Band-Beesten rolling drum set

The Band-Beesten project is a collaborative interdepartmental project at the University of Idaho that aims to create a fully mobile drum set for use by the Vandal Marching Band during half-time performances.

Design Task
The marching band requires that we redesign and manufacture a lightweight and low friction rolling drum set that can be easily transported and operated by a user without powered assistance, by utilizing the capabilities and resources of as many University of Idaho departments as possible.

Sponsors
Thank you to the following sponsors for making this project a reality!

Background
The original idea for the project began a few years before the Fall of 2011 by Dr. Edwin Odom, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Dr. Daniel Bukvich, Professor of Percussion and Music Theory. The plan was to collaborate between their disciplines and create a finely tuned, expertly engineered drum set that is fit for a full on-field marching band performance.

The Fall of 2011 marked the initial experimentation and design of the Beest by a Capstone Design team in the engineering department. These initial tests provided insight on what worked well and what needed improvement. The final design from this year was never seen outside of the engineering buildings on campus, but the following year's goals were clear and a new design began immediately.

The Fall of 2012 marked the first public introduction of the Beest, which has become a yearly project in the Capstone Design process. The design utilized a robotic, power driven front wheel that responded to the drummers input and included brightly lit led's on the forward facing drums. It successfully astounded the audience and fulfilled the requirement of marching with a wheeled drum set, but it could still be improved.

The goal of the 2013 Band-Beesten Experience team is to recreate the Beest to operate fully under the drummer control without the robotic assistance while making it bigger and better than before.

Design Goals

 * Reduce weight and friction from previous design
 * Fast and easy breakdown and drum reconfiguration
 * Human powered (No motored assistance)
 * Build alliances with other University of Idaho departments

Design Specifications

 * Carry at minimum:
 * One 14” diameter, 8” deep, 8lb Timbale
 * One 15” diameter, 8” deep, 9lb Timbale
 * One 14” diameter, 4” deep, 13lb snare
 * One 18” diameter, 4lb cymbal
 * One 19” diameter, 5lb cymbal
 * Four, 2lb wood blocks
 * Two, 2lb cowbells
 * General abilities:
 * Move in all directions on a single plane (forward, backward, side to side, and radially)
 * Move freely in those directions at marching speeds up to 2 m/s
 * Adjust to a wide range of user heights
 * Fully adjustable to various drum arrangements
 * Hands-free control with easy maneuverability
 * Lightweight, <80lbs
 * Free-standing and easily portable

Interview with Dan Mathewson
Dan was the graduate student who worked with the omni-wheels, power system, and many other aspects on the previous model. We interviewed him to learn more about the 2012 design and to get any suggestions that he may have for improving this year's model. The following are the from this interview:


 * Omni-Wheels:
 * Single omni-wheels were used because he wanted a constant contact surface on the ball for the drive system, which also reduced the cost.
 * Since our drive system is primarly provided by the user (passive ball interaction), we should be able to use double wheels
 * Suggested exploring other omni-wheel configurations and testing to see what is most efficient/easy to pull and push. Such as:
 * Pointing toward the middle of the ball
 * Perpendicular to the middle of the ball (2012 configuration)


 * Transfer Casters:
 * Mentioned as a possible replacement option as contact on the ball
 * Need to make sure that they are invertable (ball down), which was an issue on the 2012 design


 * Frame Construction:
 * Recommended a more rigid frame to prevent leg bending
 * The “spring” action of the 2012 design “soaked up” some of the input force
 * A more rigid frame would mean that there would be less force necessary to move the product


 * Weight Reduction Tips:
 * Acrylic drums are much heavier than wood
 * If LEDs are going to be used, use external fixtures instead of internal
 * Cymbal hardware and drum clamps are very heavy and could use a redesign
 * The large clamps that held the frame together weighed 2 - 3 pounds apiece

Interview with Denise Bauer
Dr. Bauer is a Mechanical Engineering professor with an emphasis in Human Factors. As an expert in ergonomics we decided to interview her to learn how to connect the drummer comfortably to the Beest. The following are tips from the interview:


 * Operational Factors
 * Individual's center of gravity varies, even with similar heights
 * A few differences between male and females users should be noted
 * Center of gravity - The average male has a higher CoG than the average female
 * Strength - The average male is stronger than the average female
 * User comfort is very important, create a mock-up then test it with the potential users to get feedback
 * Develop a rating scale to measure comfort/pain as well as effort needed to operate it


 * General Facts
 * Getting in and out of the apparatus needs to be simple
 * Most products on the market are designed for the 95th percentile male
 * The lower body can produce more power than the upper body
 * Since the upper body is weaker, using it to push a machine may be hard on the back
 * If the control is through the hips the upper body will have more mobility to operate the drums

Wheel Design

 * Problems from 2012:
 * Needed power assistance to roll omni-wheels
 * Basketball lost air occassionally
 * Plastic balls on back did not roll well on turf
 * Metal casters became dirty and would not spin properly depending on orientation
 * Improvements for 2013:
 * Find a lower friction alternative setup for omni-wheels and casters
 * Allow for high loads on each wheel
 * Each wheel must roll smoothly on various surfaces, especially turf
 * Basketball testing to prove/disprove it as a viable option

Frame and Harness Design

 * Problems from 2012:
 * Raised body made drum arrangement difficult for percussionist
 * Each leg delayed movement slightly in all directions
 * Not easy to customize instrument type or layout
 * Overweight and bulky, not easy to transport
 * Not visually appealing or ergonomic
 * Improvements for 2013:
 * Lower center of gravity of full setup
 * Rework drummer input system
 * Stiffen wheel attachment for a more immediate response to movement
 * Improve possibility of customization