Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RoMow
Final Design Report
ENGR 339/340
May 2015
From Left: Andrew Frandsen, Dustin Brouwer, Nathan Terschak, Jordan Newhof
© 2015, Calvin College and Jordan Newhof, Andrew Frandsen, Dustin Brouwer, Nathan Terschak.
i
Executive Summary
Team 3 set out at the beginning of the fall semester of 2014 to find a project that would challenge the team
both mechanically and electrically. The team was put into contact with Dr. Yoon Kim, an engineering
professor at Calvin College, who had an idea that he wanted to see put into action. His vision for the team
was to design a remote control lawn mowing platform compatible with a standard walk-behind lawn mower.
His idea for the project was intended only for personal use, so the team decided to broaden the scope
outwards a bit. The goal for the project now called RoMow was the first step towards creating a remote
controlled lawn mowing system that could compete in the lawn care industry. It would compete with the
other remote controlled lawn mowers by being flexible in its uses, being cheaper to produce and by having
the necessary safety precautions in place to make the product safe for consumer use.
The team worked together as a group of three mechanical engineers and one electrical engineer to design
the prototype along with the controls system. The team deemed this project a success because it
strengthened the team’s claim that it was indeed feasible to design a remote controlled system that would
work with a range of lawn mowers to allow control of the lawnmower from a significant distance. The
design was also a success because the design was able to meet the customer specifications along with the
team imposed performance requirements. The project was also successful because the expenditures and
production costs for the RoMow remained under the $500 budget each team was given.
The idea for a remote controlled lawn mowing system is an exciting one and this design and prototype lays
the groundwork in terms of a working concept. The team hopes that in the future, a team will pursue this
project and implement some of the design changes proposed later in the report.
ii
Table of Content
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Caring.................................................................................................................................... 2
iii
4.1.3 Structural Element Options ................................................................................................. 16
5.1.2 Wheels................................................................................................................................. 35
iv
6.3 Slope Test.................................................................................................................................... 58
8 References ........................................................................................................................................... 64
9 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 65
10 Appendices...................................................................................................................................... 66
v
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Team 3 ............................................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Initial design schedule.....................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3. Mechanical Second Semester Gantt Chart......................................................................................................9
Figure 4. Electrical Second Semester Gantt Chart .........................................................................................................9
Figure 5. Side View of Lawnmower ..............................................................................................................................17
Figure 6. Kickbar Mower Loading Mechanism.............................................................................................................19
Figure 7. Rear Wheel Loading Ramp ...........................................................................................................................20
Figure 8. Front Mower Suspension Clamp ...................................................................................................................20
Figure 9. Remote Control Car Style Transmitter ..........................................................................................................22
Figure 10. Remote Control Aircraft Style Transmitter..................................................................................................23
Figure 11. Turnigy 6x FHSS 2.4GHz Transmitter ..........................................................................................................25
Figure 12. Motor Current Draw Test ............................................................................................................................28
Figure 13. Toro GTS Recycler .......................................................................................................................................34
Figure 14. Lawnmower Dimensions .............................................................................................................................34
Figure 15. Shihlin motor and mounting plate ..............................................................................................................35
Figure 16. Caster assembly ..........................................................................................................................................36
Figure 17. Wheel and motor mounting........................................................................................................................36
Figure 18. L-Shaped Bracket ........................................................................................................................................37
Figure 19. Front and body section assembly................................................................................................................37
Figure 20. Electrical housing construction ...................................................................................................................38
Figure 21. Electrical Communication Flow Chart .........................................................................................................40
Figure 22. R/C Receiver Output Pins ............................................................................................................................42
Figure 23. Transmitter Channels ..................................................................................................................................43
Figure 24. Example of R/C Receiver Signal ..................................................................................................................43
Figure 25. Receiver Signals Experiment Set-up ............................................................................................................44
Figure 26. Oscilloscope Close-up ..................................................................................................................................45
Figure 27. Sabertooth Speed Controller .......................................................................................................................46
Figure 28. ISR Flow Diagram ........................................................................................................................................48
Figure 29. Arduino Main Loop .....................................................................................................................................49
Figure 30. Safety/Protection schematic .......................................................................................................................52
Figure 31. Safety/Protection circuit bread board setup...............................................................................................54
Figure 32. Safety/Protection board design ..................................................................................................................54
Figure 33. Safety/Protection PCB .................................................................................................................................55
vi
Figure 34. Finished safety/protection board................................................................................................................55
Figure 35. Electrical System Block Diagram .................................................................................................................56
Figure 36. Cutting Height Test .....................................................................................................................................57
Figure 37. RoMow FEA Assembly.................................................................................................................................60
Figure 38. Rear Wheel Suspension Displacement ........................................................................................................61
Figure 39. Front Mower Clamp Displacement .............................................................................................................61
vii
Table of Tables
Table 1. Team Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................................6
Table 2. Breakdown of Hours Spent.............................................................................................................................10
Table 3. Initial Project Budget......................................................................................................................................10
Table 4. Actual Budget.................................................................................................................................................11
Table 5. Transmitter Range Test 1 ...............................................................................................................................24
Table 6. Transmitter Range Test 2 ...............................................................................................................................24
Table 7. DC Motor Options ..........................................................................................................................................26
Table 8. Motor Current Draw Test Results ...................................................................................................................28
Table 9. Motor Drvier Criteria Weights........................................................................................................................30
Table 10. Motor Driver Decision Matrix.......................................................................................................................30
Table 11. Microcontroller Criteria Weights .................................................................................................................32
Table 12. Microcontroller Decision Matrix ..................................................................................................................32
Table 13. Major Electrical Components .......................................................................................................................39
Table 14. Safety/Protection circuit connections ..........................................................................................................53
viii
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
Team 3 was approached by Dr. Yoon Kim, an electrical engineering professor at Calvin College, with the
idea for a design project which would benefit those who seek to live independently, but lack the ability to
do ordinary tasks around the house. He proposed that Team 3 design a remote-controlled lawn mower. The
method he proposed was a platform that could be attached to an existing push lawnmower that many
homeowners already own. The platform which he proposed is what the team has named RoMow. The team
also saw that it could be designed to appeal to more than just those who lack mobility; RoMow would be
able to make the task of mowing the lawn easier for everybody and should be designed with both customer
sets in mind. The platform would control the direction and speed of the mower by means of a controls
system and a set of electric motors meaning that the operator would be able to direct the mower from quite
a distance. RoMow should be removable from the mower and should not require major modifications to be
made to the original design of the mower in order to be used in conjunction with RoMow. A lawnmower is
a dangerous piece of equipment and removing the manual controls (i.e. the handle and throttle) makes it
even more dangerous. Team 3 intends to design safeguards to make the RoMow safe to use, even remotely
with the goal in mind that this design is taking the first step towards creating a product which could be
profitable in the lawn care market.
The team’s goal in essence was to take the first step towards the creation of a consumer product. It was to
be a proof of concept that it was indeed plausible to design a remote controlled lawn mowing system that
could be used with a range of different lawn mower brands, while still being general enough in design that
only one style would be needed to cover that range. The hope was that RoMow would be cheaper to produce
than a stand-alone RC lawn-mower, and have the necessary safety protocols and precautions to make the
product marketable to home and business owners.
1
The mechanical design should be sturdy and have the necessary safety features built in so that the system
doesn’t fail prematurely or under normal operation conditions. In addition, driving the platform via the
remote control transmitter should be intuitive and easy to learn, so that minimal effort is required from the
user.
1.2.2 Caring
RoMow is designed for those who cannot easily mow their lawn, so caring is a critical part of the design.
The design has to be sensitive to the customers who are going to be using it. It should make mowing the
lawn a simple task requiring little to no physical work to accomplish the task. Along with being easy to use,
it should also be safe. The platform should make the task of mowing the lawn no more dangerous than it
was before, and if possible make it safer. The team focused a good deal of effort to ensure that the design
is safe to use by designing proper safety features and through situational testing.
1.2.3 Integrity
The design process of RoMow was also guided by the principle of integrity. This means that the design is
a delightful combination of both form and function. Included in this idea is that the design of the RoMow
is intuitive for the user to operate. It is a piece of equipment that is both functional and intuitive for the
customer. The team’s goal was that there was no gap between expectation and reality.
2
Figure 1. Team 3
Dustin Brouwer
Dustin is from Sheboygan, Wisconsin. He is a mechanical engineering student who has a particular interest
in controls and electronics. After graduation he hopes to obtain an engineering position in the automotive
field.
He has been given the responsibility of frame design along with building and testing prototypes. Dustin
also helped with the electrical control system and the safety protocols, given his experience with electrical
equipment and controls.
Andrew Frandsen
Andrew is from Naperville, Illinois. He is a mechanical engineering major who thoroughly enjoys designing
real world applications with sustainability in mind. Upon graduation, he hopes to obtain a job in renewable
energy and to eventually pursue a master’s degree in Business Administration.
Andrew has the responsibility of frame design using computer-assisted design (CAD). Building and testing
prototypes also falls under Andrew’s list of responsibilities.
Jordan Newhof
Jordan was born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He attended Covenant Christian High School in
Standale, Michigan and then began the engineering program at Calvin College in the fall of 2011. He is a
mechanical engineering student, who enjoys work in thermodynamics and fluid flow especially. He plans
to work in the consulting side of mechanical engineering as well as obtain a graduate degree in either
Business or Engineering.
3
Jordan is primarily responsible for communication with the client. Client communication is crucial in
meeting all the design specifications provided by the client. Jordan is a major contributor in editing and
writing project reports and presentations, as well as assisting in the frame design.
Nathan Terschak
Nathan was born in Fort Wayne, Indiana, briefly lived near Toronto, Ontario at age 11, and now resides
permanently west of St. Louis, Missouri. After graduating from Westminster Christian Academy, he began
attending Calvin College where he now studies Electrical/Computer engineering and serves as a captain on
the swim team. His career goals include finding a job where both hardware and software design skills are
applicable.
Nathan is responsible for the electrical components of the system. That includes: R/C transmitter and
receiver, electric motors, motor control system, and motor drivers. The electrical system is an emphasized
part of the project due to the elaborate control system. He also assisted in writing the electrical design
portions of this report.
In the second semester the students focus much more on their projects than in the first semester. The teams
are responsible for their prototypes during this time, along with a design report focusing on the decisions
made during the design. During this portion of the class the students are also responsible for developing
tests to check their designs for functionality. This is something that hasn’t been stressed before in the
curriculum so it poses some new challenges. There are also many opportunities for students to work on
their presentation abilities with the multiple progress updates that need to be made to students, professors,
4
advisors, families and friends. Near the end of the semester the students have an opportunity to show off
the prototypes and the work done over the past semester at Senior Design Night, to family, friends, and
faculty.
5
2 Project Management
2.1 Work Breakdown
The design and fabrication of RoMow is quite a large task for a group to undertake especially in just one
semester, given the busy lives of the team members. In order for it to go smoothly, the team divided the
main tasks up, and assigned one or more to each member. This way all members would have tasks to
continue working on, and could take leadership over a small part ensuring that each member was involved.
Table 1 below gives a quick overview of the main responsibilities of each member indicating each person’s
roles and expertise.
Fabrication
Dustin Brouwer Mechanical design
Electronics assistance
Electrical design
Nathan Terschak Electrical fabrication
Report writing
Although each section below talks about a different system of the design, all of them are incorporated
together in the final design of RoMow, meaning that all members did have to work with each other to ensure
that there was no interference between disciplines.
6
decided that it would be best to use a 3D CAD program to design the frame along with the wheels, and
motors to make sure that the design was possible before prototyping. Andrew was responsible for doing the
design work in Autodesk Inventor, while Jordan and Dustin helped with ideas and drawings of how to make
the frame meet the requirements, while maintaining relative simplicity. This part of the design needed a
few people working on it to ensure that the best possible solution to the problem was attained.
The fabrication of the frame was done after the design of it was finalized in Inventor. Andrew and Dustin
worked together on this and addressed issues as they arose during the fabrication process. Removing Jordan
from the frame design group allowed all members to have enough work to do independently, so that time
was not wasted. The details of the frame’s design will be highlighted later on in Section 4.1.
7
2.2 Schedule
At the end of Engineering 339 the team developed a tentative schedule for how the design would be
conducted in Engineering 340. It turned out that the team did not stick very closely to the initial schedule
because there were so many unforeseen tasks and obstacles that would have been difficult to see at that
point in time. Shown below is the initial schedule that was posed. As can be seen it varies greatly from final
breakdown of tasks. This was because the frame design took much longer than anticipated due to clearance
issues with the mower. This is highlighted later on in Section 4.1.
The schedule is very aggressive and the team was not able to keep up with it due to design and component
malfunction delays. However, this aggressive posture allowed the team to still finish on time, regardless of
delays. The team was initially wary of the schedule, but the team acknowledged that delays would happen
but wanted to feel pushed throughout the semester. The initial schedule helped the team stay aggressive in
the beginning of the semester to keep making progress on the project.
The actual schedule is broken up into 2 different Gantt charts, one for electrical-related work and one for
work on the mechanical design. In place of prototypes, the team decided to move to a more iterative design
approach. This means that minor testing of parts was continuously done along the way negating the need
8
to make multiple prototypes. The final schedule for the mechanical aspects of the project is shown in Figure
3, and the final schedule of electrical work is shown in Figure 4.
Each member of the team recorded the amount of hours that they personally spent on each of the tasks in
the schedule. Sections 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 provide tables listing these hours. Adding the totals from each
of these tables yields 573 total hours spent on the RoMow project for the entire team.
Table 2 shows a breakdown of how many hours were dedicated to mechanical design and fabrication,
electrical design and fabrication, and other tasks.
9
Table 2. Breakdown of Hours Spent
The percentages in this table show that the project ended up being well suited for a team of three mechanical
engineers and one electrical engineer.
2.3 Budget
Each design team was initially allocated $500 for the completion of the project. It is not uncommon for
teams to go over this budget, especially if they are designing a prototype, but it does have to be approved
by a faculty advisor. Team 3 forecasted that the budget for this project would be approximately $635. The
breakdown of the team’s budget is given in Table 3.
The actual money spent on the project ended up being $481. The initial budget posed in the PPFS ended up
being higher than necessary. The team decided that a new set of batteries were not necessary for a
preliminary prototype after testing them. Also it was determined that a transmitter and receiver pair wasn’t
necessary because of the benefits of the one the team already had access to (Section 4.2.2.6).
10
Table 4. Actual Budget
Money Used
The design methodology for the mechanical aspects of the project was to finish the design of RoMow in
sections. The team determined that the sections would be independent of each other and would be fastened
together at the end. Much brainstorming needed to occur before a design was decided upon and many of
the ideas the team came up with were scrapped after coordination issues between systems were realized.
When the simplest solution to the frame design became evident, a model was begun. The frame design was
first completed in Inventor before it was constructed. This was the first part completed because the
dimensions of the frame needed to be finalized before the other aspects of the design could be finalized.
This is because the electrical components, motors, wires, wheels, and safety components need to fit on and
in the frame. During the design of the frame and electrical housing, finite element analysis was run on the
high stress areas to ensure that the design was rugged enough to withstand the stresses it would undergo
when in operation. During the construction some slight changes were made, to the frame, to fix clearance
issues, but for the most part the construction of the frame went very smoothly because of the simple design
and attention to detail in the CAD design.
11
The electrical design process was different than the mechanical design. The electrical system that was
implemented was much less about locations and clearances and was much more about implementation and
communication. The process began with the identification of the required systems and components needed
for RoMow. Diagrams were drawn to show flow and logic charts were mapped to correctly program the
controls. Implementation was determined through this process. It was necessary to make sure that the
communications and controls were working properly the whole way through the design so that when
problems occurred they would be due to the last step completed. To make sure this occurred, design steps
were made incrementally and tested to ensure the design was working after each step. This approach proved
to be wise because the source of the problem was always readily apparent. Like the mechanical design, the
electrical part was initially quite simplified to make sure the design goals were met, but was expanded upon
once the initial goals were met. The design process will be covered in much more depth in Section 5.
12
3 Overall Design Requirements
The design of the RoMow was governed by a set of specifications as given to the team by the customer,
Dr. Yoon Kim. The specifications gave the team a clear direction in which to proceed during the design
process. Having customer specifications presented Team 3 with a specific set of issues that needed to be
designed around.
● The mower can be attached and detached from the platform without modification
● There shall be a clamp for the mower blade to continually spin
● Must not remove wheels or modify the mower
● The platform must carry the mower and be driven by electric motor
● The platform must have 2 driven wheels minimum
● The control of the platform should be via wireless remote control (radio frequency)
● Design must have an emergency stop switch from the controller
13
enough grass height for a standard user. 2.5” was settled upon because it is the lowest recommended height 1
by Michigan State’s School of Turf Science. RoMow is then adjustable upwards to 3.5”.
The safety design, which is discussed in Section 5, further describes the way in which the team was able to
meet these design criteria.
1
http://www.turf.msu.edu/mowing-lawn-turf
14
4 Design Decisions
This section of the design report lays out the major design decisions that the team needed to make this
semester and what was decided upon for the final prototype of RoMow.
4.1 Frame
4.1.1 Frame Structure
The team had a decision to make with regards to how the frame of the RoMow should look. RoMow not
only has to carry a lawn mower, but also needs to house two electric motors, two 12V batteries, wiring and
other electrical components. The team decided that the structural integrity of the frame, as well as a feeling
of “completeness” were the most important aspects of the frame. Completeness means that RoMow looks
like a complete product, where everything looks neat and in place. The two possible forms examined are
outlined below.
15
and are then fastened together. The third section of RoMow is where the electronics, batteries and wiring
would be located. The shape of this section would be the same box frame idea as the first section and it will
be fastened on top of the second, with matching base dimensions.
4.1.1.3 Decision
The two tier design was chosen because it is more structurally sound than the previous design because it
distributes the torsional ride effects on two levels, and resists deformation with the vertical supports. It also
has a much more contained feel than the previous design alternative. This is important to the team because
we see this as being something that a customer would not like. The only downside to this design is that it
ends up being heavier than the simple platform frame.
4.1.3.3 Decision
It was decided that the extruded pipe should be used for the structural form of RoMow because of the
amount of it available to the team. The frame is going was going to take the form of a box so the team
thought that this material could be used for a majority of the pieces. However there are some areas where
sheet metal was better suited for the application.
16
4.1.4 Mower Suspension System
The suspension that is referred to in this report is the means by which the mower, used with RoMow, is
held above the grass and secured in place. The team had multiple ideas of how to meet the cutting height
requirement as specified in Section 3.2. The bottom of the frame of the mower needed to be at 2” off the
ground, to cut at 2.5”. The wheels of the mower extend below the bottom edge of the frame. A side view
of the mower is shown below in Figure 5. These dimensions were important to have accurately measured
because the cutting height is the limiting factor of the design.
There are four main areas which the suspension system could attach to, that would be able to support the
weight of the mower: the front and back edges of the frame, the rounded sides of the frame and underneath
the wheels.
The design consists of four cradles mounted on the side of the interior of the frame; one for each wheel.
The mower would be loaded from the back, by pushing the mower up the ramp and placing the back two
17
wheels in the rounded cradles and then by lowering the front end into the front two cradles. These cradles
would be made from sheet metal that was bent into a rounded shape that matched the contour of the wheel.
This would be done to prevent the wheels from moving while RoMow is in operation. These cradles would
then be permanently fixed to the interior of the frame by welding. The height of the cut of grass would then
be determined by the level the wheels were set to. At the lowest setting the cutting height would be at 2.5”
high and then would extend up from there.
There are two major issues with this idea and the first arises with the way that the mower would be loaded.
There would need to be a runner from the top of the ramp to the cradle so that the wheel could be easily
dropped into place. That would not be so hard to do, but it requires quite a bit of physical exertion to remove
the back wheels from the cradle when unloading the mower. The operator would have lift and pull the back
wheels to disengage them, and then use the back wheels as a pivot to lift out the front wheels. This would
be too much of a hassle for an operator to go through. The second big issue is the clearance between the
ground and the bottom of the cradle. The cradle is supporting the wheels which only sit 1.25” above the
ground when the cutting height is at 2.5”. If the thickness of the sheet metal is 1/4", then the bottom of the
cradle is only 1” off the ground. The problem with this arises when the ground isn’t level. The cradles could
bump on the ground and cause a lot of shear stress of the welds that hold them the frame or cause it to be
bent out of shape. Finally if this design were implemented, there would most likely be clearance issues
when built. For these reasons the team moved onto a new idea.
18
Figure 6. Kickbar Mower Loading Mechanism
The benefit of this design is that not much physical exertion is needed besides the use of the foot to push
the bar down. Some obstacles do arise with this design too. First off, height adjusting would be very difficult
to implement without being able to move the pivot point of the push bar mechanism. Changing the wheel
height would not help because they would not be in contract with the ground anyways. Secondly, there
would be a lot of stress on the front clamps during the unloading process due to the shift of weight when
the back end is pivoted upwards. There is also a good chance that the front end would disengage the clamps,
and slip off due to the forward motion of the mower when the contact bar sweeps the 90 degree motion.
Elongating the clamps to reduce the chance of the mower disengaging, will increase the chances of the
mower sliding during operation and bending failure under normal loading.
19
Figure 7. Rear Wheel Loading Ramp
The mower is loaded from the back just as with the other two designs, by folding down the ramp. The
wheels are rolled up the slight incline of the ramp and then are lowered onto the platform by means of the
downward slant that is shown in Figure 7. The front end of the mower can then be lowered onto the clamps
as seen in Figure 8.
This design has multiple benefits which makes it more desirable than the other two designs. First of all, this
design allows for the simplest and least physically demanding loading operation. The mower doesn’t need
to be pushed up a steeply inclined ramp to be loaded. It also only takes one motion for the mower to be
released from the clamps and removed from the RoMow. Secondly, this design gets rid of the clearance
issues that were encountered in the first design by making the platform flat rather than trying to follow the
contour of the wheel. Using the front clamps keeps the wheels from rolling around on the platforms and
also makes the unloading of the mower very simple. The unfortunate part of this design is that the height
adjustment needs to be done by altering the height of the rear wheels and by changing the setting of the
height on the clamps. This isn’t as intuitive as the team would have hoped for. Also the rear wheel platforms
20
do have the same issue with height off the ground as discussed in the first design, but the hope is that the
extra support given by the steel tubing and the rounded edges will keep RoMow from digging into the
ground when it is uneven.
4.1.4.4 Decision
The team decided to pursue the design outlined in Section 4.1.4.3 because it would be the easiest of the
three to implement and provides the needed flexibility to fit a range of different lawnmowers without
encountering clearance issues.
21
to focus their studies on electrical engineering. This means that the team will need to purchase a
transmitter/receiver pair designed for use with remote control vehicles. Luckily, there are many products
that have been made for hobbyists that build their own remote control cars and planes. There are two general
styles that the transmitters come in. An example of the first style, which is usually associated with remote
control cars, is shown in Figure 9. The other style, which is usually associated with remote control aircraft,
is shown in Figure 10. Based on the products available, the team found that transmitters of the first style
rarely provide 4 channels, which is the minimum requirement for this project. Furthermore, the team
decided that the second style provides a more natural feel for controlling the RoMow. Due to these
considerations, the search for the R/C radio system was focused on aircraft-style transmitters.
22
Figure 10. Remote Control Aircraft Style Transmitter
23
Table 5. Transmitter Range Test 1
Transmitter Name Range
Spektrum DX5 with 2.4 GHz Spektrum technology 1.8 miles
Futaba 6EX with 2.4 GHz FASST technology 2.1 miles
Futaba 9C 72MHz with FSS synthesizing 2.6 miles
The two transmitters that use 2.4 GHz technology had a range around 2 miles, which is much greater than
the requirement for the RoMow. The results of these tests are certainly promising, as the team will likely
choose a transmitter with similar technology as the first two in Table 5.
Results for a similar test were found on the website bigsquidrc.com. In this test, the writers of the
article titled “2.4 GHz Transmitter Shootout – Radio Range” tested five different transmitters by driving
down a long empty road.
Table 6. Transmitter Range Test 2
Transmitter Name Range
Futaba 4PKS 1233 ft.
Futaba 3PL 1058 ft.
Traxxas TQ 2.4 with Link 840 ft.
Tactic TTX-240 808 ft.
Spektrum DX3S 620 ft.
The results that this group of testers developed are much less impressive than those of the previously
mentioned test. There are several reasons for why this may be the case. It is worth noting that the
transmitters in the first test were all aircraft transmitters while the ones in the second test were all remote
control car style radios. Either the airplane transmitters were designed to have better range, or the nature of
the test provided better results. Since it will be hard to determine what range is possible for a certain
transmitter before purchasing, the team made the assumption that an airplane style transmitter will have a
good chance of satisfying the range requirement for the RoMow.
4.2.2.4 2.4G CT6B 6-Channel Transmitter and Receiver
The CT6B transmitter provides 6 channels, 4 controlled by stick position, and two that are linked to the
state of toggle switches on the top corners of the controller. Like the Tactic, it was designed for R/C
helicopters and airplanes, but has the capabilities needed for controlling the RoMow. This product can be
purchased for $39.00, and that includes the compatible receiver. This product would work nicely for the
first prototype since it satisfies the need for three stick position channels and at least one toggle switch.
24
4.2.2.5 Turnigy 6x FHSS 2.4GHZ Transmitter and Receiver
The Turnigy 6x transmitter offers many of the same capabilities as the CT6B transmitter described above.
It transmits over 6 channels, 4 via stick position, and 2 via toggle switches. It also sells for only $29.99,
which is very budget friendly. As the title suggests, it uses 2.4 GHz FHSS technology, suggesting that
interference would not be an issue.
4.2.2.6 Decision on Radio System
After weighing the pros and cons of each radio system that was found, the team decided to use the Turnigy
6x FHSS 2.4GHz Transmitter and Receiver for the RoMow prototype. The reasoning behind this decision
is simple. This radio system meets all of the previously stated system requirements while selling for the
lowest price among the team’s options. Figure 11 includes a picture of this transmitter’s sleek design.
25
at 0.5 horsepower. This way, the motors will be able to provide a total of 1 horsepower allowing for a big
enough safety factor that the team is confident that the prototype will meet performance requirements.
4.2.3.2 Research on Pricing
The team began the search for electric motors by searching for off-the-shelf products that would not exhaust
the project budget. It was not long before the team realized that finding the type of high-caliber motors
needed for this project within budget would not be easy. Five different brands of electric motors that are
rated at 0.5 horsepower were discovered by means of an online search. First, a motor made by Century
Electric Motors was discovered that meets the power requirement and costs a reasonable $89.00. However,
the operating voltage for this model is 115 volts, meaning it would be highly impractical to power by use
of batteries. A similar motor made by Smith + Jones was found. It is a general purpose electric motor rated
at 1/2 HP and priced at $109.99. This motor must also be powered by a high-voltage AC (alternating
current) source, and thus is not suitable for the project.
After the above options were discovered, the team refined its search to find 1/2 horsepower motors that are
specifically powered by lower voltage DC sources (e.g. batteries). Three brands were found that are all
rated at 1/2 horsepower and are all powered by either 12 V or 24 V DC. The options are presented in Table
7.
Table 7. DC Motor Options
Brand of Motor Price
Leeson Motors Metric DC Motor $335.95
Worldwide Electric PM DC Motor $251.95
Reelcraft 2260626 Electric Motor $430.99
Omega OMPMDC12-18-12V-56C $309.00
With $500 dedicated to the project, even the cheapest option would take up the entire budget. Therefore,
the team will need to find a way to obtain two DC motors other than purchasing them new.
4.2.3.3 Decision on Electric Motors
The team decided on using Shihlin 24V DC motors from a Hoveround MPV5 electric wheelchair. These
motors are capable of carrying a person of up to 300 pounds not including the weight of the chair itself.
Also the wheel chair can travel a maximum of fifteen miles on a full battery charge. The weight that can be
carried and the range of these motors with provided batteries insure that the performance requirements can
be met. The customer also believed that pursuing this would make the design much easier by removing the
need for additional gearing and possibly for motor drivers. The purchase price of the wheel chair was $350
which includes two electric motors which are capable of the performance desired. The purchase of this
26
wheelchair is the most cost effective way of obtaining two motors. The next cheapest option would be
around $500.
4.2.4 Batteries
4.2.4.1 Component Requirements
Since the RoMow prototype is a moving object, it will need a portable power source, and since it is
propelled by electric motors, it makes sense to use batteries as that source. The battery network for the
RoMow will need to produce a voltage of 24 V, as well as have the capability of generating as much current
as is needed to spin the motors under load.
27
Figure 12. Motor Current Draw Test
The results of this test show that it takes a significant opposing force to the spinning of the motors in order
to make them draw 7.95 A. This means that with the assumption that the resistance encountered when
propelling the RoMow prototype is lower than the resistance that was caused in this experiment, the current
draw from two electric motors of this type under operation will likely be no higher than twice the measured
current, or 15.9 A. Since it is unwise to push an electronic module right to its maximum operating current,
the team decided that the motor speed controller for this project is required to be rated for operation under
20 A of continuous current, or 10 A per driven motor.
4.2.5.2 Simple-H DC Motor Driver
Several potential motor drivers were discovered through an online search, and the first is called the Simple-
H DC Motor Driver, which is made by Robot Power. This module is capable of driving motors that run in
the range of 5 V to 28 V, and is rated for an output current of 20 A. It is capable of driving one motor, so
two of the boards would be required if chosen. The product sells on RobotShop.com for $49.99. The
Simple-H meets all of the component requirements for this project. The decision on whether or not to use
it in the design will depend on the pricing for other products that meet requirements.
28
4.2.5.3 Pololu High-Power Motor Driver
Another motor driver that was discovered is the Pololu High-Power Motor Driver 18v25. Pololu is a
company that specializes in robotics and electronics. This module, which can control one motor, is rated
for a voltage range of 5.5 V to 30 V and a continuous current of up to 25 A without a fan or heat sink. The
Pololu motor driver is priced very similarly to the Simple-H at $49.95. Therefore, if either the Simple-H or
the Pololu motor driver were to be purchased, the decision would not be based on price. Rather, the Pololu
would be chosen between the two because it has a more compact design, while meeting all component
requirements.
29
4.2.5.6 Decision on Motor Speed Controller
Since all four of the options meet the essential component criteria, a decision matrix was created in order
to determine which motor driver would be the best fit for this project. Three criteria were considered when
weighing the options. Table 9 displays these criteria and their relative importance to the team as a weight
value.
Criteria Weight
Flexibility 3
Cost 2
Repeatability 1
Next, the four alternatives were assigned a score between 0 and 10 for each criteria and a total weighted
score was computed. The results of this process are displayed in Table 10.
This decision matrix confirms the team’s initial hypothesis that the Sabertooth motor driver is the best fit
for the project. It offers several options for interfacing with a microcontroller which improves flexibility,
and it comes at no cost to the team’s budget. The only downside to this option is that it would raise the cost
for additional units of the RoMow to be fabricated. However, repeatability is not one of the highest design
criteria, as only one unit will be assembled.
4.2.6 Microcontroller
4.2.6.1 Component Criteria
The most well-defined requirement for a microcontroller in the design is the number of digital and analog
input and output pins the board contains. Since the team decided to purchase a 6-channel transmitter, it was
also decided that the microcontroller should be able to make use of all 6 channels. In addition, the
microcontroller will need to have two additional pins that can be used as outputs to drive the two input
signals S1 and S2 on the Sabertooth motor driver. The board must also contain an additional output pin that
30
can be used to signal the stopping of the mower blade. This means there must be at least six pins that can
be used for digital input, and three pins that can be used as digital output. Lastly, there will need to be at
least one analog input pin that can be used to check the voltage level on the batteries, so that the system can
be disabled before they are discharged so much that they are permanently damaged. Other criteria that will
be considered include the amount of memory available for program and data storage, cost, familiarity,
development environment, and available libraries and support. Four alternatives were considered for the
system microcontroller, and they are described in the following sections.
4.2.6.3 Raspberry Pi
The Raspberry Pi is the most high-end controller board that the team considered for this project. It uses a
900MHz quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 CPU and contains 40 general purpose I/O pins. It also contains 1GB
of RAM. It also has impressive features such as HDMI, Ethernet and USB ports, camera and display
interfaces, and even a graphics core. All of these features explain why this product is often referred to as a
single board computer. It can run an operating system, and thus can run programs of many different
languages just like personal computers. The board sells for $35, but there would likely be other costs
involved if chosen. This is because the product is a used like a computer, and thus requires a keyboard,
mouse, and monitor to be used to its fullest capability.
31
4.2.6.5 MSP430 LaunchPad
The MSP430 LaunchPad, made by Texas Instruments, is a flash programmer and debugging tool used for
development with microcontrollers of the MSP430G2xx line. The board does not actually come with a
processor chip attached. It simply provides a compatible DIP socket that allows for the user to choose what
microcontroller chip to use. The MSP430G2 microcontrollers that are compatible with this board can
contain up to 512 bytes of SRAM and 24 general purpose I/O pins. Since none of the RoMow team
members are familiar with this product, the development kit would need to be purchased at a price of $9.99.
It is also possible to upload Arduino sketches to the MSP430 chips that come with the development kit,
which aids in development familiarity.
Criteria Weight
Memory 2
Cost 1
Familiarity 2
Support 3
Once the importance of each criterion was agreed upon, each of the four boards was given a score between
0 and 10. By multiplying each criteria score by its corresponding weight and adding them together, an
overall score was tallied for each microcontroller alternative. Table 12 shows the decision matrix that was
used to compute each score.
32
The decision matrix indicates that the Arduino Uno is the best-suited microcontroller for the team and
project. Table 12 reflects the fact that the alternatives with the three lowest scores all had at least one
legitimate concern associated with them. The Raspberry Pi was the most expensive product, which is
because it offers so many features that are not necessary for this project. The STM32 Discovery was
generally an unfamiliar product that lacks development support because it is not well known. Lastly, the
MSP430 LaunchPad only supports microcontroller chips with relatively small amounts of RAM. Thus, the
Arduino Uno will be purchased and used as the microcontroller for the RoMow because it meets all
component requirements and provides sufficient features to meet all relevant component criteria.
33
5 System Design
This section of the report lays out the design of RoMow in full, including the selected design options that
were referred in Section 4. It also includes what actions were taken where there were not alternatives.
34
5.1.1 Electric Motors
It was determined last semester that the necessary motor power to carry the weight of RoMow plus a
lawnmower up a slope of 30 degrees was 0.8822 horsepower (Section 10.1). This means that if two motors
were to be used each should be a half horsepower. The team decided to use the electric motors from a
Hoveround MPV5 electric wheelchair which was purchased last semester. These motors are rated to 24
volts direct current and are produced by Shihlin. These motors are internally geared to 180 rpm, and are
intended to directly drive the wheel without any additional gearing. The motors, given the current wheel
size, can reach a maximum of 5 mph which is a bit faster than the performance specification of Section 3.2.
The motors have four bolt holes for fastening. Two mounting plates were milled to attach the motors to,
and these plates were welded to the front section of the frame. Below is a figure showing one of the motors
mounted to a mounting plate.
5.1.2 Wheels
The wheels used in this design also come from the purchased wheel chair. The team desired a motor/wheel
tandem that was direct driven to reduce the amount of moving parts on RoMow. For this reason the drive
wheels (wheels attached to the motors) are mounted directly on the drive shaft of the motor. The height of
the mounting plate was directly influenced by the size of the wheel, so because of this the front section of
the frame was the first part that was completed. The rear wheels of RoMow are not driven by motor so the
team selected to use the caster wheels from the MPV5. The wheels in the rear allow the vehicle to be easily
steered by varying the speeds of the front motors. The caster assembly from the wheel chair was cut apart
to separate the two wheels that were affixed to the same steel bar. The steel bar that was then cut to a desired
length and then welded to the back end of the frame (Figure 16) with the bar parallel to the length of RoMow
so as to not increase the width of the design too much. The wheels and motors are shown attached to their
respective places on RoMow in Figure 17.
35
Figure 16. Caster assembly
5.1.3 Frame
As was discussed in Section 4 in detail, the frame of RoMow was constructed out of 1” square steel tubing,
except in a few places. The team chose to take the two-tier approach that was discussed in Section 4.1.1.2
because of the structural benefits as well as the cohesive feel of the structure. The team wanted the design
be de-constructible so bolts were used where possible so that RoMow could be stored in a box if necessary.
The corners of the frame are attached together using L-brackets. One side of the bracket is welded to the
tubing while the other side has drilled holes to match holes on the long pieces of the frame. This can be
seen in Figure 18. The section of the frame supporting the mower was assembled and then fastened to the
front section which houses the motors (Figure 19). The storage for the batteries and electronics was also
assembled and then fastened on top of the front section of frame.
36
Figure 18. L-Shaped Bracket
37
The idea of enclosing all these components is so that they are protected from the weather and from debris
during operation. The shape was constructed using four uprights made of 1”x 1” steel tubing and then by
riveting steel sheet metal on the outside edges of the uprights. The top is enclosed with a cover that hinges
and latches for ease of access and security. The cover also overhangs the edges so that rain does not drip in
through the top. An aluminum plate is used to separate the motors from the housing and also to support the
batteries and components that are housed within. A picture from the building process is shown in Figure 20
to provide the reader with an idea of what it looks like.
The batteries are placed on the aluminum plate, right on top of the rectangular outlines which can be seen
in Figure 20. They are secured in place by passing straps through the notches on the plate and then over top
of the battery. The motors are mounted just beneath the batteries and their power cables pass through the
side of the housing and are then connect to the motor driver. The electrical components (described in detail
in Section 5.2) are then mounted in between the two batteries, on a vertical aluminum plate. The mounting
is done to keep are the wires in order, to provide proper clearances for heat dissipation, and to keep the
electronics from shorting each other. The seams of the housing were filled using silicone caulk to prevent
water and debris from entering in. Finally the outside of the housing was painted white to reduce
absorptivity which will prevent the box from getting too warm during the summer which could cause
distress to the electronics inside.
38
5.1.6 Safety Components
There is a need for safety systems with this project in order to maintain a level of safety for the end user. In
order to achieve this level, the team implemented some safety features that are listed below. For an in depth
look at how the systems work refer to Section 5.2.5.
Component Product
Radio System Turnigy 6x FHSS 2.4GHZ
Microcontroller Arduino Uno
Motor Drivers Sabertooth Dual 25A
Electric Motors Shihlin Motors from Hoveround
39
Note that the radio system is comprised of both a Transmitter (remote-control) and receiver. Using the four
products from Table 13, as well as two 12V batteries for power, the goal of propulsion from remote-control
was achieved. Figure 21 provides a general idea of how communication flows from one major component
to the next.
Control must start from the user, who moves the sticks on the transmitter to achieve a desired type of
movement of the RoMow. This information is then communicated wirelessly to the paired receiver, which
sends corresponding physical signals to the microcontroller. The microcontroller must then decide how the
motors should be activated based on these signals. It then sends information to the motor driver module,
which distributes the correct amount of power to the DC motors. All of this together results in user-
controlled propulsion of the RoMow platform. This section of the report describes in detail how all of this
communication happens using the four devices in Table 13.
40
moves. Since the user will clearly see this part of the design, it is a very important one. The team kept the
design norm of transparency in mind when implementing this aspect of the design, as it should be as
intuitive to the user as possible. However, caring was another design norm that was considered as the user
controls should promote safe operation. The transmitter that the user will hold has two flip switches, and
two position sticks that can move both vertically and horizontally. Both sticks rest in the center horizontal
position when released. However, only the right stick returns to the center position vertically when released.
The vertical position of the left stick will remain wherever the user leaves it. This is because this stick is
commonly used as the throttle control for model aircraft. This is a feature that the RoMow system may be
able take advantage of. Some of the questions the team addressed in deciding how the controls would work
are the following.
The team determined that having control of the platform’s speed should be foremost since not having this
is the easiest way to lose control of the RoMow. In order to make this intuitive, speed should be based on
moving a stick vertically, since this is how nearly all remote-control vehicles work. This leaves the question
of whether the left or the right stick should be used. If the left stick is used, then pushing it all the way down
should cause the platform to stand still, while moving the stick upwards would gradually increase the speed
until the top position is reached. It would then be moving at maximum speed. The advantage of this
approach is that speed can be kept constant very easily (because the stick does not have a spring that brings
it back to the center), which is important for cutting grass uniformly. If the right stick were used, then the
platform should stand still when it is in the center position, and should move in the forward direction as the
stick is moved upward, and in the reverse direction as the stick is moved downward. The main advantage
of this option is that the user has to be pushing the stick to make the platform move, which is a safer
approach. However, a disadvantage of this approach is that the user can very quickly switch from full speed
forward to full speed reverse, which could overload the motor drivers. With all of this in mind, the team
decided that using the left stick for speed control made a little bit more sense as it allows for easy constant
speed control and it prevents motor driver overloading. It was also decided that the user should be able to
put the platform in reverse by flipping the left switch on the top of the transmitter. However, a short delay
would be present between operating in forward and reverse to prevent overloading the motor drivers. Thus,
the user at any time can flip the forward/reverse switch, at which time there will be a 1 second delay before
the platform begins moving in reverse according to the position of the throttle (speed) stick. Lastly, the
team decided that since the left stick was being used for speed control, the right stick should be used for
41
steering. This allows the user to change the direction of the platform without accidentally adjusting the
position of the throttle stick. Since the left switch is used for choosing between forward and reverse, the
right switch was used for activating and deactivating the mower blade.
42
As can be seen in the figure, there are seven rows of pins that are each 3-wide. Each row of pins corresponds
to a specific channel from the transmitter. The first six rows from the bottom up represent channels 1-6 in
ascending order. Figure 23 is a snippet from the Turnigy product manual that shows which channel each
stick on the transmitter controls.
In addition, the switch on the left side of the transmitter corresponds to channel 5 while the right switch
corresponds to channel 6. Within each row of pins there is a signal pin, a positive pin, and a negative pin.
The positive and negative pins are the voltage rails that represent the two logic states HIGH and LOW
respectively. A low-voltage regulator must be used to drive these pins. The signal pin will contain a signal
that switches between these two states with time, in order to represent the position of the stick from the
transmitter. In order to determine exactly what these signals might look like, the team conducted an online
search. It was found that a standard R/C receiver signal contains a pulse for a duration that normally lasts
between one and two milliseconds and is repeated about fifty times each second. Figure 24 shows what
these signals look like with time on the horizontal axis, and the voltage level on the vertical axis. Note that
this figure was taken from RCArduino.com and contains a typo. It lists the pulse widths as being measured
in microseconds, but the units should be milliseconds.
43
This figure shows three different waveforms that correspond to different positions of the throttle stick on a
transmitter. The first, titled Full Throttle, shows what the signal would look like when the stick is pushed
all the way up. It would repeatedly send 2 ms long pulses, and the time in between pulses does not contain
any information. It can be seen that at the center position, the pulses will be 1.5 ms in duration, and at the
bottom position, the pulse duration will be 1 ms. Put concisely, the position of a stick on the transmitter is
directly proportional to the pulse duration of the receiver signal that corresponds to the same channel as the
stick. It is likely that the Turnigy radio system being used in this design works this way, but the team
decided it would be wise to use an oscilloscope to measure these signals in order to verify this. Figure 25
shows the set up for this experiment.
The transmitter was powered on and a 5V power supply was used to power the receiver. The channel one
signal pin was connected to the scope probe, with the power supply ground and oscilloscope ground also
connected. The right stick was then moved in the left to right direction, and the oscilloscope readings
confirmed that this radio system works as described above. Figure 26 shows a close-up of the oscilloscope
screen when the channel 1 stick was in the center position.
44
Figure 26. Oscilloscope Close-up
As expected, the pulse duration measured by the oscilloscope was right around one and a half milliseconds,
1.504 milliseconds to be exact. It was also confirmed that the signal resulting from pushing the stick all the
way to the left was about one millisecond, and the signal resulting from pushing it all the way to the right
was about two milliseconds. Note that the trims on the transmitter must be centered for this to be the case.
45
receiver, while still focusing the majority of its computing power on the running the algorithms in its main
program loop.
46
It is also worth noting that the Sabertooth controller provides a regulated 5V output that powers both the
Arduino and the Turnigy receiver. The Sabertooth sends pulse-width modulation signals to each electric
motor based on the signals S1 and S2. Since the RoMow design uses the Sabertooth in R/C mode, the pulse
duration of the input signals, also known as servo signals in this context, is directly proportional to the duty-
cycle of the PWM signal being sent across the motor terminals. For example, a servo signal of 1500
microseconds will result in a constant 0V across the motor terminals. Then as the duration of the servo
signal increases up to 2000 microseconds, the duty cycle of the PWM signal on the motor outputs increases
in proportion up to 100% duty cycle. As the servo signal decreases from 1500 microseconds center down
to 1000 microseconds, the duty-cycle of the PWM behaves the same way, but in reverse polarity, which
means the motors spin in the opposite direction. This feature is what will allow the RoMow to be able to
operate in both the forward and reverse direction.
47
Figure 28. ISR Flow Diagram
When the ISR is entered, there are two possible paths of execution. The function checks to see whether the
event that caused it to run was a rising edge or a falling edge. If it is a rising edge, then that means it is
seeing the beginning of a pulse, so it records the time and stores it in a variable. If the event was a falling
edge, then that means it is seeing the end of a pulse, so it subtracts the variable that was set at the beginning
of the pulse from the current time, then stores the result in the shared variable that holds the current pulse
length of that signal. The routine finishes by setting a flag so that the main program knows to update its
local version of the variable.
48
Figure 29. Arduino Main Loop
The first step in the procedure is to determine whether the RoMow is set to move in the forward direction,
or the reverse direction. Since this option is set by the user using the channel 5 switch on the left side of the
49
transmitter, the program simply references the variable that stores the current pulse length coming out of
channel 5 on the receiver. It then sets an integer variable to 1 if forward is selected, and to -1 is reverse is
selected. Next, the program runs through several blocks of code that will eventually determine if the
platform should be enabled to move. There are several reasons for why the RoMow could be disabled by
this code. The first possible reason is that the transmitter is either off out too far away from the receiver.
This is determined by reading the pulse length of the left switch, which automatically goes to 1500
microseconds when the receiver is not getting a signal from the transmitter. Movement of the RoMow is
also disabled for one second upon switching from forward to reverse or vice versa. The RoMow can also
be disabled for movement when it reads too low of a voltage on the battery input pin. Lastly, when the user
sets the right-side switch in the upward position, movement is disabled. This is also when the mower blade
is disabled. Otherwise, the mower is enabled to run. This last step in this block is to choose whether or not
to light the red battery indicator LED. Next the loop procedure chooses between two paths based on the
move-enable variable. If this Boolean variable is set to false, then the program sets both servo signal
variables to 1500 before reaching the last block of execution. However, if it is true, then there are three
blocks of code to execute before reaching the last block. It starts by setting a velocity variable based on the
position of the throttle stick. This variable can range from 0 to 500, as a throttle stick in the bottom position
will cause it to be zero, while pushing it upwards will cause increasing values with 500 resulting from
pushing it all the way to the top. Next, the program executes a block of code that sets steering adjustments
for each motor. It contains two steering adjustment variables, one corresponding to each motor. Based on
the position of the steering (right) stick on the transmitter, these two variables are modified. They will
eventually be used to slow down the speed of one of the motors to cause the RoMow to turn. This is done
by finally setting servo signal variables for each motor using both the velocity variable and the two steering
adjustment variables. The last step in the main loop is to write the two servo signal variable values to two
servo objects. In the program setup, the two I/0 pins that are connected to the Sabertooth speed controller
were assigned to these objects. To summarize, the Arduino repeatedly executes these steps so that the
Sabertooth speed controller is always receiving the correct servo signals. Based on the values of these
signals, the speed controller will handle the rest. To gain an even better understanding of how the software
on the RoMow, visit Team 3’s website and click on the Documents tab. From there, all five development
versions of the source code can be downloaded.
50
include battery voltage monitoring, a mower blade activation relay, a power status LED, and a battery level
status LED.
51
machine safer to operate since it gives the user more control over the most dangerous part of the assembly.
This was done by using an electrical relay where the contacts were connected to the generator on the mower,
and the coil was wired in series with a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) that could be activated with an
Arduino output pin.
There are eleven total connections that this circuit needs to make with other components in the electrical
system, as can be seen in the schematic. Table 14 gives descriptions for each of the pins shown in the
schematic.
52
Table 14. Safety/Protection circuit connections
This module must connect to the battery network, the coil of an electrical relay, the terminals of two
status LEDs, and three pins on the Arduino Uno.
53
Figure 31. Safety/Protection circuit bread board setup
This board was designed to be fabricated using the PCB fabrication lab at Calvin College. This means that
the board must contain only one layer of traces. Luckily, the schematic is quite simple, which made creating
a one-layer board feasible. In addition, the trace width and the trace spacing was kept at a minimum of 24
mil throughout the design to minimize the risk of board defects after fabrication.
54
5.2.5.7 Board Fabrication
Using the design shown above, a printed circuit board was fabricated using the PCB fabrication lab at
Calvin College. As each step of the process was followed carefully, the PCB turned out error free. This is
shown in Figure 33.
Once the board was printed, holes were drilled so that the through-hole components could be placed onto
the board and soldered in. In addition, mounting holes were drilled in all four corners so that the board
could be secured to the final prototype. The result of this work is shown in Figure 34.
55
Once the board was completely assembled, it was wired to each of the external components that it must
connect to and its functionality was verified.
56
6 Prototype Testing
6.1 Overview
In order to prove the quality of the first RoMow prototype, the team developed a list of tests that it should
pass. The list was created with the original performance requirements in mind. The tests that were conducted
measure performance aspects of the prototype such as cutting height, traversable slope, maximum speed,
turn radius, battery life, and radio frequency signal range. In addition to these tests, it was verified that all
intended emergency stop methods were functional, and a finite-element analysis was done on the frame
design.
It can be seen that the grass has been cut to a height of about 2.5”, which meets the aforementioned
performance requirement and falls well within the range of popular cutting heights as mentioned earlier in
the report. The mistake with the design was the assumption that the bottom edge of the mower is the height
57
to which the mower cut to. While the bottom edge does meet the 2” requirement the blade height is actually
a bit higher resulting in the cutting height 2.5”.
50 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = = 4.79 = 3.27 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ
10.43 𝑆𝑆 𝑠𝑠
This was a successful result since the performance requirement was an even 3 mph.
58
between the two electric motors. This is done by pushing the steering control down while doing a sharp
turn. It was also verified that this feature was functional on the final prototype.
59
as well as the RoMow from moving. Lastly, it was verified that if the remote control transmitter was
powered off, the RoMow was not able to move, even if the machine was powered on.
60
Figure 38. Rear Wheel Suspension Displacement
61
7 Project Summary
Overall, the team felt as though this project was a success. The RoMow prototype designed could be the
first step towards creating a product that could be both practical and desirable for consumers. The team was
able to space out the workload evenly among the teammates, and over the past semester. The team grew a
lot in this past year as each became more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of each member. This
knowledge of one another allowed the team to operate more smoothly as the year went on. The team also
realized that it worked much more smoothly if weekly meetings were scheduled and major tasks were
broken down into smaller ones. These two things allowed members to be more independent in their work
which increased team productivity.
In terms of the overall design, the specifications were met adequately, and the customer was happy with
the design. The team was also very pleased that it stayed under budget with the design and with the
prototype performing as well as it does. Like was mentioned before, RoMow is not a finished product but
rather a first step in the development of a product. It was exciting to see that the concept of a flexible lawn
mowing system was plausible and the hope is that this project can be developed even further in the coming
years.
7.1.1 Aluminum
If a second prototype was to be constructed, the team would design it using aluminum rather than steel.
This would drastically reduce the overall weight of the RoMow which would be very nice from a customer’s
point of view. This would make the assembly of RoMow much easier and would reduce the required power
to drive the motors. This modification would lengthen the drivable time between charges.
62
obtained from a supplier in order to become a legitimate consumer product. For this reason it would have
been nice to have obtained motors with the same specifications and features as the Shihlin motors, but could
be purchased individually. Ideally it would be nice for the new motors to be directly driven like the ones
on this prototype.
7.1.6 Automation
At the beginning of the design process the team desired to design the RoMow to become autonomous or at
least have some memory function so that the user would not have to control the system all the time. However
after consulting with Eric Walstra during the fall of 2014, the team decided not to pursue either of these
options because of the intensive programming work that would be necessary. This is a feature that the team
believes would be a great addition to the RoMow and allow it to become a one-of-a-kind product.
63
8 References
"Arduino Alternatives: 5 Microcontrollers You Should Know." Popular Mechanics. N.p., n.d.
"BU-903: How to Measure State-of-charge." Measuring State-of-charge. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May
2015.
"Michigan State University Turfgrass Scienceturf.msu.edu." Mowing Lawn Turf. N.p., n.d. Web.
12 May 2015.
"MSP430 LaunchPad Value Line Development Kit." - MSP-EXP430G2. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May
2015.
"Pololu High-Power Motor Driver 18v25." Pololu High-Power Motor Driver 18v25. N.p., n.d.
"RC Transmitter Range Test Results (FPV and Related) - RC Groups." RC Groups RSS. N.p.,
"RCArduino." : How To Read an RC Receiver With A Microcontroller. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May
2015.
"RCArduino." : How To Read Multiple RC Channels. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2015.
"Section 2." About Lead Acid Batteries. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2015.
"Simple-H 20A, 5V to 28V DC Motor Driver." - RobotShop. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2015.
"Tactic TTX403 4-Channel Transmitter." Motion RC. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2015.
"2.4 GHz Transmitter Shootout – Radio Range." Big Squid RC. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2015.
"Use Arduino Code on a TI Launchpad MSP430." Instructables.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May
2015.
64
9 Acknowledgements
The team would like thank a few people for their efforts and advice in this past year. First of all the team
would like to acknowledge Prof. Mark Michmerhuizen for being the faculty advisor to the team. The team
would like to thank Dr. Yoon Kim who provided the idea for this project as well as much support throughout
the design process. Next the team would like to thank Eric Walstra for acting as industrial consultant to the
group and helping to narrow the scope of the project while also providing advice on testing procedures.
Next the team would like to thank both Phil Jasperse and Chuck Holwerda for their expertise and advice
on implementation of mechanical and electrical systems. Finally the team would like to thank fellow
classmate Gerrick Hershberger for his assistance with welding and for general fabrication advice.
65
10 Appendices
10.1 Calculations on Motor Output Power Requirement
Mechanical Hours
Andy Dustin
Wheelchair Disassembly
Controller 0 1 1
Motors 0 3 3
Casters 0 0.5 0.5
Frame Design 4.5
Motor Mount 2 0 2
Electrical Box 2 2 4
Halo 2 2 4
Back Bar
66
Iteration 1 4 4
Iteration 2 4 4
Iteration 3 4 4 8
Casters 1 1 2
Motor Housing 20
Motor Mount 3 0 3
1
Motor Mount 1 0 1
2
Crossbar
Cutting 0.5 0.5 1
Welding 1 1 2
Brackets
Cutting 0.5 0.5 1
Drilling 1 1 2
Welding 1 1 2
Electrical Housing
Sheet Metal
Cutting 2 2 4
Riviting 4 4 8
Hinges 0 0 0
Drilling 2 2 4
Latch 0 0 0
Drilling 1 0 1
Riviting 1 0 1
Frame
Casters
Cutting 0 1 1
Welding 0.5 0.5 1
Front Bracket 0
Cutting 1 0 1
Milling 1 0 1
Welding 0.5 0 0.5
Drilling 1 0 1
Halos
Cutting 2 2 4
Drilling 3 3 6
Welding 0.5 0.5 1
Adjust 1 1 1 2
Adjust 2 1 1 2
Backbar/ramp
Cutting 3 3 6
67
Bending 1.5 1.5 3
Welding 2 2 4
Adjusting 1 1 2
Drilling 1 1 2
Miscellaneous
Presentations 15 15 30
CEAC 3 3 6
Senior Design Night 7 7
In class Presentations 2 2
Electrical Troubleshooting 5 5 10
Front Guides 0 2 2
Painting 3 3 6
Testing 8 8 16
Client Meetings 10 10 20
Rewiring 0 3 3
Electrical Testing Assistance 0 3 3
Team Meetings 14 14 28
124 126
Total
Sum
250
Task Hours
Hoveround Wheelchair Parts Testing
Isolating and Reassembling Wheelchair electronic 3
components
Modified joystick connector assembly 5
Joystick pin mapping 3
Hoveround Controller Debugging 3
Testing Electric Motors 2
Battery Charger Experiment 1
Electrical Component Research
Research on Motor Drivers 6
Microcontroller Research 3
68
Transmitter/Receiver Research 3
Electrical System Design
Block Diagram Draft 1 3
Block Diagram Draft 2 3
Block Diagram Draft 3 1
Safety Circuit Design 3
Safety Circuit Breadboarding 6
Safety Circuit PCB Design 4
Safety Circuit PCB Fabrication 6
Website Development
1.5 hours per week (14 weeks) 21
Other Component Testing
Sabertooth Motor Driver Research and Testing 4
Turnigy receiver output experiment 2
Battery Voltage Testing 1
Motor Current Draw Testing 3
Presentations
Verbal Presentation 3 Preparation 1
CEAC Presentation 4
Verbal Presentation 4 4
Report Writing
CEAC report editing 1
Final Report Electrical Design Decisions 8
Final Report Electrical System Architecture 10
Choosing and Ordering Parts 5
Arduino Software Development
Setup 2
Program Version 1 7
Program Version 2 2
Program Version 3 3
Program Version 4 2
Program Version 5 1
Team Meetings and Planning
1 hour per week (14 weeks) 14
Electrical Assembly
Receiver to Arduino connectors 3
Wiring in electrical housing 4
Prototype Testing
Developing Test Plan 1
Conducting Tests 6
Electrical Repairs 5
Other Small Tasks 5
Total Hours 174
69
10.4 Jordan Newhof Hour Log
Task Hours
Disassembly & Design
Disassembly of wheelchair 1
CAD Design 3
Mechanical Design Meetings 9
Mower Measurements 1.5
Motor Mounting plates 3.5
Battery Charger Experiment 1
Assistance with Mech. Fabrication 25
Deliverables
Team Blurb 3
Project Brief 4
Senior Design Program Description 3
Update Poster 2.5
Verbal Presentation 1 2
Verbal Presentation 2 2.5
CEAC Review Presentation 2
Ethical Issue Paper 4.5
Design Night Presentation 3
Design Report
Research necessary report components 3
Initial Report Outline 3
Introduction 4.5
Project Management 2.5
Overall Design Requirements 3
Design Decisions 6
System Design 7
Testing 1
Project Summary 4
Review for draft 1.5
Review revisions 1.5
Content Addition 4.5
Final Draft Review 9
Meetings
Team Meetings (14 weeks) 14
Presentation Prep 10
CEAC Review 1
Client Meeting (4 meetings) 3
149
Total Hours
70