - 2.8 Talc 2.6 - 2.8
Density (in lb/cu ft.) = SG X 62.4
Granite density = 165.36 lb/cu ft
Reference:http://www.mininglife.com/Miner/general/Density.htm
Prototype
Securing Belt
Metal Brace
Winch
Handle
Forks