ongo-03 micro-cart microprocessor-controlled aerial robotics team advisors dr. john lamont professor...
Post on 16-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ongo-03 Micro-CARTMicroprocessor-Controlled Aerial Robotics Team
Advisors
Dr. John Lamont
Professor Ralph Patterson III
Team Members
2nd Semester 1st Semester
Greg Elliott (Team Leader) Stephanie Berhow David Stulken
Ross Eisenbeis Dylan Connor
Arvin Gandha Ryan D’Acquisto Interdisciplinary Members
Preethi Prabhakar Wail Eltingari Andy Cook (ME)
Andrew Riha Philip Haubrich Andrew Nahra (ME)
Steven Walstrom Richard Jahn
Client
Iowa State University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Presentation outline
• Definitions
• Acknowledgement
• Problem statement
• Operating environment
• Intended users and uses
• Assumptions and limitations
• End product requirements
• Project activity– Previous accomplishments– Present accomplishments– Future required activities
• Approaches considered
• Project definition activities
• Research activities
• Design activities
• Implementations activities
• Testing activities
• Resources and schedules
• Project evaluation
• Commercialization
• Suggestions for future work
• Lessons learned
• Risks and risk management
• Closing summary
Acronym definitionsAttitude The orientation of an aircraft's axes relative to a reference line or plane, such
as the horizonAUVSI Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International FMC Flight mission capableGPS Global positioning systemGSS Ground station systemIARC International Aerial Robotics CompetitionIMU Inertial measurement unitOS Operating systemPC-104+ Intel x86-based controllable board PIC Programmable interface controllerPitch Revolution of a vehicle forward and backward on a central axisPWM Pulse width modulationRC Remote controlRoll Revolution around the longitudinal axis of a vehicleUAV Unmanned aerial vehicleUPS Uninterruptible power supplyWIKI (What I Know Is) A public documentation repositoryYaw Revolution around the vertical axis of a vehicle
Acknowledgement
Iowa State University’s Microprocessor-Controlled Aerial Robotics Team would like to give special thanks to the following people and organizations for their assistance:
Professor John W Lamont and Assistant Professor Ralph Patterson III for sharing their professional experience and guidance throughout the course of this project.
Lockheed Martin Corporation for their technical expertise and generous financial contribution to this costly endeavor. Without their assistance this project would not be possible.
The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering for creating Micro-CART and providing the skills and knowledge required for this project.
Eric Frana for volunteering his time to help out the team, everyone learned a great deal from his involvement this semester.
Problem statement• General Problem Statement
– To provide an entry for Iowa State University into the International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) in July 2006
• General Solution Approach– Fulfill only level 1 competition
requirements– Use an RC X-Cell Gas Graphite
Helicopter for an aerial vehicle– Initial system components
• Sonar array• IMU• GPS unit• Digital magnetic compass• Wireless modem• PC-104+ embedded system• Battery power supply
Operating environment• IARC as an evolving event• Diverse outdoor landscape and handle some obstacles defined by
the competition mission.• Temperature threshold (60o-100o)• No extreme environments, e.g. fog, rain, etc.• Possible wind, light precipitation, adverse topography of the
competition location.
Intended User (s)
• Initial usersCurrent first-semester team members of Micro-CART (Spring 2006 team)
• Intended users– Future Micro-CART teams– Researchers– Industry representatives– Farmers– Hobbyist
Intended Use (s)
• Initial useEntry into Summer 2006 IARC
• Future use– Search and rescue– Military and law enforcement reconnaissance– Crop dusting– Environmental catastrophe control
Assumptions and Limitations• Assumptions
– IARC Mission rules may change after 2006– Necessary funding remains available – Onboard computing systems will be sufficient– Current vehicle is able to carry necessary
equipment• Limitations
– Competition Requirements– Physical limits of helicopter– Helicopter maintenance– Power consumption limits – Team member expertise
End product Requirements• IARC Level 1 Autonomous Functionality
– Take off– Navigate to five waypoints with the fifth located three
kilometers away– Maintain a stable hover at the fifth waypoint
• Allow Future Modification for More Advanced Functionality– Image Recognition– Obstacle Avoidance– Secondary Vehicle Deployment Systems
Presentation outline Definitions Acknowledgement Problem statement Operating environment Intended users and uses Assumptions and limitations End product requirements
• Project activity– Previous accomplishments– Present accomplishments– Future required activities
• Approaches considered
• Project definition activities
• Research activities
• Design activities
• Implementation Activities
• Testing Activities
• Resources and schedules
• Project evaluation
• Commercialization
• Suggestions for future work
• Lessons learned
• Risks and risk management
• Closing summary
Project Activity
• Previous Accomplishments– Purchased helicopter– Acquired all components– System design exceeded max lift capacity
• Present Accomplishments– Weight reduction– Refine components and documentation
• Future Required Activities– Testing
Previous Accomplishments• Fall 1999
– Purchased RC helicopter– Purchased Dell PC
• Fall 2000 - 2003– Pilot training program
• Spring 2002– Acquired security box
• Fall 2002– Acquired and setup Linux PC– Sonar circuit design– Complete PIC programming for serial interfacing
• Fall 2002 – Spring 2003– Hardware acquisitions– Serial software development– PIC programming– PC-104+ operating system
• Spring 2003– Power system– Mounting platform– Manual override switch
• Fall 2004– Replace PC-104+
• Spring 2005– Acquired Wireless Data-link– Acquired Magnetic Compass
Completed design Spring 2005
- Exceeded 14lb. lift capacity
Present Accomplishments
• Fall 2005– WIKI– Hardware enclosure– New head block– Flight test stand– Flight testing– Onboard payload
limitations
Future required activities
• Fall 2005 to Project End– Flight control software review and
improvement– Sensor review and improvement– IARC level 2 solution– Flight testing and maintenance– Additional funding– Thorough project documentation
Approaches consideredActivity Approaches Advantages Disadvantages Selected
New Documentation
WIKI
Notebooks None disorganized illegible
loss of data
Online Read Accessible loss of data
WIKI Read/Write Accessible
SecureUser Friendly
None
Hardware Enclosure
Carbon FiberBoard
Plastic Box Safe Containment HeavyLargeAwkward
Carbon Fiber Light WeightLow Center of
Gravity
None
Project definition activities
• Fall 2005: New definition activities:– Helicopter flight test stand– Online documentation System
- All else is as previously defined (ongoing project)
Definition – Test Stand
• Test Stands Considered:– Traditional Pivoting Arm (Selected)
• Advantages: Proven design, locally available, reasonable cost
• Disadvantages: Requires modification, not true full range of motion (can only move about a circular path)
– Suspended Platform (Rejected)• Advantages: Less modification needed, full freedom of
motion• Disadvantages: Need to import from UK, requires flat surface
(such as a parking lot)
Definition - Documentation
• Alternative documentation methods considered:– CVS: Concurrent Versioning System (Rejected)
• Advantages: Simple setup, many utilities available, already used for code
• Disadvantages: Not user friendly, requires selective downloading, slow turnaround
– WIKI (Selected)• Advantages: Extremely easy, no software required (web
interface), fast turnaround• Disadvantages: Not downloadable, harder to backup
Research activities
• Fall 2005: New Research Activities– Weight Problem
• Enclosure redesign• Landing gear replacement• Possible IMU replacement• Possible GPS replacement
– Worn/Damaged/Failed Equipment• Helicopter head & flybar• Possible GPS replacement• Flight test stand
– Documentation Effort• Associated research
Research - Enclosure
• Material Change– Previous- Lexan: Heavy, too thick, and has static
electricity problems, but is easy to work with– Current- Carbon Fiber: Much lighter & stronger, but
harder to work with and is more expensive
• Coverage– Previous- Fully enclosed to protect equipment– Current- Open (mounting plate only), easier to work
on, but doesn’t protect equipment
Research – Landing Gear
• Previous custom landing gear was purpose designed around old enclosure
• Current layout of equipment (long and flat) makes old landing gear excessively large
• Helicopter’s original stock landing gear is now again usable (with appropriate standoffs)
Research - IMU
• System is heavy, and at 1.4 lbs, current IMU is one of the heaviest components
• Alternatives have been found that are as light as 29 g (0.064 lbs)
• Hardware changes would require a lot of software changes
Research – Helicopter Blades
• Alternative to decreasing weight: Increase lift
• Longer blades of different airfoil shape recommended
• Would require longer tail boom
Research – Head & Flybar
• Helicopter repairs necessary after last summer
• Plastic head replaced with stronger aluminum version
• Alternate head would accept longer blades if used in the future
• Flybar replaced
Research - GPS
• Current GPS– Possibly non-functional– Three-part system (GPS board, interface board,
antenna)– Many cables required (power, serial, interface,
antenna coax)
• Alternate GPS– Single-part system (GPS & antenna together)– Single USB cable for both power and data– Would require software changes
Research – Test Stand
• Continual helicopter damage prevents system testing & delays project
• Autonomous system difficult to test without actually flying
• Flight test stand can allow helicopter to fly without as much danger of damage– Useful for both autonomous testing & human
pilot training
Research - Documentation
• Previous documentation very poor– Poor transfer of knowledge from semester to semester– Much time wasted repeating research– Hard to get new students up to speed
• WIKI devised– Instantly visible updates– Single documentation source– Viewable/editable from any PC on the internet– Tracks changes, easy to revert
• Results– More time spent re-researching almost every system, but
beyond this semester, it will be well organized and easily accessable
Presentation outline Definitions Acknowledgement Problem statement Operating environment Intended users and uses Assumptions and limitations End product requirements Project activity
Previous accomplishments Present accomplishments Future required activities
Approaches considered Project definition activities
Research activities
• Design activities
• Implementations activities
• Testing activities
• Resources and schedules
• Project evaluation
• Commercialization
• Suggestions for future work
• Lessons learned
• Risks and risk management
• Closing summary
Design activities
Enclosure Fabrication • Carbon fiber composite
board• Mounted with aluminum
stands• Location and mounting of
components
Flight Test Stand Modification
• Current cradle too small
• Need to widen mounting mechanism
• The test stand would need to be cut and re-welded in 5 locations
Wiki DesignData loss is a serious issue for all on going teams. A repository is needed with the following traits:
• Centralized• Secure• Easily accessed• Easily updated
Presentation outline Definitions Acknowledgement Problem statement Operating environment Intended users and uses Assumptions and limitations End product requirements Project activity
Previous accomplishments Present accomplishments Future required activities
Approaches considered Project definition activities
Research activities Design activities
• Implementation Activities
• Current testing
• Resources and schedules
• Project evaluation
• Commercialization
• Suggestions for future work
• Lessons learned
• Risks and risk management
• Closing summary
Implementation activities
• WIKI
• Ground Station System
• Sonar Array
• Flight Stand
• Enclosure
• Landing Gear
• Helicopter Maintenance and Repair
WIKI Implementation
• Objective: to document everything we knew about MicroCART
• Electronically capture all information in old lab journals
• Taking pictures of components
Ground Station Implementation
• Testing of each module (written in Java) to verify that all data is processed properly
• Testing involves using the GUI
Sonar Array Implementation
• Main board design was revised
• New custom PCB is being fabricated• Greater use of
connectorsinstead ofsoldered-to-board wires
Flight Stand Implementation
• Purchased and assembled
• Modification is in progress to interface our helicopter with this stand
Enclosure Implementation
• New carbon fiber composite
• Dimensions must still be determined
• Minimum size with adequate strength
Landing Gear Implementation
• Last year’s designis overkill
• Now, use theoriginal landinggear with aluminumextensions
Helicopter Maintenance and Repair Implementation
• New aluminum head-block replaced old plastic one
• Servos and linkages re-calibrated
• Engine re-tuned, choke adjusted, screws replaced
• Flight tests
Presentation outline Definitions Acknowledgement Problem statement Operating environment Intended users and uses Assumptions and limitations End product requirements Project activity
Previous accomplishments Present accomplishments Future required activities
Approaches considered Project definition activities
Research activities Design activities Implementations activities
• Testing activities
• Resources and schedules
• Project evaluation
• Commercialization
• Suggestions for future work
• Lessons learned
• Risks and risk management
• Closing summary
Testing, its results, and associated mod activities
• Testing for the system is completed in a modular fashion
• Each piece is tested for correctness• A integration test is then performed for
each sub-system, then another to integrate each sub-system into the whole
• To date, testing has revealed several small hardware problems that are being dealt with this semester
Other important activities
• New web based documentation
• New carbon fiber enclosure, will solve the weight problem from last year
• Test stand for local flight testing
• Successful load testing for the helicopter – Min – 11.5lbs – Max – 14lbs
Resources and Schedules
• Resources– Personnel hourly contribution– Financial requirements
• Schedules– Project gantt chart
Resources and schedules
0
50
100
150
200
Berhow
ShrabCook
Connor
D'Acq
uisto
Eisenbe
is
Elliott
Eltingar
i
Gandh
a
Haubric
hJa
hn
Hahra
Prabha
karRih
a
Stulke
n
Walst
rom
Act
ual
Est
imat
ed
Estimated and Actual Hourly Contribution
Actual
Estimated
Resources and SchedulesItem
Previous Total Cost
Actual Cost for Spring 2004
Total Project Cost to Date
Sensor Systems GPS 5,000.00$ -$ 5,000.00$ IMU 5,500.00$ -$ 5,500.00$ Sonar 575.00$ 33.00$ 608.00$ Magnetic compass 400.00$ -$ 400.00$ Wireless comm link 500.00$ -$ 500.00$ Ground station PC -$ -$ -$ Flight Controls -$ PC/104 1,217.00$ -$ 1,217.00$ Servo controller 100.00$ -$ 100.00$ Manual override switch 50.00$ -$ 50.00$ Emergency shutoff switch 59.85$ -$ 59.85$ Vehicle Configuration -$ Flight Augmentation Stand -$ 185.00$ 185.00$ Power supply / battery 1,160.00$ -$ 1,160.00$ Team -$ Helicopter / maintenance 6,350.00$ 87.60$ 6,437.60$ IARC Entry fee -$ -$ -$ Transportation to IARC -$ -$ -$ Labor ($10.50 per hour) 92,841.00$ 5,659.50$ 98,500.50$ Total Hours 8,842 539 9,381
Total Costs (w/o labor) 20,911.85$ 305.60$ 21,217.45$ Total Costs (w/ labor) 113,752.85$ 5,965.10$ 119,717.95$
Resources and schedules
Presentation outline Definitions Acknowledgement Problem statement Operating environment Intended users and uses Assumptions and limitations End product requirements Project activity
Previous accomplishments Present accomplishments Future required activities
Approaches considered Project definition activities
Research activities Design activities Implementations activities Testing activities Resources and schedules
• Project evaluation
• Commercialization
• Suggestions for future work
• Lessons learned
• Risks and risk management
• Closing summary
Project evaluationComponent Tasks Current StatusGPS software Test and verify IncompleteMounting scheme Implement, test, and verify CompleteSonar Purchase, test, and verify IncompleteSonar software Develop, test, and verify IncompleteCompass software Test and verify CompleteWireless data link Test and verify CompleteFlight Control
SoftwareDebug, test, and verify Incomplete
Composite enclosureDesign, lay-out, and purchase composite
hardwareComplete
Project evaluation
Component Tasks Current StatusAutonomous flight control Test IncompleteHelicopter electronics Test and verify CompleteHelicopter Determine center of mass IncompleteTest stand Acquire CompleteTranslational flight
controllerComplete, test, and verify Incomplete
Senior design Update website Complete
Senior designFulfill reporting
requirementsComplete
Senior design Document on the Wiki In Progress
Commercialization
• At this time, the project will not be commercialized– Too large, too fragile for military applications– Too expensive for civilian applications
• Future– Military– Reconnaissance and surveying– Hazardous site clean-up– Search and rescue– Traffic control and enforcement
Recommendations
• Continue as originally envisioned– Automated helicopter is close to flying– Project will no longer suffer “memory loss”– Micro-CART is a worthwhile learning
experience
Lessons learned
• What went well– WIKI documentation– Materials acquisition– Hardware testing procedures– Integration testing procedures– Helicopter repairs
Lessons learned
• What did not go well– Receiving parts later than expected– Performing few integration tests– Testing with no initial testing documentation– Motivating team members– Integrating inexperienced members
Lessons learned
• Technical knowledge gained– Understanding helicopter flight characteristics– Maintaining the RC helicopter– Testing unknown/poorly documented systems– Implementing the Java2D library
Lessons learned
• What would be done differently– Perform more testing – early and often– Motivate team members with testing
Risk and risk managementAnticipated potential risks:
Risk: Helicopter cannot lift current payloadManagement: • Perform additional load tests frequently• Research increased engine power• Reduce component weight
Risk: Loss of fundingManagement: • Use current funds cautiously• Seek additional sources of funding
Risk: Loss of team memberManagement: • Overlapping team member skills• Encourage thorough documentation
Risk and risk managementAnticipated potential risks:
Risk: Helicopter damage from collisionsManagement: • Allow only skilled pilots to fly the helicopter• Utilize test stand for simple flying• Implement manual override kill switch
Risk: Slow TurnaroundManagement: • Factor in the turnaround time
Risk: Injury for vehicle malfunctionManagement: • Do necessary safety checks before each flight• Safety barriers between helicopter and team
Closing summary and questions
• Project on schedule to be IARC level 1 completed by Spring 2006
• Lack of documentation has been corrected so progress may continue
• Very challenging project with an interesting scope
Questions?
top related