Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………...……..……………...1
DESCRIPTION…………………………….………………………………………...2
LITERATURE REVIEW…………………….………………………………………...4
SOLUTION……………………………….………………………………...……….8
DESIGN PROCESS…..…………………………………………………………………….11
IMPLEMENTATION.………………………………………………………………………13
CONSTRUCTION.…………………………….……………………………………13
OPERATION…..…………………………………………………………………..15
PROJECT MANAGEMENT……...……….………………………………………………...17
ORGANIZATION/SCHEDULING.……………………………………………………17
FINISHED GANTT CHART……….………..………...……………………………..20
BUDGET……..…………………………………………………………………………...22
CONCLUSION..…………………………………………………………………………...24
FUTURE WORK…………….. …………………………………………………………...26
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………...29
Abstract:
Today’s society has everyone looking for a way to create products quickly,
technologies evolve, the effectiveness of manufacturing processes and systems has vastly
Automated systems essentially remove the human aspect from the manufacturing process
The completed project involved automating the printed circuit board (PCB) drill
press located in the Messiah College Electrical Engineering laboratory. The new drilling
process serves as a means of saving time and money while increasing the safety,
efficiency and precision of printed circuit board drilling. Jeremy Schaffer, Patrick Lewis,
T.J. Linton, and Jessica Mulberger completed this project, under the supervision of
Acknowledgments:
1.1 Description:
After researching the utilization of automation and its applicability to the drill
press, the design and construction of an automated system was implemented in the
electrical engineering laboratory of Messiah College. The new drilling process serves as a
way of saving time, and money, while increasing the efficiency and precision of printed
(Electronics Workbench, or Ultiboard), the user will create the circuit board layout that
he/she needs for their own work. Once the final schematic is completed the x-y
coordinates are extracted from the data window in the respective program and saved so
the designed positioning program on Visual Basic can import each point. This
positioning program will send each coordinate to the control and processing systems of
the drill press where the motors will position the table to the correct location for drilling.
Upon reaching the correct position, the user will manually lower the drill to produce the
hole. After successfully drilling the hole, the user will hit enter which tells the program to
move to the next hole causing the x-y table to set up the board for the next hole, and this
Messiah College. By using an automated drill press, students will save time, as the
automated process will be faster than the manual process. The need to reposition the
board (manually) is eliminated because the automated drill press would position the
board itself. The number of printed circuit boards that are drilled incorrectly or
inaccurately will decrease in turn saving the college money and valuable resources. It can
be very tedious and complicated to drill accurately on complex PC boards, but using an
automated drill press, the position of the holes for the electrical components will be more
precise, then if located manually. To obtain the most out of the designed project the
To design an automated system that can be installed into the given drill press so
the amount of time spent drilling printed circuit boards (compared to a manual
this case LabView will be used to enter the coordinates into the controller for
To design and build an automated system that will drill printed circuit board
processes and systems has vastly improved. These developments have been termed as
computer integrated manufacturing, or CIM.1 The aspect of CIM that will be utilized for
processing at those machines. Automation only exists when a group of related operations
are tied together mechanically, electronically, or with the assistance of computers.1 The
combined with continuous processing of machines. This implies that machines are
considered automated only when they are mechanically joined for continuous automatic
can begin. It today’s society everyone is looking for a way to make things faster for less
money, without sacrificing the quality of their product. This is also held as a high
priority for the proposed project. But if automation can’t move us in that direction, the
question was asked, “is it really worth implementing?” The original objective of
automation was the reduction in direct labor costs, but as automation becomes more
prominent other benefits have been observed. Safety is one of those factors that
is important for positive employee morale1. Tying this to the given project, the drill press
can injure someone who gets their hands too close to the drill, or doesn’t have the
adequate training for operation. Automation of a production is said to remove the human
from direct participation in the operation.2 By automating the drill press the operator will
not have to worry about their safety because while the drill is on they will not be required
injury.
Although the safety of the operator is very important, it is not the main benefit
that will be obtained in this project, nor is it the main motivation for implementing an
automated system. By automating the drill press the productivity of the PC boards will
vastly increase. There will be a small amount of time needed to train students on how to
use the new production system, but once they have the knowledge the production rate,
and output per hour will greatly improve due to the fact that the program will move the
drill to the desired point to drill rather than the operator taking the time to move the drill
current state there is a relatively low accuracy due to human error. The operator positions
the table to the desired coordinates, and because humans are not perfect, there tends to be
a certain amount of human error that can vary depending on numerous outside variables.
But with an automated system, as mentioned before, the human is removed from the
process, which will lead to an increase in accuracy, and as a result improve the quality of
One last advantage, which I previously touched upon, of automation that will
undeniably be observed through this project, is the reduction of work in process. On the
macro-level of automation, the work in process is when the product is either being
by reducing the time the product spends in the factory. On our micro level of automation
there is only one process that can be evaluated, but the time it takes to complete that
operator had to drill a hole as close as they could to the desired coordinates, which took
time to locate each hole. But with the automated system all of the coordinates are entered
into a spreadsheet, where those coordinates are exported to the controller, and then once
one hole is drilled the system will then move the drill to the next desired position until all
holes are made. Therefore the time it takes to move from one hole to the next is
One final aspect of the project that needs to be researched comes back to the goal
of today’s society, economics. Currently the drill press is working, and has so far
provided the students with quality holes. But the question is will this project be
completed, within the allotted budget, and confirm that it also produces the benefits
mentioned above.
Designing and constructing this automated system is not necessarily the easiest
way of obtaining an automated drill press. One way of acquiring an automated drill press
would be to purchase one. After searching numerous catalogs, and Internet sites, a
conclusion has been reached that there are three different levels of automated drilling
machines. When dividing anything into different categories there is always a grey area,
but for easy comparison of automated, also known as computer numerical control, drill
When looking to buy a drill the final decision depends on what type of
specifications the buyer is trying to meet, and what kind of budget they are dealing with.
The most expensive and elaborate drill found through an extensive search was the
Cameron CNC Micro Drilling Center Model 2001 (Appendix A, Figure 1). This drill has
triple axis movement, an excellent resolution, and a fast traveling speed. This package
includes a laptop computer, software, stepper motors, along with a security lock, and a
clean room enclosure with a vacuum nozzle. This equipment, which is very precise and
Another expensive, yet not quite as advanced as the previous drill, is the Sherline
Deluxe mini drill model # 2000 (Appendix A, Figure 2). Sherline's newest drill brings
the best features of full size shop drills into a miniature machine shop with a column that
offers 4 additional directions of movement compared to their other models. The base
extends 14" long to accommodate the additional mechanism of the column. With this
drill, holes can be drilled from almost any angle with the part mounted square to the
table. This drill, along with all of their models, can be purchased with either English or
Metric measuring systems. This particular item is price listed as $1275.00, which doesn’t
Because of the large amounts of money it requires to purchase a brand new drill,
used machinery can also be considered. Sticking with the Sherline models, a used less
expensive drill was found on an auction web site. This 5000A/5100A deluxe drill
and a handbook to guide you through the computer interface. The Model 5000 features a
solid 10" aluminum base, precision machined dovetailed slides with adjustable gibs,
x and y axes, two laser engraved aluminum hand-wheels, one laser engraved hand-wheel
with thrust bearings, and many other features4. But because it is used, and from an
auction web site, it is hard to tell what you will really get when the drill arrives. This
item can be purchased at a bargain price of 900.00 dollars. In the Sherline catalog this
particular item is price listed at $1100.00, which does not include the cost of accessories3.
disadvantages are quite minuscule when compared to the benefits that will transpire. The
only real draw back to an automated drill press is the cost. That is where the proposed
project comes into play. Using the present drill press, and acquiring the different
positioning and assembly parts and software, an automated drill press can be assembled
at a much lower cost. In turn, the demands of today’s society are being met by utilizing
the ultimate option of producing the same result at a fraction of the cost.
1.3 Solution:
broken down into the individual facets that make up the project, and then determine
which of the proposed options can be discarded based on what will bring about the best
overall result.
After properly investigating each of the proposed alternatives an optimum
solution to the project as a whole was comprised. Visual basic was chosen to host the
positioning commands that are communicated to the controller from the computer. The
deciding factor in this decision was the ease in writing a program, and user-friendliness
But because of the given economic limitations compared to the cost of the most
Focusing more on the micro level of the project, a proposed solution was to use
the Motorola 68HC11 board and run a program to control the motion of the x-y table.
This program would act as the interface from the drawing to the desired positioning of
the table where the holes will be drilled. This alternative was also rejected due to
economic boundaries. There are computers available for us to use that already have
driver cards installed in them and would not add any cost to our proposed budget.
This alternative, like the others proposed, was not used because of the large amount of
money it would take to acquire. Two stepping motors were donated by Compumotor
Division, and will serve the same purpose without using up the majority of our allotted
finances.
As with any project money can be a huge deciding factor in the many facets of the
finished product. The x-y table, controller, and motors could have all been purchased at a
local retailer, or via the Internet. Fortunately, two different companies were willing to
donate these products, and although they are refurbished, will do more than an adequate
job of performing their respective tasks. Another deciding factor in this arrangement was
the fact that the aforementioned parts all came from two divisions (Daedel and
Compumotor) of the same company (Parker Inc.). Therefore each of these parts was
guaranteed to be compatible with one another. Had these parts been purchased separately
Another set of decisions that was guided by our limited budget was the design and
construction of our mounts, and clamps. Upon receiving the motors and x-y table, it was
evident that a mount would be needed to adjoin the two linear motion pieces. It was also
determined that another mount would be needed to hold the PC Boards during the drill
process, and a base to hold the x-y table apparatus once assembled. Upon establishing
proper design dimensions for all three pieces, arrangements could have been made with a
local machine shop and have them machine each of the parts. In place of that option, the
specific designs were given the “go ahead” by both Professor Erikson and John Meyer
(with proper adjustments and redesign being done when recommended), and the group, in
In the acquisition of printed circuit boards to test the final product, designs were
developed on Ultiboard and then fabricated in the lab under the supervision of Earl
Swope.
2 DESIGN PROCESS
One of the biggest obstacles in our design process was to design a program that
would communicate the positions entered into a spreadsheet by the user, to the computer
which would take those values and relay them to the controller which positioned the x-y
table to the desired coordinates. Originally LabView was researched, and beginning
conclusion was drawn that Visual Basic would not only be more adequate for the writing
of the program, but would also be easier for the user who in most cases will not be
Basic from a fellow Messiah College student, Keith Wagner, a program was written. As
with most programs, there were many error signals received, but after many redesigns,
and codes rewritten, the final program was complete and ready for the next step.
The next step consisted of taking the written program and communicating that
with the controller. After connecting the motors to the controller, it was confirmed that
they were in fact compatible with each other. Manuals from the Compumotor web site
were then printed to best determine how to configure the controller to receive the data
sent by the program. This process was labored over for many hours, but awarded such
measurements, and drawings were being contrived in order to construct the mechanical
components needed to make the project successful. It was necessary to first design the
mount to attach the motors to the x-y table so that formal testing could be done to ensure
proper movement. Once the first draft was complete, the drawings were shown to our
advisor, and then to the shop supervisor. As with many first drafts, ramifications needed
to be adjusted before construction was allowed to begin. The material that the plates
were made from was available in the shop so the actual machining of the part took
minimal time, and then confirmation of the drivers moving the table was established.
The next step in the mechanical design was to determine the correct dimensions
of the PC Board mounting plate, and then draw a formal design to be “Okayed” by the
respective overseers. The actual dimensioning and proper layout of this plate did not take
as much time as the machining. Because this plate is used to hold the piece to be drilled,
it is important that it be as flat as possible to ensure maximum accuracy. The time it took
to square the edges, and level off both sides of the plate, was well over the allotted
amount of time. Fortunately, the proposed time-line for completion allowed for a couple
extra days of construction, and testing of the final project was not pushed back a
detrimental amount.
While the kinks were being figured out in both the mechanical and electrical
facets of the project, printed circuit boards were being designed and constructed so that
all three parts could be brought together for testing, with plenty of time left for redesign
in order to obtain the proposed accuracy. While the desired amount of testing was not
reached, recommendations for future work will be addressed later in the report.
3. IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Construction:
The construction of our prototype was divided into two aspects. The first was the
mechanical aspect. Here we milled some important pieces in the design; the motor
mounts, the plate that will hold the PCBs and clamps that will hold the board in place.
The motor mounts were then used to mount the stepping motors to the x and y tables. The
plate was drilled with several holes into which dowel pins were placed to help the
students position their boards correctly. Clamps were made so that they could be
positioned to hold the board in place without disrupting the drilling process. All these
pieces were put together to complete the mechanical system. The second aspect was the
electrical systems and the required control programs. The electrical system was not built
from scratch, as was the mechanical. Here the focus was on assembly more than actual
fabrication of parts. The process of learning Visual Basic and creating a program with it
took a few weeks and was a major issue in slowing us down, as will be discussed in the
following section. The program (attached in appendix –pg ) reads the coordinates from
Ultiboard output file and then sorts the “x” and “y” coordinates from each line of the file.
Once it gets the coordinates it divides the numbers by a set constant, which determines
the number of steps each axis will move. Once the number of steps is determined the
program sends out the commands for the controller to send signals to the drivers to begin
movement. After the movement has occurred the process is repeated until the last line of
the file has been completed. After a basic program was established we tested
communication between two computers with a null modem setup through Hyperterminal.
Once we had success with that setup we began communicating with the computer and our
controller, and with some minor changes to the program we were able to communicate
with the controller. During development of the program we also worked on connecting
the motors to the drivers, as well as setting the correct current settings for the driver.
After completing these important components, we put all the individual pieces together
Along the way we made some major changes-mostly in the area of the software
control-and encountered some major problems because of them. Our original plan for the
software was to use LabView as a means to create a GUI (graphical user interface) for
controlling the motors and other external hardware. As the project progressed we made
a change to Visual Basic as our software control platform because it would be easier to
set up and use, which meant we now had a new programming language to learn before
we could continue. None of the team members knew the programming language but we
enlisted the help of a computer science student, who was able to give us some basic
guidelines to the Visual Basic program needed, and with some of our own ingenuity we
were able to complete the program for operation of our prototype. Some other minor
changes made were made in the mechanical aspects. We were originally going to buy
clamps but we were having issues finding a clamp to suit our project, so we opted to
build our own. Despite the bumps in the road, we were able to handle the changes and
Drill press
Spindle Travel: 50 mm
Swing: 250 mm
Weight: <100 lb
Chuck capacity: 13 mm
Controller: 2-Axis coordinate system.
Software: Visual Basic 6
RPM: 5 speed, 540-3600
Motor: 120v AC 1/4 HP
Height: > 600 mm
Stepping Motors
Amps: >1.5 A
HZ: DC
Duty: Cont.
Steps/Revolution: 200
Max. Ambient Temperature: 40 ºC
The testing process began when the prototype was constructed and the testing
boards were completed using arbitrary drill files from Ultiboard. The first test that we
ran was to test the program and the components to see if everything worked properly.
After finishing that test, we inserted a circuit board and imported the coordinates from the
corresponding drill file into the Visual Basic program. Once the key elements were in
place, we started the process of the program. Once the drill moved to the first coordinate,
we found that the positioning of the drill was near our target but was not accurate enough
to meet our objective. We continued the program and found that the error we had from
each hole was compounding onto the following hole. After a number of hours of testing
we recollected our ideas and found that if we went back to the origin we would eliminate
the error. We then proceeded to review our algorithm in the program, but because of
time restraints we were unable derive a new algorithm to enhance our precision.
4. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
4.1 Organization/Schedule:
management and team planning. We began work on this project with the knowledge that
some group organization was necessary but the way that we organized our group changed
as work progressed.
At first we looked at our group and assigned tasks based on concentration, but
some tasks overlapped, or could have been done by anyone in the group. For example, as
can be seen on the Gantt chart provided, Jeremy, Pat, and T.J. were in charge of some of
the tasks that were more electrical in nature. This included researching and
understanding stepping motors, computer interfacing, and sensor research. Jess on the
other hand worked on the mechanical design of the mounting system and the theory
behind the X-Y table. Some of the tasks such as the literature review and the acquiring
As work progressed first semester we began to see who was better at which tasks,
and some of the assignments began to change. For example, Jess took over the contacts
with companies that helped us acquire many of our components. Pat devoted most of his
time to the research and operation of the stepper motors and drivers, which included
integration of the motors to the system. There were other examples of changes in
assignments, which can be seen in the updated version of the first semester Gantt chart.
As second semester began and the building phase began, almost all of the tasks
assigned remained within concentration. Jess worked primarily on the design and
construction of the mounting system which included mounting the X-Y table to the drill
and the circuit boards to the entire system. T.J. worked on sensor acquisition, but when
they seemed to no longer be necessary he devoted his time to creating the circuit boards
that we hoped to have tested by the final presentation, as well as working on the
acquisition of various parts. Jeremy and Pat were devoted to the interfacing of the
computer with the controller, which included creation of the controlling software, as well
as the correct attachment of the motors to the drivers and the drivers to the controller.
Jeremy, as the group leader, also oversaw the entire project as well, keeping the group on
track and working together. But in general we all helped each other out and because of
this we each put some time into all of the different components of the project.
Our schedule seldom completely matched the Gantt chart, but that was not
early, and at other times we were slightly behind schedule. As might be expected, it was
the major issues that set us behind schedule. The interfacing was a major time consumer
and seemed to put us behind schedule both in the research stages as well as the
Parker Automation and Compumotor, and learning how those components worked and
interfaced was a major issues as well on which we spent a good deal of our time. The
Visual Basic software and the communication between the computer and the motor
controller also posed a big challenge. The problem with the development of the control
software was that we changed course a number of times between the use of Labview and
Visual Basic, which could have saved time if it had been known earlier which would
ultimately be the most effective tool. These were the major issues that tied up our
schedule, but solutions seemed to arise with determination, prayer, and sometimes a little
luck.
4.2 Finished Gantt Chart:
5. BUDGET
One of our most important objectives was to complete this project within the
budget that was allotted to us by the Engineering Department. The budget that we had to
work with was $300. As one can easily notice from the budget chart above, the actual
price in completing our senior project is much different than the price it cost us to
construct. Although it only cost our team $204 to complete this project (its prototype
cost), it would cost over $12,600 to make this item again (production cost). Generous
donations from companies greatly helped in keeping this project under budget. Over
$10,000 in equipment was donated to our senior project group. The Engineering
Department also saved us a great amount of money, as a computer and time in the shop
(machining) were available to us for no cost. Our group could never produce this project
at the same cost of our prototype model. Money could be saved on the smaller items,
such as the mounts, machining, plugs, hardware, and wires, if these products were
purchased in bulk. But there is not really any way to surpass the large expenses of the
slides, motors, controller, and drivers. I believe that a production-type model would cost
approximately $12,400. We are very thankful to have received donations that helped us
to finish our project. Our group remained under our $300 budget; we met our objective
As we look back over the accomplishments we have made in the past year, we are
encouraged by our sense of achievement. This project has given us experience in our
first real engineering project. Our senior project included: defining the project, creating a
followed by construction, testing, and finalizing our efforts through a presentation and a
report.
Our group defined objectives that we desired to achieve through this project. The
objectives we created were found in the introduction of this report. As for meeting our
specified objectives, our group successfully fulfilled three out of six objectives. We
reached these goals: to utilize a program to extract the coordinates from Ultiboard, to
employ stepping motors and a controller to position a PCB for drilling, and to construct
our project within a budget of $300. Another objective was to utilize LabView as a
controlling program to operate our automated system. Although we did not accomplish
this goal, we found an alternative, which was easier to operate, learn, program, and was
more user-friendly: Visual Basic. These are the objectives that were not satisfied: to
design an automated system that will reduce the time of drilling a PCB by a factor of one-
half and to build an automated system that will accurately drill component holes within 5
We are satisfied with the objectives we have accomplished, and we are confident
that our other objectives can be met with further improvements. After applying the
suggestions that we make in the next section of this paper for future work, we do believe
that all of our original objectives are feasible. We hope that theses suggestions and
possibly others will be completed to improve upon our project, as the automated drill
press system will greatly improve the PCB construction process for all of the engineering
students at Messiah College. During this project, we learned a lot about automation, such
as the idea behind stepping motors, how controllers and drivers operate, how to program
in Visual Basic, and various other ideas and concepts. We also learned lessons on the
importance of staying on task, backing up our computer files and reports, and working
together as a team. Overall, this senior design project was a fun and exciting way to
experience our first engineering project. We all hope to use the lessons learned from this
project in our future engineering careers and in other areas of our lives as well.
7. FUTURE WORK
We are very pleased to see everything that we have done in the past year. It was
an exciting day when we tested our drill and everything worked. As we used the project,
we were able to see certain areas that needed improvements. The first thing we would
like to see accomplished is to make a set of formal directions. Any member of our group
could set-up the drill press and use our automated system. But, no other student can use
it, at least not without any directions. We would like to see a list of specific, detailed
instructions on how to operate our system. These directions would incorporate steps
including information on Ultiboard, the etching procedure, running the Visual Basic
program, and the actual set-up of the drill press and completed automated system.
As we were testing our system, we also found out that it is very limited to the size
of printed circuit board it could drill. Due to the size of the mounting plate and the
location of the drill’s supporting pole, we are limited to a four inch PCB. We thought that
mounting the drill press on a wall or from the ceiling would eliminate this problem. With
no supporting pole to interfere with the motion of the plate, the slides could move to their
full potential and larger boards could be drilled. We also found that our system would
move as the project operates. The wooden box and the drill press were not bolted down
onto the table. With the vibrations and movements of the system, the origin for drilling
had to reset frequently. Mounting the drill on the wall would not only increase the size of
boards we could use, but it would also eliminate the movement of the origin and save
more time.
procedure automated. As of now, only the positioning is automated, and the operator
must manually move the drill press down to drill out the hole. A mechanical device that
allows the drill to drop down on its own, programmed to work with our existing project,
would complete the project and make it entirely automated. The final improvement we
would suggest is to change the actual Visual Basic program that runs our controller.
Currently, the accuracy of the automated system decreases as we move further along the
board. Also, we have the drill bit return to the origin before each hole is drilled; these
extra movements increase the time that our system spends in completing the drilling of a
PCB. We believe that a change in our programming could effectively increase the
accuracy and decrease the amount of time spent on drilling. With these changes and
improvements, our automated drill press would be more practical, accurate, and efficient.
8. REFERENCES
2. Dorf R., Kusiak A., Handbook of Design Manufacturing and Automation, John
3. http://www.sherline.com
4. http://www.ebay.com
5. http://www.cameronmicrodrillpress.com
1
9. APPENDIX
Figure A:
2
Original Drill Press:
3
Final Assembly: