Otto - The Wall Driving Platform

FINAL PROJECT REPORT
Otto – The Wall Driving Platform

Cameron Venancio, Eric Mar, Kelvin Lei
California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo
Mechanical Engineering Senior Project
December 2013
STATEMENT OF DISCLAIMER
Since this project is a result of a class assignment, it has been graded and accepted as fulfillment of the course
requirements. Acceptance does not imply technical accuracy or reliability. Any use of information in this report
is done at the risk of the user. These risks may include catastrophic failure of the device or infringement of
patent or copyright laws. California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo and its staff cannot be held
liable for any use or misuse of the project.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A very special thanks to Cody Brown and Skye Jenkins and the rest of Electroimpact for providing the
resources and support to make this project possible.
And to our academic advisor Dr. Tom Mackin for his engineering expertise, passion and guidance in our
project.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Sponsor Needs and Background.................................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Definition .....................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Design Requirements and Specifications ...................................................................................................1
2 Background .........................................................................................................................................................2
2.1 International Climbing Machines (ICM) .....................................................................................................2

2.2 Caterpillar Tread .........................................................................................................................................3
3 Design Development ..........................................................................................................................................3
3.1 Concept Generation ...................................................................................................................................3

3.1.1 Perforated Tread Design.....................................................................................................................4
3.1.2 Rail Slider ............................................................................................................................................5
3.2 Initial Concept Selection and Testing .........................................................................................................6

3.2.1 Concept Revision A – Perforated Tread Design ..................................................................................7
3.2.1 Perforated Tread Testing ....................................................................................................................9
3.3 Redesign Conceptualization and Analysis ............................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Concept Revision B – Sliding Adhesion System ............................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Small Scale Prototype Testing ......................................................................................................... 15
3.3.3 Sliding Material Testing ................................................................................................................... 17
4 Final Design...................................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Adhesion Vacuum System ....................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.1 Venturi Pumps ................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.2 Suction Cups .................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 Normal Force Bias............................................................................................................................ 25
4.1.4 Low Friction Sliding Material ........................................................................................................... 26
4.1.5 Pneumatic Components .................................................................................................................. 27
iii
4.2 Drivetrain System .................................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Drive Shaft & Coupler ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Wheels & Hub .................................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.3 Chain & Sprocket ............................................................................................................................. 29
4.2.4 Bearings ........................................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Motor System .......................................................................................................................................... 30

4.3.1 Motor Selection ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.3.2 Gearbox Selection............................................................................................................................ 32
4.4 Chassis ..................................................................................................................................................... 33

4.4.1 Aluminum Extrusions & Fasteners .................................................................................................. 33
4.4.2 Suction Cup Mounting Brackets ...................................................................................................... 34
4.4.3 Motor Mounting Plate & Brace ....................................................................................................... 35
4.5 Operation Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 35

4.6 Safety Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 36
5 Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................................. 37
5.1 Suction Cup Assembly ............................................................................................................................. 37

5.2 Chassis Construction................................................................................................................................ 38
5.3 Drivetrain Components ........................................................................................................................... 39
6 Design Verification Testing .............................................................................................................................. 40
6.1 Suction Cup Tests .................................................................................................................................... 41

6.1.1 Surface Test ..................................................................................................................................... 41
6.1.2 Suction Cup Force Test .................................................................................................................... 41
6.1.3 Suction Cup Displacement Test ....................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Driving Tests ............................................................................................................................................ 45

6.2.1 Vertical Driving ................................................................................................................................ 46
6.2.2 Inverted Driving ............................................................................................................................... 47
6.2.3 System Troubleshooting .................................................................................................................. 48
7 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 49
iv
8 Improvements & Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 51
9 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A: Test Results ..................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix B: Detailed Part Drawings.................................................................................................................... 56
Appendix C: Vendor Component Specifications and Data Sheets ...................................................................... 66
Appendix D: Supporting Analysis and Calculations ............................................................................................. 75
Appendix E: Design Resources ............................................................................................................................. 82
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Electroimpact's current Flex Track system. .................................................................................................1
Figure 2. ICM’s climbing robot, with central vacuum adhesion. ................................................................................2
Figure 3. Caterpillar Tread design, with mechanical valve suction actuator..............................................................3
Figure 4. CAD renders of the initial Perforated Tread design and other variations. ..................................................4
Figure 5. CAD render of Rail Slider design. .................................................................................................................5
Figure 6. Rail Slider concept movement pattern........................................................................................................6
Figure 7. CAD model of Concept Revision A – Perforated Tread Design....................................................................7
Figure 8. Underside of custom vacuum platform, showing cup compartments and with PTFE screen. ...................8
Figure 9. The perforated tread design, with holes that allow for the vacuum force to contact the driving surface.8
Figure 10. Drive system and perforated tread exploded assembly view. ..................................................................9
Figure 11. Attempting to move the polycarbonate platform with a handle (Left), handle breaks off before
platform moves (Right)............................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 12. Perforated tread stretches a large amount as it is pulled against the suction cup and polycarbonate. 11
Figure 13. FBD and MAD showing the design for Otto accelerating on a vertical surface. .................................... 12
Figure 14. An example of common suction cup usage. ........................................................................................... 13
Figure 15. Initial Lego prototype, with four wheels and complicated gear system – did not work........................ 15
Figure 16. Small scale Lego prototype successfully driving on vertical and inverted orientations. ........................ 16
Figure 17. Small scale prototype rubber pad modified with dust for low friction. ................................................. 17
Figure 18. All sample materials cut to size and labeled for testing. ........................................................................ 18
Figure 19. Material test set up: pull-off force test and friction force test. ............................................................. 19
Figure 20. CAD model of the complete final design, Otto....................................................................................... 21
Figure 21. Visual representation of the internal mechanism of a venturi pump. ................................................... 22
Figure 22. Close up view of the actual venturi pump used in the final assembly. .................................................. 22
Figure 23. Top and bottom views of a nitrile 1.5 bellow suction cups.................................................................... 23
Figure 24. Test setup used for preliminary tests of the 2.07” bellow suction cup. ................................................ 24
Figure 25. The bellow suction cups are capable of staying adhered to the surface without having the wheels
touch the surface..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 26. Suction Cup assembly mounted onto the frame.................................................................................... 26
Figure 27. Bellow suction cups modified with PTFE sheets, adhered with 3M industrial strength adhesive. ........ 27
Figure 28. Layout of pneumatic lines - all venturi pumps are attached for parallel performance. ........................ 27
vi
Figure 29. AndyMark "HiGrip" thermoplastic polyurethane tread wheels. ............................................................ 29
Figure 30. The 1:1 driving ration sprocket and #35 medium grade chain. ............................................................. 29
Figure 31. FANUC βiS 0.5 AC servo motor. .............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 32. CAD model of the initial custom gearbox design. .................................................................................. 32
Figure 33. Thomson XTRUE Planetary Gearhead with a RediMount system attached (Left), with motor (right). . 33
Figure 34. Otto's bare chassis, made of T-slotted aluminum extrusions. ............................................................... 34
Figure 35. Custom machined aluminum suction cup mounting brackets, 12 total. ............................................... 34
Figure 36. Custom machined aluminum motor mounting plates. .......................................................................... 35
Figure 37. The PLC and pendant used to control Otto, supplied by Electroimpact. ............................................... 36
Figure 38. Part of the manufacturing process for Otto. .......................................................................................... 37
Figure 39. Close-up view of the T-shaped push connectors used in the suction cup assembly (Left), completed
single suction cup sub-assembly (Right).................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 40. Aluminum extrusion assembly and reinforcement bracket attachment. .............................................. 38
Figure 41. Aluminum plate attached to gearhead as primary drivetrain support (Left) and steel sheet metal
bracket mounted as secondary support (Right). ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 42. Wheel, hubs, bearings, sprocket, bushings and lock collar sub-assembly. ............................................ 40
Figure 43. Mounted wheel sub-assembly, connected to gearhead with spider coupler (Left), underside of Otto –
showing the layout of the suction cup sub-assemblies (Right). .............................................................................. 40
Figure 44. Test stand used for bellow cup tests - vacuum gauge (left) and pressure gauge (right). ...................... 42
Figure 45. Weights are added to the carry tray in order test bellow suction cup performances. .......................... 43
Figure 46. Bellow cup under linear displacement (Left), bellow cup under exponential displacement (Right). .... 44
Figure 47. CAD model of suction cup assembly and mounting bracket. ................................................................. 45
Figure 48. Otto proving its capabilities by carrying a load of 70 lb, for a total weight of 100 lb. ........................... 46
Figure 49. Otto performing all the driving maneuvers with a payload: 70 lb payload (Left), and a human payload
of 160 lb (Right). ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 50. Venturi pumps, removed from their housing, are covered with residue from the air supply lines. ..... 48
Figure 51. Maximum cup holding force vs. supplied inlet positive pressure. ......................................................... 52
Figure 52. Negative pressure generated by suction cup assembly vs. inlet positive pressure. .............................. 52
Figure 53. Bellow suction cup displacement test at 50 psig. .................................................................................. 53
Figure 56. Side CAD view, showing basic important dimensions. ........................................................................... 56
vii
Figure 57. Top CAD view, showing basic important dimensions............................................................................. 56
Figure 58. Front CAD view, showing basic important dimensions. ......................................................................... 57
Figure 59. Piab Venturi Pump detailed drawings. ................................................................................................... 57
Figure 60. Von Mises stress analysis on the bracket. .............................................................................................. 78
Figure 61. Displacement analysis on the bracket. ................................................................................................... 78
Figure 62. Loads and fixtures of the drive shaft. ..................................................................................................... 79
Figure 63. Von Mises stress analysis on the drive shaft. ......................................................................................... 80
Figure 64. Displacement analysis on the drive shaft. .............................................................................................. 80
Figure 65. Drive shaft SimulationXpress results. ..................................................................................................... 81
Figure 66. Quality Function Deployment chart. ...................................................................................................... 82
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Decision Matrix used to optimize initial concept designs. ...........................................................................7
Table 2. Material testing pull-off force and coefficient of friction results. ............................................................. 20
Table 3. Bill of Materials. ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4. Data collected from bellow suction cup displacement test at 50 psig. ..................................................... 53
viii
ABSTRACT
Electroimpact is currently a world leader in the aerospace industry with state of the art aerospace tooling and
automation design. One of their most successful machines, the Flex Track, is used to assemble airplane fuselages
– drilling holes and installing rivets while traveling circumferentially around the fuselage on suctioned tracks.
Currently, this track method is limited in travel, as the machine can only access locations where the tracks have
been placed. For a Senior Project in the Mechanical Engineering department at California Polytechnic University
San Luis Obispo, Electroimpact has expressed its interest in sponsoring a proof-of-concept prototype design for a
robotic wall driving unit. Aimed at eventually replacing Electroimpact’s suction track system, this wall driving
unit is designed to meet all of the project specifications, while remaining within the allocated budget of $2500.
Otto, the wall driving unit, works on the principle of vacuum-adhesion, utilizing twelve suction cups on its
underside to stick to vertical and horizontal surfaces as it drives. The bottom of each suction cup is fitted with a
low friction, polytetraflouroethylene sheet, which is the main contact point with the driving surface. The low
friction material allows the suction cups to slide along the surface it is traveling on, reducing the load on the
drive motors and increasing the carrying efficiency of the system. The driving system onboard consists of two
high torque AC motors attached to gear reduction units, and then to high traction rubber wheels. The vacuum
and battery power, as well as the motor controller, will be attached to the driving platform via an umbilical cord
connected to the ground.
Otto’s final design is fully conceptualized, developed, built and tested in this report; with every component
specified and analyzed, after many design iterations. Thorough calculations, analysis, and testing support the
machine design and provide numerical justification for the parts/materials chosen. Test results, detailed
drawings for custom parts, and supporting analysis are supplied in the Appendix.
ix
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SPONSOR NEEDS AND BACKGROUND

The sponsor for this project is Electroimpact (Mukilteo, Washington), a company that specializes, among other
automated processes, in automated aircraft fuselage and wing panel splicing. Their current process consists of a
robotic system, called the Flex Track; which performs the drilling part of the splicing process. It does so by
traveling along and around the body of an aircraft using a suction-mounted, track system. Electroimpact is
sponsoring this senior project team to develop a mobile base prototype that is aimed at replacing their current
track system. The mobile base must be capable of adhering to, and navigating, the entire external surface of the
aircraft while carrying a substantial payload. Eliminating the suction mounted tracks would facilitate portability
and simplicity while it would also reduce set-up times and the associated costs. The goal for this project is to
develop a working proof-of-concept model of this track-less design.
Figure 1. Electroimpact's current Flex Track system.
1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

The final design of the driving platform needs to be capable of traversing the entire circumference of a convex
airplane fuselage, in two axes without the aforementioned tracks– that is, the robot will be able to move about
the circumference, as well as along the length of the fuselage. The design needs be able to carry a reasonable
payload while recognizing stability and safety as its two priorities during operation. The prototype will be
designed to be attached to an umbilical cord for power, control, and air supply.
1.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The scope of this project is ultimately to produce a proof-of-concept model, as functionality is the reigning
priority over traditional performance-based specifications. After the above-mentioned functionality
1
requirements are met, additional features such as air supply failure or leakage prevention, operating speed,
ease of deployment and robotic control are some detailed parameters that will be considered during the
analysis phase of the design. Some additional design requirements for this project are:
 Capable of carrying a load of 25 lb.

 Top speed of at least 3.5 MPH – average human walking speed.
 Acceleration of at least 8 ft/s2.
 Overall design should not exceed the dimensional size of 30” x 30” x 12”.
2 BACKGROUND
Background research shows that stable wall driving systems are relatively un-explored, aside from small school
projects with low budgets and no published analysis or data to support the manufacturability of these machines.
2.1 INTERNATIONAL CLIMBING MACHINES (ICM)

International Climbing Machines has developed a wall crawler that covers a wide variety of applications. This
wall crawler can scale almost any surface, and utilizes a single central vacuum pump as its adhesion force. The
new technology that ICM has created involves a rolling seal, or a seal for the vacuum chamber that moves while
also maintaining the low pressure suction within the chamber. The driving mechanism treads are made of a
malleable sponge-like material, allowing it to transverse small obstacles such as rivets, bumps and ridges, while
still maintaining its vacuum seal and adhesion to the surface. These climbers are portable, easy to deploy, and
have a pull off strength of over 200 pounds. This design works because of one central vacuum, making it prone
to failing. It should be noted that ICM often includes a fail-safe rope attached to the top of the object/wall it is
scaling. Also, the carrying capacity of this machine is unknown.
Figure 2. ICM’s climbing robot, with central vacuum adhesion.
2
2.2 CATERPILLAR TREAD
A research group at Seoul National University designed a vacuum caterpillar tread robot, as pictured in Figure 3.
This design employs two vacuum caterpillar tread wheels, with a vacuum pump positioned in the middle of the
robot. It utilizes 24 suction cups, 12 on each tread, with mechanical valves opening and closing vacuum air flow
to each suction cup, along with a rotary joint in the middle of the tread to keep the pneumatic tubes from
twisting. The unique aspect of this design resides in the suction tread system, which allows the robot to scale a
vertical surface without slipping or falling off the wall, though turning does not seem plausible due to a slip
condition. The timing of the suction cups on the treads relies on mechanical spring valves that are activated by a
ball bearing on top of the valve. With the valves open, free flow positive vacuum suction is allowed to flow to
the suction cups, and the suction is activated in order for the climber to stick to the wall.
Figure 3. Caterpillar Tread design, with mechanical valve suction actuator.
3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Design development consists of the initial concepts generated for this project, as well as the testing and
procedures conducted to verify the feasibility of these concepts. Concept revisions and decisions made prior to
the final design are outlined below.
3.1 CONCEPT GENERATION

The initial concept generation phase consisted of developing a simple idea of a working wall driving mechanism
that could support its own weight and a small load, while traversing a working surface both vertically and
horizontally. Two key drive mechanisms were conceptualized and modeled with mobility in the XY plane in
mind.
3
3.1.1 PERFORATED TREAD DESIGN
Figure 4. CAD renders of the initial Perforated Tread design and other variations.
One of the first ideas conceptualized was the Perforated Tread concept – which embeds a vacuum platform into
the treads of a continuous track system. The track is made of rubber with a multitude of holes punched into it.
When the holes pass between the vacuum plate and the contact surface, they allow for transfer of vacuum,
which effectively applies suction force onto the working surface. The benefit of this method allows the tank-like
system to turn as it would normally slide on the ground, but without shearing off. It provides the robot with the
perpetual motion benefits of a continuous track, and solves the problem of breaking the seal of a suction cup
when turning and sliding. This concept was thought to excel because of its simple nature – requiring only two
driving wheels, and no need for a pneumatically controlled (dis)engagement system.
The static friction force between the continuous track and the working surface is what allows the robot to
propel itself linearly. When turning, however, this static friction will have to be overcome in order effectively
turn the platform via traditional tank skid-steering. During this turning sequence, kinetic friction will be
responsible for holding the vehicle to the surface, and maintaining its general position, yet allowing it to slip for
turning.
Two variations of the perforated tread design were also developed, as a pre-caution in case the robot
experienced a hard time with turning and changing direction. The Perforated Tread design can be modified into
a Dual Tread (basic design), Four Tread and Rotating Tread design.
F OUR T READ
The Four Tread design is an alternative solution to the Dual Tread design. This design would have been
considered if the Dual Tread design proved to be incapable of tread-steering while adhering to a vertical wall.
The Four Tread design differs from the Dual Tread design in that it has two pairs of treads rather than just one.
By having two pairs of treads, the locomotion system is capable of traveling in two orthogonal directions,
eliminating the need for turning altogether. This allows the system to traverse effectively on an XY-plane.
R OTATING T READ
4
The Rotating Tread design is another alternative solution and is based on the Dual Tread design. The key
difference between this design and the Dual Tread design is the addition of the center column and its underside
vacuum cups, which will be powered by venturi pumps. This design is developed to provide the locomotion
system with an effective method for steering that is different from the Dual Tread and Four Tread. Unlike the
Dual Tread design which steers by the inefficient method of slippage, the steering mechanism of the Rotating
Tread operates by activating the center vacuums and rotating the rectangular base about the center column.
This design will be capable of traveling in the XY-plane of a vertical wall and any sections of an airplane fuselage
with ease and at any angle because of the center column. Also, the addition of the center column and its
vacuums allows the system to be a lot more stable than the Dual Tread design when in the stationary position.
3.1.2 RAIL SLIDER
Figure 5. CAD render of Rail Slider design.
The Rail Slider design relies on rails that the machine “slides” on, with motion provided by threads, gears or
pneumatics. The main concept is that the robot maintains suction in one axis while the rails in the other axis
slide. Working in conjunction with each other, the rails allow for a quick and easy change of direction on the X-Y
axes, though it is limited to movements only along these axes (no turning).
For example, moving in the horizontal X-axis (note that yellow represents suction engaged):
5
[1] [2] [3]
Figure 6. Rail Slider concept movement pattern.
[1] The suction in the vertical Y-axis engage, keeping the robot stable and in place. [2] The rails in the X-axis slide
past the robot. [3] The suction in the X-axis engage and the suction in the Y-axis disengage, as the robot pulls
itself along the X-axis, creating a displacement. This process is repeated in an “inch-worm” effect, until the robot
reaches its destination. Changing directions requires similar movement, but instead, the robot would switch to
the other axis and push and pull itself along this axis instead.
Suction cups are attached at the ends of each rail element. In order to account for the curvature of a fuselage,
the suction cups would be mounted on pivot joints that allow the Rail Slider to adjust for uneven surfaces while
keeping the body straight, relative to the surface.
The Rail Slider has the potential to be a very stable machine, while also being very accurate in finding its exact
destination; as it cannot alter its course with different angles, given its XY-axis limitations. For maximum
stationary stability, all suction from both rails would engage with the contact surface, creating a large coverage
area for the robot and machine stability. Though its movement may be methodical and its maneuverability a
slight issue, the stability and reliability of this machine are its selling points, especially in an application that does
not require speed or flexibility as a main specification.
3.2 INITIAL CONCEPT SELECTION AND TESTING

Initially, a combination of a Decision Matrix and a QFD, as seen in Table 1 and Appendix E, were used to optimize
the results and select the best candidate for the project requirements. Design considerations included
manufacturability, speed, maneuverability, scalability, load capacity, and stability, with each concept being
scored relative to the other designs on a scale from 1-5.
6
All design aspects considered, the Perforated Dual Tread system was thought to have the best maneuverability,
and perceived to be the most feasible to design, build, and implement. Conceptually, it was the most innovative
and ground-breaking design, as it offered the ability to turn and drive like a standard tracked vehicle, while
providing intuitive feel for the user.
Table 1. Decision Matrix used to optimize initial concept designs.
Design Requirements
Concept Type of Score Total Weighted Score
Manufacturing [4] Speed [2] Manuverablility [2] Scalability [4] Load Capacity [4] Stability [4]
Raw 2 4 3.5 3 4 3.5
Four Tread
Weighted 8 8 7 12 16 14 65
Raw 3 4 5 3 4 3
Dual Tread
Weighted 12 8 10 12 16 12 70
Raw 2 4 3.5 3 4 4
Rotating Tread
Weighted 8 8 7 12 16 16 67
Raw 4 2 3.5 4 2.5 4
Rail Slider
Weighted 16 4 7 16 10 16 69
3.2.1 CONCEPT REVISION A – PERFORATED TREAD DESIGN

The initial design chosen for this project was the Perforated Dual Tread system. This unit was designed around a
rubber tread with perforated holes and the corresponding vacuum platform powered by venturi pumps. The
tread would act as a gasket for the vacuum platform, where the holes channel the vacuum to the driving
surface. The driving unit would run on two high powered AC motors, allowing for steering and speed control
while it scaled vertical walls and ceilings in any orientation.
Figure 7. CAD model of Concept Revision A – Perforated Tread Design.
A DHESION S YSTEM
The main component of the system relied on the suction power that allows the driving unit to adhere to the
wall, and maintain adhesion while traversing on a vertical or inverted surface. The suction power for adhesion is
supplied by individual venturi pumps.
7
This design would require a custom machined aluminum vacuum plate, which would house multiple suction cup
cavities. Venturi pumps would be attached on top of the plate and would create vacuum pressure in the cavity
sections. This custom plate would be designed to have the tread slide underneath it, as this action transferred
the vacuum pressure to the driving surface through the holes in the tread. In order to avoid the deformation of
the tread into the suction cup’s cavity, a perforated screen is attached to the underside of the suction plate. This
plate consists of a large array of small slots milled into a sheet of PTFE in order to reduce the friction between
the tread and the suction plate.
Figure 8. Underside of custom vacuum platform, showing cup compartments and with PTFE screen.
P ERFORATED T READ
The perforated tread was designed to be the mechanical interface between the wall and the driving unit. Small
holes in the tread act as mini ‘suction cups’, providing a sealed area in which the pressure can be lowered. The
tread was chosen to be made of nitrile rubber, so that it would be durable yet stretch when it would need to.
With a continuous track of perforated holes, the vacuum plate will never lose contact with the driving surface,
as the hole-pattern allows for continuous driving. In order for the robot to move, the tread must slide
underneath the vacuum plate, pulled by the high torque motors and large wheels.
In order to maintain the position of the driving unit securely on a vertical surface, the static friction between the
driving surface and tread must be high enough to prevent the robot from sliding. The friction force generated by
the tread on the wall will be an important force to help maintain position while driving and while at a standstill.
Conversely, the friction on the inside of the belt (in contact with the vacuum plate) will need to be low, to allow
the tread to slide easily past the vacuum platform when driving.
Figure 9. The perforated tread design, with holes that allow for the vacuum force to contact the driving surface.
8
D RIVE S YSTEM
The drive system for the wall driving robot will consist of four custom wheels, with the tread looped around two
of them per side of the robot. Each wheel will have its own shaft and bearings, allowing for speed differences on
each side of the climber. One idler wheel and one drive wheel will be located on each side of the driving unit.
The drive wheels were positioned at the rear of the drive unit, in order to pull the tread from underneath the
vacuum plate when driving forward as opposed to pulling the tread from the top side. The front of the robot will
have the two idler wheels, which create tension in the belt and allow the drive motors to effectively move the
system.
The stepped drive shaft will be connected to the body with two bearings, one on the wheel end, and one
attached to the body of the robot. The bearing on the wheel end will be attached to a push rod. The push rod
helps to carry the load created by the belt tension and minimize the amount of moment applied onto the inner
bearings. The pillow block bearings chosen were low cost, self-aligning medium load bearings that would
theoretically withstand the projected loads and maintain a low profile on the chassis. They are pillow base
mount ball bearings, and they will be press fit onto the shafts, up to the first step.
Figure 10. Drive system and perforated tread exploded assembly view.
C HASSIS
The body of the robot will be structured upon the vacuum platforms, as this is the component with the most
structural dependence. Built around the vacuums, the body of the driving unit will attach to a frame connecting
the vacuum plates together. Here, the bearings, drive shafts, motors, and pneumatics will attach to the body
frame. Lightweight aluminum T-slotted frames were chosen to make up the majority of the Perforated Tread
design’s structural body.
3.2.1 PERFORATED TREAD TESTING

A series of tests with the proposed rubber tread material was performed to validate the engineering intuitions
assumed in the mechanical operation of the tread motions. In these tests, the analysis was primarily focused on
9
the performance of the rubber on different driving surfaces as well as the performance associated with sliding
against an intermediate material of polycarbonate, which was used to simulate the vacuum platform. These
tests helped to demonstrate the operation of the tread.
In these tests, a 4” x 12” x ⅛” nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) tread material perforated with ⅜” holes spaced ⅓”
apart was used, along with EI’s suction cup, EI’s venturi pump and a 4” x 4”- 1/10” thick polycarbonate platform
with a 3” x 3½” square cut out. The polycarbonate platform was used because it was inexpensive, required
minimal machining work, and was assumed to have similar friction characteristics as aluminum.
The first test performed on the tread was to simulate the tread being pulled from underneath the vacuum
platform by the wheels. The perforated tread was placed on a driving surface, on top of the tread was the
polycarbonate platform and on top of that was the suction cup. The suction cup was attached with a venturi
pump and then to a compressed air supply (100 psig), which generated suction through the holes in the tread.
The tread was held in place as the polycarbonate and suction cup were attempted to be pulled along the tread.
This simulated the driving action of the tread system, and helped with analyzing the sliding friction between the
custom vacuum platform and the perforated tread, see Figure 11.
Figure 11. Attempting to move the polycarbonate platform with a handle (Left), handle breaks off before
platform moves (Right).
As a result of this first test, it was shown that the vacuum platform had a very difficult time sliding against the
perforated tread. Due to the high normal force of the suction cup with vacuum adhesion, the polycarbonate
platform required a large lateral force before movement was achieved, if at all. The high friction characteristics
of the NBR also attributed to the difficulty in sliding, which could potentially be solved by using another
intermediate low friction material in between the tread and the custom platform. This test also revealed that
10
the friction between the tread and the driving surface was less than the friction between the custom platform
and the tread. A similar test was performed with the same suction load, but this time without holding the tread
stationary to the driving surface. When the polycarbonate platform was pulled, it maintained its position on the
tread, but the tread broke its static friction from the driving surface very easily. Because the entire test system
moved easily along the driving surface while still maintaining strong adhesion, it showed that utilization of the
NBR’s sliding performance could potentially be an alternate to the tread concept.
Another unanticipated consequence of these tests showed that the tread material elongated much more than
expected, even under relatively small loads. After seeing the results from the test that revealed the relative ease
of sliding the tread against the driving surface, another test was performed - this time the tread itself was
pulled. Surprisingly, the tread stretched a large amount before breaking the static friction force - somewhere
near 20% elongation, which is very high for this application, see Figure 12. Looking forward, this stretch would
result in drastically changing belt lengths, under varied loading. For example, when there is high tension in the
belt during turning, the material would stretch, and some tension force would be lost. Potential remedies for
this problem may involve a composite tread material or a dynamic belt tensioning device, which would add
complicated subsystems and expensive components.
Figure 12. Perforated tread stretches a large amount as it is pulled against the suction cup and polycarbonate.
Another effect that was noticed during testing was the relative ease of dislocating the vacuum platform from the
tread. If any torque, twisting or peeling force was placed on the perforated tread, the vacuum platform and
suction tended to lose suction easily, and dislodge from the tread and driving surface simultaneously. Because
the platform is a rigid plate and does not allow for flexion, a slight peel-off of the tread produces catastrophic
results. If one edge or side of the platform is lifted, it automatically loses its seal with the surface. This is because
11
the rigidity of the material instantly removes the entire platform from the surface, as air leakages rush in and
equalize the vacuum pressure created by the seal. There is no forgiveness in the rigid plate, as any small leakage
can result in the removal of the entire plate from the tread.
3.3 REDESIGN CONCEPTUALIZATION AND ANALYSIS

Due to the complications and issues involved with the perforated tread model as discussed in Section 3.2.2
Perforated Tread Testing, a decision was made to pursue a redesign of the project. The redesigned system,
called Otto, no longer utilizes a perforated tread drive system. Instead, Otto is based on a sliding suction cup
mechanism, as seen in the diagrams of Figure 13. Some of the benefits of pursuing this redesign include
improvements in the following areas: reduced number of components, unrestricted suction placement, and
improved skid steering performance.
Figure 13. FBD and MAD showing the design for Otto accelerating on a vertical surface.
3.3.1 CONCEPT REVISION B – SLIDING ADHESION SYSTEM

Redesigning the tread system to a sliding system means that there is no longer a need for a perforated belt
tread, a belt tread tensioner nor the enlarged drive pulleys used for driving the belt. This reduction in
components helps to remove approximately 20% of the system’s overall weight. It also simplifies the adhesion
and drive system, as there is no longer the need to design and develop a complicated subsystem that combined
both aspects into one. With the new design, the drive system and adhesion system are separate, making their
individual design more concrete and specific. The placement of the suction sources is also no longer constrained
to a specific location and there is no longer a restriction on how many suction sources can be used with the new
design.
12
The philosophy behind the design of Otto is to have its adhesion assembly slide along the driving surface while
still how maintaining a strong and reliable adhesion force. From there, the adhesion forces will cause reactive
normal forces to be applied about the suction cup assembly and most importantly, the drive wheels.
Adjustments of how the normal force is to be distributed between these two components are tuned to
maximize the traction forces on the wheels while minimizing the frictional forces associated with the sliding
suction assembly. The value of this adjustment is termed as the Normal Force Bias (NFB). In contrast to common
usages, such as in Figure 14, the suction assembly will not be directly responsible for keeping the system
adhered to its drive surfaces. Instead, the drive wheels and motors are the main components which operate to
maintain Otto’s position on any surface. For example, when the system needs to remain stationary on a vertical
surface, the motors will apply a constant torque output to the drive wheels, which prevents any rotational
movement by the wheels and keeps the system statically adhered - assuming that the wheels do not slip on the
driving surface. For these reasons, the normal forces and frictional forces associated with the drive wheels are
very critical, along with the torque outputs delivered by the motors and drive system.
Figure 14. An example of common suction cup usage.
Analysis of the overall system was performed with Engineering Equation Solver (EES), as shown in Appendix D.
The analysis primarily helped with determining the normal forces about the wheels and suction cups, an
appropriate gearbox ratio, and the safety factors associated with the system. Only one of the drive orientations
was analyzed with EES: straight vertical climb along a flat surface. This orientation was chosen because it is the
most strenuous for the motors and it relied most heavily on the normal and traction forces on the wheel. In
addition, the safety factors of the overall drive system are at its lowest in the vertical climb. The analysis starts
by having assumed values for the system’s total suction force and its normal force bias (NFB) constant. The
assumed frictional forces which are associated with the system are the kinetic friction between the suctions
cups and the driving surface (0.1) and the static friction between the wheels and the driving surface (0.95). From
13
there, the necessary traction forces associated with constant velocity and accelerated driving are determined -
max acceleration used in the analysis was 8 ft/s2 or approximately 1/4 g’s. Adjustments to the values of the total
suction force and the NFB are then made to minimize the "necessary traction forces" on the wheels (helps to
minimize the torque demands from the motor) and to maximize the "possible traction forces" on the wheels
(increases safety factor based on wheel slippage).
The second portion of the analysis involves determining the torque loads required by the motor, under available
gearbox ratios. This portion also validates the decision of using the FANUC AC servo motors provided by
Electroimpact. These AC motors have a normal operating torque of 0.5 N∙m, a max intermittent torque output of
2.5 N∙m and a top motor speed of 6000 rpm – see Appendix C for the FANUC FANUC βiS 0.5 motor datasheet.
The normal operating torque was analyzed for constant velocity drive and the intermittent torque was analyzed
for linear acceleration and skid steer maneuvers. Using these values, a gear reduction ratio of 20:1 was
determined by analysis as the optimal reduction value. This gear ratio allows for the system to have a constant
velocity drive of approximately 5.9 ft/s or 3.5 MPH (average human walking speed) along a vertical smooth
surface while carrying a 25 lb load, for a total system weight of about 55 lb. Acceleration with this gear reduction
ratio meets the requirement of a minimal acceleration value of 8 ft/s2 as well.
The two main safety factors concerned with the design are the slippage of the wheels and the slippage of the
motor. Assuming the NFB to be 0.75 (75% of the total suction forces is converted into reactive normal forces
seen in the wheels) and the total suction force to be 300 lb, the safety factor for wheel slippage is approximately
3.2. The safety factor of the motor is approximately 1.43 - this value is determined by comparing the “normal
motor torque output” with the “necessary drive torque” for constant velocity drive. Therefore, the bottleneck
components of the design in the vertical climb orientation are the AC motors and drivetrain. One solution for
increasing the safety factor for motor slippage is to increase the gear-reduction ratio of 20:1 to a larger
reduction ratio. This option was considered but was not chosen because it would have lowered the system’s top
speed to less than the desired value of 3.5 MPH. Also, a larger reduction ratio creates a risk in overheating the
motors because it would demand the motors to operate at speeds that are close to its max range of 6000 rpm.
In contrast, when the system is under acceleration, the safety factor of the motor is increased from 1.43 to 5.9,
which is a sufficient amount of a torque for our application.
The inverted driving orientation was not considered in the analysis because it is less critical than the vertical
driving orientation - due to its lower risk of failure. During a vertical climb, factors that can contribute to failure
include wheel slippage, insufficient motor torque and disengagement of the suction cups or wheels. In
comparison, the only factor which can cause a failure in the inverted orientation is if the suction cups fail. For
example, in the inverted orientation, if the wheels or motor slip, Otto will still stay adhered statically in its
position because of the suction cups’ adhesion forces - the same cannot be said about the vertical climb. In
14
addition, the torque necessary for constant velocity driving and acceleration in the inverted orientation is
significantly less than the vertical climb because the motors and drivetrain do not work against gravity.
3.3.2 SMALL SCALE PROTOTYPE TESTING

After initiation of the redesign phase, a miniature prototype was constructed in order to reinforce that the
concept of a sliding suction cup was a possible solution to this project. The prototype was created solely to
prove that the concept could work at a larger scale, and that some early troubleshooting problems could be
solved early on with this model. Also, similar forces and stress locations were analyzed on the prototype, though
at a smaller scale.
The small scale prototype chassis was constructed mainly out of Lego Technics because of their ease-of-use,
complex modularity, and scale factor. Some screws and hot glue were used as added fastening strength, as well
as some modified Lego Technic pieces. The Lego Technics and hot glue allowed for many variations to be tried
and tested, before finally settling on a design that worked, see Figure 15. Attached to the Lego Technic chassis
was one miniature DC motor, which was hot glued to the side, and connected to a single drive wheel via Lego
gears. The DC motor was supplied with 7.5 V and 0.8 A and provided the necessary torque and speed to drive
the prototype. Also attached to the chassis via four screws was one low-profile suction cup and venturi pump
provided by Electroimpact. This single suction cup was placed on top of a 1/16” thick rubber pad with a square
hole in the middle, which acted as the sliding material for the prototype, see Figure 17. The single low-profile
suction cup, when connected to the venturi pump and compressed air, provided more than enough suction
force to adhere the light-weight prototype to the testing surface. The design of the prototype featured one rear
drive wheel, in order to simplify the mechanism and limit the number of Lego parts and gears used. Initially, a
design with two rear drive wheels was built, but the stiffness of the plastic Lego gears were not as reliable under
load as was originally thought. By limiting the number of gears in the prototype, the drive train meshed tightly
and had more success driving smoothly.
Figure 15. Initial Lego prototype, with four wheels and complicated gear system – did not work.
15
There were many important discoveries that were learned just from building and running the Lego prototype
alone. First is that the sliding suction adhesion system was successful in driving up a wall and on an inverted
upside-down surface, as shown in Figure 16. Designing the prototype to be successful was an accomplishment in
itself - proving that the redesigned sliding suction system was a very feasible solution to the wall driving robot
project, as well as potentially scalable. Second, it was discovered that low-profile, shallow suction cups did not
work well with the wall driving robot. The shallow lip of the suction cup allowed for very limited adjustability
when attempting to relieve some of the normal force from the suction cup and transfer it to the wheels. When
fully compressed, the stoppers inside the suction cup would contact the driving surface, creating more friction
and making it more difficult to drive. Ideally, the suction cup should only be touching the sliding rubber pad with
the lip edge, and not be fully compressed so that the stoppers touch the driving surface. Here, the height of the
suction cup needed to be adjusted relative to the chassis so the wheels would prevent the suction cup stoppers
from reaching the driving surface. The travel of the lip, or the suction cup’s height adjustability when attached to
the surface was small and difficult to work with. When designing a larger scale model, a suction cup with a larger
lip was chosen because it offered more room for adjusting cup height.
Figure 16. Small scale Lego prototype successfully driving on vertical and inverted orientations.
Another key design consideration learned from the prototype was the importance of a rigid chassis. The plastic
Lego Technic parts were not very rigid under any sort of load, and the structural integrity of the body was
compromised once the suction cup adhered to the driving surface, bending the Lego pieces and not transferring
the normal force to the wheels as intended. Due to the lack of rigidity in the Lego pieces, the plastic gears would
often un-mesh themselves and grind endlessly. Though this problem was solved with new rigid materials for the
large scale prototype (aluminum extrusions), to fix this problem on the Lego prototype, many reinforcements
and hot glue were used to stabilize the chassis and limit the deformation under load. This was an important
factor to consider because the normal force from the suction cups was being transferred to the chassis frame
rather than the wheels, which made driving very difficult at first.
16
Continuing along the lines of transferring the normal force to the wheels, it was also important to note that the
Lego Technic wheels had to be modified to be able to withstand the increased normal force from the suction
cup. The wheels are made to be very deformable, and offer no resistance to any load placed on them. As a
solution, tape was wrapped around the inside hub of the wheel, in order to make the wheels the wheel thicker
and firmer. The firmer wheels did not deform under load, which was a key component that was included in
Otto’s design - firm yet high friction driving wheels.
The final important design consideration was the effectiveness of the 1/16” thick rubber sliding pad. The rubber
used was not a low-friction material, and offered unwanted resistance to the prototype when driving up a wall.
During the testing, the rubber pad was modified by adding dust to the contact surface of the rubber in order to
reduce sliding friction, see Figure 17. Also, the thickness allowed too much compression in the material, creating
problems with the fickle height adjustments that were already meticulous to begin with. A thinner and lower
friction material was implemented into the design of Otto, as building the Lego prototype helped identify this
key design factor.
Figure 17. Small scale prototype rubber pad modified with dust for low friction.
3.3.3 SLIDING MATERIAL TESTING

In order to determine the best option for the intermediate sliding material in between the suction cup and the
driving surface, research was conducted to identify potential materials. After the chosen materials were
ordered, tests were performed to analyze the sealing properties and coefficient of kinetic friction for each
material option.
Many different materials were researched for the series of tests, with the main characteristics of the material
needing to be: slightly deformable/malleable for pneumatic sealing, low friction for sliding, and relatively thin
17
for low profile geometry. Overall, there were nine material samples that were chosen to be tested: 1/16”
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), 1/16” Delrin, 1/16” Polyethylene (PE), 1/16” Polycarbonate, 1/16” Polyurethane, 1/64”
Polytetraflouroethylene (PTFE), 1/10” PVC cutting mat, ⅛” Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR), and a 1/16” Unknown
Rubber.
Figure 18. All sample materials cut to size and labeled for testing.
The coefficient of friction tests performed on each material was conducted using EI’s custom suction cup, a
venturi pump, compressed air, and a spring tension gauge. The spring tension gauge had a maximum reading of
15 lb and had a resolution of 1 lb, which gives an uncertainty of about ±0.5 lb. There were two steps to
determining the coefficient of friction of each material, the first was to measure the sealing properties of each
material by a normal pull-off force test, and then to measure the force required to laterally slide the material
while under suction. The first step was set up by cutting each material to a square with a square hole so that the
material only contacted the outer edge of EI’s square suction cup. Next, the material was placed between a
tabletop surface and the suction cup venturi assembly; a laminate tabletop was chosen to roughly represent the
laminate texture of an aircraft’s exterior surface. As the venturi assembly was supplied with 33 psig of
compressed air, the suction cup fully engaged onto the test material and a spring tension gauge was attached to
the top of the suction cup and pulled upward in the normal direction, as shown in Figure 19. With the measured
force slowly incrementing, the measurement on the tension gauge right before the suction cup failed was
recorded in lbs. For each material, three readings were taken, and averaged. Right away, this initial test
separated certain materials that had sealing problems from those that excelled, as there were large
discrepancies in adhesion strength, as seen in Table 2. As expected, some of the stiffer, more rigid materials
disengaged from the surface very easily, as leakages appeared often and resulted in weak sealing properties.
Some materials such as Delrin and PVC were ruled incapable right away, as they failed to seal the vacuum
18
pressure from the start. The most outstanding materials in this first test were ⅛” NBR, 1/16” Unknown Rubber,
PTFE, Polyurethane and Polycarbonate - they all recorded an average pull-off force larger than 10 lb.
Figure 19. Material test set up: pull-off force test and friction force test.
The second part of the material test consisted of a similar set up to the first step, with each material placed on a
tabletop surface and the suction assembly adhered on top. Instead of the tension gauge being attached to the
top of the suction cup, the gauge was attached parallel to the table, so that the force would pull the material
and suction cup laterally, measuring the static and kinetic friction force. For each material, the static friction
force was measured by slowing incrementing the force of the gauge against the stationary suction cup until the
moment right before the suction cup starts to move. Here the static friction force is keeping the suction cup
stationary until the lateral force becomes too large, and the static friction force is broken. Each material was
tested 3-4 times and the values were averaged. To measure the kinetic friction force, each material was pulled
with the tension gauge until the static friction was broken, and then continually pulled by hand with a constant
velocity. After the static friction is broken and the tension gauge “recoils” to the lower kinetic friction force
equilibrium state, the value of the constant force is taken and averaged with 3-4 other readings on the same
material. The coefficient of static and kinetic friction was determined by dividing the average respective friction
force by that material’s average normal pull-off force. The coefficient of friction equation outlines this effect:
µ , where is the µ coefficient of friction, F is the friction force and N is the normal force. As seen in Table 2,
the material that had the best performance was by far the PTFE sheet. It had one of the strongest adhesion
forces, while also being the easiest to slide due to its low coefficient of friction (approx. 0.1). Other materials
excelled in one aspect, but failed to excel in the other tests, such as NBR, which had the strongest sealing
19
capabilities but also maintained high, unwanted friction characteristics. Another important result to note is that
PTFE had static and kinetic coefficients of friction that were nearly identical, which is important for start-then-
stop movements.
Table 2. Material testing pull-off force and coefficient of friction results.
Material Pull-off force (lb) Sliding Force - Static (lb) Sliding Force - Kinetic (lb) CoF (static) CoF (kinetic)
11.25 6.5 6.75
11.25 7.5 5.5
NBR (1/8") 11.5 8 5.5 0.65 0.52
6.5
avg: 11.33 avg: 7.33 avg: 6.06
12 9 7.5
11.75 8.5 8
Unknown rubber (1/16") 11.75 8.5 9 0.75 0.69
9.5 9
avg: 11.83 avg: 8.88 avg: 8.38
10.75 2 1.25
11.25 1.5 1.25
PTFE (1/64") 0.15 0.10
11.5 1.5 1
avg: 11.17 avg: 1.67 avg: 1.17
Delrin (1/16") * 3 1.25 1 0.42 0.33
Polyethelene (1/16") * 2.5 1 1 0.40 0.40
10 3.75 3
Polycarbonate (1/16") 10 3.5 3 0.36 0.30
avg: 10.00 avg: 3.625 avg: 3.00
16.5 5.5 5
Polyurethane (1/16") * 16.5 Inconsistent 0.33 0.30
avg: 16.5
PVC (1/16") * 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1
Cutting mat (1/10") * 2 1 0.75 0.5 0.375
*Denotes that full testing was not conducted on these materials due to their inability to create an effective vacuum seal.
20
4 FINAL DESIGN
This section highlights the major components which make up Otto, the wall-driving platform. Details about the
engineering decisions and analysis which went into selecting these components will be addressed along with
their functions and operational limits. Otto weighs approximately 30 lb and its dimensions are approximately
23”L x 22”W x 6”H.
Figure 20. CAD model of the complete final design, Otto.
4.1 ADHESION VACUUM SYSTEM

4.1.1 VENTURI PUMPS
Otto utilizes a suction mechanism to adhere to the wall and maintain adhesion while traversing on a vertical or
inverted surface. Venturi pumps were chosen as the ideal vacuum generators because they are currently being
used by Electroimpact’s Flex Track rail system, and are easily assembled and fitted for this application.
Venturi pumps are aptly named, because they make use of the Venturi Effect, derived from the Bernoulli
Principle. When positively pressured air is forced through a constriction, as in a nozzle, its velocity must increase
to satisfy the principle of continuity. Furthermore, in accordance with conservation of energy, this increase in
kinetic energy must be balanced by a decrease in pressure, see Figure 21 for a visual representation. Thus, by
supplying a flow of positive-pressure flowing air, a negative pressure can be attained.
21
Figure 21. Visual representation of the internal mechanism of a venturi pump.
Venturi pumps allow for minimal footprint, and for some leeway in terms of failure. Working in unison, the
venturi pumps are the most feasible option when dealing with size, safety, and assembly. Additionally, since the
robot is tethered to a ground compressed air generator, carrying the weight of a vacuum generator is eliminated
with these small pumps, as all that is needed onboard the driving unit are a pneumatic connectors, lightweight
pneumatic tubing, and the venturi pumps, see Figure 22 of the actual venturi pump used. The high pressure air
will be appropriated onboard the robot, and distributed to the venturi pumps individually – atop each suction
cup. This plumbing organization allows each pump to work in parallel with each other, so if one of the suction
cups or pumps fail, it will not detrimentally affect the rest of the system, and the system will still be functional.
Figure 22. Close up view of the actual venturi pump used in the final assembly.
Based on the performance characteristics, form factors, and popularity in industry, the venturi pump chosen for
the Otto’s vacuum platform is the Piab Xi2.5-2 two-stage venturi cartridge. A total of twelve venturi pumps will
be integrated into the custom housing (one for each bellow suction cup) and supplied by the sponsor,
Electroimpact. This pump achieves deep vacuum levels with relatively low intake air consumption, in a package
that is lightweight and small. The maximum negative pressure obtained through testing is approximately -12.8
psig when a positive pressure of 100 psig is supplied to the venturi pump and the air consumption per unit is
approximately 0.03 SCFM. Also, considering that the cost of an individual intricate pump is relatively high, using
pumps supplied by the sponsor is a very feasible option in the overall scope of the project.
4.1.2 SUCTION CUPS

After realizing that the low-profile suction cup provided by Electroimpact was not an ideal candidate for sliding
purposes (refer to Section 3.3.2 Small Scale Prototype Testing), the design required some research upon
22
different suction cup sizes and geometries from other manufacturers. Prior to determining the type of suction
cup, the geometry of the driving surface must first be considered. Because it is necessary for the platform to
drive on the dynamically-convex shape of an aircraft fuselage, variation of the driving surface’s height must be
compensated in order to maintain a proper seal. Therefore, the suction cup characteristics required for this
design must include the capability of actuating generously (about .1 in to .25 in) in the normal direction of the
mounting surface and the capability of handling lateral loads caused by sliding friction. In addition, a very critical
requirement for the suction cup is that it must be capable of being loaded by a substantial pull-off force (in a
range that is equivalent to at most 60% to 80% of the total suction force) and still maintain a very reliable seal.
This is of utmost importance because this pull-off force governs the amount of normal forces the drive wheels
will experience.
Some examples of potential suction cup designs include suction cups with elongated skirts, ones with
mechanical springs, ones with swivels joints, and bellow suction cups. After considering all these possibilities and
analyzing their properties, the bellow suction cup design was chosen as the most appropriate suction cup, see
Figure 23 for an example. The accordion-styling of the bellow cups allow for both compression and extension, as
well as drive orientation changes. An initial concern was that the bellows may be distorted when loaded
laterally, but after further testing of different sliding materials (refer to Section 3.3.3 Material Testing), the range
of lateral forces seen by the bellows will only be within the range of 1 to 3 lb, which is not enough to cause any
irregularities upon the bellow shape.
Figure 23. Top and bottom views of a nitrile 1.5 bellow suction cups.
To verify these performance traits in the bellow cups, a series of visual tests were performed with a 2.07”
diameter 1.5 bellow suction cup, see Figure 24 for test setup. In the figure, a venturi pump is attached to the top
of the cup and is used to generate the vacuum pressure within the bellow. The paracord attached with a tension
gauge is used to apply a pull-off force onto the bellow cup. Since the tension gauge has a measuring limit of 15
lb, the bellow cup was tested at a suction force that is less than the actual forces seen on the final design. It can
be assumed that the characteristics seen at the lowered suction forces are proportionally similar to the ones
23
seen at higher suction forces. During the tests, the vacuum pressure was adjusted so that the bellow cup would
fail at a pull-off force of 8.25 lb. The bellow cup was then loaded with different pull-off forces between 0 and 8
lb (0% to 90% range of max suction force) and it proved to maintain a very reliable vacuum seal. The bellow cup
showed signs of slight actuation when loaded with different pull-off forces and it also verified the assumption
that the bellows can be actuated while keep a relatively constant internal vacuum pressure. In addition, sliding
of the bellow cup while it was loaded with the pull-off forces did not affect the vacuum’s seal nor did it lower
the max pull-off forces. These visual results verified that the bellow cup design meets all of the suction cup
requirements, as previously stated.
Figure 24. Test setup used for preliminary tests of the 2.07” bellow suction cup.
Because of the positive test results with the 2.07” suction cup, the final design consists of twelve 3.07” bellow
suction cups (model no. B1.5-78-NBR), which were purchased from Anver – a leading manufacturer of suction
cups. The larger diameter cups allow for a greater max adhesion force in combination with the low friction
material attached. Each suction cup will be operating at a max suction force of approximately 25 lb while the
venturi pumps are fed with an inlet positive pressure of 60 psig. By having a total of 12 bellow cups, the design
mitigates the chances for failure. The system (with a total weight of 55 lb) is still capable of staying adhered to a
vertical or an inverted surface if 7 of the suction cups fail due to vacuum leakages - although it will not be
capable of driving.
Lastly, it may appear that the system will be relatively easy to detach from its driving surface if it has a total
suction force of 300 lb with a derived normal force of 225 lb about the wheels (0.75 NFB). But if an additional
24
pull-off force of 75 lb is applied to the system, the system will not detach; instead, the normal forces which are
applied to the wheels will be lowered to 150 lb. Therefore, in order for the system to be completely detached, a
minimum pull-off force of 300 lb is needed. This is a result of the bellow suction cups having an actuation range
that extends past the bottom edge of the wheel, see Figure 25.
Figure 25. The bellow suction cups are capable of staying adhered to the surface without having the wheels
touch the surface.
4.1.3 NORMAL FORCE BIAS

By changing the relative height of the cups, the total suction forces generated by the cups can be “distributed”
rationally as normal forces to both the drive wheels and the suction cup boots (as previously mentioned in
Section 3.3.1 Conceptualization and Analysis). The assembly of the bellow suction cup in conjunction with the
venturi pump housing is shown in Figure 26. The threaded stud has a through hole along its center axis to allow
air flow between the suction cup and venturi pump. The stud is placed through the mounting plate and the two
nuts and washers are used to set the relative height of the bellow cup. The ideal height is determined from the
tests outlined in Section 6.1.1 Suction Cup Force Test and 6.1.2 Suction Cup Deflection Tests. This value is set to
5.60 mm in order to achieve an ideal NFB value of 0.75. This correlates to approximately a total of 225 lb of
normal force about the wheels and approximately 75 lb of normal force about the suction cups when the total
suction force is set to 300 lb. This NFB value of 0.75 is used for both the vertical and inverted drive orientations.
In addition to flat surfaces, this value should also be sufficient for driving on curved surfaces which have a large
radius of curvature. For a better performance for driving on curved surfaces, the cups may be adjusted to
achieve a non-flat profile about the bottom of all the suction cups, where the middle cups are set for a slightly
smaller height to accommodate the curved contours.
25
Figure 26. Suction Cup assembly mounted onto the frame.
4.1.4 LOW FRICTION SLIDING MATERIAL

Hard plastics are capable of forming a sufficient seal as long as the vacuum source provides a large enough
suction flow rate. This was discovered unintentionally, after initially using EI’s rectangular suction cups and a
polycarbonate medium between the cup and the drive surface. This discovery led to research into other similar
plastics, one of which being polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
In order to allow the suction cups to slide on the driving surface, a low-friction material must be applied to the
entire bottom of the suction cup. After testing different materials (Section 3.3.3 Material Testing), PTFE was
chosen as the best-suited material. Not only does it have a low coefficient of friction, its kinetic and static
coefficients of friction are similar. As stated previously in Section 3.3.3, the PTFE was tested to have a coefficient
of friction of 0.1 on smooth surfaces. This low coefficient eliminates any dynamic involved with starting and
stopping. Because it is not very rigid and slightly deformable, PTFE altered the suction cup’s sealing performance
by only 90% in terms of suction strength, refer to Section 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 for more details regarding the suction
cup’s performances. Sheets of 1/64” thick PTFE material were bonded with 3M’s (model no. 9474LE 300LSE)
double-sided adhesive sheets, and laser-cut into circular shapes, to match the footprint of the suction cups.
This proof-of-concept method of doctoring the suction cups sufficed, but, as noted in the Section 8 Conclusion
and Improvements, custom manufactured cups with embedded PTFE would be a more elegant and robust
solution.
26
Figure 27. Bellow suction cups modified with PTFE sheets, adhered with 3M industrial strength adhesive.
4.1.5 PNEUMATIC COMPONENTS

Along with having an umbilical cord attached to Otto for motor control and power, an air supply hose is used to
deliver compressed air from the wall outlet to Otto’s pneumatic assembly. This compressed air source is ideal
because it is treated as an infinite supply source, which can deliver high flow rates at any pressure up to 100
psig.
In selecting the pneumatic hose, it was important to consider a hose with a pressure rating that was compatible
with at least 100 psig (which is the max rating for the venturi pumps), have an 8 mm outside diameter, and have
the relative flexibility to fit the contours of Otto’s pneumatic plumbing design. Many short tubes were cut and
installed in between the venturi pumps, linking them in parallel, see Figure 28 for the pneumatic setup. The inlet
hose is 50 feet long, and connects the one end of the pneumatic line on Otto with the compressed air coming
from the building compressor.
Figure 28. Layout of pneumatic lines - all venturi pumps are attached for parallel performance.
27
4.2 DRIVETRAIN SYSTEM
4.2.1 DRIVE SHAFT & COUPLER
The drive shaft is responsible for transmitting torque and rotation from the motor source to the driving wheels.
Carbon steel drive shafts connect the motor and gearbox output to the wheels. For a secure hold in high torque
driving situations, these shafts are outfitted with an AISI keyway.
The drive shaft chosen is 6” long, and 0.5” in diameter with a 1/8” keyway. The drive shaft connects to the
gearhead’s output shaft via the coupler, and is held in place with two aluminum pillow block sleeve bearings. In
between the bearings is the wheel, the aluminum attachment hub, the sprocket and Delrin spacers. The drive
components are held in place with a 1/8” key that is slotted in between the slot in the drive shaft and the slot on
the wheel hub.
Stress analysis was performed on the drive shaft to make sure it could withstand the expected loads that were
calculated previously in EES. The most important analysis was to verify that there would be no deformation or
deflection on the shaft when heavily loaded. The stress simulation was performed with SimulationXpress on
Solidworks, using a normal force of 85 lbf, a friction force of 35 lbf, and a chain load of 72 lbf. Based on the
displacement and Von Mises Stress analyses, the maximum displacement that should be seen by the steel shaft
is 0.000243”, along with a minimum factor of safety of 5.491. Both the factor of safety and maximum
displacement values are more than acceptable for this application. Furthermore, the simulated loads and forces
used in the analysis are conservative to begin with. The real-life prototype shaft should only be experiencing a
normal force of about 57 lbf under normal operating conditions. Simulation results are shown in Appendix D.
A spider coupler mates the drive shaft to the gearhead output shaft. Due to the different sized diameters of the
two shafts, two different size C couplers (one with a 14mm bore and one with a ½” bore) are used.
4.2.2 WHEELS & HUB

Otto utilizes four wheels as its main contact with the driving surface. These wheels transmit the speed and
torque from the motors to the driving surface, allowing the Otto to move. The wheels also act as a counter-force
to the increased normal force from the suction cups. Mentioned previously, as the vacuum pressure in the
suction cups increase and the cups compress, the chassis will lower toward the driving surface. The wheels keep
the chassis at a stable position as the suction cups compress, absorbing the increased normal force, and
distributing it evenly to each wheel. The difficulty with selecting a wheel for this application resides within the
material selection rather than the size. Wheels come in standard sizes, and the 4-in diameter wheel was chosen
specifically to fit with the size constraints of Otto.
28
Because Otto utilizes high friction to maintain its position on the driving surface as well as rigidness to withstand
the increased normal force, the ideal wheel material for this application is one that has high friction, but is not
easily deformable. Wheel material selection was a difficult task because high friction materials are generally
rubber and non-stiff, while firm materials tend to have low friction characteristics. After researching and
analyzing many options, it was decided that Otto would use polycarbonate wheels outfitted with thermoplastic
polyurethane “HiGrip” tread. The thermoplastic tread on these wheels allows for high friction on the driving
surface and are rated to have a coefficient of friction of 1.2 on carpet due to its toothed/tracked outer tread.
Because the tread is made from polyurethane, they have relatively low deformation, remaining rigid as the
normal force on the wheels is increased by the suction cups. These light-weight (0.31 lb) wheels are sold and
distributed by AndyMark, and are shown in Figure 29.
Figure 29. AndyMark "HiGrip" thermoplastic polyurethane tread wheels.
4.2.3 CHAIN & SPROCKET

For Otto, it was decided that all-wheel drive would be the ideal driving condition - as all-wheel drive increases
driving efficiency while also limiting the chances of wheel slip, compared to a two-wheel drive system. All-wheel
drive is the most practical driving method because it utilizes all of the normal forces that are loaded onto each
wheel. In order to achieve all-wheel drive with only two motors, the wheels are connected with a chain and
sprocket. The motors and gearboxes are connected to two of the four wheels, and thus the sprocket and chain
effectively transmit the motor output to the parallel wheels, see Figure 30.
Figure 30. The 1:1 driving ration sprocket and #35 medium grade chain.
29
The four aluminum sprockets all have an outer diameter of 3.075” with 24 teeth, resulting in a 1:1 driving ratio
between the wheels. The size was chosen to be the maximum standard diameter that does not exceed the
diameter of the wheel. In other words, the chain, when tensioned properly, will not drag along the surface when
driving. A larger sprocket is ideal because it requires fewer loads on the chain when running as compared with a
smaller sprocket.
The chain connecting the sprockets is a #35 medium grade chain, which is commonly found in go-cart drive
systems. The sturdy chain ensures that it can handle all the driving loads and torques without any
inconsistencies or link failures.
A chain and sprocket subsystem was selected over a pulley-belt system because of its robust mechanical
characteristics, as well as its reliability in high torque scenarios. Pulley-belt systems perform better in high
speed, low torque applications, which is not suitable for this design.
4.2.4 BEARINGS
The drive shafts that carry the wheels are connected to Otto with 0.5” high load roller sleeve bearings. One
bearing is mounted onto each side of the shaft, so that the force on the driving wheels is evenly distributed to
the chassis. The bearings chosen are mounted via aluminum pillow block casings, and are equipped with two
base mounting points. Mounted on the underside of the chassis for assembly geometry and support, these
bearings are also self-aligning and adjustable along the aluminum extrusion chassis - and must be installed
perfectly parallel to each other in order to create a straight driving path.
Brief analysis using predicted bearing loads and speeds showed that the bearings chosen will work in this
application. In addition to the type of load and size of the bearing, the load value (P), velocity (V), and load at
velocity (PV) had to be calculated in order to choose the correct bearing on McMaster-Carr’s online catalogue.
Using 69 lb as the bearing load and the top speed of 5.9 ft/s converted to 338 shaft rpm, the P and V values
were determined, where P = Bearing Load / (Shaft Dia. x Bearing Lg.), and V = Shaft Velocity x 0.262 x Shaft Dia..
The pillow block sleeve bearings chosen carry a maximum P value of 2000, a maximum V value of 1200 and a
maximum PV value of 25000. The maximum values calculated for Otto’s operation well precedes McMaster-
carr’s rated maximum loads, with values of P = 220.8, V = 44.3 and PV = 9776 - providing a suitable bearing for
the shaft size and expected operation parameters.
4.3 MOTOR SYSTEM

4.3.1 MOTOR SELECTION
Two electric motors are utilized in Otto’s drive system, and are powered by the umbilical cord (eliminating the
need for a carry-on energy source, such as a battery). This also means that motor efficiency is not a critical factor
30
when choosing a motor. When performing a skid-steering turn, it is necessary that the two drive sets and their
respective motors operate independently of each other. The torque delivered to the driving wheels will need to
be large enough to overcome frictional forces between the suction assembly and the driving surface, as well as
the friction forces between the wheel and the driving surface during skid steers. To achieve the necessary high
output torques, a speed reduction assembly will be attached to the motors.
The selection of the motors was initially based on the analysis of different driving orientations and scenarios, as
mentioned in Section 3.3.1 Concept Revision B – Sliding Adhesion System. A variety of motors were considered
during the selection process, including: AC motors, DC motors, stepper motors, standalone motors and motors
with built-in gearheads. DC motors were chosen as the best motor option because of their power-to-cost ratio
and linear performance curves. In addition, the team has had prior experiences working with DC motors. After
analyzing the cost of purchasing DC motors, respective gearheads, power supplies and motor control units, the
total cost exceeded the initial budget for motor selection.
As an alternative motor option, Electroimpact was able to provide two of their FANUC AC servomotors for the
design, see Figure 31. The initial options for these motors were the βiS 0.3/5000 and the βiS 0.5/6000 - the βiS
0.5/6000 motor was chosen for its higher torque and speed outputs. The smaller βiS 0.3 motors would have
required a larger speed reduction ratio and would not have been able to meet the performance requirements of
driving at average human walking speed and carrying large loads simultaneously. The βiS 0.5 motors have a
continuous operational output torque of 0.5 N*m and an intermittent output torque of 2.25 N*m. The
continuous output is used for straight-line maneuvers whereas the intermittent output is used for short-term
maneuvers which demand a higher torque output such as acceleration and skid-steering. Refer to Appendix C
for performance datasheets of this motor.
Figure 31. FANUC βiS 0.5 AC servo motor.
An additional benefit of using the FANUC motors is that Electroimpact was able to provide a FANUC
programmable logic controller (PLC). The controller is a standalone unit which takes user inputs and controls the
31
drive of the FANUC motors accordingly. By using the motors and PLC’s provided by Electroimpact, the project
budget was held to a minimum of costs.
4.3.2 GEARBOX SELECTION

Based on the torque and speed output of the supplied FANUC βiS 0.5 AC servo motor, as well as the desired
speed and load of the robot, a gear ratio of 20:1 was necessary (for detailed analysis regarding the reduction
ratio, refer to Section 3.3.1 Concept Revision B – Sliding Adhesion System). Initial plans for achieving the desired
gear reduction included pulleys and belt drive systems, a custom gearbox or a standard gearbox with a custom
fitting. These options were considered primarily for their inexpensive costs, which was within the range of $200
to $300. See Figure 32 for a model of the custom gearbox.
Figure 32. CAD model of the initial custom gearbox design.
Eventually, a decision was made to move forward with an industrial gearhead. The final design is equipped with
two Thomson XTRUE planetary gearheads, one for each side of the drive sets. The model number for the
gearhead is XT060-020 and along with each gearhead is a RediMount system, model number RM060-16. The
RediMount system allows for a perfect fit between the FANUC motors and the gearheads. The cost of each
gearhead assembly is $485.00 per unit, which accommodated the project budget as well. These industrial
gearheads have rotational accuracies and torsional strengths that are well beyond any of the custom options
previously mentioned. The XTRUE gearheads have a peak torque output or 48 N*m which are rated for shock
and intermittent loadings. Since the AC motors have a max torque output close to 2.5 N*m, the gearboxes are
minutely within the rated operational range. Based on the total system load of 55 lb, the motor outputs are
never required to have an output that is near its max torque. Instead the motor will only need to output 0.45
N*m to accelerate the system at a rate of 8 ft/s2. Refer to Appendix C for the performance datasheet of the
Thomson gearhead. Therefore, the relatively low torque output of the motors during acceleration is suitable for
the use of the Thomson gearheads.
32
Figure 33. Thomson XTRUE Planetary Gearhead with a RediMount system attached (Left), with motor (right).
4.4 CHASSIS
4.4.1 ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS & FASTENERS
The structural frame of Otto is made from custom length T-slotted aluminum extrusions manufactured by 80/20
Inc. Many different geometries and materials were researched before selecting aluminum extrusions. These
include plastic molded members, steel bars and sheet metal – but these options did not meet Otto’s strength
and weight requirements for the chassis. Aluminum extrusions are used because they are easily modified,
strong, relatively lightweight, and cost effective. They allow for custom positioning of the robot’s sub-
components, while providing sturdy joints and connections. As the main structural support of Otto, the 80/20
aluminum extrusions are custom cut and sized accurately to match the conceptual design dimensions.
Using 80/20’s detailed equations in their online catalog, preliminary analysis for stress and deflection on the
aluminum extrusions were performed. These calculations verified that the extrusions could withstand the
expected loads without any deformation or damage. Also, calculations were performed in order to determine
which fasteners to use, so that the joints would not fail during operational loads.
The 1010 (1” x 1”) series is used because it is the smallest size offered, as well as the lightest. All of the
components mounted onto the chassis are small enough to fit while using the 1010 series without any
problems, which didn’t warrant a need for the larger, heavier, 1515 extrusion series. All of the fasteners and
carriage bolts were sized to fit with the 1010 series.
Adjustable 90° joint fasteners hold the aluminum extrusions together. They were chosen because of their
reliability and strength under high load and torque stress on the chassis joints. Basic analysis was performed on
each joint to make sure the rated loads on 80/20’s catalog exceeded the expected loads on Otto. Certain joints
on the chassis are reinforced with added fasteners and brackets, as these were installed as a precaution to the
joint locations expected to see the highest load, see Figure 34 for the chassis design.
33
Figure 34. Otto's bare chassis, made of T-slotted aluminum extrusions.
4.4.2 SUCTION CUP MOUNTING BRACKETS

Due to available design spacing and unique suction cup positions, it was determined that the mounting brackets
for the suction cups would be custom machined. Brackets that could have been purchased from an online
vendor were found to be either too expensive or not the correct size.
The brackets are used to mount the threaded stud of the suction cup assembly to the inner section of the
chassis. The brackets are fastened to the chassis with 80/20 “drop-in” fasteners, which easily slide into the T-slot
and under the bracket, bolting them together with a screw. There are two fastener holes per bracket, and one
⅜” hole for the threaded rod. The threaded rod is positioned with a combination of washers and nuts, allowing
for easy suction cup height adjustments.
The custom machined mounting brackets are cut from a 2 ft x 1 ft 6061 Aluminum Alloy plate. There are twelve
individually machined brackets, one for each suction cup.
Figure 35. Custom machined aluminum suction cup mounting brackets, 12 total.
34
4.4.3 MOTOR MOUNTING PLATE & BRACE
In order to hold the motor and gearhead in place for Otto, a custom machined mounting plate had to be
designed. The mounting plate is made from the same 6061 aluminum that the suction cup mounting brackets
are made from. The mounting plate is a custom piece, cut and drilled to fit exactly with the geometry of Otto
and the surrounding components with a tolerance of at most ± 0.010”. The mounting plate connects at the front
of the gearhead, as a large circular cut-out positions the gearhead and the four mounting screws attach it to the
plate.
The mounting plate measures 3.0 in. tall and 5.68 in. wide, fitting tightly between the inner and outer aluminum
extrusions, and below the chassis – in line with the wheels. There are three attaching points for the mounting
plate to ensure a secure connection to the chassis.
At the rear, a brace supports the motor by clamping onto the cantilevered motor system. In order to avoid over
constraining the motor and gearbox with this additional mount (which would make three mounting points in
total), the brace is padded with foam and is clamped with a conservative force. Instead of a mount, the brace
primarily acts as a vibration damper and keeps the cantilevered motor steady when driving. This damping brace
is made from custom cut 0.100” steel sheet metal, and bent into shape. Mounting holes have been drilled on
the ends to allow for a bolt and nut clamping system.
Figure 36. Custom machined aluminum motor mounting plates.
4.5 OPERATION REQUIREMENTS

To operate the equipment, the electronics panel (PLC) must be must have a power input of 208 to 220 VAC, 3-
phase power, as well as power to the computer terminal. Prior to powering on the electronics, however, the
motors need to be attached to their respective power lines and control wires. Once the PC is booted along with
the electronics panel, the two units then recognize each other and are ready for operation. The pneumatic
assembly is to be fed with a controlled air pressure input of 60 psig - for operation with a total load of 55 lb. The
35
air pressure is controlled by a regulator attached with a pressure gauge in series. Once the electronic and
pneumatic systems are turned on, Otto can be placed and adhered onto a smooth surface. At this point, Otto is
ready for operation and its motors may be controlled from the attached pendant for regular driving maneuvers.
Also, the air pressure can be adjusted in order to increase or decrease the max load carrying capacity (see
Section 6.1 Suction Cup Tests for examples).
Figure 37. The PLC and pendant used to control Otto, supplied by Electroimpact.
4.6 SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

In considering safety, it is important to classify the modes of failure associated with the design. Otto is a proof-
of-concept design which has scalable potential of carrying loads up to 200 lb or more, and detachment from its
driving surface is considered the worst-case scenario of all failures. Because this type of failure may cause harm
to the machinery or any personnel within the vicinity of the device, this failure mode must be avoided at all
costs.
The first step in avoiding catastrophic failure is to mitigate and to localize all suction failures. In the case that a
suction cup loses suction, the overall capacity of the robot decreases by the amount of suction force the cup
had. Therefore, many cups with smaller suction capacities can better compartmentalize losses than a singular
cell that carries the entire load. Furthermore, should one pump or cup be compromised, the system should not
fail either, so redundancies were added to reduce the risks of detachment failure. This results in a design “safety
factor” that provides the platform with more suction than is needed for just adhesion, though all working
suction cups are required for driving operations. As mentioned in Section 4.1.2 Suction Cups, when the system is
at a total weight of 55 lb, the system can stay adhered to the drive surface if up to 7 of the suction cups manage
to fail.
In addition, the robotic platform was designed to stop driving before it detaches from the surface in the
occurrence of multiple suction cup failures. This creates a premature, but less dangerous failure mode in
36
comparison to the worst-case failure of detachment. An example of this specific failure is if a load that is larger
than the rated capacity is placed upon Otto during its inverted driving operations. Refer to Section 4.1.2 Suction
Cups and Section 6.2.2 Inverted Driving for details of this failure mode.
5 MANUFACTURING
This section outlines the manufacturing and assembly process that was used to create Otto. It outlines the
critical measurements and adjustments that were made in order to create a functioning drive unit.
Figure 38. Part of the manufacturing process for Otto.
5.1 SUCTION CUP ASSEMBLY

In order to mount the rubber suction cups to the rigid body, mounting hardware from Anver was used. A
threaded stud and a coupler piece are fitted to the top of the bellow suction cups, which exposed a BSPP (British
Standard Pipe Parallel) pipe thread on the other end for mounting. The external threads on the stud allowed for
securing of the assembly onto the mounting brackets, which extended from the T-slotted framing. Finally, the
assembly was finished with a BSPP to push-to-connect coupler used for adapting the 6 mm inlet of the venturi
pump housing. At every interface between pneumatic tubing and/or venturi pumps, push-to-connect fittings
were used. This type of coupler is ideal because it allows for very easy assembly and disassembly of the
pneumatic lines, see Figure 39.
37
Figure 39. Close-up view of the T-shaped push connectors used in the suction cup assembly (Left), completed
single suction cup sub-assembly (Right).
The overall layout of the suction cup assemblies was chosen primarily for its symmetry. This symmetry allows for
a relatively even distribution of loads about the cups and the drive wheels. Also, by having the suction cups
placed on the inner locations of the chassis, their components are protected by the aluminum framing if Otto
was to detach and collide with the ground.
5.2 CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION

Otto’s frame is comprised entirely of T-slotted aluminum extrusions, attached with fasteners made specifically
for this type of framing. Each segment was cut to length using a mill, to ensure accuracy and consistency.
Variations in length could potentially cause uneven loading about the wheels, which could ultimately cause
slippage failure, or, at the very least, stability issues. During the assembly of the aluminum segments, there were
no fixed mounting datums in most cases, so the positions of the framing were measured then securely mounted
in the appropriate position with multiple joint fasteners. In addition to the aluminum framing, the joint locations
deemed with the highest stress were reinforced with custom brackets secured on the top side with carriage
bolts. See Figure 40 for pictures of the frame during assembly.
Figure 40. Aluminum extrusion assembly and reinforcement bracket attachment.
38
5.3 DRIVETRAIN COMPONENTS
The motor was attached to the frame by two brackets - one attached to the gearbox’s mounting holes, and the
other cradling the rear portion of the motor. The former is the major load-bearing attachment point, and was
milled from an aluminum plate; while the latter was created from bent sheet metal, and supplemented with
foam padding to provide additional support and dampen any vibrations from an otherwise cantilevered
servomotor. See Figure 41 for images of these two mounting components.
Figure 41. Aluminum plate attached to gearhead as primary drivetrain support (Left) and steel sheet metal
bracket mounted as secondary support (Right).
A shaft, which extends from the motor-gearbox assembly via Thomson’s RediMount system, mates with the
output shaft through the use of a spider coupler. Both of these shafts are securely held to the coupler using a
keyway and a setscrew. The spider couple servers as the interface between the motor unit and the drivetrain.
The output shaft end of the spider coupler is the keyed steel drive shaft which connects to the wheel-sprocket
sub-assembly. This wheel-sprocket sub-assembly was built and assembled four times, once for each wheel. Each
sub-assembly was pieced together onto the custom cut drive shaft before connecting it the coupler and
fastening it to the chassis, see Figure 42. The wheel was fitted onto the drive shaft via two keyed hubs that were
mated end to end with each other. One of the wheel hubs had to be slightly machined, so that when mated, the
wheel would fit perfectly. The hubs ordered from AndyMark are only designed to fit one per wheel, but for this
project, the use of two hubs was deemed a more conservative option. Once the hubs and wheel were fastened
together onto the drive shaft, the sprocket, Delrin bushings and lock collar were placed onto the shaft. The
sprocket was positioned to face the outer edge of the chassis, so that the chain would not interfere with the
pneumatic tubing and suction cups positioned on the inner sections of the chassis. The Delrin bushings were cut
to a custom size so that the spacing in between the bearings would be exactly the same for all shafts and fit
perfectly with the spacing allowed by the chassis.
39
Figure 42. Wheel, hubs, bearings, sprocket, bushings and lock collar sub-assembly.
Because the bearings are sleeve bearings, no press fitting procedures were needed. Instead, shaft collars and
spacers were mounted near the middle of the shaft to hold the position of the wheel and the bearings. To finish
off the assembly process, the bearings were fastened to the chassis and spaced evenly from the end of the
extrusion. At the same time, the drive shaft was carefully aligned with the spider coupler and connected, using
set screws. Because there are only two motors, only the two drive shafts on opposite ends needed to be
connected to spider couplers. The motors were placed on opposite ends to create symmetry and balance the
weight of the system evenly.
Figure 43. Mounted wheel sub-assembly, connected to gearhead with spider coupler (Left), underside of Otto –
showing the layout of the suction cup sub-assemblies (Right).
6 DESIGN VERIFICATION TESTING

This section describes the detailed tests that were conducted on the design and on some specific components.
Each test is outlined below, along with their results, which can be found in the following figures or in the
Appendix at the end of the report. These tests verify a complete working prototype and that the requirements
outlined at the beginning of the project have been met or exceeded.
40
6.1 SUCTION CUP TESTS
6.1.1 SURFACE TEST
The goal of the surface test was to determine which surfaces the modified suction cups can adhere to
effectively. Without the PTFE modification, the regular bellow suction cups are capable of adhering onto uneven
contours and surfaces with relatively rough finishes, such as drywall. With the addition of the PTFE sheet, the
bellow suction cup’s abilities of conforming onto rough surfaces are reduced and are thus limited to fewer
surface types.
Since Electroimpact will be using Otto primarily for driving on the outer surfaces of aircraft fuselages, the PTFE
modified suction cups need to be capable of adhering onto surfaces with a similar finish and smoothness. The
surface that was used for the majority of the tests was a laminated tabletop. The surface of the tabletop has a
laminated finish which somewhat represented the slick gloss coating of an aircraft fuselage though it has slightly
more grit. Since the tabletop surface was used in both the Force and Deflection tests (Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2)
and proved to be an excellent mating surface for the suction cups, it can be justified that the modified cups will
be just as effective, if not more, when used on an actual aircraft fuselage surface. Therefore, for the driving tests
performed in Section 6.2, a large tabletop surface was also utilized.
6.1.2 SUCTION CUP FORCE TEST

Because the 1.5 bellow suction cups are modified with the addition of the PTFE sheets, their adhesion
performances have been altered. Therefore, the supplier’s rated performance datasheets for these cups can no
longer be used and testing was necessary to determine the modified cups’ performances. These results are
especially critical for setting the system’s NFB value and determining the minimum necessary inlet air supply
pressure.
The focus of this test is to load the suction cups while setting the venturi pumps at various inlet pressures and
then to determine when the cups fail, i.e., the max adhesion force. The test setup, shown in Figure 44, consisted
of the test stand, a sample of the driving surface (5” x 5” cut-out of a laminate tabletop) attached with a weight-
carrying tray, an assortment of various weights, a pressure regulator, a 100 psig gauge, and a PTFE modified
3.07” 1.5 bellow suction cup attached with a venturi pump. The suction cup was securely mounted into a center
hole located on the test stand. A venturi vacuum pump was attached to the top of the suction cup and supplied
with compressed air from a wall outlet. Between the vacuum pump and the wall outlet were the pressure
regulator and pressure gauge. Once the vacuum pump was pressurized, the surface sample adhered to the
bottom of the suction cup.
41
Figure 44. Test stand used for bellow cup tests - vacuum gauge (left) and pressure gauge (right).
The test begins by loading the carry tray with an assortment of weights until the cups detaches. After running
several sample tests, it was very noticeable that the suction cup behaved as a first-order response system - a
time delay is apparent before the suction cup reaches a steady-state vacuum pressure within its bellows. This
response was significantly noticeable in the following two scenarios: “initial suction cup adhesion to the surface
sample” and “loading of weights onto the carry tray.” During the initial cup adhesion scenario, the time delay is
related to the flow rate of the vacuum pump and the micro leaks between the PTFE sheet and the surface
sample. The micro leaks prevent the cups from reaching its internal vacuum pressures instantly. During the
loading of weights scenario, the act of loading weights onto the tray causes a slight acceleration of the tray and
allows the micro leaks between the surface sample and the PTFE sheet to increase in flow rate for a short period
of time. Once the suction cups reach a steady state vacuum pressure, the micro leaks are no longer apparent or
significant and the cups behave normally.
42
Figure 45. Weights are added to the carry tray in order test bellow suction cup performances.
To prevent the time delays of the suction cups from affecting the test results, a waiting period was used during
the initial adhesion of the cups and the loading of the weights. For the initial adhesion setup, 20 seconds of wait-
time was given before any weights were to be loaded onto the carry tray. Also, a wait-time of 10 seconds was
given after every incremental loading of the weights onto the carry tray. These wait-times allowed the suction
cup to reach a steady-state after every transition of the test.
The results of the test show that the cup’s detachment load is linear with respect to the inlet pressures supplied
to the venturi pumps. The range of pressures tested was from 20 psig to 100 psig. This is true since it reflects the
linear relationship of the equation Force = Pressure x Area, where the area of the cup is constant. Also, the result
shows that the suction cup is stable through the range of inlet pressures, even though they are modified with
the PTFE sheet. See Appendix A for test results.
6.1.3 SUCTION CUP DISPLACEMENT TEST

There were two distinct methods which could have been used for setting the normal force bias of the suction
cups.
The first method involves setting up a fixture which measures the distribution of normal forces across the wheel.
This method requires the placement of load cells or weight scales under the wheels. A foreseen complication
with this method is that load cells generally have an operational range of a few hundred pounds to several
thousand pounds. Since the magnitude of the loads which are applied to Otto’s wheels should be within the
43
range of 80 to 100 lb per wheel, these load cells are not suitable for measuring the wheel loads. In addition, the
use of weight scales would cause deflection issues. Since weight scales generally use a deflection mechanism to
measure its loads, it would be very difficult to measure the wheel loads while keeping the surfaces of the
suctions cups and the wheels aligned along the same plane. This is critical because a slight difference in the
surfaces’ alignment would skew the ratio of normal forces (NFB) between the wheels and the suction cups.
The second method involves parameterizing the suction cup’s performance in relation to its bellow stretch or
displacement. The test setup for this method is very similar to the setup and fixture used in Section 6.1.2 Suction
Cup Force Test. Essentially, this test involves placing incremental weights on the carry tray and then measuring
the displacement of the cup’s bellow. This test was performed for three different inlet pressures: 50, 60 and 70
psig. The test results can be viewed in Appendix A.
The displacement measurements were taken between the underside of the test stand and the top of the surface
sample. Note that for the test setup, a lock washer and a nut were placed between the suction cup and the test
stand - the displacements of these two objects need to be accounted for when using the test data to set the NFB
value. In the final setup of Otto, the lock washer, which had an approximate thickness of 0.05 cm was removed
from the assembly of the final design. Therefore, the values of the suction cup displacements should be
interpreted as 0.05 cm less than the actual value when viewing the test results.
Based on the test results, the cups generally have a stretch performance that is linear in relation to the
incremental weights are placed upon it. This linear performance is consistent until the weighted load reaches
approximately 90% of the cups max holding load. At the last 10% of the total weight, the bellow cups tend to
have an exponential stretch and are very susceptible to detachment failure. See Figure 46 to view the difference
between normal operational stretch exponential stretch of the cup.
Figure 46. Bellow cup under linear displacement (Left), bellow cup under exponential displacement (Right).
The graphical plots of the final test results are used as a tool for the setting the NFB value of the system, see
Appendix A. The y-axis on the right side (shown as the red plot) represents the percentage of the load that is
44
applied to the suction cup in relation to the maximum suction cup load, this value is also interpreted as the NFB
value. The y-axis on the left side (shown as the blue plot) represents the displacement of the suction cup in
relation to the test stand. Lastly, the x-axis represents the incremental weights that are placed onto the carry
tray.
After reviewing the results of the tests for the three different inlet pressures, 60 psig was rated as the optimal
inlet pressure to be fed to the venturi pumps. This pressure supplied the best balance between having a
sufficient safety factor for both wheel and motor slippage: 2.84 and 1.43, respectively. In addition, Otto needs to
have an NFB value within the range of 0.70 to 0.80; in other words, the suction cups are to be loaded within the
range of 70% to 80% of their maximum suction load. From the plots, it can be determined that the cup needs to
be have a displacement of 5.65 cm in order to achieve a 0.75 NFB value. Because the lock washer (0.05 cm) is no
longer used in the final assembly, that displacement value is to be interpreted as 5.60 cm. Also, the distance
between the bottom of the suction cup mounting plate and the bottom edge of the drive wheels is 5.80 cm.
Therefore, a 0.20 cm washer is placed between the nut of the suction cup assembly and the mounting plate to
achieve a final cup displacement of 5.60 cm. See Figure 47 for a layout of the bellow cup adjustments.
Figure 47. CAD model of suction cup assembly and mounting bracket.
6.2 DRIVING TESTS

As stated earlier, the two most important scenarios for this wall-driving platform are the vertical and inverted
drive. The test results associated with these driving orientations will be discussed below. The testing surface was
a 2” thick repurposed wood tabletop, with a smooth-finish laminate. In all of the tests, a rope or stainless steel
45
braided wire was attached to the robot, in case of an unexpected failure. Once Otto was attached to the driving
surface, standard barbell weights were attached with paracord for payload testing.
6.2.1 VERTICAL DRIVING

The vertical climb was theoretically determined to be the most strenuous case. Motor torque, and subsequent
body stresses are at their highest because the motors must drive the entire weight of the system against gravity.
For these reasons, this scenario is the case that limits the overall weight capacity of the robot, and is used to
define the system.
Testing at normal operating pressure (60 psig) resulted in successful vertical driving at any speed up to the
desired speed of 5.9 ft/s or 3.5 mph. At this input pressure, vertical driving was also successful with a 25 lb
additional payload. Otto was able to accelerate upward, accelerate downward, turn 360 degrees with and
without the payload attached. It should be noted that during a skid-steer maneuver, there is a slight drop in
height of the robot, due to the static friction force on the wheels being converted to kinetic friction as it slips
and turns. Once the skid-steer is completed however, the wheels quickly re-engage with static friction to
maintain its position on the driving surface.
In order to test the maximum payload capacity of Otto, the normal operating pressure was increased to the
maximum in-house pressure available, approximately 100 psig. This increased operating pressure resulted in the
platform being able to successfully carry 70 lb of additional payload up the wall, Figure 48. It was also able to
turn (although with slight slippage), as well as successfully drive downward. Including the body weight of Otto,
this resulted in a total weight of about 100 lb. It should be noted, however, that the torque output of the motors
to accomplish this exceeded the “continuous operation” specifications, and extended operation in this region is
not recommended.
Figure 48. Otto proving its capabilities by carrying a load of 70 lb, for a total weight of 100 lb.
46
6.2.2 INVERTED DRIVING
The same test surface that was used in the vertical test, was re-oriented to mimic a ceiling for inverted testing.
Load testing, in this orientation, resulted in an expected higher load capacity, without experiencing any type of
failure.
At the normal operating pressure of 60 psig, Otto was able to successfully drive on an inverted surface; turning,
accelerating, and maintaining its position at any location while carrying a payload of 25 lb. When the operating
pressure was increased to the maximum 100 psig, Otto was able to perform normal operating functions with an
additional 70 lb payload attached via paracord, see Figure 49. There were no noticeable declines in performance
while driving with the 70 lb payload. Because inverted driving was theoretically less critical than vertical driving,
extra testing was conducted while carrying a human payload (160 lb), at 100 psig. While carrying a human,
maximum driving speed could not be achieved, as the wheels would tend to slip and dis-engage from the driving
surface at high velocities. In the inverted orientation, the large payload acted as an opposing normal force,
relieving the normal force between the wheels and the driving surface. This meant that the force required to
break the static friction force on the wheels was also lowered, and therefore Otto was more susceptible to
slippage during this specific test. Thus, the maximum achievable speed while carrying a large, 160 lb payload was
approximately 2 ft/s. Successfully carrying a human while driving was an impressive feat, something not
demonstrated by any other similar wall-driving robots. This maximum payload testing verifies that the vertical
driving scenario is the more critical driving orientation, as the inverted driving orientation was more successful
with more than twice the amount of additional payloads attached.
Figure 49. Otto performing all the driving maneuvers with a payload: 70 lb payload (Left), and a human payload
of 160 lb (Right).
47
6.2.3 SYSTEM TROUBLESHOOTING
During operational testing, a few system issues interfered with the performance of Otto. It was beneficial to
note these issues so that further testing could be done and future problems could be avoided.
After testing Otto for approximately 3-4 hours of continuous operation, it was noticed that suction power was
low on a few suction cups and very low on a few others. When attempting to drive at normal operating pressure
(60 psig) on a vertical surface, the wheels would slip very easily on the sides with low suction, yet the platform
would maintain its position. After inspecting the seals and the suction cups for wear or leakages, and rotating
the suction cups to different positions, the Piab venturi pumps were instead found to be the cause of the issues.
Removing the venturi pumps and disassembling them revealed that dust particles had become prevalent within
the pump filters, restricting airflow and reducing the output suction power, see Figure 50. Because the venturi
pumps produce a very minimal amount of suction airflow, the dust was determined to be due to the residues
found in the compressed air supply, and not from the external environment. It was unknown if the in-house
compressed air supply used for operation was continuously filtered for dust, so this was a plausible cause for
having clogged venturi pumps. Once the venturi pumps were thoroughly cleaned, re-assembled, and re-
installed, they performed as expected and suction power to each suction cup was restored. This system failure
demonstrates that even if some of the suction cups leak or lose suction, the system will still maintain its
position, though it may not be able to move. The multiple suction cups and venturi pumps installed in parallel
make sure that total failure does not happen as a result of a few small individual failures.
Figure 50. Venturi pumps, removed from their housing, are covered with residue from the air supply lines.
During one vertical drive test, the safety rope became intertwined with the air supply while attempting a 360
degree maneuver, in such a way that it choked the input flow of air to the venturi pumps. Consequentially, this
caused complete failure and detachment of the robot from the driving surface. Fortunately, the safety rope
which caused the event to happen prevented Otto from hitting the ground. This was the only complete failure
48
experienced during testing, and the safety rope used in future tests was changed to be safer and less obstructive
to the robot during operation.
Lastly, since Otto’s adhesion relies on a sliding mechanism and its turning method is of a skid steering maneuver,
it is expected that a certain amount of surface wear will be apparent on the PTFE and wheel materials. Although
there were no controlled tests for these wear performances, a visual inspection of the components showed that
a fair amount of wear occurred on the wheels during skid steer maneuvers and a very light amount of wear on
the PTFE. The wheels tend to leave traces of white residue onto the drive surface after a series of successive skid
steer maneuvers, whereas the PTFE did not show signs of significant wear on its surfaces.
7 COST ANALYSIS
This section gives a detailed description of the costs associated with this project, and a cost breakdown of each
subgroup. The amount of money spent was thoroughly considered before each purchase to make sure that the
parts ordered were correct and essential to the completion of the project.
Table 3 shows a complete bill of materials, broken down into subsections labeled Suction Cup Assembly,
Drivetrain, Motor and Gearhead, and Chassis. The most expensive sub-system is the Motor and Gearhead,
mostly in part due to the two Thomson XTRUE gearheads at $485.00 each. If Electroimpact had not provided the
Piab venturi pumps, FANUC β iS 0.5 motors and the motor controller, the project budget of $2500 would have
been well surpassed. As seen at the bottom of Table 3, the total cost of purchased hardware for Otto was
$1944.73, which was under budget.
49
Table 3. Bill of Materials.
No. Parts Part Description ID # Vendor Price Per Item QTY Cost
Suction Cup Assembly
1 Bellow Suction Cup 3.07" 1.5 Bellow Cup B1.5-78-NBR Anver $13.89 12 $166.68
2 Fitting G 1/8" Male HS18G Anver $5.48 12 $65.76
3 Fitting G 1/8" Female to Female HS18-18F-G Anver $4.25 12 $51.00
4 Mount Rod M5 Female to G 1/8" Male, Mount Rod SLSA-1, 2.00 in. VX18M5-200-51 Anver $4.50 12 $54.00
5 Press-fit Adapter 6mm Tube OD x G 1/8" Female 5225K604 McMaster $5.28 12 $63.36
7 Cup Mounting Plate 6061 Alloy Aluminum 2'x 1' --- --- $0.00 1 $0.00
8 Double Fastener Double End-Feed Fasteners, Cup Mount Plate 4/pack 47065T147 McMaster $4.29 3 $12.87
9 Adhesive 3M industrial adhesive sheet 12"x12" 9474LE 300LSE Amazon $13.95 3 $41.85
10 Low Friction Material PTFE 12"x12" --- Amazon $10.93 3 $32.79
11 Pneumatic Hose 8 mm clear hoses --- Electroimpact $0.00 2 $0.00
12 Hose Connectors T shaped push connectors --- Electroimpact $0.00 12 $0.00
13 Venturi Pumps Piab venturi pumps --- Electroimpact $0.00 12 $0.00
Subgroup Total: $488.31
DriveTrain
14 Shaft Collar Black-Oxide 1/2" Shaft Collar 6435K14 McMaster $1.97 8 $15.76
15 Drive Shafts 1/2" Keyed Shafts, 24" Long 1497K31 McMaster $29.37 1 $29.37
16 Key 1/8" x 1/8" x 12" steel key 98535A130 McMaster $2.07 1 $2.07
17 Wheel Screws 10-24 x 3/4" thread-forming screw, 50/pack 98273A260 McMaster $7.08 1 $7.08
18 Locking Fastener Nut Thin Nylon-Insert Hex Locknut, 100/pack, 1/4"-20 90566A029 McMaster $3.65 1 $3.65
19 Wheel Bushing Mat'l White Delrin rod 1ft. 8572K22 McMaster $6.32 1 $6.32
20 Bearing Aluminum-Mounted Bronze Bearing (SAE 840 Bronze) 5912K4 McMaster $11.11 8 $88.88
21 Bearing Fastener Round Head Square Neck Bolts, 1/4"-20 --- --- $0.00 8 $0.00
22 Wheel 4" diameter HiGrip wheel am-2256 AndyMark $6.00 4 $24.00
23 Wheel hub 500 Key Hub, 6061 Aluminum am-0077 AndyMark $10.00 8 $80.00
24 Sprocket Aluminum Sprocket, #35, 24 Teeth, 3.075 OD am-0119 AndyMark $5.50 4 $22.00
25 Chain #35 Chain, 10 feet long am-0367 AndyMark $10.00 1 $10.00
26 Coupler Hub A Coupler Hub #1, 1/2", Drive Shaft, size C 6408K12 McMaster $5.61 2 $11.22
27 Coupler Hub B Coupler Hub #2, 14 mm , Gearhead, size C 6413K12 McMaster $5.61 2 $11.22
28 Coupler Spider Coupling Spider, size C, Hytrel 6408K93 McMaster $11.12 2 $22.24
Motor and Gearhead
Thomson Industries - Xtrue Gearhead (20:1) and XT060-030-0
Gearhead and coupler Thomson Industries $485.00 2 $970.00
29 Redimount Motor Mount Coupling System RM060-16
30 Motor Mounting Plate 6061 Alloy Aluminum, 6" X 3" Plate --- --- $0.00 1 $0.00
31 Motor Mount Bracket 1 Large Angle Brackets --- --- $0.35 4 $1.40
32 Motor Mount Bracket 2 Small Angle Brackets --- --- $0.15 8 $1.20
33 Motor Rear Mount Steel sheet metal --- --- $0.00 2 $0.00
34 Carriage bolts Square neck bolts 1/4" - 20 thread, 1/2" long --- Ace Hardware $0.20 24 $4.80
35 Hex bolts Cap screw, 1/4" - 20 thread, 3/4" long --- Ace Hardware $0.20 4 $0.80
36 Hex bolts Cap screw, 1/4" - 20 thread, 1" long --- Ace Hardware $0.25 4 $1.00
37 Drive Motors FANUC Beta iS 0.5/6000 Motor - Electroimpact $0.00 2 $0.00
38 Motor Controller Motor Controller - Electroimpact $0.00 1 $0.00
Chassis
39 Framing 1" x 1" T-Slot Stock Frame, 2 ft. 47065T101 McMaster $8.35 7 $58.45
40 T-style connector plates Aluminum mounting plates --- --- $0.00 4 $0.00
41 Carriage bolts Square neck bolts 1/4" - 20 thread, 3/4" long --- Ace Hardware $0.20 12 $2.40
42 Washer M7 ID steel washer --- Ace Hardware $0.10 12 $1.20
43 Joint Fastener Adjustable 90 fastener 47065T153 McMaster $3.39 24 $81.36
Total Cost $1,994.73
50
8 IMPROVEMENTS & CONCLUSION
Because this prototype was a proof-of-concept, using T-slotted aluminum framing was very beneficial because it
was easy to work with and modular. In the future, however, navigating away from this would be beneficial to
weight savings, and potentially structural integrity. A more realized vision may have a simpler frame with
specific mounting points instead of a modular frame.
Another improvement could be made to the PTFE modified suction cups. In one instance, the PTFE material
separated from the rubber suction cup, when it slid over a surface irregularity. It may be more appropriate to
mold the suction cups with the PTFE portion embedded onto the rubber bellows. This would create a continuous
part, and eliminate the problem of material separation.
Off-the shelf thermoplastic polyurethane wheels, with deep cogs were used because of its stiffness and high
friction characteristics. The tread in this iteration of the wheel was optimized for motion on non-smooth surface,
like carpet. Overall, this style of wheel worked very well, but using a full surfaced wheel would allow for less
slippage and less wheel wear, and potentially higher carrying capacity.
Finally, it should be important to note that Otto is a scaled down proof-of-concept wall driving unit. In the
future, when this is scaled up, the forces will be as well, and appropriate roller bearing, and similar components
should be used in lieu of the ones selected for this relatively mild and inexpensive case. Future iterations or
scaled up versions should be able to support tools, machinery, or any attachments which can utilize the full
range of Otto’s capabilities.
51
9 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: TEST RESULTS

SUCTION CUP FORCE TEST
Figure 51. Maximum cup holding force vs. supplied inlet positive pressure.
Figure 52. Negative pressure generated by suction cup assembly vs. inlet positive pressure.
52
SUCTION CUP DISPLACEMENT TEST
Table 4. Data collected from bellow suction cup displacement test at 50 psig.
% of Total Edge Location Displacement (cm) Average

Weight (g)
Weight A B C D Displacement (cm)
3765 43 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40
5765 66 5.50 5.60 5.50 5.50 5.53
6465 74 5.55 5.65 5.60 5.55 5.59
7246 82 5.65 5.75 5.65 5.65 5.68
8046 91 5.70 5.80 5.80 5.70 5.75
8500 97 6.15 6.00 5.95 6.05 6.04
8795 100 6.40 6.30 6.30 6.35 6.34
Total: 19.4 (lb)
Figure 53. Bellow suction cup displacement test at 50 psig.
53
% of Total Edge Location Displacement (cm) Average

Weight (g)
Weight A B C D Displacement (cm)
3765 35 5.30 5.30 5.30 5.35 5.31
6715 63 5.50 5.60 5.60 5.50 5.55
7010 66 5.50 5.60 5.60 5.50 5.55
7810 73 5.65 5.70 5.60 5.55 5.63
8591 81 5.70 5.75 5.60 5.65 5.68
9291 87 5.80 5.85 5.70 5.65 5.75
9586 90 5.80 5.90 5.80 5.70 5.80
9881 93 6.25 6.15 5.95 6.05 6.10
10176 96 6.50 6.30 6.30 6.20 6.33
10276 97 6.55 6.40 6.40 6.30 6.41
10376 98 6.60 6.50 6.50 6.35 6.49
10476 99 6.70 6.55 6.55 6.45 6.56
10635 100
Total: 23.4 (lb)
54
55
APPENDIX B: DETAILED PART DRAWINGS
Figure 56. Side CAD view, showing basic important dimensions.
Figure 57. Top CAD view, showing basic important dimensions.
56
Figure 58. Front CAD view, showing basic important dimensions.
Figure 59. Piab Venturi Pump detailed drawings.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APPENDIX C: VENDOR COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS AND DATA SHEETS
VENTURI PUMP
66
MOTOR
67
GEARHEAD
68
69
70
71
ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS
72
73
74
APPENDIX D: SUPPORTING ANALYSIS AND CALCULATIONS
75
76
77
Stress Analysis on Solidworks SimulationXpress
SUCTION CUP BRACKET
25 lb was loaded onto the suction cup mounting hole and safety factor came out to be 7.
Figure 60. Von Mises stress analysis on the bracket.
Figure 61. Displacement analysis on the bracket.
78
DRIVE SHAFT
136.7 lb was loaded onto the drive shaft and safety factor came out to be 5.6.
Figure 62. Loads and fixtures of the drive shaft.
79
Figure 63. Von Mises stress analysis on the drive shaft.
Figure 64. Displacement analysis on the drive shaft.
80
Figure 65. Drive shaft SimulationXpress results.
81
APPENDIX E: DESIGN RESOURCES
WRITTEN REFERENCES
(2013). Retrieved from Industrial Climbing Machines: http://www.icm.cc/about.php
Creedy, A. P. (1984). Skid Steering of Wheeled and Tracked Vehicle.
MACS: Multifunction Automated Crawling System. (2013). Retrieved from JPL: http://www-
robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/tasks/showTask.cfm?TaskID=114&tdaID=900001
Mel Siegel, P. G. (n.d.). Robotic Assistants for Aircraft Inspectors.
Shigley, Joseph Edward, and Charles R. Mischke. Mechanical engineering design. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1989. Print.
Solc, Frantisek, and Jaroslav Sembera. "Kinetic Model of a Skid Steered Robot." ISPRA'08 Proceedings of the 7th
WSEAS International Conference on Signal Processing, Robotics and Automation (2008): 61-65. World
Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), 20 Feb. 2008. Web.
Figure 66. Quality Function Deployment chart.
82
ADDITIONAL PICTURES
83

Otto - The Wall Driving Platform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Otto - The Wall Driving Platform

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Otto - The Wall Driving Platform

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Otto – The Wall Driving Platform

1.1 Sponsor Needs and Background.................................................................................................................1

2.1 International Climbing Machines (ICM) .....................................................................................................2

3.1 Concept Generation ...................................................................................................................................3

3.1.2 Rail Slider ............................................................................................................................................5

3.2 Initial Concept Selection and Testing .........................................................................................................6

3.2.1 Perforated Tread Testing ....................................................................................................................9

3.3 Redesign Conceptualization and Analysis ............................................................................................... 12

3.3.2 Small Scale Prototype Testing ......................................................................................................... 15

3.3.3 Sliding Material Testing ................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Adhesion Vacuum System ....................................................................................................................... 21

4.1.2 Suction Cups .................................................................................................................................... 22

4.1.3 Normal Force Bias............................................................................................................................ 25

4.1.4 Low Friction Sliding Material ........................................................................................................... 26

4.1.5 Pneumatic Components .................................................................................................................. 27

4.2.2 Wheels & Hub .................................................................................................................................. 28

4.2.3 Chain & Sprocket ............................................................................................................................. 29

4.2.4 Bearings ........................................................................................................................................... 30

4.3 Motor System .......................................................................................................................................... 30

4.3.2 Gearbox Selection............................................................................................................................ 32

4.4 Chassis ..................................................................................................................................................... 33

4.4.2 Suction Cup Mounting Brackets ...................................................................................................... 34

4.4.3 Motor Mounting Plate & Brace ....................................................................................................... 35

4.5 Operation Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 35

5.1 Suction Cup Assembly ............................................................................................................................. 37

6.1 Suction Cup Tests .................................................................................................................................... 41

6.1.2 Suction Cup Force Test .................................................................................................................... 41

6.1.3 Suction Cup Displacement Test ....................................................................................................... 43

6.2 Driving Tests ............................................................................................................................................ 45

6.2.2 Inverted Driving ............................................................................................................................... 47

6.2.3 System Troubleshooting .................................................................................................................. 48

7 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A: Test Results ..................................................................................................................................... 52

1.1 SPONSOR NEEDS AND BACKGROUND

Figure 1. Electroimpact's current Flex Track system.

1.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION

1.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS

 Capable of carrying a load of 25 lb.

2.1 INTERNATIONAL CLIMBING MACHINES (ICM)

Figure 2. ICM’s climbing robot, with central vacuum adhesion.

Figure 3. Caterpillar Tread design, with mechanical valve suction actuator.

3.1 CONCEPT GENERATION

3.1.2 RAIL SLIDER

Figure 5. CAD render of Rail Slider design.

Figure 6. Rail Slider concept movement pattern.

3.2 INITIAL CONCEPT SELECTION AND TESTING

Table 1. Decision Matrix used to optimize initial concept designs.

3.2.1 CONCEPT REVISION A – PERFORATED TREAD DESIGN

Figure 7. CAD model of Concept Revision A – Perforated Tread Design.

3.2.1 PERFORATED TREAD TESTING

3.3 REDESIGN CONCEPTUALIZATION AND ANALYSIS

3.3.1 CONCEPT REVISION B – SLIDING ADHESION SYSTEM

Figure 14. An example of common suction cup usage.

3.3.2 SMALL SCALE PROTOTYPE TESTING

3.3.3 SLIDING MATERIAL TESTING

Table 2. Material testing pull-off force and coefficient of friction results.

Figure 20. CAD model of the complete final design, Otto.

4.1 ADHESION VACUUM SYSTEM

4.1.2 SUCTION CUPS