HumotorIntegratedHammeringMechanism

TeamA

KothaBharathKumarReddyED11B021
PaboluSahithipriyaED11B025
ShrutiPandeyED11B035
DiyyalaChaitanyakumarED11B045
SaneethSriramojuED11B053
Appendix

SINo Topic PageNo

1) Problemstatement 3
2) Motivation 35
3) TargetSpecification 5
4) Assumptions 6
5) TargetCustomers 6
6) Challengesanddifficulties 6
7) Somepossiblesolutionsandtheir
evaluation
712
8) Calculations 1315
9) Constraintsondesign 1516
10) Partsandmaterial 16
11) Partsandfinaldimensions 1718
12) CompleteCADmodel 18
13) Scopeofimprovement 19
14) Suggestionsandcritics 19
15) References 19

ProblemStatement:
Todesignamechanismwhichcanreplacethetraditionalhammering
mechanismtocrushthestones,andtoimprovetheefficiencyofworkerand
reduceeffortwhilehammeringthestones.Alsomechanismisdesignedto
integrateitwithHumotor(amechanismdevelopedtoutilizeworkerstimeand
energyinanefficientway)
Motivation:
Themainmotivationistodevelopanalternativehammeringmechanismto
reduceworkereffect.MechanismisdesignedtobeintegratedwithHumotorto
furtherincreasetheefficiencyoftheworker.
Intraditionalways,aheavyweighthammerisusedtocrushthestones.
Hammerheadhastobeliftedabovetheshoulderlevelandshouldbedroppedon
thestonestocrushthestones.Liftingheavyweightsrepeatedlyisnotagoodidea
inperspectiveofergonomics.Soifwecancomeupwithaway,sothatworker
willberelaxedtolifttheweights,thenwecanreducemusclefatigue.
Figure1:Atraditionalsledgehammer.
Imagesource:http://www.blackrocktools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/3/1/3103_3
lb._sledge_hammer_tekton_2_.jpg

Figure2:Workerusingsledgehammer

Humotorisamechanismwhichisdevelopedtoreducetheeffortof
workerwhileliftingheavyloads.Insteadofliftingheavyloadsworkerhastodo
pedalingmotiontolifttheheavyloadsusingHumotor.Soifwecanintegrate
hammeringtoHumotorwecangreatlyreducehumaneffort.

Figure3:SchematicofHumotor

The solutions already existing include crushing plants. Generally these are
heavydutystonecrushingplantsandcantbemovestonewplaces.Theseplants
use a lot of electricity. Cost of these plants is too high and a normal building
constructor cant afford to spend so much. So we want to design a mechanism
which dont use electricity, cheap, not so heavy and uses human energy
efficiently.
TargetSpecifications:
o Atleastasmuchproductivityaswithmanualhammering(eachhitin
every1.75sec)
o Amomentumtransferof35KgN/mpereachhit.
o Costbelow10,000/INR.
o Longlifeofproduct.
Assumptions:
We made some assumptions during the analysis and design of mechanism
whichsimplifiestheprocess.Assumptionsarementionsbelow.
o Time of impact is same regardless of the mass of hammer head. Time of
impactmayvaryfromhittohitbutbyassumingthatitisconstant,wejust
needtoworryaboutmomentumtransfer.Whentimeofimpactissame,it
isenoughtotransfersameamountoflinearmomentum.
o Afterhittingtherock,hammerheadmomentarilycomestorest(i.e.,allthe
momentumistransfertorock)
o The momentum that needs to be transferred is calculated using a video
whichistakenwhileaworkerisactuallyusinghammer.Weassumedthatit
isenoughifourmechanismgivesthismuchfinalmomentum.
o Productivity rate is also calculated from a video. Although production rate
mayvaryfromworkertoworker,weassumedittobeourtargetvalueand
designedmechanismaccordingly.
TargetCustomer:
1. Constructionworkers.
2. Mines
3. Otherplaceswherestonesneedtobecrushed.
We went and met workers in constructions sites of our institute (near
SharavathihostelandSaraswathihostel).Fromoutinteractionwecametoknow
that, it is very hard to use sledge hammer for long times. Lifting the hammer to
suchheightisadifficulttaskandtheysaidalternativemechanismwillbehelpful.
Wetookavideowhileworkerisusingsledgehammertoanalyzethehammering
process.
ChallengesandDifficulties:
o Liftingthehammerheadupto2metersheight.
o Repetitivemotionofhammer
o Jerkproducedwhenhammerheadhitstherock.
o Protectingworkerandcomponentsfromjerk.
o Minimizingtheenergylossesduetofrictionetc.
o Longlifeofproduct.
o Lowcost.
Somepossiblesolutionsandtheirevaluation:
We considered some possible mechanisms to the problem. They are listed
below.
Mechanism1:

Figure4:Schematicofsolutionusingcams

We considered using two cams and attaching hammer head to one cam
using inextensiblerope.Here wehave problemsoffriction. Surface damagemay
occur because of the friction between two cams. And also cams may have very
highinertia.

Mechanism2:

Figure5:Schematicofsolutionusingfourbarmechanism

Anothersolutionistousefourbarmechanismandattachinghammerhead
tooneofthefourlinks.Butherewewillhavetheproblemofjerk.Linkinfourbar
mechanism cant sustain the jerk produced when hammer head hits rock. As a
resultlinkswillbedamagedeasilyandlifetimeofproductwillbeveryless.
Mechanism3:
In this mechanism, a roller is attached to a rotating link. One end of long
stringisattachedtoafixedpointandtotheotherendhammerheadisattached.
While rotating, roller which is attached to the link will lift the string and so
hammer head rises. After some time hammer head reaches its maximum point
and start to fall on to rock. Here the main problems is that, to create same
momentumnecessarylinkhastorotatewithhighvelocityforsometimeandfor
while lifting the hammer it need to move slowly so as to reduce human effort.
Thoseveryhighvelocitiesareabigtroublewiththismechanism.

Figure6:Schematicofsolutionusingpulleysandrotatinglink.
Mechanism4:

Figure7:Aschematicusingpulleysandcams.
Becauseofthefrictionbetweenpulleyandsemicircleshapedcam,when
camrotateshammerheadwillraise.Andwewillhavefreefallwhencamleaves
contactwithpulley.Eventhoughsolutionseemstobeworking,wemayface
problemswhileimplementingthismechanism.Weneedaninterferencefit
betweencamandpulley,becauseoftheneedofhighfrictionbetweenthese.So
whenevercamstartstocomeintocontactwithpulley,theseinterferencewill
causealotoftroubles.Andalsowhenhammerheadfallsonstones,jerk
developedwillcausedamagetotherope.
Mechanism5:

Figure8:Schematicusingpulley,rollersandlinks.

Thisisanothermechanismusingcams.Rollerisusedtoeliminatefriction
betweencamandlinks.Mechanismisprotectedfromjerkbythedesignofcam.
Whenhammerheadmakescontactwithstone,therewontbeanycontact
betweenrollerandcam.Alsothecenterofrotationofhammerheadiscenterof
percussionaboutwhichtherewontbeanynetmomentortorque.

Belowprosandconsofmechanismsconsideredabovearetabulated.

Mechanism Pros Cons

Mechanism1 Easytodesign

Jerkwontaffectcamsand
otherparts

Surfacefailure

Frictionatsurface

Difficulttofabricatecams
Mechanism2 Veryaccuraterepeated
movement

Welldevelopedmathematical
solutions

Easytofabricate
Cantaccommodatejerk
developed

Lesslifetime.

Mechanism3 Easytofabricate

Lowcost

Partscanbereplacedeasily
Difficulttogetenoughimpact

Ropemightneedtobechanged
frequently.
Mechanism4 Easytomanufacture.

Highproductivitycanbe
obtained.
Difficulttogeneratefriction
betweenpulleyandcam

Failureofropeduetoimpact

Mechanism5 Uniformliftofhammerhead.

Verylessfriction

Jerkswontaffectthesystem
Difficulttomanufacture
Table1:Comparingadvantagesanddisadvantagesofdifferentmechanisms
Intheabovemodels,firstfourarehavingsomeproblemswhichcause
troublestofunctioningofmechanism.Eventhoughfifthmechanismseemstobe
workingwell,itisverydifficulttomanufacturesuchacam.Butwehave
advantageofconstantliftofhammerheadwiththiscam.Wedecidetochange
theshapeofcam,sothatmanufacturingwillbeeasy,atthecostofconstantforce
toliftthehammerhead.

Figure9:Initialdesignofcam Figure10:Redesignedcam

Herewecomparedthesetwocamsintermsoffunctionality.
Initiallydesignedcam Redesignedcam
Difficulttomanufacture Comparativelyeasytomanufacture
Almostconstantforcesareinvolved
whileliftingthehammerhead
Varyingforcesareinvolvedwhilelifting
thehammerhead
Nonconvexshapedperimeter Convexshapedperimeter
Table2:Comparingfunctionalitiesoftwocams

Fortheabovereasonswedecidedtogowiththeredesigncameventhough
forcesinvolvedarenotconstantthroughoutthemechanism.

Calculations:

Tocalculateimpulseneededtobreakthestonewevisitedaconstructionsite,
wherewetookthevideooftheworkerworkingwiththehammer.Fromthevideo
wecalculatedImpulse,Numberofhitspersecond,Angularvelocityandrelevant
parameters.
Hammerarmlength=90cms
Timetakenforeachhit=1.75seconds
Angularvelocity=7.85rad/seconds
Impulsecalculated=32.325kgm/sec

Assumethelink1(l1)makesanequalangleonbothsidesofthehorizontalaxis
LettheHeightthroughwhichitmovesbeE
Sofromthefigure
sin =
E
2l1

Impulsemomentumtheorem
H: = Impulsc
Energyconservationprinciple
H:
2
2
= 2gE
Fromaboveequationsweget
E =
Impulsc
2
H
2
19.6

Tosetthevaluesofmass,lengthsangleaCcodewithconsiderationslike
o Torqueshouldbeuniformandtorquevariationshouldbeminimum(<10%)
o Massofhammerheadandlinklengthsshouldbeoptimizedtominimize
bendingeffect
o Angleshouldnotbelarge
Iorquc() = Hgl1 cos + Io
Varyingmassinstepsof0.3differentvaluesofheightsarecalculatedfrom
Link1(l1)behaveslikeacantileverbeam.Deflectionofbeamduetothehammer
headis
o = kHl1
3

Tominimizedeflection, l1shouldbeoptimized
Keepingmindalltheabovefactorsandvaryingl1instepsof0.1wegetvaluesfor
angle()
2-1
1
< eWheree = u.1,u.2,u.S
Usingtheconditionwefixedthevaluesof, l1
Outofallthevalues,consideringtheimportantfactorswegotthemto3setsof
values

Mass(M) Height(H) Length(l1) Angle(rad) Torque(Nm) Torque

variation
13 0.414 0.607 0.348 77.357 4.64
14.2 0.347 0.373 0.483 51.99 5.95
15.1 0.307 0.453 0.3454 67.1 3.96
17.2 0.236 0.518 0.23 87.37 2.30

Highlightedvaluesarethesetofselectedvalues.
Aslink1andlink2aretworigidpartsofalink,whenl1rotatesthelink2also
rotatesbysameangle.
Timetakentodropthehammerhead
t =
2E
g

Thisturnsouttobe0.25seconds.So,ittakes1.750.25secondstomovethe
hammerup.Matchingtheangletotheriseofthehammerwecangetbase
dimensionsofcam,angularaccelerationandtorque.
ConstraintsonDesign:
1) Ifmassofthehammerisincreased,thenwedontneedtoliftittothe
sameheighttocreatesameimpulse,sowecanhavesmallerlinklengths.
Butatthesametime,wewillbehavingproblemsforfeedingtherockin
andalsoinputtorqueincreases.
2)Ifweincreasethelengthofthelink1,wedontneedtoturnittoomuch
aboutpivottoraiseittothesameheight,butatthesametimeweneedto
applymoretorquetorotatethemass.Linklengthandtorquearelinearly
related.
3)Ifwechangethepivotposition,alltheassemblywillgetaffected.
Hammermaynotrisetothecompleteheightrequiredoritmayrisemore
thanrequired,somecomponentsmaygetstuckwhilemoving.Soweneed
exactpositionforpivotforgoodimpulsegeneration.
4)Rotationangleatpivotisalsoveryimportant.Ifitistoolarge,camsize
willincreasedramaticallyandtherewillbealotoftorquevariationswhile
rotatingcam.Ifitistoosmall,weneedtohavelargelinksthusby
increasingtorques.
5)Iflengthofsecondlink(onewhichisincontactwithcam)ismore,we
willneedlargercamandifitistoosmalllargerforceswillbegeneratedat
camandlinkcontactwhichdamagescomponents.
6)Ifcambaseradiusistoosmall,pressureanglewillbehigh,whichcauses
morestressatcambearingcontact.Ifitistoolargewewillneedalotof
materialwhichincreasesthecostofassembly.Alsoifwehavelargemass,
wewillneedtoputinmoreenergytostartorstopthemechanism(Itacts
likeflywheel)

MassVs.Torquevariation
*dissamease

PartsandMaterials:
PART MATERIAL
Cam Ductilecastiron
Links Hotrolledplaincarbonsteel
Supportshafts Ductilecastiron
Hammerhead Mediumcarbonsteel
CamsupportandLinksupport Ductilecastiron

PartsandfinalDimensions:

CAM LINKS

CAMSUPPORTLINKSUPPORT LINKSUPPORTSHAFT

BASE CAMSUPPORTSHAFTHAMMERHEAD
CompleteCADmodeloftheMechanism(IncludingFeeding
mechanism):

SCOPEOFIMPROVEMENT:
o DesignofCam:Improveddesignofcamtomaketheforcesinvolvedin
liftingthehammerheadconstant
o Productivity:Productivitycanbeincreasedbyincreasingthesizeofproduct
sothatitcanaccommodatemorenumberofcamsandhammerheadsto
increasethenumberofstonescrushingataninstant
o FeedingMechanism:Implementingthefeedingmechanism(Asshownin
CADmodel)

SUGGESTIONSANDCRITICS:
o Multipleuseofproductwithmodificationindesignbyreplacinghammer
withaxeforwoodcutting.
o Manufacturingcouldhavebeendoneinbetterway.
o AttachmentofCamtoshaftcouldhavebeendonethroughakeyrather
thanwelding.
o IntegrationwithHumotorandincorporatingfeedingmechanism.

REFERENCES:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD6d4hyLNNs
2. MachineDesignbyRobertL.Norton
3. http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/alloy_home/steels_properties.cf
m