University of California, Berkeley

ME 130 Final Project

Automatic Vegetable Slicer

Authors: Professor:
Preston Adawag Ken Youssefi
Ivan Maric
Nick Renda
Brandon Sauw
Rishi Verma

December 12, 2014

Table of Contents
1 Background 2

2 Timeline 2

3 Requirements and Specifications 3

3.1 Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Important Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3 Engineering Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 Conceptual Design 4

5 Mechanism Introduction 6

6 Detail Design 7
6.1 Kinematics Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2 Kinetics Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.3 Stiffness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7 CAD 12

8 Engineering Drawings 13

9 Bill of Materials 20

10 Discussion and Future Modifications 21

11 References 23

12 Appendix 23
12.1 Appendix A: Concept Sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1
1 Background

A well balanced diet with good nutrition is an important part of living a healthy lifestyle.

Eating a balanced diet is by no means an easy task; often, these healthy meals take time

and preparation and require many different ingredients. For instance, an average salad has

five to eight different vegetables. Each vegetable must be carefully chopped and prepared,

a very monotonous, time consuming task. This is what deters the average student from

eating a salad with each meal. It is much easier to microwave a pre-made meal for two

minutes rather than spend fifteen minutes chopping vegetables. If this task was automated,

we strongly believe that this would encourage more individuals to consume more vegetables.

As a team, we sought to manufacture a device that would be capable of executing this task.

We wanted the device to be portable, lightweight, and simple to use. Our vision is to see

our Automatic Vegetable Slicer (AVS) on the countertops of many homes.

2 Timeline

Figure 1: Gantt Chart beginning with ideation and ending with assembly and testing.

2
 The Gantt Chart in Figure 1 outlines the schedule we followed for the project, beginning

with general requirements and specifications and ending with assembly and testing. We

followed the chart stringently, especially for machining. The entire team had machine shop

training and experience prior to the project, which greatly expedited the production cycle.

3 Requirements and Specifications

We established the following specifications and functional requirements for the vegetable

slicer at the beginning of the semester. We met all the engineering specifications and observed

all important constraints.

3.1 Functional Requirements

The AVS uses manual advancement to propel different fruits and vegetables through a guide

chamber which then feeds them to the slicing mechanism. We abandoned an automated

vegetable-feed method in favor of manual advancement as a functional requirement. The

AVS can easily slice through softer vegetables, such as cucumbers at a speed of one slice

every three seconds. After being sliced and pushed forward by the mechanism, the vegetables

then fall neatly into a collection chamber.

3.2 Important Constraints

Although the slider-crank mechanism was manufactured mainly with aluminum, the housing

that encloses the vegetable was made with food-grade FDA approved acrylic. This ensures

that vegetables are safe for consumption. The device also has an emergency switch in

place in order to stop the blade and de-energize the AC-DC converter at any time during

operation. Lastly, the entire device is enclosed in an acrylic shield that prevents user access

to the blade. These constraints were selected due to the inherent risks associated with an

3
automated guillotine blade; the user must be safe during operation and have the ability to

immediately shut down the slicer if necessary.

3.3 Engineering Specifications

The mechanism weighs under 15 pounds, ensuring it is readily portable. In addition, the

AVS housing is 1x1x1 ft., which makes it convenient for storage in household kitchens. The

device is powered by a single motor that provides a minimum of 20 lbf-in of torque. A force

analysis shows that the necessary torque is 5 lbf-in. The final value of 20 lbf-in was chosen

using a safety factor of 4 to account for friction and motor losses, and cutting at different

link angles. Lastly, the motors shaft rotates at an angular speed of 20 RPM, chosen because

we wanted the blade to slice every three seconds. As a result, the user can easily adjust the

rate at which they feed the vegetable into the blade.

4 Conceptual Design

In order to determine the optimal design for our vegetable slicer, we brainstormed different

concepts and sketched them out. Each team member drafted a prototype idea that would

meet the basic design constraints and requirements described in the previous section (see

Section 3). Most of the designs were similar, as there arent many different ways to easily

slice vegetables with a mechanism. They involved variations of a feed-through mechanism

for the vegetables coupled with a slider-crank that acted as a guillotine for the vegetables.

All of the concept sketches can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 2 is the concept sketch that represents the closest ideation to our final design. It

employs a conveyor belt linked to a vertical slider crank with a gear reduction, so one shaft

can power the blade and the belt. It also contains a removable bin to catch the vegetables,

so the operator can easily remove them.

4
 Figure 2: Concept Sketch showing proposed slider-crank mechanism.

Our final design deviates from Figure 2 in a number of ways. The final changes that we

agreed upon were collections of good ideas from all of the brainstormed concepts. They were

brought together and incorporated to ensure that the best out of each concept contributed

to the final design. Our final design is powered by a DC motor, whereas Figure 2 shows

the mechanism being powered by hand. Additionally, the conveyor belt was ditched in favor

of a manual feed-through. The reasoning was that an automatic feed-through was cost

prohibitive and didnt offer enough benefit for the work needed to make it. The acrylic

housing that constitutes part of the final design was adopted from one of the other sketches.

Finally, the vegetable collection chamber was incorporated because it appeared in two of the

conceptual designs.

5
5 Mechanism Introduction

The AVS is comprised of a dual slider-crank mechanism that actuates a cutting blade to

slice the vegetables. As a 12V DC motor rotates, a sprocket drives a chain which spins the

drive shaft. The drive shaft then actuates the crank slider mechanism by spinning the crank

and the connecting rod, which is attached with a pin joint to the blade; this torque creates

the chopping motion necessary to cut the vegetables. We calculated that the required force

necessary to cut standard aromatic vegetables was approximately 10 lbs. In order to achieve

this output force we determined that a motor that outputs 20 lbf-in of torque was necessary

in order to ensure a factor of safety of four.

The slider-crank mechanism consists of axle mounts, a crank, a connecting rod, guide

rails, nylon sliders, blade mounting-blocks, and the hardened-steel blade. The axle mounts,

cranks, and connecting rods interface with one another through precision pins, bearings, and

shaft collars. These allow for smooth rotation of the parts during operation. We sourced

our guide rails and nylon sliders directly from McMaster-Carr because such parts are too

difficult and costly to machine in the student shop. Aluminum mounting blocks are the

interface between the hardened steel blade and the guide rails.

The powertrain for our mechanism consists of a 12V DC motor with a built-in gearbox

that was purchased from McMaster-Carr. Two sprockets, one on the motor shaft and one

on the axle are connected with a ANSI No. 25 Chain. Again, all of these components were

purchased because they are difficult and cost-prohibitive to machine in low volumes, and

likely wouldnt function as intended.

The entire mechanism is mounted to an ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (com-

monly abbreviated as UHMWPE) base for stability, portability, and cleanliness. Addition-

ally, the slider mechanism is mounted to a machined aluminum platform that is connected

6
to the base using machined spacers. The collection chamber sits flush with this platform for

catching vegetables.

As part of our safety considerations, an acrylic case was cut using a laser printer and

assembled to fit around the device. Additionally, an emergency stop and power switch were

installed to quickly cut power to the operating mechanism if needed. The power from an

external source is routed through an AC-DC converter, to which the emergency stop, power

switch, and DC motor are also connected.

6 Detail Design

6.1 Kinematics Analysis

Because we decided to use manual advancement to feed our vegetables, a kinematics analysis

was discarded as the speeds of the links were unimportant. The changing velocity of the

blade did not matter as long as the stroke length was large enough to fit most vegetables.

As cutting depends much more on force and and torque, we chose to do a kinetics analysis

instead to obtain values that helped us select our motor.

6.2 Kinetics Analysis

We performed the following calculations to determine how much torque would be needed to

apply 10 pounds of force. This value was found experimentally by slicing a cucumber on

a scale and measuring the difference between the cucumbers weight and the peak weight

recorded when pressing a knife into the vegetable.

We wanted about 3.5 inches of clearance for the vegetables so we set the crank length as

1.75 in. For an in-line slider-crank where eccentricity is zero, the stroke length is twice the

crank length. We define the crank as r = 1.75in and the connecting rod as L = 4in. Figure

3 illustrates the slider-crank used in our analysis.

7
 Figure 3: Slider-crank mechanism diagram.

Using the law of sines,

L sin = r sin (1)

we solve for , or the angle that the connecting rod makes with the horizontal when maximum

torque is applied.

r   1.75 
= sin1 sin = sin1 sin(90 ) = 25.9 (2)
L 4

Next, we split up our vectors RAO and RBA as follows.

RAO = 1.75 6 (90 ) = 1.75i + 0j (3)

RBA = 4 6 (334 ) = 4 cos(334 )i + 4 sin(334 )j = 3.6i 1.75j (4)

Figure 4 shows the Free Body Diagram for the slider (Link 4), and the subsequent force

polygon where P~ , F~34 , and F~14 are summed.

Figure 4: Free Body Diagram and Force Polygon for Link 4.

Now, summing our forces acting on the slider at point B, and labeling the ground as Link

1 and the connecting rod as Link 3, we have the following equation.

P~ + F~34 + F~14 = 0 (5)

8
Solving for F34 and F14 gives

F34 = 6.7 6 (335) lbf (6)

F14 = 2.92 6 (90) lbf (7)

Equating the colinear forces on the connecting rod, we find that F32 = F43 . Next, we sum

the moments about point O. Figure 5 shows the diagram for this step.

Figure 5: Summation of moments about point O.

From this, we get the following relationship,

T~ = (R~AO F~32 ) = (1.75i + 0~j) (6.05~i + 2.8~j) (8)

Finally, the required torque to generate a 10 lb cutting force with our mechanism is

T~ = 4.9k lbf in (9)

6.3 Stiffness Analysis

Three parts were analyzed for stiffness using the SolidWorks FEA package: the crank, the

connecting rod, and the pin that connects them. These were chosen because they are the

smallest components that take the most load. While all the load is eventually reacted to the

base panel, it is supported by six 0.5 aluminum shafts, and a 0.25 thick aluminum plate,

so it was excluded from analysis. The FEA analyses were set up by constraining different

parts of the system, and applying loads to see how the parts deflected. The results are shown

on the next page in Figures 6 through 8.

9
 Figure 6: A SolidWorks Deflection Analysis of Link 2

Figure 7: A Solidworks Deflection Analysis of Link 3

Figure 8: A Solidworks Deflection Analysis of the Connecting Pin

10
 All of the FEAs were calculated with worst case load conditions, or when the motor is

stalling and exerting its maximum torque trying to cut an object. For link 2 in Figure 6, the

load is transmitted from the shaft to the bearing through a keyway. 56 lbf was applied to

the side of the key hole as it is the equivalent force that generates 20 lbf-in of torque. Both

the bearing and shaft holes were given a fixed hinge constraint, which allows rotation of

the joints but no movement of the axes. This simulates the condition when the blade is

stuck and the link will not rotate. For the amount of load this piece is taking it is incredibly

overbuilt.

For link 3 in Figure 7, the link is always in either tension or compression. The FEA was

ran with similar constraints as with link 2. However, because the bearings are not centered

within the link, buckling contributes to material defelction. The resultant deflection was

slightly larger than for link 2, but still in the tenths of millimeters. This is not surprising,

as 6061-T6 Aluminum is a strong material, and this link only takes around 20 lbs in tension

or compression.

We hypothesized that the pin would contribute significantly to deflection as it is only an

eigth of an inch in diameter and takes a full 20 lb load from the blade in shear. The FEA

in Figure 8 shows it has the smallest deflection of all, which makes sense when considering

it is made of stainless steel, a much stronger material.

While the FEA models predict very low deflection, it is likely that this will not be the

case when the mechanism is assembled. Because of its small size, it is almost certain that

these parts will have poor tolerances, and will wiggle slightly when assembled due to lack

of concentricty of holes, or misalignment of bearings and shafts. We account for this in the

design by leaving space between parts, so when the links are rotating they have ample room

to pass by each other without interference.

11
7 CAD

Figure 9: Right View

Figure 10: Left View

12
 The rendered CAD models are shown on the previous page in Figures 9 and 10, with

the various components enumerated. Several subassembly views are shown in Figures 11

through 12 in different configurations.

(a) Stock View (b) Exploded View

Figure 11: The Powertrain Assembly

(a) Stock View (b) Exploded View (c) Exploded View

Figure 12: The Link and Blade Assemblies

8 Engineering Drawings

The next several pages showcase the engineering drawings used to create the components

that were assembled together into the mechanism.

13
Figure 13: The UHMWPE base used to mount the mechanism.

Figure 14: Standoffs for mounting the aluminum plate.

14
 Figure 15: Aluminum base that the mechanism is built around.

Figure 16: Motor block for mounting the motor to the UHMWPE base.

15
 Figure 17: Mounting plate for the DC motor.

Figure 18: Ball-bearing holder for mounting the axle.

16
 Figure 19: Mirrored ball-bearing holder.

Figure 20: The crank for driving the mechanism (Link 2).

17
 Figure 21: The connecting rod (Link 3).

Figure 22: Aluminum block for mounting the blade to the slider.

18
 Figure 23: Hardened steel blade for slicing vegetables.

Figure 24: Polycarbonate panel for the emergency-stop and power switch.

19
 Figure 25: Rod that is used to push vegetables into the slicer.

9 Bill of Materials

The following charts show a full list of materials ordered from McMaster-Carr for the project.

20
 Figure 26: McMaster-Carr Bill of Materials

10 Discussion and Future Modifications

In creating the Automated Vegetable Slicer, our team took great care with the CAD and

general design of the mechanism. We balanced machining parts in the student machine shop

with purchasing off-the-shelf components such as our sliders and guide rails. For example,

21
machining those components to our needed precision is out of the scope of our resources in

the machine shop. It is much more time and cost effective to simply purchase those parts.

With regards to machining, we had a very clear process in mind for each part as it was

designed, something that stems from our experience in the shop. This foresight prevented

making mistakes on parts once we began machining.

We did have some difficulty machining the blade. We purchased a hardened steel blade

that we then drilled holes into and cut to size. Hardened steel is incredibly hard to machine,

and in the process (under supervision from the machine shop supervisors) we destroyed a

drill bit. In the future, we would probably machine the blades to the necessary size and

shape, and then harden them.

As a result of the care we took in design, none of our parts had to be reworked after

the first iteration. Furthermore, all the machined parts fit perfectly with the purchased

components from McMaster-Carr. Our intial test went well as the AVS worked flawlessly on

the first try.

After all initial machining and assembly was done, the team added several safety features

to the AVS. An aerospace-grade power switch was installed in addition to an emergency-stop

that cuts all power to the entire system. An acrylic housing box was assembled to contain

the entire mechanism and prevent users from injuring themselves.

A significant future improvement that could be made would be to incorproate an auto-

mated vegetable-feed mechanism, such as a conveyor belt. This would simplify operation,

making the entire slicer hands-free. Implementing a conveyor belt would require guide pan-

els that would feed the vegetables under the blade in a straight path. Additionally, these

guides would prevent the vegetables from rotating as the blade pushes down on them, some-

thing that we experience even now as we feed them manually. Any future vegetable-feed

mechanism could also include timing with the slicer.

22
11 References

[1] Factors of Safety. Factors of Safety. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/factors-safety-fos-d 1624.html

[2] Slider-Crank Mechanisms. Slider-Crank Mechanisms. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.

http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/6885/mod resource/content/1/ch7/7-2.htm

[3] Youssefi, Ken. Force Analysis. ME 130 Lecture. UC Berkeley, Berkeley. 4 Nov. 2014.

Lecture.

[4] Tongue, Benson H., and S. Sheppard. Dynamics: Analysis and Design of Systems in

Motion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005. Print.

12 Appendix

12.1 Appendix A: Concept Sketches

23
24
25
26