Mid Term Presentation

ME 4182Submitted 6/21/06

Yuki Miyasaka, Anthony Palladino, David Price, Whitney Price, Ricky Sandhu

The Problem

Landscaping is a common enjoyment among homeowners. Heavy boulders are very common on property; however, almost impossible to move. If one wants to move a heavy rock, they have 2 choices:

1. use brute force and risk hurting themselves

2. rent a bobcat, figure out how to get it home, tear up the grass moving

it, etc

Neither option is very easy or practical.

The Goal

• create a cart capable of loading and unloading a large rock, and relocating it to different places within the yard. It would be designed to accommodate up to a 300 lb rock.

• to be able to be used for anything else that is heavy or cumbersome to move; similar to the function of the flat carts that you push around in Lowe’s or Home Depot while shopping.

• Our idea would be marketed to the average homeowner with landscape needs. The individual could either rent or buy this device and easily store it in a garage or shed when not in use.

Possible Solutions

Inclined Plane

Possible Solutions

Levered Cart

Possible Solutions

A Frame Cart

Possible SolutionsFork Lift

Possible Solutions

U Cart

Possible Solutions

Spider

Patent Search

• Bobcats– Not easy to transport to home– Tears up lawn while using

• Rock Jaw– Needs heavy machinery

to operate– Not available for home owners– Heavy and expensive

Pairwise Comparison

Machine size Expense

Manueverability

Rock Gripping

AbilityEase of

Use Safety Stability

Ability to Handle Diff. Rock Sizes Dummy

Machine Size - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Expense 0 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Manueverability 0 0 - 1 0 0 1 1 0Rock gripping

ability 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0

Ease of Use 0 0 1 1 - 1 1 1 0

Safety 0 0 1 1 0 - 1 1 0

Stability 0 0 0 1 0 0 - 0 0

Ability to Handle Different Rock Sizes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 0

Dummy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -Sum 1 2 5 7 3 4 7 7 0

Normalized 0.125 0.25 0.625 0.875 0.375 0.5 0.875 0.875 0

Selection Analysis

Key:

5::+1::-

Characteristics Ch

ara

cte

ris

tic

Im

po

rta

nc

e

We

igh

ted

V

alu

e

1 Machine Size 1 0.125 2 0.25 1 0.125 4 0.5 3 0.375 4 0.5 4 0.5 1 0.1252 Expense 2 0.25 3 0.75 3 0.75 4 1 1 0.25 5 1.25 4 1 1 0.253 Manueverability 5 0.625 3 1.875 3 1.875 4 2.5 4 2.5 3 1.875 3 1.875 2 1.254 Rock Gripping Ability 7 0.875 2 1.75 2 1.75 4 3.5 4 3.5 3 2.625 3 2.625 5 4.375

5Ability to handle different

rock sizes 7 0.875 2 1.75 5 4.375 3 2.625 2 1.75 3 2.625 3 2.625 4 3.56 Ease of Use 3 0.375 1 0.375 2 0.75 3 1.125 2 0.75 3 1.125 3 1.125 1 0.3757 Safety 4 0.5 2 1 2 1 4 2 4 2 3 1.5 3 1.5 4 28 Stability 7 0.875 3 2.625 4 3.5 3 2.625 3 2.625 5 4.375 4 3.5 4 3.5

SUM 4.5 18 10.38 22 14.13 29 15.88 23 13.75 29 15.88 27 14.75 22 15.38NORMALIZED SCORE 0.3773 0.5136 0.5773 0.5000 0.5773 0.5364 0.5591

PERCENTAGE 37.73 51.36 57.73 50.00 57.73 53.64 55.91

U C

art

A F

ram

e

Le

ve

r C

art

Selection Analysis Matrix

Ro

ck

Ja

w

Fo

rkli

ft

Inc

lin

ed

Pla

ne

Sp

ide

r

Moving Forward-Modified Forklift Design-

Rock DensitiesMaterial Specific Gravity

Andesite 2.5 - 2.8 Basalt/Traprock 2.8 - 3.0 Coal - Anthracite 1.3 Coal - Bituminous 1.1 - 1.4 Copper Ore 2 Diabase 2.6 - 3.0 Diorite 2.8 - 3.0 Dolomite 2.8 - 2.9 Earth (dry) 1.6 - 1.8 Earth (wet) 2 Gneiss 2.6 - 2.9 Granite 2.6 - 2.7 Gypsum 2.3 - 2.8 Iron Ore 4.5 - 5.3 Lead Ore (Galena) 7.5 Limestone 2.3 - 2.7 Marble 2.4 - 2.7 Mica, schist 2.5 - 2.9 Quartzite 2.6 - 2.8 Rhyolite 2.4 - 2.6 Rock Salt 2.5 - 2.6 Sandstone 2.2 - 2.8 Shale 2.4 - 2.8 Slate 2.7 - 2.8 Talc 2.6 - 2.8

Density (in lb/cu ft.) = SG X 62.4

Granite density = 165.36 lb/cu ft

Reference:http://www.mininglife.com/Miner/general/Density.htm

Prototype

Securing Belt

Metal Brace

Winch

Handle

Forks