hydraulic nanomanipulator
Post on 17-Feb-2016
31 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Hydraulic Nanomanipulator
P13371
Task TimeProject Introduction 10 minCustomer Needs 5 minEngineering Specifications 5 minFunctional Decomposition 5 minDecision Making Process and Proposed Design 20 minCurrent System Evaluation Feasibility Analysis 10 minPreliminary Cost Analysis 5 minRisk Management 5 minProject Plan 5 minQuestions and Discussion Remaining
Table of Contents & Agenda
CustomerDr. Schrlau
TeamJacob BertaniBridget LallyAvash JoshiNick MatsonKeith Slusser
GuideBill Nowak
Introductions
• Ultra-high precision positioning instrument
• Maneuver objects under high magnification, at the micro and nano scales
• Primary customer uses:• Cell behavior for medical
diagnostics
What Is a Nanomanipulator?
Improve 12371 prototype and redesign where applicable
Improve overall nanomanipulator function to meet competitive operational specifications
Reduce price of nanomanipulator with respect to commercial devices
Broaden participation in nanoscience
Project Objectives & Goals
Existing System (P12371)
Existing System (P12371)
Controls Interface Subsystem
Existing System (P12371)
Controls Subsystem
Existing System (P12371)
Drive Subsystem
Existing System (P12371)
Manipulator Subsystem
Customer Needs# Description Importance
CN1 High Resolution 9CN2 Low Cost 9CN3 Reliable Movement 9CN4 Easy to Operate 9CN5 Visual Feedback 3CN6 Adequate Range of Motion 3CN7 Reliable Control of Speed 3CN8 Keep Hardware Safe 3CN9 Easy to Maintain 1CN10 Easy to Setup 1CN11 Portable 1CN12 Remote Access 1
# Specification (metric) Unit of Measure
Target Value
S1 Size of manipulator (h x w x l) cm 8 x 8 x 8
S2 Weight of manipulator Grams (oz) 550 (20)S3 Development cost $ < 2,500S4 Cost to manufacture after development $ 1000 -
1500S5 Limits of travel in each direction cm 1S6 Speed of travel mm/sec 5S7 Resolution μm < 0.1S8 System backlash # Revolutions < 1S9 System drift μm/min < .02
# Specification (metric) Unit of Measure
Target Value
S10 System is easily assembled/disassembled Survey Yes
S11 Ease of use Survey Yes
S12 Joystick Control Binary Yes
S13 Systems can be operated safely Binary Yes
S14 System mounts standard pipette holder Binary Yes
S15 GUI Control Survey Yes
S16 Remote internet access Binary Yes
1st House of QualityRelationships:9 = Strong3 = Moderate1 = Weak0 = No Relationship
movement reso
lution
Position re
peatab
ility
Manufactu
re Cost
joystick
contro
l
system back
lash; d
irecti
on change
Development C
ost
ease
of use
GUI contro
l
speed
of trav
el
Limits
of trav
el; xy
z
ease
of asse
mbly
Safe operation
system m
ounts sta
ndard pipett
e holder
Size M
anipulator Syst
em
weight o
f Man
ipulator
remote intern
et acce
ss0
50
100
150
200
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
P13371 Pareto of SpecsCo
unt
qfdDataLink20244080
Top Specifications◦ Movement resolution◦ Position Repeatability◦ Manufacturing Cost◦ Joystick Control◦ Backlash reduction
If Top 8 of 16 Specs Met◦ 76% of customer needs satisfied
House of Quality Pareto Analysis
Functional Decomposition of Hydraulic Nanomanipulator
Existing System Evaluation (P12371)
Specs Unsatisfied◦Backlash ◦Delay and rotation problems◦Size◦Weight
Specs Met◦Resolution◦Cost
Hydraulic Driver Concept Development
Servo MotorNano-precision actuator
Commercial SyringeStepper Motor
Hydraulic Driver SelectionCriteria
Servo Motor
NanoActuator
Stepper Motor
Commercial Syringe
*Cost* S -1 -1Life S S S
*Resolution* -1 1 -1Vibration S 1 1
Ease of Control S S -1Physical Size S 1 -1
Weight S 1 SSpeed S S 1
*Backlash* S 1 1Position Repeatability 1 1 S
# of Parts S 1 1Mech. Simplicity S 1 1
Ease to Test -1 S 1Response Time S S S
Torque S -1 SPower Requirments S S 1*Control System
Compatible* -1 -1 -1# of -1 3 3 5# of S 13 6 5# of 1 1 8 7Da
tum
Current Driver ◦ Already have working motors to test◦ Not the root cause of system performance issues◦ Easy to control
Evaluate existing motorsand compare against other
stepper motor options
Stepper Motor
Hydraulic Actuation Concept Development
Piston Actuator
Fluid displaced through the movement of a sealed ram
Hydraulic Actuation Concept Development
Diaphragm Actuator
Pressure is transferred through the depression of an immobile, flexible membrane seal
Hydraulic Actuation SelectionCriteria Diaphragm Piston Piston Cylinder*Cost* -1
Life -1*Resolution* SEase of Control SPhysical Size S
Weight S*Backlash* 1
Position Repeatability S# of Parts -1
Mech. Simplicity -1Ease to Test S
Response Time SFriction 1
Range of Motion -1# of -1 5 # of S 7# of 1 2
Datu
m
Both options are viable and will be evaluated in detailed design phase
Future Hydraulic Actuation Plan
Diaphragm Seals Piston Seals
Ball Bearing Carriages
Sleeve Bearing Carriage
Low Profile Bearing Carriage
Friction Slider (current)
Manipulator Movement Concept Development
Manipulator Movement Selection
CriteriaSleeve Slider
Friction Slider Ball Bearing
Low Pro. Slider
*Cost* -1 -1 SLife S S S
*Resolution* S 1 -1Vibration 1 1 1
Physical Size S S SWeight S S S
*Backlash* 1 1 SPosition Repeatability S S S
# of Parts S -1 SMech. Simplicity S S S
Ease to Test S S S*Friction* 1 1 1
Need of Lubricant S -1 S# of -1 1 3 1# of S 9 6 10# of 1 3 4 2
Datu
m
Pros◦ Reduced Friction◦ Reduced Vibration◦ Reduced Backlash
Cons◦ Cost
Sleeve Sliders
System Architecture
Retain Properties of Current System (P12371)
Resolution◦11 nm theoretical◦53 nm experimental
Cost◦$1200
Design Concept
Lead = 0.0125 in/rev = 0.3175 mm/rev Microsteps/rev = 12,800
◦ 0.02185°/microstep
Feasibility Analysis of Theoretical Resolution
Issues to Improve in Current System (P12371)
Hydraulics◦ Backlash of 14 revolutions to change direction
Manipulator Mounting System◦ High friction causing backlash
Controls◦ Delay and rotation problems◦ Vibration in motor◦ Position un-repeatable
Machining Issues◦ Misalignment
Air in lines
Fittings
Tubes
Hydraulic System Issues
Bulk modulus of water = 2,150 MPa Bulk modulus of air = 0.142 Mpa Assume:
Resulting Backlash◦ 15.75 Revolutions
Air in Hydraulic Lines
Tube Diameter
Length of Air Volume of Air
5mm 5mm 98mm3
Benefit of Smaller Pipe Diameter
System Diameter [m]
Length [m]
dL [nm] Backlash [rev]
Current 0.005 0.4 65,900 0.21Proposed 0.001 0.3 49,400 0.16
Decrease tube diameter
Incorporate line bleeding valve
Replace barbed fittings
Hydraulics Future Plan
Barbed Fitting Double Compression Fitting
Coefficient of Frictional of Slider too high Misalignments
Manipulator Mounting System Issues
Total weight on bottom slider = 760 gms Coefficient of Friction
◦ Friction Slider = 1◦ Sleeve Slider = 0.2
◦ Friction Slider = 8.2N◦ Sleeve Slider = 2.2N
Feasibility Analysis of Sleeve Sliders
Ideal
Existing System
Proposed System
Force to move manipulator (piston+slider) [N] 17.0 11.0Force to actuate hydraulics [N] 7.4 4.8Syringe frictional force [N] 8.8 8.8Force required by lead screw [N] 16.2 11.0Torque required to move lead screw [Nm] 0.0021 0.0018Max Torque at 900 RPM [Nm] 0.00785 0.00785Factor of safety 3.66 4.35
Factor of Safety Improvement From Sleeve Sliders
Controls◦ Un-fluid movement◦ Vibrations
Stepper Motor Issues
Evaluate Current System Programming bugs
Different driver chip Commercial control boards
Stepper Motor Control Future Plan
Existing system◦ Functional◦ Low cost
Controls Possible Design
Changes◦ Different driver IC Chips◦ Improve board layout
Evaluate existing code
Test existing microcontroller
Decide how to tackle live feed from camera
Controls Future Plan
Previous Manufacturing cost: $1,195.75
Cost of suggested improvements: ~$300.00◦ New sliders◦ Smaller diameter, thick walled tubing◦ New piston sleeves◦ Double compression fittings
Cost of items being removed: ~$110.00
Estimated Manufacturing Cost: $1,400
Preliminary Cost
Risk ManagementID Risk Item Effect Cause
Likelihood
Severity
Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner
Describe the risk briefly
What is the effect on any or all of the project deliverables if the cause actually happens?
What are the possible cause(s) of this risk?
L*S
What action(s) will you take (and by when) to prevent, reduce the impact of, or transfer the risk of this occurring?
Who is responsible for following through on mitigation?
23 Chips burn outCan’t control the system
Programming errors, wiring errors, feedback, unisolated contacts 3 3 9 Make sure we buy extra chips Nick M / Bridget L
14 Hydraulic leakNo manipulator movement
Rupture in pipe, improper seal 2 3 6
Make sure pipes are sealed properly Keith S
15
Hydraulic fluid compresses/unresponsive to mechanical input
Backlash and reduced manipulator movement
Air introduced into system and sealing issues 3 2 6
Be sure system is properly bled, seal hydraulics properly Jacob B
22Controls have a delay or slow response time Backlash
Unoptimized control and system components unable to respond 2 3 6
Optimize control program to counter-act motor inductance Nick M / Bridget L
24 Bugs in UI CodeImproper control of system
Inexperience with programming language 3 2 6
Debug UI and ask for more experienced help Nick M / Bridget L
25Parts don’t arrive on time Delays entire project Supplier problems 2 3 6
Find lead time and give adequate time for parts to arrive. Jacob B
30Part/equipment availability Delay entire project Back order 2 3 6
Check availability ahead of time Jacob B
Gantt Chart
Gantt Chart
Jacob Bertani – Lead Hydraulic Subsystem Engineer
Avash Joshi – Lead Driver / Hydraulic Interface Subsystem Engineer
Keith Slusser – Lead Manipulator Subsystem Engineer
Bridget Lally – Lead Controls Engineer
Nick Matson – Project Manager & Controls Engineer
Team Roles
Questions?
Current Stepper Motor TorqueExisting Proposed
Max Torque at 900 RPM [Nm] 0.00785 0.00785Factor of safety 3.66 4.35
top related