me 250 final project
TRANSCRIPT
“Team Hole-In-One”
Executive Summary
The objective of this project was for the team to build a device that can move a golf ball across a
mini golf course following traditional mini golf rules. As the project began, the team identified the
different objectives and constraints the device had to achieve. The objectives of the device were to keep
costs low, ease of use, safe, and had to be aesthetically pleasing. After choosing the objectives which we
would design the device to, the team had to consider how it would function to achieve our main
objective of playing mini golf with the device. The team identified a few main functions that the device
would have to accomplish, and several different means in which to do the functions.
Next, these means were used to develop a morphological chart to help narrow down how the
device would achieve moving a golf ball across the mini golf course. Our team was able to narrow our
design choices to 5 possible designs that centered around 3 different ways to propel the golf ball which
were spring power, compressed gas, and gravity. After taking the pros and cons of each proposed
design, the team choose a spring power device, that rotated on a base and had a button signal. The button
signal was later changed to a pin/lever system however. This design was chosen based on the results of
what the team though would fit our objectives the best, and it was concluded that the spring powered
device could be made cheaper, smaller, lighter, and be more reliable than any of the other design
choices.
A prototype was built and tested, and brought back favorably results. A few variants of the
device were built after coming across some structural design mistakes, but in the end all of those were
fixed. The final design of the device achieved all of the team's initial objectives while accomplishing the
Page 1
“Team Hole-In-One”
main goal of applying force to the ball and shooting it a far enough distance to successfully navigate the
minigolf course.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION & PROBLEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................... 3
DEVICE FUNCTION/MEANS & CONCEPT GENERATION/SELECTION............................................ 7-12
FINAL DESIGN/DEVICE COMPONENTS AND FUNCTIONS............................................................. 11-15
TESTING ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 -15
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 17
CAD DRAWINGS (as attachments) .............................................................................................................. 18
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................. 19-20
-Final Project Task List
-Bill of Materials (attachment)
-Individual Contributions
Page 2
“Team Hole-In-One”
Introduction
Golf is a game of precision and accuracy. In this project design process, these ideas are
thoroughly explored in order to achieve maximum efficiency and at the same time not compromising
other aspects of the design. The goal of this design project, and group “Hole-In-One” was to create a
device that was affordable to make, safe, and easily able to achieve the primary goal of getting the golf
ball into the golf hole by the means and standards that were predetermined. This experiment and
mini-golf design was designed by going through a comprehensive design process that included
developing concrete objectives and constraints, selection of design, Testing process and the actual
designing of the device.
Problem Definition
The goal of this project was to design, create and use a golf ball projecting device to navigate
and compete on a miniature golf course against other teams with the same objective. The optimal result
is having three “Hole-in-Ones”. The course is created but not shared to the teams by the instructor and
TAs. The device must follow specific criteria and follow the traditional rules of miniature golf. This
section focuses on the design objectives and constraints, using an organized format to show the
“customer” what the team will be focused on during the design process. This section will also work as a
layout to the groundwork the team will take to achieve a design that is well balanced between the set
objectives and constraints.
Page 3
“Team Hole-In-One”
Objectives/Constraints
The group’s focus is on making the device cost efficient, easy to use, able to pass the safety test,
and focusing on a good design process. Some constraints in the design will come from the limitations
placed on the team from the rules of this project and the rules of mini-golf which must be abided. These
constraints include, not allowing the device to shoot/propel in any manner the golf ball, along with
knowing that the team is limited in the types of materials and parts the team can make the device from,
both with what is given and what can be construed through 3-D printing.
One of the most significant objectives is cost effectiveness. The goal is to make the device low
cost, and this will be accomplished by making the device both easy to use as well as cheap in
construction.. The team will try to use low cost materials and use a more renewable source of energy to
propel the ball. There is a limit to how cheap the team can make the device without impacting other
design objectives, so the team will be flexible with this objective.
The next objective, ease of use, will be to make the device as accessible/efficient as possible.
The device should be able to adjust its power output to make it easy to make long or short distance
shots, and easily be able to change the direction of the shot to move the ball around obstacles. The
device should be be able to make consistent shots as measured by the average distance of the ball
traveled per choice of force exerted on the ball, and that the device should have a signal so that when the
device is properly setup, the operator can attempt a shot at any time.
For the next objective, the team is looking to achieve making the device able to pass a safety test.
The safety test is an important test that will determine if the device will be allowed to legally participate
on the course. If the device can not pass the safety test, it would take considerable time to rework the
Page 5
“Team Hole-In-One”
device into something that can pass the test, so it would be best if the team passed the test on the first
try. The teams last major objective is coming up with an effective design.
The design objective the team is looking to accomplish is to make the device as compact as
possible as well as to make the device in a shape that is easy to handle and move around. The team is
looking to accomplish this by making the device lightweight and in a shape that allows for it to be
moved around, and placed in tight areas. The course the device will operate on is expected to have
various obstacles in the way, and by allowing a compact device the chance of success is far more viable.
In conclusion, the team will design and create a device that can transport a golf ball to its
destination using the objectives and constraints listed above as a road map to the final design. The
design goals of this device is to have a functional balance between safety, cost, ease of use, design, and
weight. At the same time, the team will be designing around the constraints of the device not sending the
golf ball airborne, and making best use of the materials and manufacturing processes the team have to
use. In the end, the team hopes to design a device that will effectively succeed in playing a game of
mini-golf, and achieve the optimal result of having three “Hole-in-Ones” in succession.
Page 6
“Team Hole-In-One”
Device Function/Means
The goal of this section of the main project is to define and document the essential functions of
the golf-ball moving device as well as through what means are necessary are used to achieve these
functions. This is clearly exhibited through a function/means organized graphic, exhibited below.
The main objective is to transfer energy into the golf ball in order to move it from point A to B,
this is achieved through three forms of energy transfer: Gas, Spring, and Gravity, further organized in
the graphic exhibited
( Functions/Means Tree )
Page 8
“Team Hole-In-One”
The results of the functions necessary in order for the main goal of moving the object are shown
in the infographic through three primary sections, Gas, Spring and Gravity. In terms of the Gas powered
mechanism incorporated in the device, the functions necessary for optimum transfer will be, as exhibited
on the graphic, storing the gas, releasing the gas and finally directing the gas. The “means” needed to
achieve these functions are through a gas cannister/container, with either a nozzle or a broken seal in
order to direct the gas as well as control it, as shown on the Visualization-Graphic explicitly. This would
help to achieve the overall function of transferring energy into the golf-ball moving device, and helping
it reach its point B destination.
In terms of using Spring to harness energy and transfer it into the device, the optimum functions
will be to Store energy, release energy and finally channel the energy in a direction. The energy would
be stored in the spring through a “catch”, as shown on the graphic, and released through a human
operator through a Catch, and consequently channeled through a tube/cup that houses the golf ball.
The third form of energy transfer to help achieve the end-goal is harnessing the power of gravity.
This would accomplished through the means of a Club to hit the ball with an operator swinging on a
pendulum or through a ramp, directing the force of gravity and rolling the golf ball down through a
certain direction to achieve the “Point B” destination.
In conclusion, the function/means tree created for the device help lay a fundamentally strong
groundwork in order to view the functions as well as through what means necessary will be achieved for
optimal results; in this case being, getting the golf-ball from point A to point B successively. This will
be achieved, as exhibited by the function-means tree graphic, by transferring energy into the ball
through three main sources, Gas, Spring and through Gravity. While each of them have different means
Page 9
“Team Hole-In-One”
in order to achieve the end goal, the most optimal method of energy transfer will need to be conducted
on the field, through consecutive tests and recording consequential experimental results.
Concept Generation and Selection
This section will go over how team “Hole-in-One” generated the top concepts and which concept
was ultimately decided to be used for the eventual goal. After completing the functions and means
section of the project, the team had to decide what on what were the top means and functions that would
best fit the objectives generated for the device in the beginning of the project. The team sat down and
created a morphological chart that would help the team with this goal. The first step of the process was
to build the chart by first identifying the top functions the device would have to achieve, and then these
functions were narrowed down to three functions and all the possible means to achieving those
functions.
( Morphological Table )
Morphological Table
Feature Function Means
Propulsion Mechanism /Power
Compressed Gas Gravity Spring
Direction Tube Crane Turn-Table
Signal Button Lever Switch Spring Stopper
( Table Edited by Jarrett Lawson) The result was the table above. The device has to ultimately move a golf ball through a mini-golf
type course, so the functions that were most important to that task were added to the chart. These
functions were to move of the ball, direct of the ball, and have a signal to propel the ball. The means
were listed and identified from the functions/means chart to achieve these functions. There were
Page 10
“Team Hole-In-One”
thirty-six possible concepts identified to choose from, and so the team narrowed these thirty-six down
to five after some deliberation.
Ten concepts were made with the best combinations of propulsion, directing the ball, and signal
which used to move the ball. These combinations ruled out other combinations like using a spring
stopper with compressed gas on a crane, or infeasible ones like using gravity with a turntable. Through
careful analysis the most useful combinations identified were:
Chosen Designs for Ideal Diversity and Functionality 1. Gravity Powered/Tube Directed/Lever Signal 2. Gravity Powered/Crane Directed/switch Signal 3. Spring Powered/Turntable Directed/Button Signal 4. Spring Powered/Tube Directed/Button Signal 5. Gas Powered/Tube Directed/Spring Stopper Signal 6. Gas Powered/Turntable Directed/Button Signal 7. Gravity Powered/Crane Directed/Lever Signal 8. Spring Powered/Tube Directed/Spring Stopper Signal 9. Spring Powered/Turntable Directed/Switch Signal 10. Spring Powered/Crane Directed/Lever Signal
(Best of class chart - 5 of 10 Shown)
Design / Objectives and constraints
Safety Size Cost Ease of Use
Power Accuracy Total
1(Gra)(T)(L) 5 2 5 5 2 2 22
2(Gra)(C)(s) 4 3 3 3 3 3 19
3(S)(TT)(B) 5 5 4 5 4 4 27
4(S)(T)(B) 5 4 4 4 4 5 26
5(G)(T)(SS) 2 3 3 3 5 3 20
(Gra) = Gravity (L) = Lever (B) = Button (s)=Switch (SS)=Spring Stopper (T)= Tube (C)=Crane (S)=Spring (TT) = Turntable
(Table Edited by Jarrett Lawson)
Page 11
“Team Hole-In-One”
The chart above lists the 5 combinations the team chose, against objectives and constraints that
the device was going to be designed around. Going through the list of objectives and constraints, each
device was given points from 1 to 5, where 5 was the most ideal and 1 was the worst. The sums of every
category was then calculated to determine the most feasible device. As shown in the “Total” column, the
Gas and Gravity designs rated poorly compared to the spring designs.
Overall ease of use, accuracy, power and compactness were highly rated in the spring designs.
Gas rated poorly on these because it would have to be released from a highly compressed sealed
container. To control and properly utilize this energy would require great mechanical assistance. The use
of gas was unreasonably difficult compared to the other available options. The team also deemed it as
the least safest design in the possibility of anything going wrong because of the difficulty to implement.
Gravity designs were in the same range as the gas design, if not slightly better, due to the safety,
cost and ease of use. Unfortunately these designs lack in the areas of power, accuracy and compactness.
The team thought that a gravity design would be considerably less powerful than springs and gas, and
would require more room than the other two designs.
The spring designs-TT-B and S-T-B were rated the highest, therefore chosen as the design path
this team is going to take. The reason for this is because it was deemed that a spring design would be the
most compact due to lack of extra parts and equipment, easier to use and setup, cheaper, and have more
power to propel the ball while being easier to control the output of. The team chose the
spring/turntable/button design purely for the fact that it should be slightly more compact.
Overall, these two charts were useful for choosing the concept design. The concept design
included the features and functions that it will have based on the objective tree and functions tree that
was already created. Although only a few ideas were listed in the morphological chart, the team decided
Page 12
“Team Hole-In-One”
that the 10 in the chart were more realistic and achievable. The best of class chart was best used for
deciding which design would be more optimal. The key goal in this project is to make the device have
great performance and be as simple as it can. With that being said, the spring-turntable-button design
will help reach that goal.
Final Design
The goal of this section is to explain the final design of the concept the team chose in the
concepts and generation section. The device was built to the concept that it would be a spring loaded
device on a base that it could revolve around, and have a button type signal mechanism. Based on this
information, the device was finalized into these different components and functions that revolved around
that idea, although the button idea was scrapped and replaced by a lever system. After the device was
built, the team conducted many experiments/tests. These experiments helped the team identify the errors
of the device that was later adjusted for improvement. After the final experiment, technical drawing
were made into solidworks of every component.
Device Components and Functions
Base:
The base of this device was designed to add more weight and help keep it stable while hitting the
golf ball. The base was made out of wood because it would slightly be cheaper to use. Not only is it
cheaper but would also have higher coefficient of friction with the main case of the device which would
help prevent unwanted movement while setting up and firing the golf ball.
Page 13
“Team Hole-In-One”
Main Case:
The main case was designed to house the hitting rod/head and spring and have a separate top
attached to aid in ease of construction of the device. Few design changes were made to the case since it’s
initial design from results of testing done. The case was designed with slots in the side to guide the
hitting rod/head as it traveled to hit the ball. The lower part of the case features a lip across the bottom
front of the case to stop the hitting rod/head from being ejected from the case. It attaches to the base by
using a small bolt and nut which allows it to rotate on top of the base.
Hitting Rod/Head:
The rod/head was designed to hit the ball with a good amount of force and succeed in reaching
its destination. The choice of having the rod circular was for it to fit in the hole at the end of the base.
The rod being circular also helps the spring curl around. The rod had to be long enough for a person to
be able to pull it at the end. The head of the rod is in the shape of the arc to hit the ball at an angle. The
pegs on the side of the head are used for guiding the rod.
Spring:
The length of the spring is based on the length of the inner structure. Measured from the entrance
to the rod, to the head. The spring’s inner diameter has to be large enough for it to fit around the rod.
The spring is used to compress and then release to launch the rod. After releasing, the rod shoots
forward and hits the ball.
Pin/Pin Holes:
The pin is designed to signal the device and releasing the rod/head to shoot the ball. A circular
pin must be inserted inside the pin holes to lock the device. To pull the pin, a lever that is attached to the
pin must be pushed down. The lever is hanging off a block that sits on the top of the device. Pushing it
Page 14
“Team Hole-In-One”
down releases the hitting rod/head. There are a total of 5 pinholes. Each hole allows the spring to be set
a different compression which affects how much energy is put into it.. The further the hole away from
the head, the greater force will be applied to the golf ball.
Testing:
Test 1:
With the first trial run, the device had a problem with the signal. The rectangular pins created too
much friction with the pin holes. It made it difficult to pull out the pins from the pin holes. Adjustments
to the device had to made. The device was also using a substitute spring the team found around the shop.
It was a bit to hard to pull back, but the device did move the ball down the mini golf course, so it was a
good start. However, the spring was too strong and end up breaking the structure that keeps the hitting
head from exiting the case.
Test 2:
The pins were re-designed into a different shape to have less friction with the pin holes. The pin
was circular and the pin holes were circular as well. Due to the roughness of the 3-D printed pin, the
friction in the pin device actually increase from the square design. Team “Hole In-One” decided to go
with a metal pin that was machined to size to cut down on friction. Also, the team decided to attach a
lever to the pin to aid in extracting the pin when the pin is engaged.
Another issue was that the substitute spring was still breaking the device. It was too stiff to fully
compress, and if it was compressed fully, the 3D printed case was not strong enough to withstand the
force. The team reinforced the area that was breaking on the case, but then the guide pegs on the hitting
head were breaking then. Some changes were made after to the case, hitting head, and the new pin/lever
signal.
Page 15
“Team Hole-In-One”
Test 3:
The final test run was a success. The team made a few key revisions to the design of the
launcher. A tiny hole was drilled into the pin so a thin rod can go through, and a block was added to the
top. This new signal then works like a lever once inserted into the pinholes. After the system is locked,
the thin rod gets pushed down and the pin releases. Another change was a adding a lip to the bottom of
the case and hitting head. This prevented the guide blocks on the hitting head from coming into contact
with the case under load. Instead the lip absorbs the force. This prevents the case from breaking.
The team also received the right spring and needed to make it more manageable to use. The
spring was slightly less powerful, which meant that there was a lower chance of the force breaking the
launcher, and also it was easier to fully compress. The launcher moved the ball slightly slower and not
as far as with the substitute spring, but it was still able to make the distance to the goal at the end of the
course.
Page 16
“Team Hole-In-One”
Conclusion:
This project proved to be successful in terms of achieving the necessary steps in order to build a
functioning device. The final design achieved all the teams necessary objectives as well as the
constraints and is able to provide enough force to push the golf ball across the course. The final design
turned out to be light weight, low cost, compact and accessible while at the same time not compromising
power. The device is both aesthetically pleasing and the concept that the team chose prior was the
correct decision.
Designing the outer shell of the device, the launcher, on solidworks was a great engineering
decision in the design process. It allowed for a sturdy shell, holding all the parts together, while at the
same time being aesthetically pleasing and easy to manufacture. An improvement that could be made for
future designing would be to make the device even lighter, which could perhaps be achieved through a
lighter trigger piece. This could theoretically be 3d printed once again.
Page 17
“Team Hole-In-One”
References
Dym, Clive L., Patrick Little, and Elizabeth J. Orwin. Engineering Design: A Project Based
Introduction . 4th ed. N.p.: Higher Education, 2011. Print.
Page 18
“Team Hole-In-One”
Individual Contributions: Erik Sanchez:
Wrote the final design introduction, testing, device components, bill of materials, and pasted the Gantt
chart into the report.
Naman Bindra:
Wrote Introduction, Executive Summary, Problem definition, Device Design function and means, and
created title page as well as the table of contents.
Jarrett Lawson:
I helped write the final design section, got the CAD drawings organized and managed team members
making at least one CAD drawing.
Chris Kim:
Helped with CAD drawings and with overall design process. Wrote Generation and Selection of Top
Concepts, and Functional Analysis
Page 21