WEIGHTS TO THE OBJECTIVES

SI No	Objectives	Weights
1	Budget	8
2	Nature of the gripper	8
3	Ease of use	7
4	Maintenance	7
5	Design	5
6	Space	4
7	Safety	7

PUGH CHART

Objectives	Weights	Design 1	Design 2	Design 3	Design 4	Design 5	Design 6	Design 7	Design 8
Budget	8	Datum	+	-	-	--	--	--	--
Nature of the gripper	8	Datum	++	+	-	+	+	++	+
Ease of use	7	Datum	+	-	+	+	-	-	-
Maintenance	7	Datum	+	--	+	+	+	--	--
Design	5	Datum	-	+	++	+	+	++	++
Space	4	Datum	+	+	+	-	+	--	--
Safety	7	Datum	-	-	++	+	+	-	-
Score(+)			42	17	42	34	31	26	18
Score(-)			12	36	16	20	23	52	52
Total			30	-19	26	14	8	-26	-34

FINAL DESIGN

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SCORES ASSIGNED FOR THE FINAL DESIGN

Objectives	Assigned score	Justification
Budget	+	The selected design of robotic arm when compared to datum is cheap
Nature of the gripper	++	The grip of the selected design of robotic arm when compared to datum has a best holding strength which helps too hold the object easily
Ease of use	+	The selected design of robotic arm when compared to datum is simple to use
Maintenance	+	The selected design of robotic arm when compared to datum requires less maintenance
Design	-	The selected design of robotic arm when compared to datum is little difficult to make
Space	+	The selected design of robotic arm when compared to datum consumes less space
Safety	-	The selected design of robotic arm when compared to others is less safe to operate and requires caution while operating

FUNCTIONAL CLUSTERING

SUBSYSTEM LIST

SI No	Subsystem
1	Motion Unit
2	Interaction Unit

INTERACTION DETAILS OF SUBSYSTEMS

Motion unit	Interaction unit
Data Interaction	✔️
Spatial Interaction	❌
Material Interaction	✔️

Interaction Unit	Motion unit
Data Interaction	❌
Spatial Interaction	✔️
Material Interaction	✔️