Category: Team Status Reports

For the week of October 4th–11th, our team moved Iteration 1 from completed design files into fabrication and early assembly. We finished printing all of the planned robot-arm components and began assembling the base. This allowed us to begin validating the physical fit of the printed pieces rather than relying only on the SolidWorks assembly and simulation results.

We also refined the CAD representations of the motors, bearings, shafts, power components, and other purchased hardware so that the model more closely matches the parts used in the physical build. Updating these measurements reduced the risk of mounting, clearance, and alignment problems during assembly and gives us a more accurate reference if any components need to be revised or reprinted.

The modeling and printing work planned for Iteration 1 is complete. However, the physical assembly is slightly behind our original schedule because the fabrication work took longer than expected and several additional parts have not yet arrived. Our next priority is to finish the base and joint assemblies as the remaining hardware becomes available, then verify the arm’s alignment, clearances, and range of motion.

For next week, our team plans to:

• Finish assembling the base and continue building the remaining arm sections.
• Install the motors, bearings, shafts, and power components as the remaining hardware arrives.
• Verify that the purchased components match the refined CAD models.
• Test joint fit, alignment, and range of motion during assembly.
• Update or reprint any components that require dimensional corrections.
• Continue the ROS2, URDF, and control-system integration for the physical arm.

Week-Specific Considerations

Part A was written by Jonathan Waller. Part B was written by Aaron Tang. Part C was written by Bryan Hong.

Part A: Global Factors — Jonathan Waller

Our 6DOF drawing robot addresses global factors by making physical surface-drawing automation accessible to non-academic, non-technical creators far beyond specialized robotics environments. Traditional six-axis industrial arms require specialized programming knowledge and heavy capital investment, isolating advanced automation tools within large industrial facilities or technical research institutions. In contrast, our system is designed for independent artists, small business owners, and creators anywhere in the world. It features a simple browser-based web interface that allows non-technologically savvy users to upload standard SVG files and execute jobs without needing coding or robotics expertise. Furthermore, by leveraging an open-source ROS2 software stack, 3D-printable structural components, and affordable off-the-shelf hardware, the solution can be deployed, repaired, and operated globally without reliance on specialized regional supply chains or high-cost industrial infrastructure.

Part B: Cultural Factors — Aaron Tang

Cultural concerns can be addressed in the design of our 6DOF drawing robot by providing users the option to select the images, scripts, writings, symbols, or other visuals they would like the robot to recreate without having to resort to an established library of drawings meant to represent a particular culture. Since the web interface of the robot accepts common SVG files, it gives creators the freedom to submit any content that is relevant and meaningful to their culture or community. Additionally, the use of the browser interface for input means that the user does not have to become familiar with specialized robotics instructions and can use the interface in multiple languages.

Moreover, we are aware that drawings can include culturally sensitive images or materials protected by intellectual-property laws. We design our drawing robot as a tool meant for user control rather than a system capable of selecting or interpreting cultural material on its own. Providing clear documentation and allowing user control can facilitate responsible usage of the product while still giving each community the ability to adapt the open and 3D printable design to their own materials, culture, art practices, and legislation.

Part C: Environmental Factors — Bryan Hong

Our 6DOF robot arm does not require complex machining and commercially-inaccessible hardware that is typical of larger robotic systems. Instead, by using 3D-printed parts and relatively-inexpensive hardware, our robot arm generates less material waste during its lifespan. For example, if a component on our system breaks, it can be easily reprinted and refitted, whereas other robotic arm systems would require the purchasing of replacement parts or an entirely new system. Factoring in the energy consumed to machine these replacement parts and/or an entirely new system, it is clear that our robotic arm will result in less natural resource consumption.

Additionally, the robot arm’s ability to reproduce drawings directly onto a surface can help reduce the need for repetitive manual work. Because our system is fully programmable, it allows users to produce multiple designs with a consistent process, potentially reducing errors and wasted materials during repeated drawing tasks.

Although our 6DOF robot arm is not designed specifically for environmental conservation, simple construction and use of accessible components provide opportunities to reduce material waste compared to more complex robotic arm systems. As we develop the system further, factors such as material selection, efficient power management, and proper disposal/recycling of electronic components and 3D-printing waste will be important considerations. These practices can help reduce the robot’s environmental footprint while supporting its long-term usability.

Team Status Report

For the week of September 20th–26th, we worked on bringing up the embedded software platform, grounding the mechanical design in a reputable six-axis reference model, refining the Iteration 1 parts list, and preparing the CAD and presentation materials needed for the next stage of the project.

Project Risks & Management Strategies

The biggest risk was figuring out the structural requirements of our manually inferred dimensions on our previous CAD model, as we didn’t have a good basis to figure out if the links would sustain the weight of the joints.

We are managing this risk by comparing our measurements now against Universal Robots’ UR3e, and we aim to calculate the joint torques using the selected components’ estimated masses, and prepare some comprehensive SolidWorks motion and load simulations before printing the final links for this iteration.

Another risk we’ve identified is the integration between the CAD model, ROS2 coordinates, computer vision, and the physical arm. We are attempting to reduce that risk through developing the Jetson software environment early; this week, we’ve already set it up and ran it, and we’re collaborating on defining the CAD workspace and joint constraints before we print the pieces.

System Design Changes

We chose to use the UR3e as reference for dimensions and kinematics, instead of deriving all link lengths and joint placements from scratch which would require continuous testing, and this mechanical specs can get a bit complicated when isn’t the primary expertise or focus of our group. We imported the UR3e STEP model into SolidWorks and recorded its links, joint placement, proportions, and reachable workspace.

We also set up and installed the OS on our NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano with JetPack 7 Ubuntu and ROS2. This would give us a physical development platform for testing ROS2 nodes and preparing the coordinate-frame and motion-planning architecture before we assemble the complete arm, so we could allow time extra time for adapting the reference links and joints and configuring the Jetson.

Project Schedule Status

The project remains mostly on schedule. The Jetson environment, initial ROS2 publisher/subscriber test, UR3e reference-model import, early test printing, and preliminary CAD work were completed this week. The Iteration 1 CAD, joint-limit definition, surface modeling, and torque/workspace analysis are scheduled through October 3rd and remain in progress. The parts list and the remaining calculations need to be finalized promptly so that the team can place the hardware order and begin manufacturing without consuming the integration buffer later in the semester.

Team Progress & Highlights

The team successfully configured the Jetson Orin Nano from scratch, installed JetPack 7 Ubuntu and ROS2, and verified the environment with ROS2 publisher and subscriber nodes running simultaneously. We also established an initial 3D-printing environment and completed some basic test prints to estimate manufacturing time and evaluate print settings.

Week-Specific Considerations

Part A: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Written by Bryan Hong

When it comes to public health, safety, and welfare, our project may not appear at first glance to directly impact any of the three. However, by placing the means of production into the hands of the artist, we have helped the latter avoid employing the services of a third-party manufacturing company that may rely on unethical labor practices and/or unsafe working conditions. By enabling artists and creators to reproduce their work in-house, our system reduces the reliance on these morally-questionable third party manufacturers, and thus indirectly improves global health, safety, and welfare, ensuring that the physical manifestation of art does not come at the cost of others’ health.

Part B: Social Factors
Written by Aaron Tang

Our robot arm is intended to be used primarily by digital artists, students, and researchers who want to transform a digital line drawing into a physical drawing on curved surfaces.

In order to make this design accessible for social and educational settings, our 1. web interface shouldn’t require experience with robotics, CAD, or any sort of electrical/software engineering. Users should be able to submit a drawing on our interface, select a marker color, and follow the robot’s status and receive clear feedback.

This would make the system valuable for classroom demonstrations and creative environments where artists who don’t have engineering backgrounds can safely and easily reproduce their art. It would also take into consideration people who have difficulty drawing manually on large, elevated, or unusually positioned surfaces.

We have also considered some concerns that robotic drawing tools could replace human creativity. Our goal is to create a tool to assist artists, not replace them: the user should ultimately still be responsible for their own artwork and creative decisions, while the robot simply transfers that work exactly stroke by stroke to a physical surface. The system should also respect ownership and consent by reproducing only artwork that artists consent to, and keeping submitted drawings under the user’s control.

Part C: Economic Factors
Written by Jonathan Waller

Our 6DOF drawing robot addresses economic factors in production and consumption by providing a low-cost, accessible alternative to expensive industrial machinery. By utilizing standard off-the-shelf smart servos, 3D-printed structural components, and open-source software, our design significantly reduces the bill of materials. This allows the 6DOF arm to be affordable relative to its capabilities. The system was designed with independent creators and digital artists in mind, allowing them to produce small batches of custom physical works directly from their digital art. Instead of relying on costly third-party manufacturing services or full-scale assembly lines, artists can preserve their preferred digital workflow, fine-tune their designs locally, and economically handle low-volume production without a heavy financial investment.