Universal Clothing Extractor

Sponsor: FirstBuild
Team Members:
Brennen Craig
Ben Dowen
Tyler Zosso
David Wheeler
April 21, 2017
Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Section 1 Project Background and History
1.1 Problem Statement
1.2 Competing Products
1.3 - Existing Products or Prior Solutions
1.3.1 - Patent Search Results
1.3.2 - Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Products
1.3.3 - Valuable Approaches to Incorporate
1.4 Scope of Work
1.5 Team Members and Roles
1.4.1 Team Expectations
1.4.2 Team Roles
Section 2 Conceptual Development Stage
2.1 Requirements Matrix
2.2 Exploratory Concept Evaluation and Functional Decomposition
2.2.1 - Extendable, Flexible Shelf Design
2.2.2 - Corkscrew Baffle Design
2.2.3 - Collapsible Baffle with Rising Panel Design
2.2.4 - Conical Drum Design
2.2.5 - Movable Interior Shell
2.3 Conceptual Design Plan
2.3.1 - Preliminary Research
2.3.2 - Construction Models
2.3.3 - Experimentation and Testing
2.3.4 - Conceptual Designs
2.3.4.1 - Extendable, Flexible Shelf Design
2.3.4.2 - Corkscrew Baffle Design

1
 2.3.4.3 - Conical Drum Design
2.3.4.4 - Movable Interior Shell Design
2.3.5 - Down Selection
2.3.6 - Final Design Choice
2.4 - Critical Issue(s) Identification
2.4.1 - Essential Hardware
2.4.2 - Essential Software
2.4.3 - Essential Knowledge
2.4.4 - Essential Processes
Section 3 Project Design Stage
3.1 - Detailed Design Plan
3.1.1 - Mechanical Design Overview
3.1.1.1 - Models of Parts
3.1.1.2 - Full Design Model
3.1.1.3 - Technical Drawings of Parts
3.1.1.4 - Manufacturing Plan for Each Part
3.1.2 - Electrical Design Overview
3.1.2.1 - Complete Circuit Diagram
3.1.2.2 - Circuit Prototyping
3.1.2.3 - Wiring Diagram
3.1.2.4 - Printing Circuit Board Layout and Mounting
3.1.3 - Software Design Overview
3.1.3.1 - Flow Diagram
3.1.4 - Bill of Materials
3.1.5 - Fabrication Budget
3.1.6 - Design Calculations and Test Results Supporting Design
3.1.7 - Analytical Models to Support Design
3.1.8 - Prepare for Testing Phase
3.1.9 - Testing Plan Draft

2
 3.2 - Drop Test Simulations
3.3 - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
3.4 - Final Budget
Section 4 Project Fabrication Stage
4.1 - Project Fabrication Phase
4.2 - Redesign for Weight Requirements
4.3 - Component Fabrication
4.4 - PCB Layout
4.5 - Software Source Code
4.6 - Design Tolerances
4.7 - Component Technical Drawings
4.8 - Ledger for Fabrication Modification
4.9 - Component Testing and Results
4.10 - Completed Test Plan
Section 5 Project Testing and Evaluation Stage
5.1 - Testing and Evaluation of Results
5.1.1 - Results of Test Plan
5.1.1.1 - Data Collected
5.1.1.2 - Data Analysis
5.1.1.3 - Project Goals and Results
5.1.2 - Modifications Made to Prototype
5.1.3 - Further Improvements for Future Development
Section 6 Project Management and Schedules
6.1 - Project Management Timelines and Work Breakdown Structure
6.2 Schedule
6.2.1 - Team Performance Relative to Schedule
6.2.2 - Fabrication Phase Schedule
6.2.3 - Fabrication Phase Schedule Performance
6.2.4 - Schedule for Testing Phase

3
 6.3 - Critical Issue(s) Demonstration

Appendix
A - Mechanical Drawings
B - Printed Circuit Board Drawings
C - Source Code
D - Procurement Documents
E - Work Breakdown Schedules for All Stages
F - Meeting Minutes
G - Trip Reports
H - Works Cited
I - Teams Permanent Contact Information
J - What was Learned
K - Reflection

4
Executive Summary
There are many people worldwide that suffer from some sort of movement disability. Anything
from those who are wheelchair-bound to those suffering from arthritis experience difficulties
performing some basic tasks needed to live easily. It is because of this that companies such as
General Electric (GE) and FirstBuild provide appliance options that are Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant to aid these individuals.
While these ADA standards certainly help to provide disabled users more options
regarding household appliances, it is Team 01B and FirstBuilds belief that more can be done to
aid these users. Team 01B, consisting of Brennen Craig, Ben Dowen, David Wheeler, and Tyler
Zosso, as well as industry and faculty mentors Mary Beckmann and Professor Davin Huston,
have been tasked with redesigning an existing ADA compliant GE dryer to make it more usable
for those suffering from movement or strength disabilities. The goal of this project is to deliver a
fully functioning prototype dryer which aids in the removal of laundry from the unit.
While several possible designs were considered, two were determined to be the most
promising. The first design utilized corkscrew shaped baffles that would allow laundry
movement to be controlled by the direction that the dryer drum rotated. This allowed the dryer to
push the clothes to the front of the dryer drum at the end of the drying cycle.
Ultimately the final design was chosen to be a drum tilt design. This design utilized a lift
mechanism to lift and tilt the dryer drum forward, similar to large industrial dryers, and allow the
laundry to fall forward to the front of the drum. This option was determined to be the superior
design as it in no way affected the drying capabilities of the unit. At the end of this project, the
team provided a fully operational prototype of a tilting dryer. This design, operated by a single
pushbutton, would tilt the dryer forward, wait for the user to indicate that clothing had been
removed by pressing the pushbutton a second time, then lower back to the units resting position.
The entirety of the lift mechanism was housed in the riser assembly of the GE GFRD480 dryer.
This prototype was tested for consistency. By running the prototype through several
iterations of loads, dry times, and lifts, Team 01B was able to determine the effectiveness of the
prototype. While the prototype had to be slightly improved by increasing the tilt angle from 12.5
to 14, the prototype and project was ultimately successful.

5
1 Project Background and History
1.1 Problem Statement
In the year 2012, 13.2% of the United States population had limitation to their daily activities,
labeled as a disability. Almost 70% of people over the age of 60 were labeled with some form of
disability. These disabilities range from minor to severe, but still have an effect on a person's
daily life [2]. Due to such a large number of disabled people, there is a need for accessible
household appliances that can be normally operated by these persons. Team 01B is redesigning
an existing General Electric (GE) laundry dryer appliance to be ADA compliant, while also
incorporating the concept of universal design. Currently, ADA compliance standards for
household appliances outline dimensions and locations of controls, but these standards fall short
of providing truly useful appliances. In order to provide a universally designed appliance that
anyone, able-bodied or not, can effectively and easily use, major changes need to be made to the
design of appliances such as the laundry dryer.

1.2 Competing Products

Currently, there are very few products and appliances that accomplish the needs from this
projects problem statement. The only examples of easy-to-unload dryers that are on the market
are industrial capacity dryers that utilize pneumatic presses to tilt the entire appliance for easy
unloading of laundry, such as the 105GP model industrial laundry dryer sold by Consolidated
Laundry Machinery, and seen in Figure 1 [3].

6
While this design does solve the problem outlined in this problem statement, when scaled down
for consumer sized appliances, it no longer makes fiscal sense. The pneumatic design also would
violate many of the requirements of this project as the dimensions of the appliance would be well
outside of the specifications, unless the entire appliance was redesigned.

While the industrial dryers seem one of the few examples of existing solutions, other products
provide insight into possible designs for this projects final solution. One of these products is the
LG EasyLoad door for dryer appliances. This door, which can be seen in Figure 2 provides two
methods of opening the appliance, each of which serve a different purpose. The standard
side-opening door allows the user to unload the appliance in the same way that any other dryer
can be unloaded. The secondary method for opening the door allows the door to help the user
load the dryer. By having the dryer door open from the top, the door provides a rudimentary
funnel to allow laundry to be slide into the inner drum [4]. While this design aids the user in
loading the appliance rather than unloading the appliance, it provides insight into how small,
fundamental redesigns can have a large impact on the final product.

Another existing product that solves a similar problem would be outlined in the US patent
8087184 B2 [5]. This patent, an example of which can be seen in Figure 3, allows the user to
utilize the laundry dryer as an effective non-tumbling dryer.

7
The rack, which is inserted in the inner
drum of the dryer, allows the dryer to dry
objects that cannot be placed in the dryer
while tumbling, such as shoes. While this
product is designed to be used in a
stationary, non-tumbling dryer, this idea
could be modified to provide a sliding rack
that allows for laundry to be removed
without reaching into the appliances
drum, while still allowing the appliance
to tumble dry.

1.3 - Existing Products or Prior Solutions

1.3.1 - Patent Search Results
Other than the drying rack patent described in section 1.2 of this report, there are very few
patents that set out to accomplish the tasks and scope of this project. The few patents there are
for laundry extracting and drying mechanisms revolve around alternative drying methods, such
as wringing the laundry out, rather than applying heat. Due to the fact that many of these patents
move away from conventional commercial dryers, which the project focuses on, these patents
were not considered.

Industrial dryer appliances, such as the one shown in Figure 1 of this report, were beginning to
be considered for this project. Initially the methods industrial dryers use to assist in laundry
removal were not considered due to cost and scalability, but this changed after discussions with
FirstBuild and the teams faculty mentors

1.3.2 - Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Products

Originally, the only patent design considered was the drying rack shown in Figure 3 of this
report. While this patent was a good starting point for other potential designs, it did present many

8
weaknesses. The primary weakness was the reduction of drum volume that it created. Normally
this patent would only be used when the drum was not rotating and therefore volume was not a
concern, but as this projects design would require normal dryer operation, volume is important.
This patent and design would need to be heavily modified to prove useful for the project.

The industrial dryer operation, however, proved to be a more useful approach. This design of
tilting the entire appliance to slide laundry to the front of the dryer drum solved the problem of
this project. This design does have a few weaknesses, however. Tilting the commercial sized
appliance creates many safety concerns as the commercial dryer is not mounted or sized in the
same way that the industrial sized dryers are. While this design does answer many of the
projects problems, it brings up more issues regarding user safety.

1.3.3 - Valuable Approaches to Incorporate

Tilting the entire appliance, similar to the industrial dryer design, would be the most valuable
approach to incorporate to the final design. If all of the safety concerns could be solved, then this
would be an acceptable final design for this project. The main concerns would be the appliance
tipping if the drum tilted too far, or if too much pressure was placed on the edge of the unit when
tilting. Also, having objects or the user get caught in the moving parts when the unit returns to its
resting position creates another safety concern.

1.4 Scope of Work

Objectives: In the United States in the year 2015, it was reported that an average of 6.8 million
Americans used some form of assistive device to perform daily functions. Of these 6.8 million,
1.7 million were specifically wheelchair bound. Approximately 40% of these citizens stated that
it was difficult to perform major activities, and 30% reported that assistance was required in
performing basic daily activities [1]. Additionally, between the years of 2010 and 2012, there
were a reported 52.5 million Americans with one of several forms of arthritis [6]. The primary
focus of Team 01B is on these afflicted Americans. Team 01B believes that by re-designing a
dryer to implement more than the basic ADA standards required, relief can be brought to some

9
of the daily burdens that these Americans face. The idea is that by re-designing a dryer to fit the
needs of these disabled Americans, there will be a significant reduction on some of the
restrictions that are faced in day-to-day life.

Deliverables: The deliverables for this project consist entirely of designing and manufacturing a
complete and functioning prototype that meets all of the requirements presented by FirstBuild.
This prototype will be a proof-of-concept for FirstBuild to then use to potentially design a
permanent product that their facility will manufacture and distribute. This prototype and all of
the design iterations and documentation will be delivered to FirstBuild at the conclusion of this
project. While the prototype will address potential large scale manufacturing problems, a large
scale manufacturing plan is not needed for this project.

Criteria: This projects deliverables will be finalized and presented to FirstBuild by May 6,
2017. The prototype must meet all of the requirements listed in the Requirements Matrix of this
report, as well as be the highest ranked design in regard to the design criteria laid out in section
2.3.5 Down Selection of this report.

Exclusions: Anything that is not mentioned within this Scope of Work is outside of the scope of
this project and will not be used to determine the success of this project.

1.5 Team Members and Roles

This section includes the Team Charter, as well as any and all expectations and responsibilities
held by each member of the 01B FirstBuild ADA team. The goal of this section is to serve as a
reference for the team, so that all project goals can be completed efficiently. In order for this
team to be successful, all expectations need to be explicitly stated.

1.5.1 Team Expectations

Non-important communication will be done through GroupMe. It is expected of each member to
be diligent in checking GroupMe for new updates by other members. The team will meet 4 times

10
per week. Meetings will occur every day of lab during the week (Mondays for the first semester,
Mondays and Wednesdays for the second semester). As well as one weekly 30 minute meeting
with Mary Beckmann and Adam Mora, and one 30 minute meeting with Professor Davin
Huston. Action Items will be given out to each member at the end of every meeting. These items
are expected to be completed before the subsequent meeting time.

1.5.2 Team Roles

Company Contact
Brennen Craig
The Company Contact will be responsible for scheduling all physical and video chat meetings
between the 01B Team, Company Sponsor, and Faculty Mentor. The Company Contact is not
the only team member to decide on meeting times and location, but instead organizes and
communicates the final decision.
Company Transportation
Tyler Zosso
The Company Transportation is responsible for organizing any visits to the physical FirstBuild
location. They will provide transport for all other team members attending the trip, as well as fill
out any documentation necessary for said trip.
Editor
Ben Dowen
The Editor is responsible for proofreading and formatting documents pertaining to the project,
trips, or Capstone information. While each member of the group is responsible for their own
materials, the Editor will ensure that all documentation is clear and accurate as well as correctly
formatted.
CAD Designer
David Wheeler
The CAD Designer is responsible for making 3D graphical representations of the team's design.
He will attempt to portray the teams ideas through modeling.

11
2 Conceptual Development Stage
2.1 Requirements Matrix
Req. Requirement Description Test
#

1 Wheelchair The design must be fully accessible by a standard sized Demonstration

Accessibility wheelchair.

2 Dryer The design must not increase the drying time of laundry. Measurement
Efficiency

3 Temperature Any part of the design housed within the drum must be able to Demonstration
withstand the maximum operating temperature of the appliance
of 160F.

4 ADA No components that the user interacts with will exceed 48 Measurement
Maximum from the floor.
Forward Reach

5 ADA No operable parts that the user interacts with will be below 15 Measurement
Minimum from the floor.
Forward Reach

6 ADA Side Where space allows for a parallel approach in a wheelchair, the Measurement
Reach height will not exceed 48.

7 ADA No operable parts that the user interacts with will exceed 36 Measurement
Obstructed from the floor if obstructed.
High Reach

8 ADA Control Operable parts shall be operable with one hand, which shall not Measurement
Operation exceed 5 lbs (22.2 N) force to activate.

9 ADA Machine Front loading machines shall have the bottom of the door Measurement
Height located 15 minimum and 36 maximum from the floor.

10 Size (Width) The design must not impact overall dimensions of the appliance Measurement
of 28 high, 34.375 deep, 47 high.

11 Power The design must be able to interface with a U.S. standard 120V, Demonstration
60Hz, 10-15A power outlet.

12 Cost The total prototype construction costs must be within the $500 Analysis
budget.

13 Weight The total weight of any additions to the unit must not exceed Measurement
60lbs.

12
 2.2 Exploratory Concept Evaluation and Functional Decomposition

2.2.1 - Flexible Shelf Design

One potential idea was a redesign of the US Patent 8087184 B2 described in Section 1.2 of this
report. This design would mount to two of the baffles in the drum of the unit. The mount would
allow the entire rack to pull out of the
dryer, providing easy access to the
laundry. This rack would not only have to
withstand the interior temperature of the
unit, but it would have to be flexible as
well. The flexibility of the border of the
shelf will allow for movement during the
drying cycle.. An example of this can be
seen in Figure 4.

A microcontroller would have had to be

incorporated in order to stop the drum in a fixed position. This would have allowed the user to be
able to consistently remove the shelf without having to worry about the position the drum
finishes its cycle in.

2.2.2 - Corkscrew Baffle Design

Another possible solution focused on modifying the drums baffle shape. Currently, most baffles
are perpendicular to the door, running lengthwise through the drum. By changing the baffles to
have a corkscrew shape, the laundry would have been pulled to the back of the unit or pushed to
the front depending on what direction the drum was spinning. This allowed the clothes to be
brought to the front of the dryer at the end of the cycle. There would also have been an option to
run the unit without heat at a very slow speed so that the laundry would be brought to the front of
the unit, and pushed out the door.

13
 2.2.3 - Collapsible Baffle with Rising Panel Design
A third option for a design was the collapsible baffle with a rising panel, as seen in Figure 5.
The basic idea behind this design was to remove as many restrictions as possible for the
movement of the clothes after the cycle finishes. The first stage of this design was for the dryer
to be in a fixed position. For this to occur, this design needed to implement a locking mechanism
such that after the dryer finished its cycle, it would rotate into a fixed position. The baffles would
fold down, each in the same direction. This
would have released any clothing that may be
stuck on the sides of the dryer. At this point, the
clothes would be piled up at the base of the
cylinder. Then, the panel would have lifted to a
45-90 degree angle from the back to the front,
bringing all the clothes at the base of the cylinder
forward. At this point, the clothes would
have been in arms reach, removing the
need for reaching into the dryer and
removing clothes out of grouping.

2.2.4 - Conical Drum Design

Similar to the design of 2.2.2, this concept changed
the angle of the baffles. In addition the drum took a
conical shape with the wider base at the front of the
appliance. This way clothes would naturally fall
toward the front of the dryer during operation. This
provided increased movement and separation of
clothes while also moving all clothes to the front of
the dryer, within reach of the operator. An example of this can be seen in Figure 6.

14
 2.2.5 - Movable Interior Shell Design
This design would have been an addition to the normal drum and would have consisted of two
main parts. First, the normal drum would have the baffles removed so that it was simply a
hollowed cylinder. The drum would then have rails added to it. These rails would have acted as a
way for the next part to slide in towards the back of the dryer or out towards the dryers exit. The
second part was another hollowed out cylinder. This piece would have been thin and would have
four negative extrusions taken from the outside of it. These negative extrusions would have been
slightly larger than the rails of the first part. This will allow the second piece to freely move in
and out of the dryer. Upon further design, the team wanted to incorporate a locking system so
that the inner shell is unable to slide unless first unlocked. The team wanted to also create a way
for only half of the cylinder to slide so that the uppermost part remained inside the drum. This
would have made it so that the user could simply slide out the bottom shell and take the clothes
out without having to reach into anything. This interior shell would have the baffles on it to
allow for tumbling. This is shown in Figure 7.

15
 2.3 Conceptual Design Plan
A major area of research that needed to be addressed was with the impact these preliminary
designs would have on the efficiency of the dryer unit. As many of these potential solutions
included modifying the drum of the dryer, research needed to be made on if these modifications
will negatively impact the drying capabilities of the unit. This was particularly important as
Requirement 2 covered dryer efficiency. Another major section of research covered materials.
Any and all materials that would be placed within the drum of the dryer must be able to
withstand the maximum temperature of the unit.

Models that were be used to explore possible design concepts fell into two categories: small
scale models designed to verify laundry handling, and full scale models that verified material
durability and dryer efficiency. The small scale models were initially constructed with paper, 3D
printers, clay, and cardboard. These not only helped communicate design ideas, but also
provided insight into how the laundry behaved in these redesigned units. One construction model
that was prototyped was the corkscrew baffle design. While this design worked on paper, it was
possibly not as effective in application. Constructing a model of this design provided insight as
to whether this was a pursuable option for a design. The full scale models were made of
materials that will used in the final product. These models tested the project's ability to interface
with the actual appliance.

The majority of experimentation to test the validity of this project would have revolved around
operating the appliance with wet laundry to test if the design negatively impacted the drying
process, and if the materials and construction could withstand the movement and temperature.
Experimentation of materials at dryer temperatures had to be conducted before a material was
considered for a final application. With the flexible shelf design that built off of the US Patent
8087184 B2, the railing and mounts for the design all were tested so that they would be able to
withstand those temperatures.

16
 2.3.1 - Preliminary Research
Preliminary research for this project revolved around the dryer appliance that would be modified.
The dryer, which is a GE GFRD480GF, has a capacity of 8.3 cu. ft. The appliance was powered
by a standard 120V, 60Hz, 15A outlet, with natural gas providing the heat for the dryer and
steamer. One of the main concerns of this project was maintaining proper drum balance to reduce
noise and movement of the appliance during operation. The drum was balanced using four
coasters that were directly bolted to the frame of the appliance. These coasters provided a large
amount of damping for the drum. To stress test the dryers capability of maintaining drum
balance, a 1.5ft by 1ft by 0.5ft package weighing 10lbs was anchored to the inner wall of the
dryer drum. This test simulated the worst case scenario a design clumping a 10lbs load of
laundry in one, condensed area of the dryer. With this load and the dryer on the fastest cycle,
there was no measurable movement by the drum or the appliance itself. The only way to measure
the impact of the 10lbs package was to record the difference in sound produced by the appliance
during operation. During an unloaded, fast-drying cycle, the appliance produced an average and
peak noise level of 45dB. With the package attached to the drum and the fast-drying cycle
running, the dryer produced an average sound level of 45dB with a peak level of 46dB. This
difference is negligible, and illustrates the fact that potential designs will have very little impact
on balance.

The loaded and running gas dryer could get upwards of 160F [8]. Additionally, this model dryer
was equipped with GEs HE Sensor Dry technology. This feature consisted of two thermistors
coupled with a humidity sensor bar. These sensors interfaced with the control board on the front
of the dryer, and could have been used in the projects design.

A phone conference was conducted with the Director of the Disability Resource Center. He was
interviewed in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the route in which to pursue in
regards to the Design Criteria. The Director suggested that the team value the Complexity and
Wheelchair Accessibility above all else. In addition, he suggested other projects that hes
aware of; such projects included voice commands, as well as autonomous opening dryer doors.

17
He stated that, in many cases, there are service dogs that will open these doors for their owners;
this opened up the possibility of adjusting the projects current designs to fit a new door latch. In
addition to conducting the interview, the Director forwarded an email to students that utilize the
Disability Resource Center so that additional interviews may be conducted with them.

2.3.2 - Construction Models

One of the main concerns with two of the proposed conceptual designs was how the laundry
would react to modifications to the inner drum. The Corkscrew Baffle design and the Conical
Drum design needed to be verified that they would work before pursuing them as viable options.
Before obtaining the physical dryer appliance that could be modified, a 3D modeling and
extremely basic physics simulator was used to illustrate the conceptual design, as well as verify
that the impact these modifications would have on the laundry. Blender, the 3D modeling and
very basic physics simulator used, allowed for cloth and hard body physics to interact based on
weight, velocity, size, and texture. These initial, preliminary models can be seen in Figure 8 and
Figure 9, and links to the full simulation videos can be found on the FirstBuild website. These
images show the directional force applied to the laundry as the drum spins.

18
While the Flexible Shelf Design would not heavily impact laundry movement and did not need
to be modeled in Blender, software models still needed to be constructed. This design utilized a
microcontroller to determine when and which shelf needed to be released at the end of the drying
cycle. Below is a flowchart outlining the possible software
design for this concept. This flowchart, which can be seen in
Figure 10, outlines the programming needed for the singular
drawer version of this concept. Here, the microcontroller
would have needed to be able to monitor the angle of the
drum, and stop the motor at the end of the cycle so that the
drawer was at the bottom of the drum.

While Blender allowed for very basic 3D modeling of the

designs, it was an application designed for animation, not
technical drawings and simulations. After designing the basic
models in Blender, Autodesk Fusion 360 was used to
create technical drawings for the same models. Each
model utilized the same basic drum design, which was
created to have the same dimension as the GE GFRD480GFs drum. All four conceptual designs
can be seen in Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14.

19
Most of these models had multiple iterations as slightly different materials and designs were
tested with thermal simulations using the Fusion 360 software. Most notably, the Conical Drum
design had three variants, each of which had differing drum wall angles. The designs, which had
a 5 10, and 15, respectively, were chosen through Blender simulation designs. this range of
angles was the most optimum at moving clothes while maintaining the aerating behavior of the
dryer design.
2.3.3 - Experimentation and Testing
Most of the design experiment and testing focused on material properties and stress testing
through Fusion 360. All designs utilized the same three materials for baffle designs: aluminum,

20
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic, and polycarbonate. These three materials were
chosen for their price, ease of use, and thermal resistance. aluminum can be punched, molded, or
cut using FirstBuilds water jet, Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Press/Break, and CNC mill
machinery. Aluminum also provided the highest usable temperature range, which was upwards
of 800F [7], well above the maximum working temperature of 160F of the dryer appliance.
ABS was chosen specifically for its workability and price. ABS was only $23.00 per 24 by 48
sheet, compared to aluminums price at $67.36 for the same size sheet [7]. ABS could be used in
injection molding and extrusion, and could be cut or milled on multiple types of equipment. ABS
could also withstand temperatures up to 185F which was within this projects constraints.
Finally polycarbonate was chosen as a median between aluminum and ABS plastic. Its price was
in between that of aluminum and ABS plastic. It was more temperature resistant than ABS
plastic with a maximum working temperature of 247F [7].

The Flexible Shelf design had the second most Fusion 360 variations to test, as it had both
multiple design and multiple materials. The baffles of the Flexible Shelf design used the standard
aluminum, ABS plastic, and polycarbonate versions. The shelf itself also had two types of
materials, silicone and polycarbonate. Silicon was chosen due to its flexibility, which is
necessary to keep it against the walls of the drum, and its high maximum temperature of over
500F [7]. The shelf itself also had two designs. The first was a solid piece of material stretching
in between two baffles and running down the length of the drum. The second was a mesh version
of the same sheet. This mesh had 1 inch by 1 inch square holes with one-half inch clearance in a
grid across the surface of the material. This was done to illustrate the difference between the
solid and mesh material during thermal testing. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the thermal
testing for the solid and mesh shelf designs using steel baffles.

21
Steel baffles were used in this thermal simulation as they provided the worst case scenario. The
ABS plastic and polycarbonate baffles both conducted less heat and therefore transferred less
heat to the shelf itself. The simulation was designed using standard convection values for still
and moderate air speeds (10W/m2C and 100W/m2C respectively). The still air, which was
located on the outside of the dryer drum, was set to room temperature (68F), while the interior
was set to 160F. Both of these designs were well within the maximum temperature ratings of
the materials used. The Corkscrew Baffle design only had three Fusion 360 variations to test,
which were the same aluminum, ABS plastic, and polycarbonate baffle materials as the Flexible
Shelf design had. Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19 show the thermal testings each of the
baffle material types.

22
The only differences between these three simulations were the baffle material types. The
simulation was designed using standard convection values for still and moderate air speeds
(10W/m2C and 100W/m2C respectively). The still air, which was located on the outside of the
dryer drum, was set to room temperature (68F), while the interior was set to 160F. Both of
these designs are well within the maximum temperature ratings of the materials used.

The Conical Drum design was similar to the Flexible Shelf design in that it had many variations.
The baffles had the same three material iterations, but there were also three angles used for the
conical drum, 5, 10, and 15. The testing for this design was also unique in that the cone was
acting as an insert for the full-sized drum. This means that there is an extra layer of insulating air
between the conical drum insert and the drum itself. Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22 show
the thermal testings each of the baffle material types

23
The only differences between these three simulations were angles of the conical drum. The
simulation was designed using standard convection values for still and moderate air speeds
(10W/m2C and 100W/m2C respectively). The still air, which was located on the outside of the
dryer drum, was set to room temperature (68F), while the interior was set to 160F. Both of
these designs were well within the maximum temperature ratings of the materials used.

The Movable Interior Shell design had only two Fusion 360 simulations to run. These two
simulations were based around the two potential materials that were to be used for the interior
shell, aluminum and steel. Figure 23 and Figure 24 show the thermal testing for the steel and
aluminum shell designs.

Steel baffles were used in this thermal simulation as they provided the worst case scenario. The
ABS plastic and polycarbonate baffles both conducted less heat and therefore transferred less
heat to the shelf itself. The simulation was designed using standard convection values for still
and moderate air speeds (10W/m2C and 100W/m2C respectively). The still air, which was
located on the outside of the dryer drum, was set to room temperature (68F), while the interior
was set to 160F. Both of these designs were well within the maximum temperature ratings of
the materials used.

The final experiment conducted dealt with issues regarding drying times for designs that
compacted laundry. To test to see if compacting or clumping laundry greatly affected drying
times, two loads of laundry consisting of two standard sized towels, three medium mens shirts,
and six socks were dried under different conditions, and their drying times were compared. The

24
control load was dried normally in a 12.8 cubic foot dryer on a medium heat setting. This load
took approximately 24 minutes to dry. The second load was placed in a mesh bag, which
compacted the clothing and restricted free movement during the drying process. This bagged
load of laundry, drying under the same conditions, took approximately 34 minutes to dry. While
this is a noticeable difference in drying time, it is still potentially within the Dryer Efficiency
requirement. Additionally, this test not only forced the laundry together, but also restricted
airflow and laundry tumbling. The restriction of airflow and laundry tumbling, both of which
facilitate faster drying, will not be caused by this project's designs. Because of this, the decrease
in dryer efficiency should not affect the overall success of this project.

2.3.4 - Conceptual Designs

2.3.4.1 - Flexible Shelf
The Flexible Shelf design has changed many times over the course of its development. In the
end, the design of the Flexible Shelf was a silicone/polycarbonate combination that latched onto
two manually crafted baffles in the dryer. When the dryer completed its cycle, a programmed
microcontroller would tell the dryers drum to stop in a fixed position. This position placed the
Flexible Shelf parallel to the ground. By fixing the drum in this position, all clothing fell forward
onto the Flexible Shelf. This prevented the user from having to reach deep into the drum to
gather all the clothes. All clothes would be presented within the center of the drum at the end of
every cycle. The material that the shelf was crafted out of allowed flexibility. This way, during
the cycle, clothes moving against the shelf would not have an adverse effect on it.

There were only two materials used for this design: polycarbonate and silicone. In addition to the
flexibility, the material used was able to withstand temperatures (up to 392F) far greater than
what the GE GFRD480GF dryer could produce (approximately 160F peak).

The Flexible Shelf design did not alter the exterior of the GE GFRD480GF dryer whatsoever;
because of this, all of the ADA requirements for maximum forward reach, minimum forward
reach, size reach, obstructed high reach and machine height were all met. In addition, all of the

25
controls on the GE GFRD480GF dryer were constructed to meet the ADA control operation
requirement, so this was also met. In addition, there would be no alteration of the size of the
dryer due to this design.

Materials were be the only real cost to this design. Any manufacturing fabrication could be done
at the FirstBuild facility. The baffles would be crafted out of aluminum. The chosen aluminum is
Multi-Purpose 6061. Two sheets of 24 by 48 6061 with a thickness of 0.032 would be
purchased for a total cost of $67.36. In order to design the polycarbonate/silicone Flexible Shelf,
two sheets of 24 by 48, 1/16 thick impact-resistant polycarbonate would be purchased for
$49.66. In addition, two sheets of 24 by 24, 1/32 thick high-temperature silicone rubber
would be purchased for a total cost of $45.72 [7]. A microcontroller would be needed in order to
tell the dryer precisely when to stop, so that all of the clothes fall onto the Flexible Shelf. For
this, an analog microcontroller used for the standard operation control of washing and drying
machines was chosen. The ARM Cortex M4F 32-Bit, Low Power and High Performance
microcontroller was chosen, and will cost $6.86 [9]. A system block diagram for this
microcontroller can be seen below in Figure 25, in an example of being used with a washer and
dryer.

26
The total cost of this design would be $169.60. All fabrication and machining would be done at
FirstBuilds facility. The financial cap for the project was $500, which means that this design
met the requirement exceedingly well. This left room for any errors requiring future purchases,
or any other unforeseen costs.

The baffles on the GE GFDR480GF dryer had a combined weight of 3.5lbs. Using the same
dimensions (4 tall, 3 wide, 20 long), the new aluminum 6061 material would weigh 1.634
lbs. per baffle. There would be three baffles that used this material, for a combined baffle weight
of 4.902 lbs. The polycarbonate material used for the shelf will weight 0.766 lbs. These weight
calculations were taken from Fusion 360. If these materials were the final design choices, the
total weight would be 5.668 lbs. added on to the original dryer design. This did not exceed the
weight requirement

The primary strengths of the Flexible Shelf design were that it was simply installed, easily
exchangeable if the situation arose, and passively used with no additional effort from the
customer. The weakness of the design came from its natural position within the drum. The
Flexible Shelf presented an undesirable effect in that it would obstruct laundry from following
the natural rotation within the drum. This would lead to adverse effects such as loss of drum
balance, clumping of clothes, and worsened drying. Team 01B searched for alternatives to this
issue. Some of these alternatives included:
a pulley system that utilized magnets that would allow the Flexible Shelf to rise and fall
preventing obstruction. The downside of this alternative was that it would require manual
work from the operator, defeating the purpose of a more efficient ADA dryer. Also, it
would be less aesthetically appealing.
a baffle-motor system that would mechanically raise the Flexible Shelf from the bottom
of the baffle to the top, effectively raising and lowering the net preventing obstruction.
The downside of this alternative was that it would be difficult to situate the motor within
the baffle (due to size) or the base of the dryer (the drum would rotate preventing wires
from running to it).

27
 2.3.4.2 - Corkscrew Baffle
The Corkscrew Baffle design remained mostly unchanged from its initial conceptual design. The
only other addition to the original appliance for this design was an interface with the current
controls mechanism. In order for this design to work properly, it needed to interface with the
current controls software on the dryer. This was due to the fact that the dryer needed to alternate
direction that the drum tumbled to keep the laundry from bunching up in the front or back of the
dryer. The GE GFRD480GF model has a Detangle option which runs the drum in the opposite
direction (counter-clockwise) of a normal cycle. This Detangle option could have been modified
or utilized in this design to remove clothes. This design met the Wheelchair Accessibility
requirement, as the dryer appliance that was modified is already ADA compliant for wheelchair
use, and this design did not affect the size or shape of the exterior of the appliance. The only
modifications that would have been made would have been within the drum itself, or behind the
controls panel on the front of the unit.

It was suggested by user spiderfishsaver, who was part of the FirstBuild community, that since
the heated air entered and exited from the back of the dryer, having the laundry tumbling in the
back would not adversely impact Drying Efficiency, which was the second requirement of this
design. An alternative element for this design was to alternate the direction the drum spins during
the normal drying cycle. This would still facilitate the laundry tumbling, while also keeping the
laundry dispersed throughout the length of the drum.

The three materials considered for the Corkscrew Baffle design are aluminum, ABS plastic, and
polycarbonate. The maximum rated temperature for the GE GFRD480GF appliance was 160F
[8], which all of these materials could withstand. Verifications of this can be seen in section 2.3.3
of this report.

As this design did not impact the location of controls or overall size of the exterior of the
appliance, all of the ADA standards listed in the Requirements Matrix would have been met as
the original appliance also met those standards.

28
The baffles installed on the appliance weighed a combined total of 3.5lbs. The baffle designs
were triangular, and are 4 tall, 3 wide, and 20 long. If the design utilized the aluminum baffle
material, the new weight of the baffles would have been 1.95lbs as reported from the Fusion 360
model. If the design utilized the ABS plastic baffle material, the new weight of the baffles would
have been 0.765lbs as reported from the Fusion 360 model. If the design utilized the
polycarbonate baffle material, the new weight of the baffles would have been 0.866lbs as
reported from the Fusion 360 model.
As none of these design materials exceeded the maximum additional weight of 60lbs, this design
met the Weight requirement.

As all of the modifications to the original appliance would have been taken place within the
interior, this design would not have increased the width, depth, or height dimensions, which met
the Size requirement.

This design utilized the existing controller boards and programming. No other devices would
have been added that would have consumed additional power, therefore this design met the
Power requirement.

Materials and manufacturing cost would have been the only cost for this design. To design the
aluminum baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 0.032 thick Multi-Purpose 6061 Aluminum would
have been purchased for $67.36. This raw material would have been machined using the
FirstBuild equipment. To design the ABS plastic baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 1/16 thick
Easy-to-Machine Impact-Resistance ABS Plastic would have been purchased for $23.00. This
raw material would have been machined using the FirstBuild equipment. To design the
polycarbonate baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 1/16 thick Impact-Resistant Polycarbonate
would have been purchased for $24.83 [7]. This raw material would have been machined using
the FirstBuild equipment.

29
The Corkscrew Baffle designs greatest strength was its simplicity in integration into the current
appliance. If the laundry still effectively dried when forced into the back of the dryer, then the
only additional design element that had to be considered was reversing the spin of the drum to
remove the clothes. The Detangler Cycle on the appliance already accomplished this task, but if
the design needed to automatically start the extraction of laundry for the user, then changes
would have to be made for the controls and motor controller. The main weakness of this design
was the fact that it forced the laundry into one location (the back or front of the dryer drum)
depending on the direction of rotation. This would have slightly impeded drying times as not as
much air would have circulated around the clothes.

2.3.4.3 - Conical Drum

The design of the conical drum has undergone slight variation from its original form during the
brainstorming stage. The drum opening stayed the same, at 26 while the back of the drum was
smaller. The angles of the design were 5, 10 and 15 for experimentation purposes. The
material for the drum was steel. For experimentation, the Baffles could be aluminum, ABS
plastic, or a polycarbonate material. A drawing is present in Figure 26.

As the design moved all clothes to

the front of the dryer, the user
would not have to reach more than
48 at any time during the
operation. Because no new
operations were introduced to the
user, the user would not be
required to use more than 5lbs of
force to control any functions of
the dryer. The locations of all user
interfaces would remain the same,

30
staying above 15 and below 48, allowing the design to fit all
ADA requirements.

The overall size of the dryer would not increase. The back of the dryer will be reshaped slightly
to accommodate the smaller end to the drum.

Materials and manufacturing cost were the only cost for this design. the drum would have been
constructed from 1018 steel, made from two sheets measuring 24 by 48 with thickness of
0.060 for a total cost of $87.84. To design the aluminum baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 0.032
thick Multi-Purpose 6061 Aluminum would have been purchased for $67.36. This raw material
would have been machined using the FirstBuild equipment. To design the ABS plastic baffles,
one 24 by 48 sheet of 1/16 thick Easy-to-Machine Impact-Resistance ABS Plastic would have
been purchased for $23.00. This raw material would have been machined using the FirstBuild
equipment. To design the polycarbonate baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 1/16 thick
Impact-Resistant Polycarbonate would have been purchased for $24.83. The back support would
have been replaced with one sheet of 1018 steel at $43.92 [7]. This raw material would have
been machined using the FirstBuild equipment. This brought maximum estimated cost for the
prototype to $199.12, which was well below the cost requirement of $500. This did leave room
for unforeseen costs and circumstances.

2.3.4.4 - Movable Interior Shell

The movable interior shell design modified the original drum of the GE GFRD480GF appliance.
Six .1 wide, .5 long, and .063 thick rails were installed onto the original drum. These rails
acted in a similar fashion to a drawer. In further potential stages of the design, a roller system
would have been added to make sliding easy. It would have been metal on metal contact creating
high friction. The shell would have been around 118.4^3 (81.68 in circumference*23 deep *
.063 thick) of 6061 aluminum. At a weight of .098 lbs per in^3 the shell weighed 11.6lbs. A
perforated aluminum sheet would have been placed in the back of the shell to continue to allow
for airflow while stopping clothes from falling behind the shell. The baffles from the original

31
drum would have been screwed into the shell. These modifications would have no relevant
change in total efficiency of the dryer, and the 6061 aluminum being used would have not been
impacted by the temperature of the dryer. When extending the shell would have kept the top
locked in place. This brought the clothes out towards the user while simultaneously keeping the
top from obstructing clothes removal. A microcontroller would have been programmed to know
when the dryer is in the correct position. With steel to aluminum contact and only half the shell
sliding outward, the friction force would have been approximately (.61*(11.6/2)lbs = 5.8lbs)
when without clothes. As mentioned, this would have been drastically improved by adding a
rolling system instead of direct contact sliding. A rough approximation was taken from
calculating the rolling resistance assuming .25in radius wheels. (F = f x W/R) so
F = .019(steel to steel) 5.8lbs
.25in
. That then shows the force at .44lbs. Ten pounds of clothes in the
shell led to F = .019(steel to steel) 15.8lbs
.25in
, F = 1.2lbs. When in its fully extended position, the
user would simply have to slide the clothes out into a basket, or the clothes could have been
grabbed one by one without having to reach into the dryer. The shell would have added 20 in
length to the dryer to the dryer. Its dimensions when the dryer is running or stored remained the
same. This part, aside from the microcontroller, worked without electrical power so the design
would not have an effect its operational power.

2.3.5 - Down Selection

32
 Table 2.3.5.1 - Application Data Table

Application Flexible Shelf Corkscrew Conical Drum Movable Drum Tilt

Data Baffle Interior Shell

Complexity of 3 1 1 3 2
Use (actions)

How Far the

User Reaches 0 6 6 0 6
into Drum
(inches)

Dryer Efficiency
(minutes) 55 40 60 30 30

Wheelchair
Accessibility 12.00 0 0 10 0
(inches)

Maximum Price 169.60 167.36 199.12 220.00 200.00

($)

Weight (lbs) 2.78 1.95 0.00 11.64 15.00

Overall
Manufacturing 1 1 4 7 1
Impact (1-10)

The Complexity of Use criteria was determined by the number of user interactions each design
would require outside of the normal dryer operation and controls. The higher the number of
interactions, the less attractive one design was. The How Far the User Reaches into the Drum
criteria was determined by the maximum distance into the dryer drum the user would have to
reach to retrieve laundry. The lower the distance of reach, the better for the design. The Dryer
Efficiency criteria was determined by the time it took for five 27 inch by 52 inch combed cotton
bath towels with a combined wet weight of 10lbs to dry using the Speed Dry setting on the
appliance. The lower the time to dry, the better for the design. The Wheelchair Accessibility
criteria was determined by the distance from the dryer the design allowed for a parallel
wheelchair approach during the unloading process. The lower the distance, the better for the
design. The Price criteria was determined by the total cost of the prototype design and
manufacture. The lower the price, the better for the design. The Weight criteria was determined

33
by the added weight to the overall appliance weight of 178 lbs. The lower the number, the better
for the design. The green cells in Table 2.3.5.1 represented the best design for that particular
criteria, while the red cells represented the worst design for that particular criteria.

The weights seen in Table 2.3.5.2 were determined by averaging the results of the surveys that
were distributed. The survey asked each participant to rate the criteria within a one to six rating,
with one being the least important criteria, and six being the most important. All of those results
were averaged to find the Survey Weight as seen in Table 2.3.5.2. These results were then
averaged with the Interview Weight results from the interview with the Director of the Disability
Resource Center at Purdue University to get the Total Weight for each criteria.

Table 2.3.5.2 - Decision Criteria Weights

34
 Table 2.3.5.3 - Down Selection Using Decision Criteria

The Weighted Score for each designs criteria was determined by multiplying the criteria Weight
by the Utility Score. The Utility Score for each designs criteria was measured using Table
2.3.5.1s data, and the following formula:
Utility Score = |(V alue W ORST ) / (BEST W ORST )|

2.3.6 - Final Design Choice

After discussions with the FirstBuild sponsors for this project, the decision was made to focus
on a newly conceptualized Drum Tilt design. This decision was made after concerns were
brought up about effectiveness of the Corkscrew Baffle design on its own, as well as concerns
about the other designs Overall Manufacturing Impact, which was a decision criteria added later
in the design process. This design was chosen mainly due to the fact that the design scored the
highest the Overall Manufacturing Impact and Wheelchair Accessibility criteria, as well as
scoring high on the Dryer Efficiency criteria. While the other three designs scored very similarly,
the Drum Tilt Design is consistently the highest scoring design, other than the Corkscrew Baffle
design when changing the sensitivity of the criteria calculations by 15%. This helped to illustrate
the fact that the Drum Tilt design, when compared to the other three possible designs, most
closely represented what was important for the potential customers of this product.

The full concept of this new design was to mimic the behavior of the much larger industrial
dryers that can be purchased. These appliances were mounted on pneumatic lifts which tilted the

35
entire appliance forward to bring the laundry to the front of the dryer drum. Early stages of this
design utilized an electric car jack, rated at one ton, that would lift the back end of the dryer after
a drying cycle has completed and the user physically interacts with the control panel of the
appliance. The GFRD480GF appliance was sitting on top of a stanchion platform that houses
nothing but empty space. This stanchion was normally used to simply add to the overall height of
the appliance, while allowing the user to remove the stanchion platform when stacking the unit
on a matching washer unit. As this stackable option was not utilized by those affected by the
ADA standards, this empty stanchion platform space would have been utilized to house the
electric lifting mechanism. The mounting screws and bolts that connected the stanchion platform
and appliance were removed and replaced by guiding poles that force the unit to lift and tilt, as
seen in Figure 30.

At this stage in the design, a rubber gasket would have been mounted to the top of the spacer
platform to prevent damage from metal on metal movement. The electric car jack would then be
mounted to both the bottom-center of the stanchion platform and the bottom-center of the dryer
unit. A button would have been added to the control panel that was only operational after a
drying cycle has been completed. This button would have activated the 12Vdc car jack, and

36
lifted the dryer unit 1.5 inches to clear the front panels, and the hinge design would have forced
the unit to tilt 12.5 degrees. The lift would have been limited by switches to only allow a
maximum angle of 12.5 degrees as this was the shallowest angle that allowed the laundry to slide
forward during testing with the GFRD480GF unit. Once the laundry was removed, a second
button would have dropped the lift back to its original, level position, allowing the unit to be
loaded and ran once more.

This design met the Wheelchair Accessibility requirement, as the dryer appliance being modified
is already ADA compliant for wheelchair use, and this design did not affect the size or shape of
the exterior of the appliance. The only modifications that would have been made would have
been within the drum itself, and within the empty space of the appliances platform.

No changes to the interior of the dryer, or to the dryers behavior would be made. Therefore
there would have been no impact on the dryers efficiency requirement.

None of the additions to this unit would have been exposed to the heat generated by the unit.
Therefore this design met the Temperature requirement.

As this design did not impact the location of controls or overall size of the exterior of the
appliance, all of the ADA standards listed in the Requirements Matrix were met as the original
appliance also met those standards.

The electric car jack, which weighed 4.7lbs, and the hinges were well under the 17.8lbs limit.
Most of the design worked with the existing hardware on the stanchion, so little changes were
made to the weight, other than the hinging mechanisms and lifting mechanism. As none of these
design materials exceeded the maximum additional weight of 60lbs, this design met the Weight
requirement.

37
As all of the modifications to the original appliance were taking place within the interior, this
design did not increase the width, depth, or height dimensions, which met the Size requirement.

This design utilized a 12Vdc electric car jack. An AC to DC converter along with a step-down
transformer allowed this design to run off of the existing power supply without pulling too much
current from the standard United States outlet.

Materials and manufacturing cost were the only cost for this design, other than the cost of the
electric car jack lift. To design the aluminum baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 0.032 thick
Multi-Purpose 6061 Aluminum would have been purchased for $67.36. This raw material would
have been machined using the FirstBuild equipment. To design the ABS plastic baffles, one 24
by 48 sheet of 1/16 thick Easy-to-Machine Impact-Resistance ABS Plastic would have been
purchased for $23.00. This raw material would have been machined using the FirstBuild
equipment. To design the polycarbonate baffles, one 24 by 48 sheet of 1/16 thick
Impact-Resistant Polycarbonate would have been purchased for $24.83 [7]. This raw material
would have been machined using the FirstBuild equipment. The electric car jack lift would have
been purchased for $54.79. A resulting $120.38 was included in this design to provide adequate
mounting and reinforcement to the existing dryer structure. This brings the total to $200, which
was well within the Price requirement.

2.4 - Critical Issue(s) Identification

2.4.1 - Essential Hardware
There were a few essential hardware issues for this project. First, the team was unable to
currently dry clothes with the dryer located at Ross Enterprise Center, where this project was
located. This was due to the dryer requiring a gas line. Without a gas line at Ross available to the
team, testing involving heat was not able to be done until an alternative testing location was
found.

38
 2.4.2 - Essential Software
Essential software for this project revolved around the software necessary to control the
appliance. As some of these designs required controls to be integrated into the existing controls
system, knowledge of GEs programming languages and software used to develop these controls
needed to be acquired. Once this team was assigned a Laundry Specialist from FirstBuild, this
knowledge was acquired to help further the project.

2.4.3 - Essential Knowledge

An issue with changing the way clothes tumble was the possibility of clothes becoming clumped
together. It was speculated that this will affect the drying of clothes. Essential knowledge for this
project was the actual effects of clumping on the drying process and if the effect was substantial,
as well as ways to separate the clothes so they do not clump together.

2.4.4 - Essential Processes

The essential processes for this project were defined as any process that is crucial to moving on
to the projects final design and beginning development. To begin, the best qualities had to be
collected from all design ideas to create the most efficient final design. The qualities of the final
design were required to solve any critical issues that the team had with the project; an example of
this would be the clumping that occurred in most proposed conceptual designs. Next, the most
appropriate materials had to be chosen for the final design. The amount of these materials would
have been decided, and then ordered accordingly. The materials had to fit into the
pre-determined budget for the project. After that, a discussion had to be held with FirstBuild
about the fabrication of the parts needed for the final design. After the fabrication decisions had
been made, a trip to FirstBuild was required to begin the fabrication process. This also allowed a
face-to-face meeting with Team 01B, Mary Beckman, and the Laundry Specialist.

39
3 - Project Design Stage
3.1 - Detailed Design Plan
The overall goal of this project and design was to have little impact on the overall design and
manufacturing of the dryer, while providing a solution to allow the user to easily remove
clothing from the dryer drum. To minimize impact on manufacturing, this team utilized the
currently empty space of the stanchion riser platform. This riser stanchion platform was just a
load-bearing framework that maintains the ADA height standards for this unit. This team
introduced a lifting mechanism inside the existing stanchion design that mounted to the bottom
of the unit itself, and tilted the unit to a minimum of 12.5 degrees to aid the user in removing
laundry. Originally an electric car jack was going to be
used as the lifting mechanism, but the final lifting
mechanism design that was inspired by the lifting
mechanisms of lift chairs, which can be seen in Figure 31.
These lift chairs were a perfect example of a lifting
mechanism that not only had the desired lifting action
(lifting and tilting simultaneously), but also had the heavy
load-bearing characteristics required for this design. The
reason that a tilting and lifting action was needed was
due to the fact that the front panels on both the riser
and dryer itself were curved. In order to clear those
curved surfaces during the tilt, the unit needed to be lifted as will. This prevented any kind of
scratching, bending, or breaking of those panels during normal operation. This lift mechanism
was reverse engineered in order to be scaled down to a size that was able to fit inside the existing
stanchion riser for this unit. This lifting mechanism was also powered by a single linear actuator,
which was controlled by a microcontroller and sensors to determine its current orientation. The
only interaction the user will have with this addition to the existing dryer unit will be a push
button that will allow the user to tilt and lower the unit as desired.

40
 3.1.1 - Mechanical Design Overview
The design used for the lifting mechanism was similar to that of a chair lift. It utilized a linear
actuator that forced two bars to rotate around pivot points. These bars and their respective pivot
points had different lengths and radii that allowed for a lift and tilt action.

3.1.1.1 - Models of Parts

41
42
3.1.1.2 - Full Design Model

43
3.1.1.3 - Technical Drawings of Parts

44
 3.1.1.4 - Manufacturing Plan for Each Part
All parts were fabricated by FirstBuild. Two dimensional .dxf files were sent to FirstBuild for
sheet metal to be cut by their laser cutter. Other parts were machined using a CNC mill or by any
piece of equipment FirstBuild decided would be best suited for the job.

3.1.2 - Electrical Design Overview

The electrical aspects of this project were fairly
straightforward and simple. Essentially the entire
electrical design was a microcontroller along with
inputs and outputs that determine what position
the unit was in its lifting and lower cycles. At its
core, the design focused on two sets of limit
switches and a ATtiny44A microcontroller. The
lower limit switches, which sent a signal to the
microcontroller when the unit has reached its
resting state (lower limit) consisted of two snap
action lever switches. These were mounted to the sides of the stationary stanchion so that they
were activated when the unit had been lowered completely. An image of these switches

45
locations can be seen in Figure 48. These switches simply fed into one of the ATtiny44As
digital Input/Output (IO) pins (PA6 and PA7).

The upper limit switches were not actual switches, but triple axis
accelerometer sensors. The SEN-09269 AXDL335 Triple Axis
Accelerometer Breakout Board from Sparkfun, which can be seen in
Figure 49, was chosen due to its accuracy, price and ease
of mounting as it was already on a breakout board.
Accelerometers can be used as rudimentary
inclinometers by reading the force applied
on two of the sensors axis. Accelerometers
work by sensing the change in speed that the
sensor undergoes in the form of gravitational
force (g). When stationary, however, the
sensor still senses the earths normal
gravitational force downward. When flat or
moving in one direction, this force is only
read on one axis, which can be seen in Figure
50, but if tilted, two forces are exerted on two
different axis, which can be seen in Figure 51.
These two forces can be used to calculate the tilt
of the sensor itself. The SEN-09269 was
sensitive to 1% of its total range of 6gs when
powered at 5V. When converted to degrees, this
means that the sensor was accurate to 0.3
degrees. The accelerometer told the
microcontroller at what incline the unit is at
during lift. That way the programming was flexible and increased or decreased the maximum lift
and tilt as necessary.

46
Coming off of the normal 120VAC power, a 120VAC to
5VDC (0.5A) power converter was used to power the
ATtiny44A and tilt sensor, as both of these components
required less than 0.5A combined (120mA and 350uA
respectively). The linear actuator used is a MD120 motor
actuator from Limoss CO., Ltd., which can be seen in
Figure 52. This linear actuator was rated to lift 1800lbs,
and pull 1400lbs, well above what this designs needs.
This model of actuator also came paired with its own power supply and controller. The power
supply ran off of a standard 120VAC U.S. outlet, while the controller simply needed 5VDC
applied to one of two pins to either have the actuator extend or contract. This meant that pins
PA5 and PA4 are digital output pins that sourced the 5VDC to the actuator controller when the
motor needed to be operated.

3.1.2.1 - Complete Circuit Diagram

The circuit for this design can be seen in Figure 53.

47
All of this design was powered through a standard 120VAC outlet.
That power went to both to the linear motor actuator function block
in the bottom right of the image, as well as to a 5VDC, 0.5A
converter which supplied power to the ATtiny44A and the
ADXL335 accelerometer. PA6 and PA7 housed the two lower limit
switches. These switches were snap action lever limit switches seen
in Figure 54. PA0, PA1, and PA2 were the three Analog to
Digital Converter (ADC) pins that were used to read the
analog voltages coming from the three axis accelerometer. PA3 was simply a push button that
was be used by the user to initiate a tilt or lower for the unit. Finally, PA4 and PA5 were pins
that control the linear motor actuator. 5VDC was simply supplied to one of those two ports so
that the linear motor actuator lifted or lowered.

3.1.2.2 - Circuit Prototyping

All of the circuitry for this design
was fully tested and prototyped
before the final design was
manufactured. The software was
written and uploaded to an
ATmega2560 microcontroller
mounted on an STK600
development board. One tilt sensor
and one lower limit switch was
used in these tests to verify the functionality of
the circuit. The development board simulated the motor signals and controls through onboard
LEDs which were supplied 5VDC in the same way that the controller will need to be supplied
5VDC. This was just a more visual way of representing that. The prototyped circuit can be seen
in Figure 55.

48
The only difference between this prototype and the final design was the microcontroller, and the
fact that there were two lower limit switches and two tilt sensors. The software was already
capable of running that additional hardware. The only changes that were needed to be made to
move this circuit over to the ATtiny44A are the Port letters in the programming. Everything else
worked exactly the same way.

3.1.2.3 - Wiring Diagram

As this designs circuitry was fairly modular, the circuit and wiring diagram were the same,
which can be reviewed in section 3.1.2.1 Complete Circuit Diagram of this report. The only
additional information regarding wiring that was not covered in that section was how the various
components were wired inside the machine. Most of the design remained stationary to the lift
mechanism. The two lower limit switches were mounted on the back sides of the stanchion so
that they were triggered as the unit falls. These two limit switches were pre-made mounting
brackets that were used to screw into the frame. The small breadboard containing the
microcontroller, 5VDC converter and IO jumpers were attached to the upper frame of the lift
mechanism. The two tilt sensors were screwed onto the top of the lift mechanism using their pre
existing mounting brackets. Finally, the user interface push button was fed through an existing
hole in the bottom of the dryer, followed up the back right corner of the machine (which
followed the pre-existing dryer controller wire chases), and ended up on the front control panel.
This push button needed to have an additional hole drilled through the front.

3.1.2.4 - Printing Circuit Board Layout and Mounting

As much of this designs circuitry was needed to be modular, no formal PCB was needed. All of
this design was simply IO for a microcontroller. If FirstBuild would like the microcontroller to
be mounted on a PCB with jumpers coming off of it, rather than a small breadboard for the
prototype, that can be very easily and simply designed, however it was not be necessary, and will
cost more for little benefit for a prototype. A more in depth look at the PCB can be seen in
section 4.4 of this document.

49
 3.1.3 - Software Design Overview
This designs software was fairly straightforward. As this projects scope of work did not require
the prototype to interface with the existing software for the unit, this design was completely
stand alone. The first thing that the software did was check to see if the lower limit switches had
been triggered. If they were not triggered, then the unit had been turned off or lost power before
it was able to completely lower to its resting position. The programming was setup to
automatically lower the unit to its resting state when turned on, however this can be changed so
that the user has to interact with the unit before it will lower automatically. This was due to a
suggestion from FirstBuild which was to not have the unit ever move without user interaction.
Once lowered completely, the design sampled the current tilt value reported by the tilt sensors.
This was done as each tilt sensors sensitivity will be slightly different, therefore a hardcoded
value would be insufficient. Then the system waited until the user interacted with the start push
button to tell the unit to tilt. Once that push button was hit, a 5VDC signal was sent to logic
controlled relays which supplied power to the linear motor actuator controller, and the unit began
to tilt. That 5VDC signal continued to be sent to the relays until the tilt sensor registered that it
has met the predetermined angle of tilt (12.5 degrees). Then the software waited until the user
interacts with the user interface button again. Once the laundry was removed and the user hit the
push button a second time, the unit lowered until the lower limit switch was engaged again. Then
the cycle continued.

50
 3.1.3.1 - Flow Diagram
The Flow diagram outlining the software for this design can be seen in Figure 56.

3.1.4 - Bill of Materials

Each dryer lift mechanism piece was made from pieces of in Square Tube Steel cut from 20 ft
stock at 1/16 and 3/16th thickness, two side plate and two top plates, cut from 1/16th inch sheet
steel, four cross bars cute from 3/16th inch sheet steel, one linear actuator, two brackets, cut from
3/16th inch sheet steel, two limit switches, two accelerometers, a few wires, a single button, a
relay board, a microcontroller, a hand controller adapter, and a 5VDC power converter and
several nuts and bolts. Prices for these materials can be seen in the following section.

3.1.5 - Fabrication Budget

The table below shows the materials and costs necessary to produce one lift mechanism. The
budget does not account for the cost of fasteners. The total cost of fabrication also doesnt
account for sales tax, the cost of labor or machine operation or maintenance. Those costs vary by
state and equipment. The final cost of fabrication is approximately $268.29.

51
Item Unit Cost Number of Units Total Cost

ATtiny44A $0.78 1 $0.78

Microcontroller

Wires $22.00 1 $22.00

ADXL335 $14.95 2 $29.90

Accelerometer
Breakout Board

1080 Sheet Steel $70.12 1/32 $2.19

1/16th

1080 Sheet Steel $130.84 1/64 $2.04

3/16th

.75 Square 1/16 Tube $33.36 1 $33.36

Steel Stock

.75 Square 3/16 Tube $35.52 1 $35.52

Steel Stock

Limoss 16" 6000N $98.00 1 $98.00

Linear Actuator

Snap Action $2.66 2 $5.32

On-Mom Limit
Switch

Jbtek 8 Channel $8.98 1 $8.98

Logic Level Relay
Board

Lift Chair or Power $12.999 1 $12.99

Recliner 2 Button
Hand Control

5Vdc Power $8.99 1 $8.99

Converter

Stainless Steel Mom $8.22 1 $8.22

Push Button (1/2")

Total $268.29

52
 3.1.6 - Design Calculations and Test Results Supporting Design
The team performed a series of tests using a pallet jack to tilt the dryer to confirm the design
concept. These tests showed that a 12.5 degree tilt was enough to obtain the desired effects. A
second set of tests done with a car jack as a lifting mechanism revealed stability problems
leading the team to a more stable framework. Calculations were done with the jack to determine
the amount of force necessary to tip the dryer while fully tilted. Assuming the center of mass for
the dryer is in the center of the dryer, a 12.5 degree tilt would move the center of mass forward
by 3.95 inches. With the jack pushing up, the weight of the dryer pushing down and the rails
providing additional down force to counteract the upward force of the jack, the stress in the rail
was found to be 2107 psi. Giving it a factor of safety of 17. It was found that a weight of almost
200lbs was required at the center of the door and at its furthest point to tip the dryer over. To
counteract this, the feet of the dryer stanchion were grounded by floor brackets. For the dryer to
tip over while bracketed to the floor, the rails would need to exceed yield strength. For this to
occur a weight of over 5000 lbs would need to be placed on the door.
3.1.7 - Analytical Models to Support Design

53
 3.1.8 - Prepare for Testing Phase
The general plan formulated by Team 01B was to have a sufficiently built model in preparation
for the testing phase. The only pre-requisite going into testing phase was that there was a
working prototype. The classification for working that Team 01B was looking for would
include the following:
Complete motor movement. This includes all mechanical fabricated assembly pieces.
No grinding or binding. There can be no restriction on the movement of the assembly.
Both the angle of 12.5 deg and the rising vertical motion of 1.5 are being met within an
adequate error range.
Prototype still successfully fits within the base stanchion/riser.
Once all of these conditions were satisfied, the prototype was ready for the testing phase.

3.1.9 - Testing Plan Draft

February 27th Final testing began with the mounting of the completed lift assembly to the base
of the stanchion. At this point, the team was able to test the base movements. Primarily, the team
needed to ensure that it had a balanced, equal, and stable lift. This was a flaw with previous
designs, and it was one that the team intended to remedy with the current design, among other
things such as equal distribution with shifting loads and structural integrity.

March 1st On this day, the team planned to attach the completed stanchion with lift assembly to
the base of the dryer. At this point, the team re-measured the unit dimensions to verify the size of
the assembly, as well as monitor any possible ADA requirements that may have violated. The
team then tested the units tilt with the assembly design. If it did not successfully tilt in the way
that was intended, the team was able to re-test the removal of laundry after manually rotating the
drum within the unit. The team ran several dozens of tests over a couple of hours in order to
ensure that the design was working as efficiently as it should have been at this stage.

After everything else was verified to be working, the team wanted to introduce the
March 2nd
microcontroller for tilt control. At this point, the tilt sensor code had already been completed, and

54
the sensor was ready for implementation. Once successfully attached, the team was able to verify
several things. First, was to make sure that the tilt is achieved consistently within a +/- 1-degree
error (the tilt sensor had a +/- 0.5-degree sensitivity). Verification was also needed to ensure that
the unit dropped to a consistent resting place when it finished. The team also wanted to verify
that the unit automatically dropped to a resting state when powered back on after a power loss.
This was a critical issue within the FME. Finally, the team wanted to verify that the unit did not
drop the unit in the event of power loss.

The team wanted to fully connect and re-build the dryer to verify that the unit still
March 3rd
worked as a dryer when plugged in. The team ran the unit without heat while a standard load of
laundry was within it. After the load was completed, the team tilted the unit to verify that the
laundry was still falling forward as intended. This was done several dozens of times results were
recorded.

March 4th to March 7th During this time frame, the team performed a series of tilt tests. First,
was a 100 lb. load on top of the dryer while it was at its resting state. With this load attached, the
unit was tilted to ensure stability and balance. Next, a 100 lb. load was placed on the front of the
dryer to simulate a child hanging on the door. The unit was then tilted to ensure that, with this
additional force on the front, the dryer did not tilt too far or entirely over.

March 8th This day was set aside strictly for pinch point testing.

March 9th to March 10th Any necessary retesting was reserved for these days, based on
potential re-designs.

March 11th Final testing was be performed if everything else was running smoothly. Finally,
the team retested all requirements to verify the design was working completely and efficiently.

55
 3.2 - Drop Test Simulations
One of the main concerns of this design was how it would behave during shipping. All GE
products were heavily tested to verify that when the product was moved around or dropped
during shipping, the design would prevent too much damage from occurring. As nothing other
than the stanchion platform was changing on the unit, most of the drop test simulations were
ignored for this project. The connections between the stanchion and the unit, however, were not
ignored. Much of the structural integrity of the stanchion came from the four large bolts that
connected the unit to the stanchion, however those bolts were removed to allow the drum tilt
action to work. Team 01B was considering having those bolts connected during shipment of the
unit. Once the unit had arrived, those bolts, along with the bolts holding the drum in place, would
be removed by the facility. Once those connections were made, the other components of the
newly designed stanchion, such as the lifting mechanism and controller, would have little
problem handling the stresses from drops.

The simulations that needed to be conducted on this projects final design would be performed
by FirstBuild and GE. FirstBuild believed that these simulations were outside of this projects
Scope of Work, but design considerations still needed to be made to make the transition from
prototype to product smooth. Small, preliminary testing was done throughout this project, but the
majority of full testing for the drop test simulations would be done after this project has
concluded.

56
3.3 - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

57
The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) focused mostly on the drum tilt action. As
there are many safety concerns regarding the drum movement, many of the failure modes
covered some aspect of that for the design.

3.4 - Final Budget

During a visit to the FirstBuild facilities, Team 01B was informed that FirstBuild handled
material costs and machine usage fees for the project prototype. This greatly reduced costs from
those mentioned earlier in preliminary budget and the comparison of concepts. Below is a table
outlining the purchases made that were outside of the Bill of Materials in Section 3.1.4 of this
report. These were either purchases made for conceptual designs that were not pursued, or
components to the design that were not used. As seen in the table below, only $203.86 were
spent. That amount, added to the $268.29 from the Bill of Materials in 3.1.4 of this report make a
total of $472.15.

Item Number Total Cost

AC/DC Universal Socket Adapter 2 $1.97

Black Bull EJ212 12 Volt Fully Automatic Electric 2 $99.96

Car Jack

Total $203.86

58
4 Project Fabrication Stage
4.1 - Project Fabrication Phase
The fabrication phase of Team 01Bs project was a three-part concept. The first part included the
MET members of the group carefully crafting a CAD model with accurate drawings and
assembly functions of a lift assembly. These drawings acted as the blueprints for FirstBuild to
physically create the necessary components for the construction phase.

The second phase of the fabrication plan took place at FirstBuild in Louisville, Kentucky.
FirstBuild was able to take the CAD drawings designed by the groups MET members and craft
them into the parts needed for assembly. All welding was also performed at FirstBuild.
Discussions were constantly being held via email to ensure that the fabrication phase was going
well; if any changes were needed, they were decided on by all parties.

The third phase of the fabrication plan occurred back at Ross. This phase incorporated actually
assembling all of the parts that were previously fabricated at FirstBuild. Since all of the welding
was done at FirstBuild, it was a simple matter of using bolts, washers and pins to assemble the
pieces received. A preliminary testing phase occurred after initial assembly to ensure that there
was no binding, and that all parts were working in synchronicity with each other.

4.2 - Redesign for Weight Requirements

A problem encountered in this stage of prototyping was that it was unable to lift the weight of a
dryer. Because the linear actuator is at a lower angle, while under load, the actuator deforms the
frame rather than lift. As the frame deforms, the angle decreases, making it hard to lift and easier
to deform. The deformation totaled 1.5 inches which matched the calculation done. By adding
crossbars and increasing stock thickness, deformation was reduced to less than a tenth of an inch.
By reducing the deformation, the angle was not significantly changed which allowed the frame
to lift the appropriate weight.

59
 4.3 - Component Fabrication
All rods used in fabrication came from FirstBuilds provider, Alro. The side plate, top platform,
and bracket are all made through use of a laser cutter. They were then bent into shape using the
appropriate k-factor and bend angle. All rods were welded. The side panel was welded to the
bottom frame and the brackets were welded to their appropriate rods. The rest of the parts were
fastened together.

4.4 - PCB Layout

Below is the PCB layout for this design. Due to the simplicity of the electrical design, the PCB
itself was fairly simple. This board simply allowed easy connections from the IO to the
microcontroller, while allowing JTAG programming for testing and reloading software for the
microcontroller. A power LED was also added. All connectors on the PCB were labeled. PB was
the Push Button that was on the control panel of the unit, LLSW were the lower limit rocker
switches, MU and MD were Motor Up and Motor Down, and Tilt Sensors were the two
inclinometers used in the design. The 10-Pin JTAG connection was the standard 10-Pin 50mil
package used in Atmel JTAG communication. This design was mounted on a 2.5 by 2.5 board.
All components are PDIP packages, not surface mount.

60
 4.5 - Software Source Code
This is the Source Code for this design, meaning that it is meant to be edited and changed based
on how this design will be implemented in the future. As of now, this code will work with any
Atmel microcontroller that can be directly programmed using AVR Studio 10, using either a
USB bootloader, or an Atmel ICE module to program a standalone microcontroller. The only
changes that will need to be made if a different controller is used are the PORT names. Any
PORT pins that read the tilt sensors data pins will need to be Analog to Digital Converting
(ADC) pins. Keep in mind that for every one tilt sensor used, two ADC pins will be needed.
Therefore, four ADC pins are needed for this design. The completed and commented source code
can be seen below:
/*************************************
Senior Capstone
Lift Controller

Brennen Craig
2/12/2017

Description:
Final Design - Programming will run a linear actuator based on
tilt sensing input and three push buttons. One button will
run the programming, and the other two will tell when the lower
limit on the actuator has been hit. The design will reach its
upper limit when 12.5 degrees of tilting have been achieved.0
The tilt sensor is a three axis accelerometer. The linear
actuator forces the unit to lift 1.5" and tilt at varying
degrees.

Port F = 0bTiltSensorX,TiltSensorY,TiltSensorZ,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW

*************************************/

#define F_CPU 1000000UL

#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <util/delay.h>

void init_Port(void); //to set up ports

void init_adc(void);
uint16_t read_adc(void);
int8_t convert_to_degrees(uint16_t, uint16_t, uint16_t); //converts measurements to current x angle in degrees

uint16_t x, y, z = 0;

int16_t start_angle = 0;
int16_t x_angle = 0; //this is the final angle of x rotation (about the flat edge of the sensor)

int main(void)
{
init_Port();
init_adc();

61
 //check to see if unit is lowered when powered on; if not, lower unit
while(~PINA & 0b11000000) //if either LLSW are active
{
PORTC = ~0b10000000; //leftmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTC = ~0x00; //turn off motor

while(1)
{
//PUT THE FUNCTION TO SAMPLE SENSOR HERE
ADMUX = 0b01000000; //read channel 0 of ADC
x = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000001; //read channel 1 of ADC
y = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000010; //read channel 2 of ADC
z = read_adc();

//PUT THE FUNCTION TO CHANGE SENSOR DATA TO USABLE TILT HERE

start_angle = convert_to_degrees(x, y, z); //current angle of tilt
//PORTC = ~start_angle;
//_delay_ms(5000);

if(~PIND & 0b10000000) //if SW7 hit (starts tilt)

{
x_angle = start_angle;
while(x_angle > (start_angle - 15)) //while tilt sensor has not reached desired tilt angle
{
PORTC = ~0b00000001; //rightmost LED acts as motor lifting

ADMUX = 0b01000000; //read channel 0 of ADC

x = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000001; //read channel 1 of ADC
y = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000010; //read channel 2 of ADC
z = read_adc();

x_angle = convert_to_degrees(x, y, z); //current angle of tilt

}
PORTC = ~0x00; //turn off motor

while(!(~PIND & 0b10000000))

{
//wait until SW7 is hit again to tell unit to lower
}
while(~PINA & 0b11000000) //if either LLSW are active
{
PORTC = ~0b10000000; //rightmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTC = ~0x00; //turn off motor
}
}
}

int8_t convert_to_degrees(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t z)

{
uint8_t maxVal = 402; //max value accelerometer gets when rotated without movement
uint8_t minVal = 265; //min value accelerometer gets when rotated without movement

int16_t xAng = -90+(90-(-90))*(x-minVal)/(maxVal-minVal);

int16_t yAng = -90+(90-(-90))*(y-minVal)/(maxVal-minVal);
int16_t zAng = -90+(90-(-90))*(z-minVal)/(maxVal-minVal);

int16_t x_return = (atan2(-yAng, -xAng) + M_PI) * 180/M_PI;

62
 return(x_return);
}

uint16_t read_adc(void)
{
ADCSRA = ADCSRA | (1<<ADSC); //start conversion
while(ADCSRA & (1<<ADSC)) //wait for end of conversion
{
}
int16_t temp_result = ADCL; //loads bits into register
temp_result = temp_result | (ADCH<<8); //combine bits with ADCH

return(temp_result); //return val

}

void init_adc(void)
{
ADMUX = 0b01000000;
//0b01000000 = channel 0
//0b01000001 = channel 1
//0b01000010 = channel 2
ADCSRA = 0b10000010;
ADCSRB = 0b00000000;
}

void init_Port(void)
{
/*Port F = 0bTiltSensorX,TiltSensorY,TiltSensorZ,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW*/

DDRA = 0b00011100; //keep unused ports as outputs

PORTA = 0xFF; //start with them all off
DDRC = 0xFF; //all outputs
PORTC = 0xFF; //start with LEDs off
DDRD = 0x00; //all inputs
PORTD = 0xFF; //start with switches off
}

Due to the fact that there were some issues regarding the tilt sensor possibly giving false
information as it picked up vibrations of the unit, a secondary alternative source code is provided
that eliminates the need for the tilt sensor. While this option eliminates these small issues, the
tilting is based on a microcontrollers timer, not by how far the unit lifts. While this timer is very
accurate, if the motor slows down over time, the microcontroller will not account for that using
this code.
/*************************************
Senior Capstone
Lift Controller

Brennen Craig
4/15/2017

Description:
Final Design - Programming will run a linear actuator based on
a timer and three push buttons. One button will
run the programming, and the other two will tell when the lower

63
limit on the actuator has been hit. The design will reach its
upper limit when about 14 degrees of tilting have been achieved.
This is based on a timer controlled lift.

Port F = 0b0,0,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW

*************************************/

#define F_CPU 1000000UL

#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <util/delay.h>

void init_Port(void); //to set up ports

int main(void)
{
init_Port();

while(~PINF & 0b00000011) //if either LLSW are active

{
PORTB = ~0b00000010; //leftmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTB = ~0x00; //turn off motor
while(1)
{
if(~PIND & 0b10000000) //if SW7 hit (starts tilt)
{
PORTB = ~0b00000001; //lift motor
_delay_ms(45000); //wait for motor to lift
PORTB = ~0x00; //turn off motor
while(!(~PIND & 0b10000000))
{
//wait until SW7 is hit again to tell unit to lower
}
while(~PINF & 0b00000001) //if either LLSW are active
{
PORTB = ~0b00000010; //rightmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTB = ~0x00; //turn off motor
_delay_ms(5000);
}
}
}

void init_Port(void)
{
/*Port F = 0b0,0,0,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW*/
DDRF = 0b00011100; //keep unused ports as outputs
PORTF = 0xFF; //start with them all off
DDRB = 0xFF; //all outputs
PORTB = 0xFF; //start with LEDs off
DDRD = 0x00; //all inputs
PORTD = 0xFF; //start with switches off
}

64
 4.6 - Design Tolerances
The most critical features on the design that needed tolerancing were the holes. The correct
placement of the holes was essential to this design. Thankfully, FirstBuild used a laser cutter on
most of the parts that needed holes. The laser cutter required a .dxf file and cut the 2D surface
into a piece of sheet metal. It had an incredible precision and therefore the design was within
tolerance after using this machine. The holes were given a clearance fit with the fasteners they
are involved with. All the rods used in the design had tolerances that were controlled by another
producer. It was expected that their dimensions would always be in tolerance.

4.7 - Component Technical Drawings

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
 4.8 - Ledger for Fabrication Modification
After the initial sending of the assembly plans to FirstBuild, several changes were made during
the process. The primary changes that affected the budget were in association with changing the
thickness of the steel that was being used in the design. The prior thickness of the 0.75square
tubing was , while the thickness of the update 1 square tubing is 0.120 thick. The price
change to the budget is documented below:

Square Tubing Thickness Length Price

(inches) (inches) (ft) ($)

New 0.75 0.125 24 64,49

Old 1.00 0.120 24 57.08

Price Difference $7.41/24ft

4.9 - Component Testing and Results

At this stage of prototyping, testing had revolved largely around the lift mechanism. Two main
concerns had arisen from the first steel prototype, one being the mechanisms ability to lift the
full dryer load (200lbs), and its ability to fit in the stanchion of the unit. Due to suggestions from
FirstBuild, the original gauge steel intended to be used for this design was exchanged for a
lighter and more inexpensive smaller gauge. After receiving the completed design, tests
involving the movement of the prototype proved successful. The design lifted enough to have the
unit clear the front end of the design, and angled the unit to a maximum of 13 degrees. Due to
some inaccurate calculations, the lift mechanism was unable to lift the load necessary to be
deemed a success. When loaded, the linear actuator would deform the frame before lifting the
weight. This issue was shown to be resolved with added reinforcements in the way of ratchet
straps. This allowed the lift mechanism to lift the desired weight properly. This led to a redesign
of the prototype so that ratchet straps would not be a necessary addition to the design.

74
Testing of the software had been slow until the lift mechanism was able to be completed. The
software worked in a laboratory environment, but until it was able to be directly connected to the
lift mechanism controller, testing was limited.

4.10 - Completed Test Plan

Having fully received all fabricated parts from FirstBuild on April 5th, Team 01B began to
assembly the parts on the same day. From April 5th through the remainder of the month, the
Team began to do a series of tests. The tests were aimed at verifying several working aspects of
the design. The balance and stability, tilt degree, safety requirements, FMEA, ADA
requirements, additional load checks, power failure modes, microcontroller function, and full
functionality were all be tested. Consistent communication with FirstBuild were held in order to
better test, understand and evaluate the performance of the design. Mary Beckman of FirstBuild
was also making a visit during these evaluation stages to verify for herself that the design was
optimally functioning. The preliminary plan was to have all assembly, testing and evaluation
completed by the end of the month of April.

5 - Project Testing and Evaluation Stage

5.1 - Testing and Evaluation of Results

The testing for this project fell into two main categories: tests to verify basic requirements, and
repeated tests to test the functionality of the design.

The tests to verify basic requirements were both easy to setup, and quick to perform. All of these
were one-time tests used to demonstrate and quantify that the prototype is within the
requirements of the project. Most of these consisted of measuring the dimensions of the final
unit, or showing that it operated correctly.

The repeated tests to test the functionality of the design were more involved than the basic
requirements tests, and these were the tests that yielded actual data to compare design choices to.

75
There were three main categories to these tests: level of tilt, stability of the unit, and power loss
failures.

5.1.1 - Results of Test Plan

Most of the requirements of this project were fairly straightforward and did not require repeated
testing. The first requirement dealt with Wheelchair Accessibility, and was demonstrated by
having a user sit a the height of a standard wheelchair seated position (18 - 20) and verify that
all controls and moving parts were accessible from that position. The second and third
requirements dealt with drying times and temperatures. These requirements were residual
requirements that affected other potential designs more so than the final design that was built.
Because of this, no test were actually performed for these requirements as no changes were made
to the dryer itself. Requirement four through nine all dealt with ADA standards that the dryer
must comply with. All but one of these requirements dealt with the overall dimensions of the
unit. As the design fit entirely in the empty space of the stanchion assembly sent with the unit, it
did not impact the size of the appliance. Still, all dimensions were remeasured to verify nothing
had been changed. The last ADA standard dealt with controls being able to be operated with less
than 22N of force. The only operable part in the design was a single pushbutton with an
operating force of less than 3N. The final requirements dealt with the power, cost, and weight of
the design. The prototype only operates using a standard U.S. 120V outlet, so it satisfies that
requirement. The overall cost of the project was under the $500 allotment, which is outlined in
the budget of this document. Finally, the overall weight of the prototype is well under the 60lbs
weight limit, weighing in at 36lbs.

5.1.1.1 - Data Collected

The table below documents the first test done by Team 01B with the lift mechanism fully
operational, which shows the efficiency of tilt degrees. Four different degrees were used: 12.5,
13, 13.5 and 14. Varying degrees were used within the +/- variation that was set forth earlier in
the projects development. Using this method, Team 01B was able to determine the most suitable
degree tilt for practical usage. The results are shown below, in the table. All numbers within the

76
table are the number of articles of clothing that were not brought to the front of the dryer for easy
removal. If the table was unfinished in some parts, it was because Team 01B decided that it
wasnt practical to continue moving on due to inefficiency.

12.5 deg 13 deg 13.5 deg 14 deg

Test 1 1 0 0 0

Test 2 0 1 0 0

Test 3 1 0 0 0

Test 4 2 2 1 1

Test 5 2 2 0 2

Test 6 0 0 0 2

Test 7 4 0 2 0

Test 8 2 3 2 2

Test 9 0 0 0 0

Test 10 1 2 0 0

Test 11 2 0 3 0

Test 12 0 0 0

Test 13 2 2 1

Test 14 0 0 0

Test 15 1 0 2

Test 16 2 1 0

Test 17 0 0 0

Test 18 0 0 0

Test 19 1 2 1

77
 12.5 deg 13 deg 13.5 deg 14 deg

Test 20 2 2 2

Test 21 1 0

Test 22 2 0

Test 23 0 1

Test 24 0 0

Test 25 1 2

Test 26 3 0

Test 27 2 0

Test 28 1 0

Test 29 0 0

Test 30 1 1

Totals 15 in 11 Tests 18 in 20 Tests 26 in 30 Tests 17 in 30 Tests

Table - Thirty Iterations Over Four Varying Degrees Testing for Efficiency

5.1.1.2 - Data Analysis

After running thirty iterations of the tilt testing at varying degrees, it was quickly determined that
leaving the unit at the highest degree resulted in the best possible outcome. Assuming a linear
relationship among the first two (respectively), using the 14 degree angle is almost twice as
efficient as using the 12.5 degree angle.

The second test performed by Team 01B was to test the stability of the tilted unit with a 100 lb.
weight loading down the front of the unit. For this, a bag with 100 lbs. of materials within was
attached door of the dryer. The dryer was then tilted forward as if it was being used regularly.
The dryer was left in this position for one minute; while in this position, it was carefully

78
examined for any bending or flexing in the assembly below the unit. In this minute, no
discrepancies were noticed, leading Team 01B to believe that the 100 lb. load had no negative
effect.

The third and final test that was performed was to test the operation of the lift mechanism in the
event of power loss. To test this, the unit was tilted to the full 14 deg final angle. While at this
angle, power was removed from the microcontroller and the actuator. When power was reapplied
to the actuator and then the microcontroller, the lift assembly lowered the unit back to its original
starting position. It was also noted that when power was initially removed, the unit stayed
upright in the tilted position without falling or lowering.

5.1.1.3 - Project Goals and Results

Overall the design functioned as predicted and successfully moved clothes to the front of the
dryer. Two tests were unable to be performed due to a limitation of time, and those were the
Drop Test and Pinch Point testing. The Drop Test wasnt as necessary to Team 01B, as it was
stated previously in the project that FirstBuild would likely be doing those calculations
themselves. Team 01B did fully intend on doing Pinch Point testing, and it was an unfortunate
byproduct of time loss that it couldnt be achieved. By performing and taking these tests into
account, the device can still be improved upon if not up to industry standards in those categories.

5.1.2 - Modifications Made to Prototype

Washers were added as spacers to the pivot bars because of dimensional errors. The technical
drawings given to FirstBuild had 3 bars that were .1 too long. This slight increase in length did
not result in failure of the prototype, but it did add to some inconsistencies with its expected
actions. Some bolts were not sitting flush because of this. The nuts on these bolts were coming
loose due to its awkward pivoting. Holes had to be drilled into the bottom frame so that the unit
could sit within the riser. Holes were also drilled into the dryer and the top platform of the
Teams lifting mechanism. These holes were not positioned well and caused an entire shifting of
the device. The device sat more favorably a bit to the right of the center. The bracket that held

79
the linear actuator was larger than the ideal. Modifications were made by cutting off steel so that
it would not grind against the plastic motor housing of the actuator.

5.1.3 - Further Improvements for Future Development

To perfect the design, the rod lengths that were placed at 25.1 need to be reduced to 25. This
will allow the pivoting bars to sit flush against the top platform. This simple step should give a
more fluid movement to the device. Locations of holes need to be perfected for mounting the
dryer to the unit and the unit to the stanchion. This will allow both the dryer and the unit pair and
the unit and the stanchion pair to align symmetrically. Lock nuts are recommended for the
shoulder screws holding the pivot bars as the current nuts become loose after several repetitions.

Due to time constraints of this project, a PCB was designed, but never manufactured. Instead, a
development board housing an ATmega2560 is used as the microcontroller, and the IO are
simply connected by jumpers. While the microcontroller and power relays are contained in a
small plastic box, having a PCB printed and mounted would cut down on the wiring needed for
this design.

Other than the PCB, the only other hardware that would benefit from a change would be the tilt
sensor. While using an accelerometer as a tilt sensor is an inexpensive solution, there are a few
drawbacks that the team was unable to fully rectify. The most serious of these drawbacks is the
fact that the accelerometer is very susceptible to vibrations. This means that it can provide
inaccurate data if moved while tilting. Using an actual inclinometer would be a better solution in
the long run.

The programming itself is fairly simplistic and no real improvements would be necessary. It will,
however, need to be updated and upgraded if the microcontroller or the tilt sensor are replaced or
upgraded. The sections of code for these applications are easy to find and modify, but it will
require the microcontroller to be reprogrammed.

80
There is one more improvement necessary for the progress of this design. The Team is unsure if
it is a hardware or software issue. but when the design is first powered on, the unit will drop to
its resting state as anticipated, then it will rise back up to the tilted position. This behavior only
occurs when the unit is plugged in the first time, and the actuator has power. If the actuator does
not have power, the software and hardware work as designed.

6 Project Management and Schedules

Figure 75 - Work Breakdown Structure of Gates 1-6

81
Conceptual Design Plan
Team 01Bs most updated design plan began with researching various lift chair assemblies that
were utilized in recliners especially fitted for aiding elderly people. These lift assemblies
provided the perfect range of tilt and lift that Team 01B was looking for. If properly utilized, it
could be used as a template for the creation of a lift mechanism suitable for a drying unit.
To begin the research, Team 01B traveled to various furniture outlets, examining lift assemblies
within these recliners. From there, the Team worked within CAD software to craft a unique lift
assembly that performs similarly to that of a recliner lift assembly.
Contact was maintained with FirstBuild (specifically Mary and Adam) to ensure that the team
was within the bounds, and not plagiarizing another design while still successfully creating a
unique design that would perform well. The CAD files were then sent to FirstBuild in Louisville,
Kentucky for fabrication.

Design Critical Path Schedule

February 26th By this date, the team wanted to have received the lift mechanism from
FirstBuild. If it was not possible for FirstBuild to have delivered it to Ross by shipping, then the
team would opt to drive down to Louisville and pick it up personally to accelerate progress.

February 27th The pins, bolts, and bushings were added to the fabricated materials crafted at
FirstBuild. The lift mechanism was carefully and completely built, and then it was bolted to the
base of the existing stanchion. Once all of the construction was completed, the preliminary
testing could begin. The first stage of testing was to monitor the base movement of the stanchion.
Primarily, the team wanted to assure ourselves that the lift moves in a stable manner as that was
a primary flaw with the previous design.

February 28th through February 30th Through careful observation, it was verified that the lift
assembly was performing in the way that was needed. Team 01B intended to test the stability, lift
height, tilt angle, structural integrity, and several other things to ensure optimal performance.
The intended lift height was 1.5 to clear the curved aesthetic metal on the front of the
stanchion, and the tilt should be approximately 12.5 deg. The team also intend to re-measure the

82
unit dimensions in order to verify the size and ADA requirements. After these preliminary steps,
the microcontroller was attached to the actuator. Then the final testing began. This testing paved
the way for the future of the timeline. The team recorded the results of several tests, and the
results of these tests directly affected the re-design and retesting that was done later.

March 1st On this day, the team planned to attach the completed stanchion with lift assembly
to the base of the dryer. At this point, the team wanted to re-measure the unit dimensions to
verify the size of the assembly, as well as monitor any possible ADA requirements that may have
been violated. The team then tested the units tilt with the assembly design. The team then ran
several dozens of tests over a couple of hours in order to ensure that the design is working as
efficiently as it should be at this stage.

March 2nd After everything else was verified to be working, the team wanted to introduce the
microcontroller for tilt control. At this point, the tilt sensor code had already been completed, and
the sensor was ready for implementation. Once successfully attached, the team verified several
things. First, the team wanted to make sure that the tilt is achieved consistently within a +/-
1-degree error (the tilt sensor that has a +/- 0.5-degree sensitivity). Verification was also needed
to ensure that the unit dropped to a consistent resting place when it finished. The team also
wanted to verify that the unit will automatically drop to a resting state when powered back on
after a power loss. This was a critical issue within the FMEA that the team wanted to make sure
was taken care of early. Finally, the wanted to verify that the unit will not drop the unit in the
event of power loss.

Fabrication Phase Schedule

February 19th By this date, Team 01B wanted to have the finalized design for the lift
mechanism finished and ready to be sent to FirstBuild for fabrication. There was 1/8 A36 steel
used for all parts of the lift mechanism with the exception of the two rotary arms that did the
lifting in the mechanism. Those two arms were 3/16. The steel tubing that Team 01B had
decided to use was . Any welding that needed to be done for the project was completed at
FirstBuild.

83
February 20th Team 01B wanted to have sent in the completed CAD design file to FirstBuild
to allow them to begin the fabrication process of the parts needed for the lift mechanism
assembly. In addition, all pins, bolts and bushings that were necessary for the project after the
team got it back from FirstBuild was ordered off of McMaster Carr. Team 01B also purchased an
ATtiny44a microcontroller. The code for the microcontroller was already been completed, it just
needed to be implemented.

February 26th By this date, the team wanted to have received the lift mechanism from
FirstBuild. If it was not possible for FirstBuild to have delivered it to Ross by shipping, then the
team opted to drive down to Louisville and pick it up personally to accelerate the progress.

February 27th The pins, bolts, and bushings were added to the fabricated materials crafted at
FirstBuild. The lift mechanism was carefully and completely built, and then it was bolted to the
base of the existing stanchion. Once all of the construction was completed, the preliminary
testing began. The first stage of testing was monitoring the base movement of the stanchion.
Primarily, the team wanted to assure that the lift moved in a stable manner as that was a primary
flaw with the previous design.

February 28th through February 30th Through careful observation, it was verified that the lift
assembly was performing in the way needed. Team 01B intended to test the stability, lift height,
tilt angle, structural integrity, and several other things to ensure optimal performance. The
intended lift height was 1.5 to clear the curved aesthetic metal on the front of the stanchion, and
the tilt should be approximately 12.5 deg. The Team also intended to re-measure the unit
dimensions in order to verify the size and ADA requirements. After these preliminary steps, the
microcontroller was attached to the actuator. Then the final testing began. The team recorded the
results of several tests, and the results of these tests directly affected the re-design and retesting
that was done.

March 1st Official date that final testing began.

84
Schedule for Testing Phase
April 5th - The final testing began with the mounting of the completed lift assembly to the base
of the stanchion. At this point, the team was able to test the base movements. Primarily, the team
needed to ensure that it had a balanced, equal, and stable lift. One of the primary checks
performed was to check for issues involving binding.

April 7th - On this day, the completed stanchion (with accompanying lift assembly) was
attached to the base of the dryer. At this point, the unit dimensions were re-evaluated to verify
the size of the assembly, as well as to monitor any ADA requirements that may have been
violated. Although this was a rudimentary check, it was performed for solidarity purposes. The
units tilt was measured with two different devices; each of these devices measured the degree to
a tenth of an angle to ensure accuracy. Testing was again performed with the removal of laundry
after manually rotating the drum within the unit. Several dozens of tests over a few hours were
be performed in order to ensure that the design was working efficiently.

April 10th - After all prior testing had been completed and verified, the microcontroller was
introduced for tilt control. The code for this had already been completed and was fully ready for
implementation. Once the microcontroller had been successfully attached, several different
aspects were subject to verification. First, the tilt was going to be carefully monitored to continue
to ensure that its within a +/- 1 degree error (the current tilt sensor being utilized has a +/- 0.5
degree sensitivity). The unit itself was also be monitored to ensure that it was coming to its full
resting position after being lowered. Verification tests were performed to ensure that the unit
dropped to a resting state when powered back on in the event of sudden power loss. This was one
of the most critical issues to be addressed in the FMEA. Finally, tests were performed to make
sure that the unit does not freefall in the event of sudden power failure.

April 11th - This day was reserved for re-building the dryer for testing purposes. The unit was
tested to verify that it still worked correctly after being re-assembled. The dryer was then ran

85
without heat with a standard size load of laundry within. Once the cycle completed, the unit was
tilted to ensure that the laundry load still came to the front of the dryer as planned. This series of
steps was repeated for accurate monitoring and verification.

April 12th through April 14th - During this time frame, a series of tilt tests was performed to
test stability. The first test was with a 100 lb. load sitting atop the dryer in its resting state. With
this load attached, the unit was tilted to ensure stability and balance during the action. Next, a
100 lb load was placed on the front of the unit; this simulated the action of a child hanging on the
door, or a person resting on the door while retrieving their laundry. The unit was then tilted
forward to ensure that, with the additional force applied, the dryer did not tilt too far or entirely
over.

April 17th This day was set aside strictly for pinch point testing.

April 19th through April 21st Any necessary retesting was reserved for these days, based on
potential re-designs.

April 25rd Final testing was performed if everything else was running smoothly. Finally, the
team retested all requirements to verify the design is working completely and efficiently.

86
 Appendix

A - Mechanical Drawings

87
B - Printed Circuit Board Drawings

88
C - Source Code
With Tilt Sensing:
/*************************************
Senior Capstone
Lift Controller

Brennen Craig
2/12/2017

Description:
Final Design - Programming will run a linear actuator based on
tilt sensing input and three push buttons. One button will
run the programming, and the other two will tell when the lower
limit on the actuator has been hit. The design will reach its
upper limit when 12.5 degrees of tilting have been achieved.0
The tilt sensor is a three axis accelerometer. The linear
actuator forces the unit to lift 1.5" and tilt at varying
degrees.

Port F = 0bTiltSensorX,TiltSensorY,TiltSensorZ,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW

*************************************/

#define F_CPU 1000000UL

#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <util/delay.h>

void init_Port(void); //to set up ports

void init_adc(void);
uint16_t read_adc(void);
int8_t convert_to_degrees(uint16_t, uint16_t, uint16_t); //converts measurements to current x angle in degrees

uint16_t x, y, z = 0;

int16_t start_angle = 0;
int16_t x_angle = 0; //this is the final angle of x rotation (about the flat edge of the sensor)

int main(void)
{
init_Port();
init_adc();

//check to see if unit is lowered when powered on; if not, lower unit
while(~PINA & 0b11000000) //if either LLSW are active
{
PORTC = ~0b10000000; //leftmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTC = ~0x00; //turn off motor

while(1)
{
//PUT THE FUNCTION TO SAMPLE SENSOR HERE
ADMUX = 0b01000000; //read channel 0 of ADC
x = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000001; //read channel 1 of ADC
y = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000010; //read channel 2 of ADC
z = read_adc();

89
 //PUT THE FUNCTION TO CHANGE SENSOR DATA TO USABLE TILT HERE
start_angle = convert_to_degrees(x, y, z); //current angle of tilt
//PORTC = ~start_angle;
//_delay_ms(5000);

if(~PIND & 0b10000000) //if SW7 hit (starts tilt)

{
x_angle = start_angle;
while(x_angle > (start_angle - 15)) //while tilt sensor has not reached desired tilt angle
{
PORTC = ~0b00000001; //rightmost LED acts as motor lifting

ADMUX = 0b01000000; //read channel 0 of ADC

x = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000001; //read channel 1 of ADC
y = read_adc();
ADMUX = 0b01000010; //read channel 2 of ADC
z = read_adc();

x_angle = convert_to_degrees(x, y, z); //current angle of tilt

}
PORTC = ~0x00; //turn off motor

while(!(~PIND & 0b10000000))

{
//wait until SW7 is hit again to tell unit to lower
}
while(~PINA & 0b11000000) //if either LLSW are active
{
PORTC = ~0b10000000; //rightmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTC = ~0x00; //turn off motor
}
}
}

int8_t convert_to_degrees(uint16_t x, uint16_t y, uint16_t z)

{
uint8_t maxVal = 402; //max value accelerometer gets when rotated without movement
uint8_t minVal = 265; //min value accelerometer gets when rotated without movement

int16_t xAng = -90+(90-(-90))*(x-minVal)/(maxVal-minVal);

int16_t yAng = -90+(90-(-90))*(y-minVal)/(maxVal-minVal);
int16_t zAng = -90+(90-(-90))*(z-minVal)/(maxVal-minVal);

int16_t x_return = (atan2(-yAng, -xAng) + M_PI) * 180/M_PI;

return(x_return);
}

uint16_t read_adc(void)
{
ADCSRA = ADCSRA | (1<<ADSC); //start conversion
while(ADCSRA & (1<<ADSC)) //wait for end of conversion
{
}
int16_t temp_result = ADCL; //loads bits into register
temp_result = temp_result | (ADCH<<8); //combine bits with ADCH

return(temp_result); //return val

}

void init_adc(void)
{

90
 ADMUX = 0b01000000;
//0b01000000 = channel 0
//0b01000001 = channel 1
//0b01000010 = channel 2
ADCSRA = 0b10000010;
ADCSRB = 0b00000000;
}

void init_Port(void)
{
/*Port F = 0bTiltSensorX,TiltSensorY,TiltSensorZ,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW*/

DDRA = 0b00011100; //keep unused ports as outputs

PORTA = 0xFF; //start with them all off
DDRC = 0xFF; //all outputs
PORTC = 0xFF; //start with LEDs off
DDRD = 0x00; //all inputs
PORTD = 0xFF; //start with switches off
}

Without Tilt Sensing:

/*************************************
Senior Capstone
Lift Controller

Brennen Craig
4/15/2017

Description:
Final Design - Programming will run a linear actuator based on
a timer and three push buttons. One button will
run the programming, and the other two will tell when the lower
limit on the actuator has been hit. The design will reach its
upper limit when about 14 degrees of tilting have been achieved.
This is based on a timer controlled lift.

Port F = 0b0,0,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW

*************************************/

#define F_CPU 1000000UL

#include <avr/io.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <util/delay.h>

void init_Port(void); //to set up ports

int main(void)
{
init_Port();

while(~PINF & 0b00000011) //if either LLSW are active

{
PORTB = ~0b00000010; //leftmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTB = ~0x00; //turn off motor
while(1)
{

91
 if(~PIND & 0b10000000) //if SW7 hit (starts tilt)
{
PORTB = ~0b00000001; //lift motor
_delay_ms(45000); //wait for motor to lift
PORTB = ~0x00; //turn off motor
while(!(~PIND & 0b10000000))
{
//wait until SW7 is hit again to tell unit to lower
}
while(~PINF & 0b00000001) //if either LLSW are active
{
PORTB = ~0b00000010; //rightmost LED acts as motor lowering
}
PORTB = ~0x00; //turn off motor
_delay_ms(5000);
}
}
}

void init_Port(void)
{
/*Port F = 0b0,0,0,0,0,0,LLSW0,LLSW1
Port C = STK LED
Port D = STK SW*/
DDRF = 0b00011100; //keep unused ports as outputs
PORTF = 0xFF; //start with them all off
DDRB = 0xFF; //all outputs
PORTB = 0xFF; //start with LEDs off
DDRD = 0x00; //all inputs
PORTD = 0xFF; //start with switches off
}

D - Procurement Documents
Throughout the course of this project, no legitimate ordering had to be done on the part of Team
01B from an outside supplier. All ordering and fabrication of parts were done at FirstBuild in
Louisville, Kentucky and then shipped to Team 01B at Ross.

During the early stages of the original design. Team 01B placed orders for two Black Bull 12V
Carjacks. In addition, to build a casing for this design simulating a stanchion, Team 01B traveled
to FirstBuild where supplies were utilized on site to build a wooden prototype. While at
FirstBuild, hinges crafted of UHMW were also created. Any abiding screws, bolts, washers, etc.
were also provided on site.

In the latter design of Team 01B, all fabrication was completed by FirstBuild after Team 01B
sent the appropriate assembly CAD files. FirstBuild was able to use supplies on site, or supplies
ordered from McMaster Carr and Alro Steel, to complete the fabrication process. Again, any

92
screws, bolts, washers, etc. were sent to Team 01B from FirstBuild. After Team 01B received
and built the lift assembly, Mary Beckman of FirstBuild traveled to Ross in Lafayette to aid in
the drilling of holes to mount the assembly to the stanchion, and the stanchion to the unit.

E - Work Breakdown Schedules for All Stages

Figure 75 - Work Breakdown Structure of Gates 1-6

Conceptual Design Plan

Team 01Bs most updated design plan began with researching various lift chair assemblies that
were utilized in recliners especially fitted for aiding elderly people. These lift assemblies
provided the perfect range of tilt and lift that Team 01B was looking for. If properly utilized, it
could be used as a template for the creation of a lift mechanism suitable for a drying unit.

93
To begin the research, Team 01B traveled to various furniture outlets, examining lift assemblies
within these recliners. From there, the Team worked within CAD software to craft a unique lift
assembly that performs similarly to that of a recliner lift assembly.
Contact was maintained with FirstBuild (specifically Mary and Adam) to ensure that the team
was within the bounds, and not plagiarizing another design while still successfully creating a
unique design that would perform well. The CAD files were then sent to FirstBuild in Louisville,
Kentucky for fabrication.

Design Critical Path Schedule

February 26th By this date, the team wanted to have received the lift mechanism from
FirstBuild. If it was not possible for FirstBuild to have delivered it to Ross by shipping, then the
team would opt to drive down to Louisville and pick it up personally to accelerate progress.

February 27th The pins, bolts, and bushings were added to the fabricated materials crafted at
FirstBuild. The lift mechanism was carefully and completely built, and then it was bolted to the
base of the existing stanchion. Once all of the construction was completed, the preliminary
testing could begin. The first stage of testing was to monitor the base movement of the stanchion.
Primarily, the team wanted to assure ourselves that the lift moves in a stable manner as that was
a primary flaw with the previous design.

February 28th through February 30th Through careful observation, it was verified that the lift
assembly was performing in the way that was needed. Team 01B intended to test the stability, lift
height, tilt angle, structural integrity, and several other things to ensure optimal performance.
The intended lift height was 1.5 to clear the curved aesthetic metal on the front of the
stanchion, and the tilt should be approximately 12.5 deg. The team also intend to re-measure the
unit dimensions in order to verify the size and ADA requirements. After these preliminary steps,
the microcontroller was attached to the actuator. Then the final testing began. This testing paved
the way for the future of the timeline. The team recorded the results of several tests, and the
results of these tests directly affected the re-design and retesting that was done later.

March 1st On this day, the team planned to attach the completed stanchion with lift assembly

94
to the base of the dryer. At this point, the team wanted to re-measure the unit dimensions to
verify the size of the assembly, as well as monitor any possible ADA requirements that may have
been violated. The team then tested the units tilt with the assembly design. The team then ran
several dozens of tests over a couple of hours in order to ensure that the design is working as
efficiently as it should be at this stage.

March 2nd After everything else was verified to be working, the team wanted to introduce the
microcontroller for tilt control. At this point, the tilt sensor code had already been completed, and
the sensor was ready for implementation. Once successfully attached, the team verified several
things. First, the team wanted to make sure that the tilt is achieved consistently within a +/-
1-degree error (the tilt sensor has a +/- 0.5-degree sensitivity). Verification was also needed to
ensure that the unit dropped to a consistent resting place when it finished. The team also wanted
to verify that the unit will automatically drop to a resting state when powered back on after a
power loss. This was a critical issue within the FMEA that the team wanted to make sure was
taken care of early. Finally, the wanted to verify that the unit will not drop the unit in the event of
power loss.

Fabrication Phase Schedule

February 19th By this date, Team 01B wanted to have the finalized design for the lift
mechanism finished and ready to be sent to FirstBuild for fabrication. There was 1/8 A36 steel
used for all parts of the lift mechanism with the exception of the two rotary arms that did the
lifting in the mechanism. Those two arms were 3/16. The steel tubing that Team 01B had
decided to use was . Any welding that needed to be done for the project was completed at
FirstBuild.

February 20th Team 01B wanted to have sent in the completed CAD design file to FirstBuild
to allow them to begin the fabrication process of the parts needed for the lift mechanism
assembly. In addition, all pins, bolts and bushings that were necessary for the project after the
team got it back from FirstBuild was ordered off of McMaster Carr. Team 01B also purchased an

95
ATtiny44a microcontroller. The code for the microcontroller was already been completed, it just
needed to be implemented.

February 26th By this date, the team wanted to have received the lift mechanism from
FirstBuild. If it was not possible for FirstBuild to have delivered it to Ross by shipping, then the
team opted to drive down to Louisville and pick it up personally to accelerate the progress.

February 27th The pins, bolts, and bushings were added to the fabricated materials crafted at
FirstBuild. The lift mechanism was carefully and completely built, and then it was bolted to the
base of the existing stanchion. Once all of the construction was completed, the preliminary
testing began. The first stage of testing was monitoring the base movement of the stanchion.
Primarily, the team wanted to assure that the lift moved in a stable manner as that was a primary
flaw with the previous design.

February 28th through February 30th Through careful observation, it was verified that the lift
assembly was performing in the way needed. Team 01B intended to test the stability, lift height,
tilt angle, structural integrity, and several other things to ensure optimal performance. The
intended lift height was 1.5 to clear the curved aesthetic metal on the front of the stanchion, and
the tilt should be approximately 12.5 deg. The Team also intended to re-measure the unit
dimensions in order to verify the size and ADA requirements. After these preliminary steps, the
microcontroller was attached to the actuator. Then the final testing began. The team recorded the
results of several tests, and the results of these tests directly affected the re-design and retesting
that was done.

March 1st Official date that final testing began.

Schedule for Testing Phase

April 5th - The final testing began with the mounting of the completed lift assembly to the base
of the stanchion. At this point, the team was able to test the base movements. Primarily, the team

96
needed to ensure that it had a balanced, equal, and stable lift. One of the primary checks
performed was to check for issues involving binding.

April 7th - On this day, the completed stanchion (with accompanying lift assembly) was
attached to the base of the dryer. At this point, the unit dimensions were re-evaluated to verify
the size of the assembly, as well as to monitor any ADA requirements that may have been
violated. Although this was a rudimentary check, it was performed for solidarity purposes. The
units tilt was measured with two different devices; each of these devices measured the degree to
a tenth of an angle to ensure accuracy. Testing was again performed with the removal of laundry
after manually rotating the drum within the unit. Several dozens of tests over a few hours were
be performed in order to ensure that the design was working efficiently.

April 10th - After all prior testing had been completed and verified, the microcontroller was
introduced for tilt control. The code for this had already been completed and was fully ready for
implementation. Once the microcontroller had been successfully attached, several different
aspects were subject to verification. First, the tilt was going to be carefully monitored to continue
to ensure that its within a +/- 1 degree error (the current tilt sensor being utilized has a +/- 0.5
degree sensitivity). The unit itself was also be monitored to ensure that it was coming to its full
resting position after being lowered. Verification tests were performed to ensure that the unit
dropped to a resting state when powered back on in the event of sudden power loss. This was one
of the most critical issues to be addressed in the FMEA. Finally, tests were performed to make
sure that the unit does not freefall in the event of sudden power failure.

April 11th - This day was reserved for re-building the dryer for testing purposes. The unit was
tested to verify that it still worked correctly after being re-assembled. The dryer was then ran
without heat with a standard size load of laundry within. Once the cycle completed, the unit was
tilted to ensure that the laundry load still came to the front of the dryer as planned. This series of
steps was repeated for accurate monitoring and verification.

April 12th through April 14th - During this time frame, a series of tilt tests was performed to

97
test stability. The first test was with a 100 lb. load sitting atop the dryer in its resting state. With
this load attached, the unit was tilted to ensure stability and balance during the action. Next, a
100 lb load was placed on the front of the unit; this simulated the action of a child hanging on the
door, or a person resting on the door while retrieving their laundry. The unit was then tilted
forward to ensure that, with the additional force applied, the dryer did not tilt too far or entirely
over.

April 17th This day was set aside strictly for pinch point testing.

April 19th through April 21st Any necessary retesting was reserved for these days, based on
potential re-designs.

April 25rd Final testing was performed if everything else was running smoothly. Finally, the
team retested all requirements to verify the design is working completely and efficiently.

F - Meeting Minutes
Date: 9/11/16
Description: Initial Team 01B meeting. Included introductions, basic discussion about project,
exchanging of contact info, and beginning of small assignments for Senior Capstone
Location: Jakes Roadhouse & Garage

Date: 9/16/16
Description: Initial meeting with Mary Beckmann. Set up tentative weekly meeting times with
FirstBuild (Wed at 4:00pm), Mary indicated that she was unaware that two teams were assigned
to ADA range project. She asked us to come up with an idea for an alternative project idea by
9/19/16. She also wanted us to watch the Paralympics.
Location: Group Study Room in POTR / FirstBuild Web Chat

98
Date: 9/22/16
Description: Presentation of groups ideas for project (ADA dryer). Ideas of potential aspects of
dryer to redesign (controls, door, unloading method). Mary suggested reducing our scope and
handling either door/controls, or unloading. Tame 01B chose to tackled the unloading. Discussed
Scope of Work. Each member needed to come up with 2 or more conceptual ideas before
9/25/16 to present to group. Google Doc for Gate 1 was created.
Location: Group Study Room in POTR / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 9/26/16
Description: Discussed potential conceptual ideas with Mary. Setup project and group blog on
FirstBuild website. Started to coordinate tip with other FirstBuild teams for trip to facility.
Discussed Requirements Matrix. Mary suggested focusing on one disability rather than universal
design. Team delegated specific sections of Gate 1 for each member to write.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 9/30/16
Description: Initial meeting with faculty mentor. Discussed Gate 1 rough draft, and what needs
to be changed/improved before submission.
Location: KNOY 155

Date: 10/5/16
Description: Discussed preliminary construction models to be built using laundry baskets and
other equipment. Discussed issues with balancing the drum with some of the designs. Tasked to
list all of the possible failure modes of each design.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

99
Date: 10/12/16
Description: Discussed possible failure modes of each design. Discussed requirements and
criteria, and determined we need to create surveys and reach out to the customers of this project.
Determined a future date to visit FirstBuild (10/26). Determined contact information and process
to order/manufacture parts through FirstBuild.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 10/19/16
Description: Walked through each of the four final designs the team were considering. Scheduled
the Gate 2 presentation date and time (10/26 at 5:30pm - this cancelled our visit plan).
Determined that we need to involve FirstBuild forums more. Delegated tasks to complete before
presentation.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 10/21/16
Description: Discussed using Fusion 360 for modelling as Blender is not a simulation platform.
Discussed how to construct physical models of designs for testing. Went over how to properly
present Gate 2, and what to expect. Discussed results from survey, and how to improve survey
Location: KNOY 155

Date: 10/24/16
Delegated slides for Gate 2 presentation. Discussed and determined materials to be used for each
design. Further developed decision criteria. Developed a 10-Day Plan to get back on track
Location: MGL Open Lab

100
Date: 10/26/16
Description: Presented Gate 2 for in-depth review. Discussed real critical issues and possible
ways to address them. Discussed improvements to be made for future presentations. Determined
two additional designs to consider before the end of Gate 2
Location: KNOY 256

Date: 11/2/16
Description: Failed to contact Mary Beckmanns superior while she was on vacation. Discussed
what still needed to be done for Gate 2 due date. Delegated remaining work. Discussed any
miscommunication or confusion regarding sections of Gate 2.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 11/4/16
Description: Met with Professor Huston to discuss minor issues with Gate 2 before submission.
Location: KNOY 155

Date: 11/9/16
Description: Discussed what files and things will be needed for FirstBuild location visit. Stp,
iges, and stl files will all be needed for custom fabrication and 3D printing. Looked into the
UL2158 standards for dryers to be sold to consumers. ANSI Z21.5.1 for gas dryers.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 11/11/16
Description: Professor Huston wanted 90% of the project to be done by the first semester so that
only 10% (testing) will need to be done next semester. Bring all drawings to FirstBuild that we
can. Be careful of tolerances and exporting of 3D files, sometimes they cause issues.
Location: KNOY 155

101
Date: 11/16/16
Description: Plan to visit FirstBuild on 11/30. Corkscrew baffle idea is not a project in of itself,
and wont effectively accomplish goals. Reevaluate all ideas that were made in the Gate 1, weigh
them against each other, and come up with a new final design.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 11/21/16
Description: Moving of the lint filter, or having the filter mounted to the door is not a design that
FirstBuild wants to pursue, even though that messes up most of the possible final designs. Add
overall manufacturing impact on design criteria as that is now important to FirstBuild.
Reweighed all concepts from last meeting using this new design criteria.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 11/28/16
Description: Divided gate 3 documentation up within team. Developed alternative final design:
drum tilt. Came up with in-depth design for drum tilt design.
Location: Ross

Date: 11/30/16
Description: Apologized for not being clear about FirstBuild visit rescheduling. Got the go ahead
on the drum tilt design. Discussed drop test, pinch point, tipping and center of gravity testing that
will need to be done. Update FirstBuild Website every 2 days.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 12/2/16
Description: Discussed poster layout with Professor Huston. Met in Ross to fully dimension and
model the bottom stanchion. Split up Gate 3 document again.
Location: KNOY 155 and Ross

102
Date: 12/4/16
Description: Met with team to 3D model final design and create poster for poster presentation.
Location: KNOY 241

Date: 12/7/16
Description: Visited FirstBuild to talk about final design and resources that we have in
FirstBuild. Toured the facility. All materials used in FirstBuild are free. Determined an
alternative to the piano hinge deign to mount the lifting appliance.
Location: FirstBuild

Date: 12/13/16
Description: Determined new purchasing steps for design. Discussed bushings and bolts needed
for design. Focus on FMEA and a fully dimensioned parts list for Mary
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 1/23/17
Description: Discussed possible lab testing. Discussed the possibility of using UHMW
polyethylene in design for pivot points. Discussed possibility of using floor brackets to keep unit
from tipping.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 1/25/17
Description: Met with Dr. French and determined the impossibility of using one jack to stably lift
this dryer. Discussed use of stepper motors to replace motors in jack.
Location: KNOY 155 and Ross

103
Date: 1/30/17
Description: Discussed best day for Gate 4 presentations. Discussed the need for a second lifting
mechanism for the design. Told to look up simply machines to get ideas for alternative lift
mechanism support systems. Told to look at nature and solutions that already exist to come up
with a design,
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date 2/1/17
Description: Discussed to possibility of using a lift mechanism similar to lift chairs. Told to
develop software to demonstrate in Gate 4 presentation.
Location: KNOY 155

Date: 2/6/17
Description: Discussed FMEA and inclusion of block diagrams. FMEA is really a DFMEA and
should point the design in the right direction. Discussed possibility of using a lift chair
mechanism in the design as we had acquired one for free. Told not to abandon previous car jack
progress, and that we should look into the possibility of using a wheel and guide for the stability
of the design.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 2/13/17
Description: Went over the final design with FirstBuild again. Utilizing the lift chair design.
Discussed mounting options for both the stanchion and dryer.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

104
Date: 2/14/17
Description: Gate 4 presentation. Told to focus on stress test analysis, and technical drawings as
we were supposed to have those for the presentations. Further develop the test plan and gantt
chart.
Location: KNOY 256

Date 2/20/17
Description: Focus on K-Factor for the materials used in design as that is need for
manufacturing. Get an assembly drawing to Taylor.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 2/27/17
Description: Discussed issues with model sent to FirstBuild for fabrication. Technical drawings
need legends for steel thicknesses. No dimensions are allowed inside the parts body. The team
needed to fix a few dimensions to make them meaningful. Mary had jury duty the next week so
no meeting.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 3/20/17
Description: Determine the fasteners needed from FirstBuild. Discussed the issues with the first
steel prototype not taking any load. Discussed possible weight requirements asd reinforcements
will add weight. Discussed some other small issues that the first prototype had.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 3/27/17
Description: Discussed with Professor Huston about the changes to our weight requirements and
the issues with the first prototype. Talked about rescheduling the presentation for later.
Location: KNOY 155

105
Date: 4/3/17
Description: Discussed remanufactured design and issues with it. Discussed how hardware will
be returned at the end of this project, and how many people will be attending our poster
presentation.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

Date: 4/10/17
Description: Mary Beckmann came down to Ross to assist in some last minute modifications to
the dryer. The frame of the lift mechanism was mounted to the unit, as we verified that there was
no tipping issues.
Location: Ross Enterprise Center

Date: 4/17/17
Description: Gate 6 presentation was discussed for scheduling. Adam was brought up to speed
from Marys Ross visit. Discussed test plan and procedures.
Location: Group Study Room in STEW / FirstBuild Web Chat

G - Trip Reports
Date: 12/7/16
Description: Visited FirstBuild to talk about final design and resources that we have in
FirstBuild. Toured the facility. All materials used in FirstBuild are free. Determined an
alternative to the piano hinge deign to mount the lifting appliance.
Location: FirstBuild

Date: 1/14/16
Description: Visited FirstBuild to construct prototype from wood. Decide to use Scrap UHMW
to make pivot and rails. Tyler was trained on saw and cut all parts while the rest of the team
assembled the prototype, before returning to Purdue.
Location: FirstBuild

106
Date: 3/8/16
Description: Visited FirstBuild to pick up hardware.
Location: FirstBuild

Date: 4/5/16
Description: Visited FirstBuild to pick up hardware.
Location: FirstBuild

H - Works Cited
[1] "Mobility device statistics - United States," in Disabled World, Disabled World, 2004.
[Online]. Available: http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/statistics/mobility-stats.php.
Accessed: Sep. 22, 2016.
[2] Disabled and Elderly Assistive Technology BBC Research, 2015 [Online]. Available:
http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/healthcare/disabled-elderly-assist-
technologies-report-hlc047e.html. [Accessed: 19-Sep-2016].
[3] Dryers: Many Options and Flexibility in Design, Tumble Dryer Models. [Online].
Available: http://www.clmco.com/dryers_models.html. [Accessed: 22-Sep-2016].
[4] LG electric-dryer DLEX5780VE | LG Electronics US, LG electric-dryer DLEX5780VE |
LG Electronics US. [Online]. Available:
http://www.lg.com/us/dryers/lg-dlex5780ve-electric-dryer. [Accessed: 11-Sep-2016].
[5] M. A. Banta, Clothes Dryer with Extendible Rack, U.S. Patent 8087184 B2, January 3,
2012.
[6] Arthritis-Related Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/arthritis-related-stats.htm
Accessed: Sep. 30
[7] "McMaster-Carr," in MCMaster-Carr. [Online]. Available: http://www.mcmaster.com/.
Accessed: Oct. 22, 2016.

107
[8] Explanation of Dryer Temperatures, Explanation of Dryer Temperatures. [Online].
Available:
http://products.geappliances.com/appliance/gea-support-search-content?contentid=20985.
[Accessed: 03-Oct-2016].
[9] ARM Cortex M4F 32-Bit Microcontroller | Texas Instruments [Online]. Available:
http://www.ti.com/product/MSP432P401R

I - Teams Permanent Contact Information

Tyler Anthony Zosso
Cell Phone Number - (219) 405-5266
Permanent Email - tylerzosso@live.com

Brennen Roe Craig

Cell Phone Number - (561) 374-2466
Permanent Email - brennencraig@gmail.com

David Wheeler
Cell Phone Number - (317) 771-8716
Permanent Email - wheele19@gmail.com

Ben Dowen
Cell Phone Number - (812) 896-7384
Permanent Email - dowenben276@gmail.com

108
J - What was Learned
David Wheeler

MET 401 helped bring industry experience to my academic studies. In this course, one is able to

finally put their knowledge into action and test themselves in their understanding. This senior

design course was challenging and was the first time I got to experience the full product life

cycle in engineering. From brainstorming, to iterations, to fabrication, I was able to acquire

actual experience in having a problem, designing a solution, and bringing that solution to life.

Brainstorming took a lot longer than I would have thought. The team had many ideas and

approached a couple extremely different solutions throughout the course. I experienced the

importance of making absolutely sure that you understand your customers desired product and

constraints to the design. Clear communication between a team of engineers and their client is a

challenging necessity. Approaching a design before clarifying what the client really wants can

add a lot of wasted time if it were revealed that your design conflicts with what the client

intended to communicate.

Organization is absolutely critical in CAD. This course showed the importance of this skill. The

teams design was currently changing or being updated and having an organized system can

make keeping track of updated files difficult. Appropriately naming parts can also be a large

issue. Sometimes a few parts can be very similar and it is helpful to have names that clarify

which part you are specifically referring to.

This was the first time I was able to work with sheet metal. implementation of the .dxf file was

used to laser cut our pieces and was an informative experience. Significance of a materials

109
k-factor was learned during this course. A lot of study went into understanding this phenomenon

and how calculations are used to account for changing lengths when bending.

It is important to show design intent in your mechanical drawings. When dealing with

fabrication, a lot of emails were sent in attempts to explain information that should have been

included in the team's technical drawings. This missing information made it particularly difficult

for those assembling the design to know how to appropriately put the parts together.

This course helped show the appropriate use of certain steels and their thicknesses. Beforehand,

practical knowledge of what thickness for steel to expect on designs was unknown. Doing

calculations in other classes, one is able to have a feel for what to expect in industry, but it was

hard to know what thicknesses to expect for specific applications. Now it is easier to have an

idea of what to expect when thinking about the forces involved and the application.

Tyler Zosso

The Senior Design Capstone Project was entirely different from any other course that Ive taken

here at Purdue University. There are many aspects of it that I felt advanced my practical

knowledge of things Id previously learned in the ECET program. But, more than that, it taught

me that not everything is going to work out as well in practice as it does on paper. Up until this

point, every course had a very specific guide or set of instructions. Using these instructions, and

generally a well laid out syllabus, youre able to navigate comfortably through the course

knowing whats going to come around the corner next and how best to prepare for it. The

Capstone Project was anything but that.

When the Capstone Project began, it brought together four people who knew little to nothing

about one another. This was the first task that had to be overcome, and it was by far the most

110
important. Thats never something that you have to worry about in another course. Even if

youre matched up in a laboratory with someone you dont know well, its easy to work well for

short periods of time to accomplish a short-term task. In Capstone, you have to learn to work

well with your team every day, consistently for the full length of a year. You have to realize what

your group is comfortable with, where the strengths lie as individuals and as a group, and how to

become a cohesive unit in the shortest amount of time to deliver the highest quality product that

you can. In my experience with Team 01B, this was by far the easiest task to accomplish.

Brennen Craig led our team well, learning and adapting to keep us on track while simultaneously

delivering on every aspect of the project that he needed to. David Wheeler and Ben Dowen

probably had the most difficult task in this project, and that was the CAD design for fabrication.

Working together, they were able to produce a perfect lift assembly which ultimately led to the

success of this group. As far as the group aspect is concerned, I couldnt have asked for better

members.

In terms of what I learned, I dont know where to begin. When I came into this project, I wasnt

very comfortable with what I did or did not know. I was very skeptical to try and help out of fear

that I would make things worse. But, with the support and help from my team, I was able to

overcome this fear. While I cant say that I was the most useful member, I can say that I did the

best I could given my position. Generally, Brennen was able to guide me through the harder parts

of the electrical work that I didnt know how to handle. Because of this, Ive been able to really

pull together the years of learning Ive done at Purdue and finally put it to practical use in a way

that made me more comfortable with my own level of knowledge.

111
All in all, the Capstone Project is a complete necessity, and I truly empathize with other majors

at Purdue that wont have this same opportunity. I feel that, while I still have obvious learning to

do in the real world, Im much better prepared to walk out the doors and start a career of my

own.

Brennen Craig

This senior capstone course has been a great way for me to gain experience and knowledge that

will be needed for my future career. The easiest example of what I have learned in this course

would be the technical knowledge that I have gained about controls. Much of my responsibility

in regards to the design of this prototype centered around our microcontroller and the controls

programming for it. This process was a great combination of utilizing my previous course works

knowledge of embedded systems, and really learning how to apply it to a real world application

in the form of a completely new project.

One of the harder to explain examples of what I have learned in this course involves the project

management and scheduling of this project. Having a project that is very involved and spans the

entirety of a year feels very different than any other project that I have been involved in at

Purdue University. Learning how to properly manage resources and time effectively for a project

that has so many moving parts and pathways is something that I had not done before. One of the

key aspects to this project is also dealing with the customer. Its a very different world trying to

please a customer with your product, rather than trying to get a good grade in a course for your

professor. Because of this, the senior capstone course didnt really feel like an actual class, but

more of an actual job.

112
Finally, I learned a lot about time management as well. Due to having a team made up of four

seniors in college, as well as a professor and two industry mentors, scheduling anything became

exceedingly difficult. Everyone was great about being available when needed, but this project

gave me some great insight on how this time will need to be managed in my future career.

The main weakness that I experienced in the course was due to the fact that the beginning and

majority of this project was very mechanical engineering focused. Because of this, my electrical

engineering knowledge wasnt particularly useful. This led to me transitioning to more a of time

management role as I was able to take those responsibilities off of the mechanical engineers that

would have a lot of work to do. It wasnt until later in the project that the electrical engineering

came into play, where I was able to take over some of the design work.

This course was a great way for me to learn how to utilize team members strengths to better the

project as a whole. When I wasnt particularly useful in some situations, learning how to adapt

and be helpful in other situations is what I will take away with me to my future career

Ben Dowen.

So much of my courses in MET have had me look at an existing design and determine if the

material is strong enough or something to that effect. Everything has been analytical work. The

Capstone project has shifted the focus onto designing and testing. while analyzing the design is

still very important, the project gave me the opportunity to create the design, which few of my

classes have given me outside of MET 102 and MET 302. I enjoyed coming up with ideas and

seeing how the brainstorming process unfolds in industry has been interesting to me. The

capstone gave me an opportunity to work on a project for an actual company rather than

theoretical ideas from my previous courses which made the project more interesting but also

113
meant there were a lot more things to consider. Textbook problem exist in a box with limited

correct answers and few constraints, but in the real world there are more possibilities but also

more things to consider, rather than focus on what component will work, you have to consider

the project budget, safety, standards, environment, the intended user, and many other things

students dont really get in other courses. In many of my courses Ive only worked with other

MET students with me taking charge of programming aspects. With the Senior Capstone, I got to

focus on the mechanical side exclusively since the team was not entirely mechanical, allowing

me to sort of thrive. A weakness coming into the course was the lack of actual design experience.

During brainstorming I threw out quite a few unrealistic ideas. experience would have allowed

me to have a better idea of what is reasonable in an idea. A strength I brought to the table was in

my analytical approach to the designs, essentially acting as a Devils advocate. I brought

certain issues up to the other group members and also acted as the resident mathematician of the

team. determining the appropriate thicknesses for materials. Overall, the Senior Capstone was a

good taste of real engineering problem and the process to solve them and is excellent design

experience.

K - Reflection
Self directed learning is vital to an engineer. When encountering something foreign, an engineer
needs to be able to learn how to solve the issue on their own. Somethings can be learned from
asking a superior, but an engineer cannot go a superior for everything and that superior might not
be available at all times to go to. Teams can sometime provide challenges when members have
conflicting ideas or personalities. However, these oppositions can often lead to critical thinking
and deeper analysis, allowing a stronger, well thought out, design. Early sections of the project
were less successful due to miscommunications on expectations and design criteria. In retrospect,

114
clearing up misunderstandings and expectations would have allowed the project to move ahead
with fewer speed bumps.

115