Final Report

MENG 185
Nathaniel Kan

Robot Name: G-UNIT

A. Basic Description of Functionality

G-UNIT was originally designed with the intent of building the most robust design
possible. Ultimately, this did not turn out to be the optimal competition strategy. However, the
goals laid out in the initial development and planning stages were ability to navigate effectively
and precisely through all three terrains, deactivate mines by disarming for maximum points, and
remove mines for the point multiplier. The means with which these goals were accomplished are
as follows.

1. Mobility

The most important design aspect of G-UNIT's mobility is its wheels. A separate motor
controls each wheel independently. The wheels are notched, to allow movement on the
gravel and climbing of the steps. A later addition was the insertion of metal protrusions
into the wheels, which allows better mobility on the gravel and step terrains.

The back end of G-UNIT's chassis is supported by a curved piece of sheet metal, to
provide little friction allow the back end of the robot to be dragged up the step terrain
without catching on the steps. Experimentation showed that in order for G-UNIT to climb
the final fourth step of the mountain, it was necessary to place an actuator to raise the
back end of the robot by pushing down the curved sled piece.

2. Disarming

G-UNIT's disarming mechanism consists of two parallel long thin beams, connected in
together in the middle by a hinge. The end of the beams protrude past the front wheels.
The two beams have a V shaped notch at the ends, and are made out of foam and metal
bonded with epoxy for strength. G-UNIT would be steered into a position so that the top
knob of the mine is in the notches, and then the top beam acts as a lever arm—an actuator
pulls the back end down, forcing the front notched end up and in this way popping up the
switch on the mine to disarm it. The actuator runs along the bottom shaft, and is
connected to the back end of the top shaft by a zip tie. The third motor is used to control
the height of the disarming arm, by rotating a sprocket with a protruding shaft parallel to
the motor's drive shaft. This shaft controls the maximum height by rotating the bottom
beam about a second hinge connected to the main robot chassis.

3. Removing

A half circle of PVC is connected to the front of G-UNIT, to allow the robot to push
deactivated mines off the board, after the arm is used and raised out of the way.

B. Performance

Mobility was excellent on the gravel, especially in terms of speed—no robot was faster
than G-UNIT. The metal protrusions on the wheels made turning and movement on the ice
slightly slower, however, precision movements were still an option, and overall the wheels did
quite well on the ice and gravel terrains. The step climbing function was somewhat less reliable.
G-UNIT was able to ascend the first three steps easily, but had trouble climbing the final step,
hence the need for the back-end raising actuator. With the actuator it was able to climb the final
step from straight on, however, raising the back end caused instability (G-UNIT is a tripod), and
increased the chance of tipping over (which happened in the competition).
The disarming function worked better before the competition than in the competition.
Before the competition the disarming feature was working as it was supposed to, however, later
on more of the actuator's power was being lost when being transferred to the motion of pulling
down the back end of the top beam. I believe this was because of increased friction in the zip tie
due to wear. This loss of power caused some of the mines to require several attempts before
deactivation was successful. Also, there were problems adjusting the height of the arm, as fine
adjustments were not possible with the third motor control. When the device was being built, I
didn't realize that the third motor could not be controlled variably. All of the mines G-UNIT
accidentally detonated in the competition were due to the arm lowering too quickly and tilting
them. A better system for those controls would probably have been using the third motor to
control the winding and unwinding of a string which controlled the height.
Removing the mines from the game board worked as planned. The power in the wheels
was sufficient to push the additional load of the mines.

C.

Given a second chance, I think I would have done things much differently. One robot in
the competition used a wheel made out of an X shape of sheet metal, and this wheel was able to
climb the mountain very well, while still being able to move on the other terrains. I would have
incorporated this into my robot. I would also have made my deactivating system using the
magnet, as the magnet sensor was a lot more sensitive than I had previously believed and this
seems to now be the quickest way to deactivate mines for the large point score. I would also have
made a gripping device for carrying the mines off the board—I had originally intended to do this,
but could not find a way to do so on my robot given the space available. The most effective way
of gripping the mine that I observed was a motor/actuator combination that rotated a hook into
position and then pulled the knob of the mine tight against the robot with the actuator. I believe
this could have been implemented effectively in G-UNIT.

D. Competition

G-UNIT did not perform well in the competition. The main problems were the failure of
the disarming arm to adjust to the correct height slowly, and a lack of practice on the game board.
Too many mines were set off accidentally. Furthermore, my initial strategy (in the first round
especially), did not suit G-UNIT 's robust design. I had originally intended for G-UNIT to in
direct competition with the opposing robot, where its superior mobility would allow it to block
the other robot from mines that it would easily get. In most rounds, the two robots would get as
many mines on their own sides as possible before coming into contact with each other. The
strategy I adopted at the end, which I think was an optimal strategy for play with G-UNIT, was to
go directly for the opponents ice mines, as those were the mines that most opponents could easily
get. I think my campaign would have been much more successful had I adopted this strategy early
on in the competition.

E. Deciding Factors
 I think two factors were critical in effective robots in the competition: robot mobility, and
the efficiency of the disarming mechanism. I noticed many of the robots that scored very well had
very quick methods of disarming the mines. The magnets seemed very effective at this, as did
safing mechanisms, as there is much less risk of setting the mine off with these types of
disarming devices. I also noticed that robot mobility was very important—in order to outscore an
opponent often times a robot had to be able to disarm mines in at least two terrains. G-UNIT was
effective in its mobility, however, its disarming mechanism gave up too many accidental
"explosions."

F. Lessons

I went through about sixty hours, all my materials (and a lot of scrap), and about thirty
iterations of my ideas in building my robot. The two biggest lessons I learned were 1) keep it as
simple as possible, and 2) do not build the chassis out of the cardboard stuff. The first lesson
came up when building my first design, which I eventually scrapped. I tried to incorporate an
elaborate chain mechanism to control the wheels, however, due to the inevitable errors in hand
machining parts for a novice, and the complexity of the design, when the final product was ready
for testing the small errors in each link in the chain of motion combined to make it almost
impossible to move straight. I later adopted a much simpler design of having each wheel directly
connected to the drive shaft of the motor, which cut out many of the links in the chain and made it
a lot easier to build.
The second lesson also came up in my first design. My original chassis was cut from the
cardboard, which began to deteriorate as soon as I started to cut it. The structural strength of the
material was also lacking, and in the end I switched to making an aluminum chassis.

G. Performance

I believe I attempted to build a "risky" design. In designing my robot, I wanted to build a

robot that would be able to traverse as many kinds of terrains as possible: the mountain, the
valley, the gravel and the ice. In the end, I think I may have attempted too much, my robot was
somewhat effective at some terrains, and very effective at others, but a master of no terrain. In
building a robot that would attempt to be able to enter the valley, I sacrificed the option of
making my robot more than eight inches wide, which I could have used to make larger wheels
which would have been more effective on the other terrains. Likewise, there were height and
center of mass limitations I had to obey to make a robot that could climb the mountain. In the
end, I think only one other student built a mountain climbing robot.
My design worked the way I hoped in some aspects, and did not meet my expectations in
others. It was effective at moving on the gravel and ice, but climbing the mountain was too
difficult to be an effective strategy, and likewise with entering the valley. Also, controlling the
height of the arm was too difficult for a competition robot.

H. Scheduling and Planning

My robot was built right on schedule, and not a minute early. The only thing I should
have accounted for that I failed to was that other people would be practicing, and so I wasn't able
to practice as much as I had wanted to. I started working on my robot the week after spring break,
and went through many, many iterations of it. I built a lot of parts I ended up not using after
practicing with them and finding them not efficient for the design I had in mind, including a
caster wheel, a platform to use the motor to move the arm forward and backwards, and an arm to
safe the mines are a few. Additions were also made after testing, including the metal protrusions
on my wheels, the sled that the back end rests on, the actuator to allow the final step of the
mountain to be climbed, the height adjustment of for the arm, and the blue padding on the front
top and bottom of the arm to allow a better grip on the mines.

I. Conclusion

In the end, I think I did a fairly good job with my robot. I attempted to build a robust
design, probably sacrificing efficiency in a particular area. With more practice, and a few
modifications, I think I could have been much more effective. Most importantly, I had a really
good time learning to use the shop and building my robot, and I think I learned a lot about the
design process. Special thanks are in order to Nick, Jamie (TA) and Quentin for helping me a lot
with ideas.