DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF AN IMPROVED AUTOMATIC WHITE BOARD

CLEANING SYSTEM

BY:

AKPETI LOYALTY ENG1604380

JIMOH HAMZA ENG1604254

UKPONG IYENEOBONG DANIEL ENG1604292

EDEGBO MARO FELIX ENG1708915

SUPERVISED BY:

ENGR. DR. EFE ORUMWENSE

A PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL

ENGINEERING, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF BENIN, BENIN
CITY

IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF

ENGINEERING (B.Eng.) IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

DECEMBER, 2022

i
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this project, Design and Fabrication of an Improved Automatic White
Board Cleaning System, was carried out by AKPETI LOYALTY (ENG1604380), JIMOH
HAMZA (ENG1604254), UKPONG IYENEOBONG DANIEL (ENG1604292) and EDEGBO
MARO FELIX (ENG1708915), in the department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Benin.

________________________ _______________
Prof. Godfrey Ariavie DATE
(Head of Department)

______________________ _______________
Engr. Dr. Efe Orumwense DATE
(Project Supervisor)

______________________ _______________
Engr. Dr. I. B. Owunna DATE
(Project Coordinator)

ii
 DEDICATION
This project is prayerfully dedicated to God Almighty who has made everything possible.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, we want to give thanks to God Almighty for strength and wisdom throughout
this project.

Our sincere gratitude goes to our wonderful and highly esteemed supervisor Dr. Efe
Orumwense for his contribution, time, and disciplinary actions which inspired us to put more effort
and ensure this project was a success, he is more than a supervisor.

Our profound gratitude goes to our parents, Mr. and Mrs. Akpeti, Mr. and Mrs. Jimoh, Mr. and
Mrs. Ukpong, and Mr. and Mrs. Edegbo for their love and financial support throughout this project.

iv
 ABSTRACT
Whiteboards have existed for a very long time. They came in to replace blackboards which in turn
had replaced slates. The ease of cleaning was a major driving force that led to these changes. This
is why conventional methods for cleaning whiteboards are going out of style. Automatic cleaning
devices have begun cornering the markets in certain parts of the world, and it won’t be long before
conventional cleaning will become a thing of the past. That is why this project is necessary. The
introduction of an effective and cheap automatic whiteboard cleaner to the market will be widely
accepted. We have also set out to make our design unique so as to outperform the currently existing
systems. Our design is capable of cleaning specific areas of a whiteboard and not just the whole
board as is common with automatic whiteboard cleaners currently available. Our cleaning time is
18 seconds and our device is capable of leaving zero residue after a few sweeps of the board. In
conclusion, our whiteboard cleaning system performed efficiently and effectively, and it easily
meets market standards.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................ ii
DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ iv
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY............................................................................................... 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................. 2
1.3 RELEVANCE OF PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 2
1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 2
1.5 SCOPE OF PROJECT ............................................................................................................... 3
1.6 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................................ 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 THE WHITEBOARD ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 THE DUSTER ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 COMPONENTS OF AN AUTOMATIC WHITE BOARD CLEANER ................................................ 8
2.4 EXISTING AUTOMATIC WHITE BOARD CLEANERS ................................................................ 11
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 16
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 16
3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................................ 16
3.2 PROPOSED CONCEPTS ........................................................................................................ 16
3.3 DECISION MATRIX .............................................................................................................. 22
3.4 DESIGN CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................... 25
3.5 THE PROTOTYPE ................................................................................................................. 28
3.6 ENGINEERING BILL OF MATERIALS ...................................................................................... 32
3.7 ARDUINO CODE .................................................................................................................. 34
3.8 SAFETY/PRECAUTIONS ....................................................................................................... 35
3.9 MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................... 36
3.10 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 36

vi
CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................................... 37
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................................. 37
4.1 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 37
4.2 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................................................ 39
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................ 39
5.1 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 39
5.2 RECOMMENDATION ........................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 40

vii
 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 White Board .............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2 Duster........................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3 Felt ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 4 DC Motor .................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5 Belt and Pulley ........................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6 Chain and Sprocket .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 7 Rack and Pinion....................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8 Tamo et al.'s Design................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 9 Isometric View of Simolowo & Ngana’s Design ...................................................................... 14
Figure 10 Fairuz et al.'s Design .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 11 Concept One - 3-D Model ...................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12 Concept One - 3-D Model (Labelled) ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 13 Concept One - Orthographic Projection .................................................................................. 18
Figure 14 Concept Two - 3-D Model ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 15 Concept Two - 3-D Model (Labelled) .................................................................................... 19
Figure 16 Concept Two - Orthographic Projection ................................................................................. 20
Figure 17 Concept Three - 3-D Model ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 18 Concept Three - 3-D Model (Labelled) .................................................................................. 21
Figure 19 Concept Three - Orthographic Projection ............................................................................... 22
Figure 20 Decision Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 21 The Frame ............................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 22 Mounted board ...................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 23 The pulley welded to the motor .............................................................................................. 29
Figure 24 Driven pulley and two bearings .............................................................................................. 30
Figure 25 The duster .............................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 26 Attachment points of the holder to the belts............................................................................ 31
Figure 27 Final Prototype ...................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 28 Arduino remote...................................................................................................................... 34
Figures 29-31 Arduino Code.................................................................................................................. 35

viii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Since its inception, the whiteboard has proven to be useful in both professional and non-
professional settings. It should come as no surprise that, in comparison to the black and
green chalkboards, it offers a number of advantages, making it a popular choice for
personal study, business presentations, and knowledge transfer. Whiteboards were
designed and made with enamel-hard surfaces and melamine in the 1950s and 1960s, based
on the level of expertise and resources that were readily available at the time. This was the
first-time whiteboards were used, and since then, people all over the world have started
using them and black and green chalkboards are being phased out.

Despite the whiteboard's advantages over the black and green chalkboards, they all faced
the same problem: "The difficulty and unease in cleaning off what has been written on its
surface," specifically between 1950 and 1975. As a result, the porcelain-on-steel
whiteboard was introduced. In the years that followed, porcelain became the preferred and
most widely used surface material for the production of whiteboards. The substitution of
dry-erase markers for wet-erase markers was another limitation addressed during this
process. Professionals in the academic, business, and industrial sectors now find it simple
to use the whiteboard for daily tasks thanks to modern surface finishes and wipe-clean
markers.

In today's technologically advanced world, the whiteboard is one of a few manually

relevant items that has remained distinctive. Cleaning the board is always necessary
because every letter, number, symbol, or other entity written on it is only temporary. This
can be tedious in a fast-paced learning environment or when the need to increase usage
speed arises. As a result, reducing the use of manual cleaning techniques and increasing
cleaning speed are major strategies for combating this persistent issue. The time and energy

1
 aspects are addressed simultaneously in this manner; using an automated system to handle
the whiteboard cleaning process is the best way to accomplish these goals.

At the moment, automated cleaning techniques are barely used at all, especially here in
UNIBEN. We hope to provide a standardized and improved automatic whiteboard cleaning
system through this project that will clean whiteboards relatively quickly and easily.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

After considering the needs here in our environment and the current methods of board
cleaning being used, we have been able to itemize the following key issues:
a) Cleaning whiteboards after usage consumes a lot of time while teaching.
b) Energy is expended by the lecturer or student when cleaning manually.
c) Dusters can get stolen or go missing due to carelessness.
d) Manual cleaning is inconsistent and leaves black residue on the board.

These are the main issues but the above list is by no means all-encompassing. The problems
above will serve as our launching pad in this project. Being able to solve them will classify
this project as a success.

1.3 RELEVANCE OF PROJECT

The project topic we have selected is very relevant especially in our immediate
environment. The vast majority of whiteboards used in UNIBEN are still manually cleaned
and the lecturers and students alike are regularly faced with the issues outlined in Section
1.2. A working model that can solve these problems will do very well in markets across
Nigeria.

1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

This project aims to design and fabricate an automated whiteboard cleaning system that
will be suitable for use in classrooms and other places where whiteboards are regularly

2
 used. This project aims to design an automated cleaning mechanism that cleans the entire
board automatically with just the push of a button, saving a lot of time and effort.

To achieve the stated aim, the following objectives shall be met:

a) To save time by mitigating the need for the lecturer to wipe the board manually.
b) To conserve the energy intended for cleaning by having a machine perform the task.
c) The machine and the duster will be fixed so it won’t be stolen or misplaced.
d) To ensure consistent cleaning is done, leaving no residue behind.

1.5 SCOPE OF PROJECT

The scope of this project as is customary to the scientific process encompasses the review
of the conventional ways of carrying out board cleaning, fabrication of machines and
testing of the prototypes. We will be limiting our work to the following:

a) The scope of this project is to design and fabricate a functional prototype of our
design.

b) The device should be able to clean faster than conventional methods.

c) Emphasis will be placed on using locally sourced but functional parts to build our
prototype.

1.6 METHODOLOGY
The following steps will be taken in order to achieve the previously stated aims and
objectives of this project:

a) Review of existing projects.

b) Feasibility study.
c) Proposal of different concepts
d) Choosing the best concept
e) Detailed design of the chosen concept

3
f) Fabrication of a prototypes
g) Testing of the prototype
h) Evaluating the results
i) Conclusion and recommendation

4
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 THE WHITEBOARD

The development of common recording boards and tablets resulted from the need to
disseminate knowledge that could be recorded to a group of people. Cuneiform writing was
used by students in ancient Sumeria and Babylon to record lessons on clay tablets with a
stylus. In the 11th century, teachers in India also used personalized boards to write public
lessons (Mithra, 2010). However, it is clear how slates became the preferred writing surface
all over the world. Its availability and affordability set them apart from other writing
surfaces in the 18th century, particularly in Europe and the United States. Teachers at the
time didn't think it was appropriate to teach on a "slate" that was often seen, as is the case
today with chalkboards and whiteboards, not to mention the difficulty of effectively
cleaning it. Because of this, they had to write and clean up after each student one by one
as they worked with them. Illustrations were educated straightforwardly from books.
Pencils and paper were also available at the time, but they were quite pricey. Slate is a
naturally occurring dark-metamorphic rock that can be found beneath the surface of the
earth. A wooden board coated in porcelain or black grit is the basis of the slate board. In
the 18th century, the materials needed to make it were easy to find. This would explain
why it was used even in third-world countries, especially Africa, which had not developed
much at the time. The slate was accepted on all fronts because of the industrial revolution
in Europe and increased mining activity in North America at the beginning of the 19th
century. Slate mining also happened at the same time as the development of the American
railway system in Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New York. This
made sure that even more schools got transported slates, which were used for writing
exercises in the 1800s (Clarus, 2022). In 1801, a chalkboard was used for the very first
time at the United States Military Academy, West Point. George Noble, a teacher, mounted
a board utilized in his number related show on the day. However, given that smaller boards
were considered to be typical, his decision to use a mounted blackboard was unusual. James

5
 Pillans, a Scottish Headmaster at the Old High School in Edinburgh, Scotland, is credited
with inventing the concept of a mounted or wall chalkboard. In his geography class, he
mounted a slate piece. He was able to quickly instruct his students in a way that was more
descriptive and generalized than from a book (Clarus, 2022). In the middle of the 1800s,
slates were gradually replaced by chalkboards, which were used in offices, small groups,
public trainings, and most schools. In the beginning, chalkboards were black. In the end,
manufacturers discovered that porcelain coating steel boards enhanced their durability and
ease of cleaning; bringing green chalkboards to the market for the first time.

After years of the black and green boards, the white board came into prominence. The
simple reason for this was that it was easy to use. The white board didn’t use the chalk that
everyone had grown accustomed to, it used markers. These markers were better than chalks
in that they didn’t have particles that escaped into the air when disturbed. The chalk would
very regularly spread around the classroom anytime the board was cleaned. This didn’t
happen with whiteboards and markers. The ease of use is the driving force for changing
this market. That is why we expect out project to perform well in the market, it is easier to
use than its current counterparts.

Figure 1 White Board

6
2.2 THE DUSTER
A special kind of eraser called a chalkboard eraser is made to remove chalk marks from
slate paint, which is used on chalkboards and slates. Most of the time, it is made of felt
strips that are attached to a handle. As part of use during a lecture or presentation,
chalkboard erasers are typically broad and rectangular and are designed to clear large areas
for new content. John L. Hammett, who owned stores that sold and produced school
supplies in Rhode Island and later in Boston, invented chalkboard erasers around 1863.
Slates, chalk, and other items were mostly sold there. In schools, offices, and most places
else, chalk marks on slates were typically removed with rags or old cloths at the time.
Slating paint was used by Hammett to create the chalkboard before the chalkboard eraser
was invented. Then, Hammett "discovered" during a presentation on his chalkboard that
wool felt strips worked better than rags to remove chalk writing. He put together a team to
make the custom eraser for sale after this discovery. The erasers ended up being a triumph
for Hammett and, later in the nineteenth century, he made an organization that sold modest
supplies to educators and schools, like paper and ink (Abouzeid, 1999).

The white board easer took over as the white board itself came to prominence. The white
board eraser is made of many different materials, but the one most suited for dry-erase
markers is felt. The process of matting, condensing, and pressing fibers together creates
felt, a textile material. Natural fibers like wool or animal fur can be used to make felt, but
synthetic fibers like petroleum-based acrylic, acrylonitrile, or rayon made from wood pulp
can also be used to make felt. Fibers mixed together are also common. The unique
properties of natural fiber felt make it suitable for a wide range of applications. It repels
fire and extinguishes itself; it dampens vibration and assimilates sound; and it is able to
hold a lot of liquid without feeling wet (White, 2008).

7
Figure 2 Duster

Figure 3 Felt

2.3 COMPONENTS OF AN AUTOMATIC WHITE BOARD CLEANER

Most automatic white board cleaners currently available have the following basic
components other than the duster and whiteboard:

8
a) Motors: Motors are the prime movers in most automatic white board cleaners. They
take electrical energy and convert it to mechanical energy by rotating. The rotation
of the motor is the harnessed by the system and converted into the lateral motion of
the duster across the white board. Any rotary electrical motor that converts direct
current (DC) electrical energy into mechanical energy is referred to as a DC motor.
The most widely recognized types depend on the powers delivered by induced
magnetic fields because of streaming current in the curl. Nearly all kinds of DC
motors have an internal electromechanical or electronic mechanism that
periodically changes the direction of the motor's current. Due to their ability to be
powered by pre-existing direct-current lighting power distribution systems, DC
motors were the first type of motor that saw widespread use. Either by altering the
strength of the current in the field windings of a DC motor, or by using a variable
supply voltage, the speed of a DC motor can be controlled over a wide range.
Appliances, toys, and tools all use small DC motors. The universal motor is a
portable brushed motor that can run on either direct current or alternating current.
It is used in portable power tools and appliances. Many applications can now use
AC motors instead of DC motors thanks to power electronics (Herman, 2010).

Figure 4 DC Motor

9
b) Pulleys and Belts, Chains and Sprockets, Rack and Pinion
These 3 sets of engineering materials perform the same function in an automatic
white board cleaning system. They help to convert the rotational motion of the DC
motor into linear motion that the duster requires. Most automatic cleaning system
use one of the three or use a combination of two or all three. The pulley and belt
systems are the cheapest and the rack and pinion is the most expensive. Because of
that, the pulley and belt systems are most common.
A belt is a loop made of flexible material that mechanically connects two or more
parallel rotating shafts. Belts can be used as a source of motion, to efficiently
transfer power, or to track relative motion. The shafts need not be parallel because
belts are looped over pulleys and may have a twist between the pulleys. In a two-
pulley system, the belt can either drive the pulleys normally in one direction (just
like it would if they were on parallel shafts) or it can be crossed so that the driven
shaft goes in the other direction (just like it would if they were on parallel shafts).
Utilizing pulleys of varying sizes, the belt drive can also be used to alter the
rotational speed, either upward or downward. One use for a conveyor belt is as a
source of motion because it can carry a load continuously between two points. In
automated white board cleaning systems, the belt asks very similarly to a conveyor
belt, taking the duster from one point to another rather than transferring motion
between shafts.

Figure 5 Belt and Pulley

10
 Figure 6 Chain and Sprocket

Figure 7 Rack and Pinion

2.4 EXISTING AUTOMATIC WHITE BOARD CLEANERS

a) Tamo et al. say that white boards have turned into a focal device by which corporate
associations, establishment and other experts pass legitimate instruction, show, and
exhibit and prepare. Even though similar technologies and phases have been
developed over time, the white board still stands out from other types of boards,

11
such as chalkboards and electronic ones. This is partly because of its generally
economical friendliness. The requirement to clean or erase the board before using
it again is an essential part of using any writing board. Even though this is relatively
simple, board cleaning can be challenging when it is needed on a regular basis,
especially for boards with a large surface area. As a result, a number of designs
have been created to automate board cleaning, with the primary objectives of
reducing labour and creating a more effective and efficient tool (Tamo, et al., 2021).

Figure 8 Tamo et al.'s Design

They incorporated a windshield wiper in their design of an automatic white board

cleaner. The system is connected to a battery and the DC motor runs the cleaner as
the prime-mover. Foam was attached to the wiper which acts as the cleaning
surface. The design, although unique, has a very obvious flaw. The wiper cannot

12
 clean the entire board. Just as car wipers only clean the center of the window, this
design is incapable of cleaning the sides of the board. The wiper is efficient in
cleaning the parts of the board that it can reach and is also quick doing so, but it’s
powerless to reach the edges of the board. Asking a lecturer to avoid certain
portions of the board while teaching will not lead to customer satisfaction. They
concluded that their plan carried out in their paper had effectively accomplished
their targets of cleaning the board in a successful manner while diminishing time,
exertion and expanding proficiency. Because of its useful applications, their study
is very relevant, especially in the educational sector, where training tools are always
needed. They added that the need for a cleaning system that can effectively and
thoroughly clean every part of the board is one of the future modifications that must
be taken into consideration prior to their design's commercialization. A remote-
controlled or intelligent cleaning system can also be used to give board cleaning
workers more freedom in their work.

b) Simolowo & Ngana say that a glossy surface with a non-permanent marking
surface—often white—is known as a whiteboard or dry erase board. Similar to how
chalkboards work, whiteboards function by using temporary adhesion of markings
to the board's surface. Midway through the 1980s, whiteboards saw a sharp rise in
popularity and have since become commonplace in many workplaces, meeting
spaces, classrooms, and other work settings. The first whiteboards, also known as
marker boards, started to appear on the market in the middle of the 1960s. It wasn't
until the late 1980s and early 1990s that whiteboards began to replace blackboards
in classrooms on a large scale due to concerns about allergies and other potential
health issues posed by chalk dust. The early whiteboards had a melamine surface
and were highly pricey. It was the "ideal" replacement for the chalkboard, but it
ghosted quickly and was difficult to maintain clean. The urgent need for a duster
that would always be available in our lecture halls to clean the whiteboards has
been a big problem; the height of some board cleaners also influences the area of
the board that needs to be cleaned. The professor must miss lecture time to erase

13
 the board, even though the board cleaners are there. The development of an
automatic white board cleaner that can clean the whiteboards quickly, efficiently,
and easily is a result of this necessity (Simolowo & Ngana, 2014).

Figure 9 Isometric View of Simolowo & Ngana’s Design

This design although functional, has two features that we plan to avoid in our own
design. Firstly, it cleans from left to right, horizontally, just like the vast majority
of designs we reviewed clean. We plan to make ours clean from top to bottom,
vertically, to make it unique. Secondly, the duster in their design covers the whole
board and doesn’t leave the system with the ability to clean specific parts of the
board. Ours will be able to do that.

c) Fairuz et al. say that as technology advanced, a high-end machine was necessary
for fulfilling societal demands. For instance, an electric whiteboard can
automatically clean the entire board using an electric source, cutting down on the
amount of time needed for cleaning. Their design demonstrates one form of design
mechanism, which can immediately clean the board and maintain it clean during
the entire period. To allow for the benefit of the duster behind the lengthy white
frame, the duster has a base structure. The drive disc, which is mounted on a white
board frame, is rotated by a drive motor through a chain that runs through the duster.
Their schematic brings fresh and practical upgrades, most particularly to a device
that makes it simple to clean whiteboards. The primary goal of their electric
whiteboard is to provide attachments for the whiteboard in the form of a cleaner

14
that can be operated by simply flipping a switch, hence minimizing the time and
human effort required to erase the whiteboard (FAIRUZ, et al., 2020).

Figure 10 Fairuz et al.'s Design

Their design is simplistic, light-weight and effective. The only drawback is that
their duster doesn’t have the ability to reach every corner of the board, its cant reach
the edges because of the location they situated their tire and motor. It cleans only a
large portion of the center, but not the edges. We will avoid this in our own design.

15
 CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

3.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The design was targeted towards achieving the following: producing a faster and easier
way to clean white boards, high cleaning efficiency, availability of locally sourced
materials, and cost of the machine.

3.2 PROPOSED CONCEPTS

During the course of this project, three distinct concepts were proposed.

3.2.1 CONCEPT ONE: HORIZONTAL DESIGN (MOVING RACK)

This concept consists of a DC Motor as the prime-mover and a single set of rack
and pinion to convert the rotational motion of the DC Motor into linear motion of
the duster. The duster moves left-to-right across the board cleaning everything in
its path.

Figure 11 Concept One - 3-D Model

16
Figure 12 Concept One - 3-D Model (Labelled)

17
Figure 13 Concept One - Orthographic Projection

3.2.2 CONCEPT TWO: HORIZONTAL DESIGN (FIXED RACK)

This concept consists of two sets of rack and pinion located at the top and bottom
of the board. The pinions are connected with a shaft. The shaft is also connected to
the prime-mover, a DC Motor. As the DC Motor spins, the shafts spins, as the shaft
spins, the pinions spin, as the pinions spin, they move along the racks thus moving
the duster along the board.

18
Figure 14 Concept Two - 3-D Model

Figure 15 Concept Two - 3-D Model (Labelled)

19
 Figure 16 Concept Two - Orthographic Projection

3.2.3 CONCEPT 3: VERTICAL DESIGN

This concept is driven by one motor that connects two pulleys with a shaft. Shaft helps to
transfer motion from the motor to the pulleys. The pulleys move the belt and the belt moves
the duster vertically across the board cleaning it. The duster doesn’t cover the entire board,
rather it covers a third of the width of the board. There is another motor placed on the
duster, which will be responsible for moving the duster from left to right. This way, the
duster can pick specific parts of the board to wipe, not having to clean the whole thing
while moving.

20
Figure 17 Concept Three - 3-D Model

Figure 18 Concept Three - 3-D Model (Labelled)

21
 Figure 19 Concept Three - Orthographic Projection

3.3 DECISION MATRIX

Of the 3 proposed concepts, only one can be used for the prototype. Hence a decision matrix
was employed to help us make the choice. We based our decision matrix on 5 major criteria
that we considered to be most important for whatever design we choose. The criteria are:

a) Cost
b) Efficiency
c) Practicality
d) Flexibility
e) Aesthetics

We then assigned each criteria a weight ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being the least important
and 5 being the most important. Let’s discuss the criteria and how each concept was rated.

22
a. COST

Cost was our most important criteria when choosing a concept. Cost was assigned a
weight of 5 to signify this. Concept one consists of one motor, one rack and one pinion
as its major components. Thus making it the cheapest of our three concepts. Concept
one was assigned a cost rating of 5 for being the cheapest. Concept two consists of one
motor, two racks, two pinions and one shaft as its major components. Thus making it
the second cheapest of our three concepts. Concept two was assigned a cost rating of 2
for being the second cheapest. Concept three consists of three motors, four pulleys, four
bearings, two belts, and a relay board as its major components. Thus making it the most
expensive of our three concepts. Concept three was assigned a cost rating of 1 for being
the most expensive.

b. EFFICIENCY

Efficiency was the second most important criteria when selecting a concept. We
assigned it a weight of 4. The efficiency of the concepts is defined as the ability of the
design to properly clean all parts of the board. Concepts two and three were given a
rating of 5 each for being the most efficient. They have a shaft that presses the duster
against the board at all times thus ensuring a smooth clean. Concept one was assigned
a value of 2 for being less efficient. It doesn’t possess the shaft that the other two
concepts have to continuously exert pressure on the duster against the board. The duster
is free and could clean less efficiently when the rack is fully extended.

c. PRACTICALITY

We defined practicality of our design as the ability of the system to be installed in any
classroom. We gave this criteria a weight of 3. Concept one is very impractical because
of the way it works. It extends fully to the right of the board at the base of its motion,
and this extension cannot be accommodated in most classrooms. Some classrooms have
many boards next to each other, so this extension will cover the next board. Other
classrooms don’t have enough space to the right of their board to accommodate this
extension. For these reasons, concept one was given a rating of 1 for practicality.

23
 Concepts two and three were given ratings of 5 because they are more practical and
don’t take up a lot of unnecessary space.

d. FLEXIBILITY

We defined flexibility here as the ability of the device to clean specific areas of the
board and not just the whole board. Most lecturers like to divide the board when writing
so they don’t clean the entire thing when they are done, just specific parts. Being able
to meet this need is a very important criteria that our design has to have. We gave this
criteria a weight of 2. Concepts one and two are not capable of this. They clean the
entire board and not specific bits. We gave concepts one and two ratings of 2 for
flexibility. Concept three on the other hand is very flexible. The duster in this design is
a third of the length of the board and it has a motor to move the duster from left to right.
For this flexibility, concept three was given a rating of 5.

e. AESTHETICS

Of the five criteria we used, aesthetics was the least important. We gave it a weight of
1. All designs appealed to us aesthetically so all three concepts were given a rating of
5 for aesthetics.

Figure 20 Decision Matrix

24
3.4 DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Our prototype was constructed on a frame for transportation. The eventual machine will be
designed to be attached to the wall beneath the board. The height of the “legs” of the frame
is 91.44cm. The top of the frame that houses the board is 107cm x 168cm. The motors
used are 50Watts, 12V motors. They have a mechanical horsepower of 6hp. The battery
used to power the prototype is 12V, 7Ah. The pulleys are 6cm in diameter and the bearings
are 5.5cm in diameter. The belts used are 215cm in length by measurement. The distance
between the belts is 142cm. The relay switches used are 12V. Center-to-center distance of
the pulleys is 98cm.

Belt Parameters

b = 12mm, t = 8mm, w/l = 1.06

D1 = diameter of driving pulley, 60mm

D2 = Diameter of driven pulley, 60mm.

Ρbelt = 1250kg/m3

Rotational Speed of driver pulley, N1 = 319.998rpm

Ss = 3.0MPa

µ = 0.25

Groove angle of pulley = 30° = 2β

Length of belt by calculation,

 ( D1  D2 )  ( D1  D2 ) 2 
L=  2C    (Khurmi & Gupta,
2  4C 
2005)

We use a center, C, 980mm.

25
  (60  60)  (60  60) 2 
L =  2  980    = 2152.169mm = 215.2169cm (close to the
2  4  980 
215cm obtained via measurement)

A standard belt is then chosen as the nearest match is 2158 mm which is a type A83 belt.

Operational Acceleration

𝑁𝑠 = 319.998𝑅𝑃𝑀

2πN 2×π×319.998
ω= = (Khurmi & Gupta, 2005)
60 60

ω = 33.51 rads⁄s

ω 33.51
α= =
t 6

α = 5.585 rads⁄s2

Bearing Parameters

The single row deep groove ball bearing was chosen because of its high load carrying
capacity and suitability for high running speed. The specific static load rating or capacity
Co is:

1
Co   ko  i  z cos Dw 2 (Palmgren, 1945)
5

Where:

Co = Specific Static Load rating or Capacity = 40kN

Ko = Factor depending on the type of bearing. = 12.3

Dw = Diameter of the ball

α = Nominal angle of contact = 0

26
i = Number of rows of the ball in any one bearing = 1

z = Number of balls per row in the groove = 6

Qmax
Ko  (Palmgren, 1945)
Dw 2

Qmax = Maximum bearing load.

From the above data, the ball diameter can be calculated

 Co  5 
Dw    (Budynas & Nisbett, 2015)
 Ko  i  z cos  

 40  103  5 
  
 12.3  1  6 cos 0 

= 2710.0271

= 52.06mm

The next available market diameter was 55mm.

Then the maximum bearing load Qmax becomes:

Qmax
Ko 
Dw 2

Qmax = Ko  Dw2

= 12.3  2710.0271

= 33333.3333N

The bearing with identification number 6206, which is has an inner diameter of 25mm and
outer diameter of 55mm, was then chosen. The bearing number interpreted as 200 means
a light-bearing of the bore that is the inner diameter of 5 × 5 = 25mm. Also, in the selection
of this bearing, the radial load of which the bearing can carry was put into consideration.
However, for the ball lubrication, grease is used at low and medium speed when the
temperature is not over 20ºC while oil is used at higher speed. Hence, for this design, grease

27
 is regarded as the most satisfactory lubricant, because the temperature rarely exceeds 20oC
during operation.

3.5 THE PROTOTYPE

Concept three was chosen with the aid of the decision matrix. The materials needed were
identified and then purchased. Then fabrication began.

The frame was the first to be fabricated. Lengths of metal were bought. The metal was cut
to the desired measurements and the welded together to the desired shape.

Figure 21 The Frame

Once the frame was standing, the rest of the materials were attached to it. The board was
mounted to the frame. Next the pocket for the battery was fabricated and welded to the
back of the frame.

28
Figure 22 Mounted board

The driving pulleys were welded to the motors and the motors had pockets fabricated to
house them. The driving and driven pulleys were then connected with the belts.

Figure 23 The pulley welded to the motor

29
The driven pulleys were then set up between two bearings each to aid rotation. The bearings
are set in a ‘cup’ which was in turn welded to the frame. The cup holds the outside of the
bearing firm while allowing the inside rotate freely.

Figure 24 Driven pulley and two bearings

Next, a holder was fabricated for the duster. The wood was cut to the required dimensions
(1.75ft) and the felt from the dusters we bought was glued to the wood. The duster was
then set on the holder and the two induction motors and two wheels were attached to the
duster.

30
Figure 25 The duster

The duster holder was then fastened to the belts of the device using bolts and nuts. A hole
was first punched in the belts as the desired locations in order to give room for the bolts
and nuts to be placed. At the sites of the holes, the duster was then fastened. Wheels were
then placed at the back of the holder to give the holder freedom to ascend and descend the
frame. The wheels are there to make the motion smooth

Figure 26 Attachment points of the holder to the belts

31
 The electrical work and the coding were then done next. The H-bridge relays were built.
The aim of this is to reverse the polarity of the motors so the duster can both ascend and
descend. The Arduino code was then done and the board was assembled to enable the
system to be operated with the push of a button form a distance. Finishing touches were
added to the device, the welded joints were sanded. The belts were tensioned.

Figure 27 Final Prototype

3.6 ENGINEERING BILL OF MATERIALS

S/N PARTS PARAMETERS MATERIAL PRICE (₦)
1 Frame 1.5in x 3in x 36ft Mild Steel 11,600
2 Belts A83, 2 pieces EPDM 7,000
3 Bolts and Nuts 75 pieces Steel 8,300
4 Wheels 2 pieces Rubber 1,000
5 Pulleys 6cm in diameter, 6 pieces Cast Steel 3,000

32
6 Motors 50W, 12V, 3pieces - 15,000
7 Connectors 20 pieces - 2,500
8 Relay 4 pieces - 2,000
9 Push button 10 pieces - 1,700
10 Bread board 2 piece Plastic 9,000
11 Duster 4 pieces Felt 2,800
12 Electrodes 4 packs Stainless Steel 18,000
13 Wood 1.5ft long HDF Ply board 200
14 Wire 2 yards Copper 2,500
15 Bearings 5.5cm in diameter, 6 pieces Stainless Steel 5,400
16 Arduino Kit 1 piece - 30,000
17 Rod/Pipe 8ft Stainless Steel 9,000
18 Toy Car 4 pieces - 5,000
19 Washer 25 pieces Steel 1,500
20 Screws 15 pieces Steel 100
21 Cutting Stone 1 piece Sandstone 1,000
22 Tester 1 piece - 1,000
23 Transistor 20 pieces - 2,000
24 Arduino Remote 1 piece - 1,000
Battery
25 H-bridge Battery 9V, 1 piece - 2,100
26 Battery (rent) 12V, 7Ah, 1 piece - 3,000
TOTAL 145,700

S/N SERVICE PRICE (₦)

1 Transportation 8,000
2 Workmanship (CAD) 24,000
3 Workmanship (Electrical) 5,000
4 Workmanship (Fabrication) 35,000
5 Workmanship (General) 40,000

33
 6 Workmanship (Coding) 8,800
TOTAL 120,800

TOTAL COST = PARTS + SERVICES = 145,700 + 120,800 = ₦266,500

3.7 ARDUINO CODE

The following is the code used to assign functions to various keys on the remote. 4 keys
were needed in total: UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT. We assigned UP to button 2, DOWN
to button 8, LEFT to button 4, RIGHT to button 6.

Figure 28 Arduino remote

34
 Figures 29-31 Arduino Code

3.8 SAFETY/PRECAUTIONS
a) Eye protection was worn when welding.
b) All welded joints were smoothed out with a grinding machine to avoid injury.
c) The bearing bolts and nuts were tightened with care to prevent accidental loosening.
d) The device needs to be thoroughly cleaned after use.
e) Don't lay on the machine's body while it is operating.
f) Clean all dust and filth off the electric motor.
g) Turn the machine off when not in use.
h) The belts must be properly tensioned to prevent buckling.

35
3.9 MAINTENANCE
a) The duster should be removed and the felt should be washed with soap and water at least
once every two weeks of use.
b) The battery should be fully charged overnight no more than once a week and no less than
once in two weeks.
c) To guarantee proper operation over a long period of time, the belts should be replaced once
a year because they are prone to failure due to the holes drilled in them to attach the duster
holder.

3.10 LIMITATIONS
Our design has certain limitations due to time and financial constraints. Some of them are
outlined below:
a) The Arduino code used to operate the device is functional, but our Arduino board
couldn’t read the remote we used due to it lacking and infrared sensor.
b) The device was made with belts and pulleys due to cost. Chains and sprockets
would be more efficient and we wouldn’t need to damage the chain to attach the
duster holder as is the case with belts.
c) A rack and pinion would be more efficient at carrying out the horizontal duster
motion than the wheels we used. The rack and pinion we needed would have taken
too long to arrive after ordering it so we had to go ahead with induction motors and
wheels.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 RESULTS

Time taken to clean a 4ft x 8ft board manually = 54s

3×4
Ratio of the area of our prototype board to the area of a standard UNIBEN class board = =
4×8

0.375

Time taken to clean a 3ft x 4ft board manually = 0.375 × 54 = 20.25𝑠

Time taken to slide top-to-bottom = 6s

Time taken to clean a 3ft x 4ft board with our machine = 6s x 3 = 18s

20.25 −18
Percentage time saved = × 100 = 11.11%
20.25

Average number of times a week the board is cleaned in Old 1000 LT = 54

Average number of times a week the board is cleaned in LT2 = 51

Battery = 12V, 7Ah

7𝐴ℎ
Time to charge with a 12V, 1A charger = = 7ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
1𝐴

Current needed by both motors = 4.2 amps x 2 = 8.4A

7𝐴ℎ
Time both motors will run on a fully charged battery = 8.4𝐴 = 0.8333ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = 50 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠

50 𝑥 60
Number of times the machine can clean the board on a full battery = ≈ 167 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠
18

At an average of 52.5 cleans per week, number of weeks the machine can last on a full battery =
3.18 weeks ≈ 16 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠

Time taken to slide top-to-bottom = 6s

Distance from top-to-bottom = 0.98m

37
 0.98𝑚
Velocity = = 0.16𝑚/𝑠
6𝑠

Radius of the pulley = 0.03m

0.16𝑚/𝑠
Revolutions = = 5.3333𝑟𝑒𝑣/𝑠 = 319.998𝑟𝑒𝑣/𝑚𝑖𝑛
0.03𝑚

2 𝑥 𝜋 𝑥 319.998
Angular velocity = = 33.51𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠
60

Mechanical Horsepower = 6hp = 6 x 745.7 = 4474.2Watts

𝑃 4474.2
Torque = 𝜔 = = 133.52Nm
33.51

4.2 DISCUSSION
The time taken for the machine to clean (18s) will be slightly more on a 4ft x 8ft board due
to the increased length of the shaft and the extra weight. Although there will be an increase,
we expect it to still be considerably less than the 54s taken to clean it manually. Thus, the
machine will remain efficient even at full scale.

At full scale, and taking losses into consideration, the 16-day battery life of the machine
should drop but not so much as to make the 7-hour charging time seem wasted.

38
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION
We were able to achieve our objectives:

a) Our device cleans faster than a person cleaning using conventional means.

b) Manpower was saved because the device is almost fully automated, only the push
of a button is required and sliding of the duster is required.

c) The entire device can be fixed to the wall above and under the board to prevent
theft.

d) The duster applies enough pressure on the board to ensure no residue is left behind
after cleaning.

5.2 RECOMMENDATION
Our concept can be improved in the following ways given more time and funding:

a) A gesture sensor can be added to the device to make it even easier to operate.

b) The wheels responsible for the side-to-side motion can be replaced with a rack and
pinion to reduce slip.

c) A bigger motor should be used to move the weight of the wooden duster.

d) The belts and pulleys can be replaced with chains and sprockets for better efficiency
in motion transfer and longer lifespan.

e) To increase the efficiency of the remotes, the Arduino code can be upgraded to
enable continuous motion until button release.

f) For magnetic boards, magnets can be added to the duster to increases the force the
duster exerts on the board, make efficient cleaning possible after only “one sweep”.

39
 REFERENCES

1. Abouzeid, N. E., 1999. Supplying the Future. Boston Business Journal .

2. Budynas, R. G. & Nisbett, J. K., 2015. Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design. 10th ed.
s.l.:McGraw-Hill Education.
3. Clarus, 2022. History of the Blackboard. claroultra.
4. FAIRUZ, N. L. A. B. A., FAHRIZAL, N. B. I. B. S. & NAALI, N. B., 2020. AUTOMATIC
WHITEBOARD CLEANER, Malaysia: s.n.
5. Herman, S., 2010. Industrial Motor Control. 6th edition ed. s.l.:s.n.
6. Khurmi, R. & Gupta, J., 2005. A Textbook of Machine Design. 14th ed. New Delhi: Eurasia
Publishing House (PVT.) Ltd.
7. Mithra, S., 2010. What is the History of the Chalkboard?. wisegeek.
8. Palmgren, A., 1945. Ball and Roller Bearing Engineering. 2nd ed. Sweden: SKF Industries.
9. Simolowo, O. E. & Ngana, O. C., 2014. Preliminary Design of an Automated White Board. An
International Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia, 8(2), pp. 68-82.
10. Tamo, R. F., Oyekola, P., Clinton, N. & Komuna, K., 2021. Performance Evaluation of an
Automated Whiteboard Cleaner. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science
(IJRES), IX(2), pp. 01-06.
11. White, S. E., 2008. Picture Yourself Felting Your Knitting: Step-by-step Instruction for
Perfectly Felted Crafts.. s.l.:s.n.

40