Hydraulic Nanomanipulator

Hydraulic Nanomanipulator

P13371

Task TimeProject Introduction 10 minCustomer Needs 5 minEngineering Specifications 5 minFunctional Decomposition 5 minDecision Making Process and Proposed Design 20 minCurrent System Evaluation Feasibility Analysis 10 minPreliminary Cost Analysis 5 minRisk Management 5 minProject Plan 5 minQuestions and Discussion Remaining

Table of Contents & Agenda

CustomerDr. Schrlau

TeamJacob BertaniBridget LallyAvash JoshiNick MatsonKeith Slusser

GuideBill Nowak

Introductions

• Ultra-high precision positioning instrument

• Maneuver objects under high magnification, at the micro and nano scales

• Primary customer uses:• Cell behavior for medical

diagnostics

What Is a Nanomanipulator?

Improve 12371 prototype and redesign where applicable

Improve overall nanomanipulator function to meet competitive operational specifications

Reduce price of nanomanipulator with respect to commercial devices

Broaden participation in nanoscience

Project Objectives & Goals

Existing System (P12371)

Existing System (P12371)

Controls Interface Subsystem

Existing System (P12371)

Controls Subsystem

Existing System (P12371)

Drive Subsystem

Existing System (P12371)

Manipulator Subsystem

Customer Needs# Description Importance

CN1 High Resolution 9CN2 Low Cost 9CN3 Reliable Movement 9CN4 Easy to Operate 9CN5 Visual Feedback 3CN6 Adequate Range of Motion 3CN7 Reliable Control of Speed 3CN8 Keep Hardware Safe 3CN9 Easy to Maintain 1CN10 Easy to Setup 1CN11 Portable 1CN12 Remote Access 1

# Specification (metric) Unit of Measure

Target Value

S1 Size of manipulator (h x w x l) cm 8 x 8 x 8

S2 Weight of manipulator Grams (oz) 550 (20)S3 Development cost $ < 2,500S4 Cost to manufacture after development $ 1000 -

1500S5 Limits of travel in each direction cm 1S6 Speed of travel mm/sec 5S7 Resolution μm < 0.1S8 System backlash # Revolutions < 1S9 System drift μm/min < .02

# Specification (metric) Unit of Measure

Target Value

S10 System is easily assembled/disassembled Survey Yes

S11 Ease of use Survey Yes

S12 Joystick Control Binary Yes

S13 Systems can be operated safely Binary Yes

S14 System mounts standard pipette holder Binary Yes

S15 GUI Control Survey Yes

S16 Remote internet access Binary Yes

1st House of QualityRelationships:9 = Strong3 = Moderate1 = Weak0 = No Relationship

movement reso

lution

Position re

peatab

ility

Manufactu

re Cost

joystick

contro

l

system back

lash; d

irecti

on change

Development C

ost

ease

of use

GUI contro

l

speed

of trav

el

Limits

of trav

el; xy

z

ease

of asse

mbly

Safe operation

system m

ounts sta

ndard pipett

e holder

Size M

anipulator Syst

em

weight o

f Man

ipulator

remote intern

et acce

ss0

50

100

150

200

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

P13371 Pareto of SpecsCo

unt

qfdDataLink20244080

Top Specifications◦ Movement resolution◦ Position Repeatability◦ Manufacturing Cost◦ Joystick Control◦ Backlash reduction

If Top 8 of 16 Specs Met◦ 76% of customer needs satisfied

House of Quality Pareto Analysis

Functional Decomposition of Hydraulic Nanomanipulator

Existing System Evaluation (P12371)

Specs Unsatisfied◦Backlash ◦Delay and rotation problems◦Size◦Weight

Specs Met◦Resolution◦Cost

Hydraulic Driver Concept Development

Servo MotorNano-precision actuator

Commercial SyringeStepper Motor

Hydraulic Driver SelectionCriteria

Servo Motor

NanoActuator

Stepper Motor

Commercial Syringe

*Cost* S -1 -1Life S S S

*Resolution* -1 1 -1Vibration S 1 1

Ease of Control S S -1Physical Size S 1 -1

Weight S 1 SSpeed S S 1

*Backlash* S 1 1Position Repeatability 1 1 S

# of Parts S 1 1Mech. Simplicity S 1 1

Ease to Test -1 S 1Response Time S S S

Torque S -1 SPower Requirments S S 1*Control System

Compatible* -1 -1 -1# of -1 3 3   5# of S 13 6 5# of 1 1 8 7Da

tum

Current Driver ◦ Already have working motors to test◦ Not the root cause of system performance issues◦ Easy to control

Evaluate existing motorsand compare against other

stepper motor options

Stepper Motor

Hydraulic Actuation Concept Development

Piston Actuator

Fluid displaced through the movement of a sealed ram

Hydraulic Actuation Concept Development

Diaphragm Actuator

Pressure is transferred through the depression of an immobile, flexible membrane seal

Hydraulic Actuation SelectionCriteria Diaphragm Piston Piston Cylinder*Cost* -1

Life -1*Resolution* SEase of Control SPhysical Size S

Weight S*Backlash* 1

Position Repeatability S# of Parts -1

Mech. Simplicity -1Ease to Test S

Response Time SFriction 1

Range of Motion -1# of -1 5  # of S 7# of 1 2

Datu

m

Both options are viable and will be evaluated in detailed design phase

Future Hydraulic Actuation Plan

Diaphragm Seals Piston Seals

Ball Bearing Carriages

Sleeve Bearing Carriage

Low Profile Bearing Carriage

Friction Slider (current)

Manipulator Movement Concept Development

Manipulator Movement Selection

CriteriaSleeve Slider

Friction Slider Ball Bearing

Low Pro. Slider

*Cost* -1   -1 SLife S S S

*Resolution* S 1 -1Vibration 1 1 1

Physical Size S S SWeight S S S

*Backlash* 1 1 SPosition Repeatability S S S

# of Parts S -1 SMech. Simplicity S S S

Ease to Test S S S*Friction* 1 1 1

Need of Lubricant S   -1 S# of -1 1   3 1# of S 9 6 10# of 1 3 4 2

Datu

m

Pros◦ Reduced Friction◦ Reduced Vibration◦ Reduced Backlash

Cons◦ Cost

Sleeve Sliders

System Architecture

Retain Properties of Current System (P12371)

Resolution◦11 nm theoretical◦53 nm experimental

Cost◦$1200

Design Concept

Lead = 0.0125 in/rev = 0.3175 mm/rev Microsteps/rev = 12,800

◦ 0.02185°/microstep

Feasibility Analysis of Theoretical Resolution

Issues to Improve in Current System (P12371)

Hydraulics◦ Backlash of 14 revolutions to change direction

Manipulator Mounting System◦ High friction causing backlash

Controls◦ Delay and rotation problems◦ Vibration in motor◦ Position un-repeatable

Machining Issues◦ Misalignment

Air in lines

Fittings

Tubes

Hydraulic System Issues

Bulk modulus of water = 2,150 MPa Bulk modulus of air = 0.142 Mpa Assume:

Resulting Backlash◦ 15.75 Revolutions

Air in Hydraulic Lines

Tube Diameter

Length of Air Volume of Air

5mm 5mm 98mm3

Benefit of Smaller Pipe Diameter

System Diameter [m]

Length [m]

dL [nm] Backlash [rev]

Current 0.005 0.4 65,900 0.21Proposed 0.001 0.3 49,400 0.16

Decrease tube diameter

Incorporate line bleeding valve

Replace barbed fittings

Hydraulics Future Plan

Barbed Fitting Double Compression Fitting

Coefficient of Frictional of Slider too high Misalignments

Manipulator Mounting System Issues

Total weight on bottom slider = 760 gms Coefficient of Friction

◦ Friction Slider = 1◦ Sleeve Slider = 0.2

◦ Friction Slider = 8.2N◦ Sleeve Slider = 2.2N

Feasibility Analysis of Sleeve Sliders

 Ideal

 Existing System

Proposed System

Force to move manipulator (piston+slider) [N] 17.0 11.0Force to actuate hydraulics [N] 7.4 4.8Syringe frictional force [N] 8.8 8.8Force required by lead screw [N] 16.2 11.0Torque required to move lead screw [Nm] 0.0021 0.0018Max Torque at 900 RPM [Nm] 0.00785 0.00785Factor of safety 3.66 4.35

Factor of Safety Improvement From Sleeve Sliders

Controls◦ Un-fluid movement◦ Vibrations

Stepper Motor Issues

Evaluate Current System Programming bugs

Different driver chip Commercial control boards

Stepper Motor Control Future Plan

Existing system◦ Functional◦ Low cost

Controls Possible Design

Changes◦ Different driver IC Chips◦ Improve board layout

Evaluate existing code

Test existing microcontroller

Decide how to tackle live feed from camera

Controls Future Plan

Previous Manufacturing cost: $1,195.75

Cost of suggested improvements: ~$300.00◦ New sliders◦ Smaller diameter, thick walled tubing◦ New piston sleeves◦ Double compression fittings

Cost of items being removed: ~$110.00

Estimated Manufacturing Cost: $1,400

Preliminary Cost

Risk ManagementID Risk Item Effect Cause

Likelihood

Severity

Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner

Describe the risk briefly

What is the effect on any or all of the project deliverables if the cause actually happens?

What are the possible cause(s) of this risk?

    L*S

What action(s) will you take (and by when) to prevent, reduce the impact of, or transfer the risk of this occurring?

Who is responsible for following through on mitigation?

23 Chips burn outCan’t control the system

Programming errors, wiring errors, feedback, unisolated contacts 3 3 9 Make sure we buy extra chips Nick M / Bridget L

14 Hydraulic leakNo manipulator movement

Rupture in pipe, improper seal 2 3 6

Make sure pipes are sealed properly Keith S

15

Hydraulic fluid compresses/unresponsive to mechanical input

Backlash and reduced manipulator movement

Air introduced into system and sealing issues 3 2 6

Be sure system is properly bled, seal hydraulics properly Jacob B

22Controls have a delay or slow response time Backlash

Unoptimized control and system components unable to respond 2 3 6

Optimize control program to counter-act motor inductance Nick M / Bridget L

24 Bugs in UI CodeImproper control of system

Inexperience with programming language 3 2 6

Debug UI and ask for more experienced help Nick M / Bridget L

25Parts don’t arrive on time Delays entire project Supplier problems 2 3 6

Find lead time and give adequate time for parts to arrive. Jacob B

30Part/equipment availability Delay entire project Back order 2 3 6

Check availability ahead of time Jacob B

Gantt Chart

Gantt Chart

Jacob Bertani – Lead Hydraulic Subsystem Engineer

Avash Joshi – Lead Driver / Hydraulic Interface Subsystem Engineer

Keith Slusser – Lead Manipulator Subsystem Engineer

Bridget Lally – Lead Controls Engineer

Nick Matson – Project Manager & Controls Engineer

Team Roles

Questions?

Current Stepper Motor TorqueExisting Proposed

Max Torque at 900 RPM [Nm] 0.00785 0.00785Factor of safety 3.66 4.35