boeing v/tol 2 team s.w.a.g. statement of...

Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: NO

Non-Disclosure Agreement: NO

EDSGN460W F2013

Boeing V/TOL – 2 Team S.W.A.G.

Statement of Work

For the period of August 26, 2013 through December 13, 2013

Submitted to

Dr. Wallace Catanach as a part of

EDSGN 460W

by

Lovedeep Bhela, Jeff Glusman, Kyle Maguire and Kevin Zhou

The Pennsylvania State University

Departments of Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering

University Park, PA 16802

9/24/2013

EDSGN460W F2013

Boeing V/TOL – 2 Team S.W.A.G.

Statement of Work

by

Lovedeep Bhela, Jeff Glusman, Kyle Maguire and Kevin Zhou

The Pennsylvania State University

Departments of Aerospace Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering

University Park, PA 16802

9/24/2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to give special thanks to the following individuals for their support and guidance

throughout this project for without this would not have been possible:

Mihir Mistry – Flying Qualities Engineer, The Boeing Company, Ridley Park,

Pennsylvania

Adam Mohamed – Structural and Payload Design Engineer, The Boeing Company,

Ridley Park, Pennsylvania

Jason Steiner – Test and Evaluation Engineer, The Boeing Company, Ridley Park,

Pennsylvania

Wallace Catanach – Instructor of Engineering Management, The Pennsylvania State

University, University Park, Pennsylvania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. General Explanation............................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2. CUSTOMER NEEDS .............................................................................................. 2

2.1. Method for Gathering Customer Needs ............................................................................... 2

2.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process.................................................................................................. 2

CHAPTER 3. EXTERNAL RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 3

3.1. Patent Search ........................................................................................................................ 3

3.2. Benchmarking ...................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 4. METRICS ................................................................................................................ 4

4.1. Target Specifications ........................................................................................................... 4

4.2. Needs/Metrics Matrix .......................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 5. CONCEPT GENERATION & SELECTION ......................................................... 5

5.1. Top Level Design ................................................................................................................. 5

5.2. Materials .............................................................................................................................. 6

5.3. Concept Mechanism Mapping ............................................................................................. 8

5.4. Pros and Cons of Concept Mechanism ................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER 6. CONCEPT DRAWINGS....................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 7. ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS ............................................................................... 13

7.1. Budget ................................................................................................................................ 13

7.2. Gantt Chart ......................................................................................................................... 14

7.3. Ethics.................................................................................................................................. 15

7.4. Environment ....................................................................................................................... 15

7.5. Communication .................................................................................................................. 15

CHAPTER 8. RISK AND SAFETY ............................................................................................ 16

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 18

Page i

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Power and signal flow paths on the ArduCopter platform. ............................................ 5

Figure 2: Proposed composite material’s structural layering ......................................................... 6

Figure 3: High-Strength Lightweight Carbon Fiber ....................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Concept Map for the Claw with Roller Tips ................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Concept map for the Vacuum with Nozzle ..................................................................... 8

Figure 6: Initial sketch of the Claw with Rollers conept .............................................................. 10

Figure 7: Initial sketch of the Vacuum with Nozzle conept ......................................................... 11

Figure 8: Initial sketch of the Dual-Scoop Bucket conept ............................................................ 12

Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Analytic Scoreing of customer needs. .............................................................................. 2

Table 2: Target specifications for the final platform. ..................................................................... 4

Table 3: Customer needs Matrix relating customer needs to target specifications. ........................ 4

Table 4: Pros and Cons of the Claw with Roller Tips .................................................................... 9

Table 5: Pros and Cons of the Vacuum with Nozzle ...................................................................... 9

Table 6: Current Balance Sheet .................................................................................................... 13

Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reflects the process by which Team S.W.A.G. designed, fabricated, benchmarked,

and tested a pickup system designed to mount to existing ArduCopter structure for The Boeing

Company. The entire system needs to be able to complete a repeatable mission for as close to, if

not over, 15 minutes of flight. Currently there are other groups that have performed similar tasks

for other university sponsored events. Our goal was to design the most efficient methods for use

of the battery power over a 15 minute span of time. The only specification is that we must use

specific radio receiver and transceiver couple, and a specific battery.

Before beginning the project we researched into the existing configurations of the ArduCopter

and read through the myriad of posts on the manufacturer’s website about specific configuration

changes. Concept generation consisted of looking at different methods for picking up the tennis

balls, changes to the initial structure of the quadcopter, and different methods for testing

performance. It was decided via customer needs ranking which concepts to proceed with.

The main risk of this project is the loss of any parts such as, but not limited to, propellers,

batteries, motors, structure and electrical components. To avoid these issues, all structural

components were modeled in CAD for possible reconstruction and spare parts were kept on hand

throughout the process. The final product will be delivered to The Boeing Company after the

competition with the two other teams on December 6, 2013.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

The Boeing Company is the largest aerospace company in the world and has huge sectors in both

commericial and military domains. Recently they have been experimenting with cooperative lift

quadcopters and ducted fan X-planes. Boeing has long been devoted to the education of the next

generation of engineers and with that comes CAPSTONE projects much like the one outlined in

this report.

Quadcopters started to become a big hit when microcontrollers started becoming open-source,

such as the Arduino UNO. This made it both easy and understandable for the slightly technical

population to begin home projects such as 3D printers and RC or autonomous quadcopters.

1.2. General Explanation

The Boeing Company has provided 3DRobotics quadcopter kits that are to be built and flown

before any alterations have been made. Once initial flights have occurred, an integrated pick-up

and drop-off system will be designed, built and tested on weighted tennis balls in an indoor

arena. The only design restriction is that the power supply for the flight system must be a

Turnigy nano-tech 4000mAh 3S 35~70C Lithium Polymer (LiPo) battery pack.

The three teams will be in competition over a 15 minute time period to pick up as many weighted

tennis balls from a reservoir 50 feet away and drop them off in a trash can. The quadcopter must

remain in flight between the two points but can land in order to make the pickup. There is only

allowed to be one pilot per one vehicle, and at least one vehicle must be a vertical

takeoff/landing (V/TOL). Once the mission has been completed it is mandatory to land in the

safe zone before time runs out.

CHAPTER 2. CUSTOMER NEEDS

2.1. Method for Gathering Customer Needs

Initial customer needs were taken directly from the project description that can be found at

www.lf.psu.edu/Instructors/Projects/#719. Beyond the initial description of the mission and

specifications, the Redmine server found at www.projectslfpsu.com has been updated by the

Boeing project sponsors with further requirements and answers to questions. Communication

between team captains through the use of a Google document shared for all teams has

information on customer needs from each of the weekly status report meetings.

During weekly status report meetings, new requirements and questions are brought to Mihir

Mistry and Jason Steiner which if necessary are discussed with Adam Mohammed before an

answer is given.

2.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process

The needs developed from the previous section are to be weighed against each other in an

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This takes the ten needs developed and compares them to

one another. A score of 1.00 simply means that the two needs are of equal importance (typical

values are 2.00, 1.50, 1.25 and 1.00 and their reciprocals). The goal is to achieve a weight for

each need as relatively compared to the others. The final table can be seen below:

Table 1: Analytic Scoreing of customer needs.

CHAPTER 3. EXTERNAL RESEARCH

3.1. Patent Search

As of current, there are no pertinent patents that fit the scope of our project.

3.2. Benchmarking

The following is a video of Raffaello D’Andrea talking at his TED talk about intelligent

quadcopters working together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ

There is also a huge following of the Arducopter based as a Wiki: http://copter.ardupilot.com/

CHAPTER 4. METRICS

4.1. Target Specifications

These are the required specifications due to mission limits as well as based on the customer

needs.

Table 2: Target specifications for the final platform.

4.2. Needs/Metrics Matrix

The below matrix shows the customer needs listed on the y axis, and the target specifications on

the x axis. The different features that correspond with a customer need are marked with an X.

Some are directly related such as controllability and weight, and some are indirectly related such

as flight time and only using the allowable battery.

Table 3: Customer needs Matrix relating customer needs to target specifications.

CHAPTER 5. CONCEPT GENERATION & SELECTION

5.1. Top Level Design

The following diagram shown below, is a simplified model of the electronics systems onboard

the ArduCopter. This simplified version displays each compoenent as well as its connections to

other components. Solid lines represent paths for power to flow while dashed lines represent

signal paths.

Figure 1: Power and signal flow paths on the ArduCopter platform.

The battery required by this project is a LiPo 3-cell battery, with the capacity of 4000mAh. It

serves as a voltage source, providing 11.1 volts, to the flight system. We are allowed an external

battery for the pick up mechanism as seen above.

The power module which allows the battery being connected to a Power Distribution Board

(PDB) and the APM board. There is also a built-in regulator in the power module, which

regulates the rate of power discharging of each cell of the battery.

The APM board is an advanced power management board to manipulate the energy status of the

battery. In addition, it is also an important part of automatic pilot system, where it can

automatically control the flight process.

The other part connected to the power module is the PDB, which divides the power into the

Electrical Speed Controllers (ESC), so that the power can be distributed to the motors. Electrical

Speed Controllers and the Power Distribution Board are connected in series, while different pairs

of ESC and motors are constructed in parallel form. As Electrical Speed Controllers can vary the

speed of the motor, the current going through the motor would change accordingly.

For the energy aspect, the type of battery for the Quadcopter is limited to the LIPO 3-cell

4000mAh batteries. Based on quick calculations, the battery can last between 9 and 10 minutes

in real time flight, more in hover. After the team adds the mechanical design to pickup the

tennis balls, the operation time will drop dramatically to around 6 minutes, which is too short. To

solve the energy issue, there are two possible solutions. A hot-swappable battery is one option,

and the other is a secondary battery to provide the power for the mechanical system separately

from the main battery.

5.2. Materials

The quad-rotor helicopter frame consists of aluminum beam members that are assembled to form

the “X” configuration model. However, the total weight of the rotorcraft can be decreased if the

material of the aluminum beam members can be substituted with composite beam members.

Composite material is much lighter yet stronger than typical metallic substances. Composites are

formed by combining materials together to form an overall structure that is better than the

individual components. Some examples of composite material include fiber-reinforced polymer,

graphite, and ceramic matrices.

The structural layers and configuration of various materials can be seen below:

Figure 2: Proposed composite material’s structural layering

The weight of composite material depends on the density of the components that form the

combination. However, it is the structural strength of the material that makes it a favorable

substitute of metallic components in most aircraft and rotorcraft. The type of resin and fiber

reinforcement greatly affects the strength of the composite and its ability to perform under

various orientation of stress.

The surface patterns of a fiber glass composite plate can be seen below:

Figure 3: High-Strength Lightweight Carbon Fiber

5.3. Concept Mechanism Mapping

Figure 4: Concept Map for the Claw with Roller Tips

Figure 5: Concept map for the Vacuum with Nozzle

5.4. Pros and Cons of Concept Mechanism

Table 4: Pros and Cons of the Claw with Roller Tips

Pros Cons

Simple mechanism to pick up ball without

complicated electronics

Copter needs to be positioned correctly over

ball to ensure proper pickup

Uses weight of quad-rotor copter and claw tip

rollers to grasp ball

Weight of copter and landing impact could

damage mechanism performance

Lock and release system is the only thing

needed for mechanism

Lock and release system could jam from hard

landing impacts

Composite material for claw makes it

lightweight for better performance

The landing legs of the copter would restrict

the mechanism from working

Four prongs would ensure that the ball would

be securely transported during flight

The mechanism could possibly not support the

weight of heavier balls

Table 5: Pros and Cons of the Vacuum with Nozzle

Pros Cons

Advanced method of picking up and releasing

ball with electronic system

Placement of digital vacuum could interfere

with other electronic systems

The digital motor is significantly small and is

favorable when considered total weight

An extension hose from the vacuum to the

nozzle could affect the landing legs

The digital motor is powerful and creates a

good amount of suction

The independent battery could be heavy and

affect the total weight of the rotorcraft

The nozzle combination works better to

increase suction power and attract the ball

Vacuum and nozzle suction strength may not

be enough to pick up heavier balls

Having an independent battery source would

reserve the motor battery

Mechanism control and performance could be

affected by rotorcraft vibrations

CHAPTER 6. CONCEPT DRAWINGS

The concept sketch below consists of a 4 prong claw with tip rollers being lowered down onto

the tennis ball as the copter descends. The rollers will wrap around the ball untl it is completely

grasped and a locking mechanism will hold it in place during flight and release at dropoff.

Figure 6: Initial sketch of the Claw with Rollers conept

The second concept,shown below, consists of a digital vacuum mechanism that would have an

extension tube with a converging nozzle at the tip for increased suction. The system would be

controlled and powered from independent sources like an external battery.

Figure 7: Initial sketch of the Vacuum with Nozzle conept

The final concept sketch, shown below, consists of two pivoting arms that have a scoop bucket

attached to the bottom to completely engulf the tennis ball upon closure. The mechanism would

have to be electronically controlled in order to remain closed during flight and open to release

the ball.

Figure 8: Initial sketch of the Dual-Scoop Bucket conept

CHAPTER 7. ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS

7.1. Budget

The team budget is defined by the course syllabus and all purchases made by team members

have been according to the Senior Design Project Purchases and Reimbursements Guidelines.

Table 6: Current Balance Sheet

Assets Liabilities

Course Allowance Amount (USD) Material Purchases Amount (USD)

EDSGN 460W.1 $1,000.00 5 Pairs - XT60 Connectors $5.99

Total Assets $1,000.00 Total Liabilities $5.99

Net Balance $994.01

Boeing V/TOL Team 2: S.W.A.G.Budget Balance Sheet

7.2. Gantt Chart

7.3. Ethics

The biggest ethical issues that the team will encounter will be locations in which we choose to

fly and plagiarism. Ethical decisions must be made to ensure the safety of all personell on the

team as well as bystanders that will be around testing sites. The Boeing Company has advised

that all three teams collaborate and share ideas and resources throughout the project. An issue

could arise if one team uses concepts developed from another team without permission or

acknowledgement.

7.4. Environment

All decisions made in the design, build and test of the quadcopter will reflect what is best for the

environment. All products, once not usable, will be correctly recycled and disposed of.

7.5. Communication

Meetings with sponsors have been set for Mondays at 5:00 PM via Google Hangouts or Boeing

Teleconference Service. The Redmine Server was also ultilized for uploading weekly status

reports and updated Gantt Charts. The occasional email directly to the sponsors was used in case

of dire need.

Boeing Sponsor, Adam Mohammed, came up to Penn State for the weekend of September 28th

and 29th

in order to give each team lessons on flying.

CHAPTER 8. RISK AND SAFETY

The ArduCopter being used for both baseline performance characteristics as well as an initial

foundation for later modifications in this project is designed to be a relatively stable platform for

newcomers in the world of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. Although this platform is

designed to be easily assembled and operated by individuals with little or no prior experience,

due to the nature of the equipment, there are inherent risks and safety issues to be addressed.

Foremost, prior to any flight one must ensure that all components and rotors are securely

fastened to the ArduCopter frame and that all parts appear to be structurally sound. If this is the

first flight, all screws should be checked to ensure that they have been securely fastened using

either a thread seal tape or a liquid thread lock to prevent them from coming loose due to system

vibrations. All rotor blades should be checked for integrity (no chips, cracks or splits should be

visible on the rotor blades). Finally the battery power levels will need to be examined and

verified that there is sufficient power in the battery to prevent damage to the LiPo cells.

The LiPo batteries used should be handled with care to prevent adverse conditions. Failure to

handle the batteries properly can result in drops and/or puncture. Physical abuse may cause the

battery to rupture and ultimately fail (ruptured/punctured LiPo cells have been known to catch

fire). Furthermore; the batteries should be charged in a location that will minimize the risk of

fire should the battery have a catastrophic failure. When charging the battery, the battery charger

should be set to the appropriate charging settings for the battery being charged. Failure to

properly charge the battery can result in battery degradation, failure or at worst explosion. In the

event of an adverse condition while charging, the charger should be immediately disconnected

from its power supply. If it is safe to do so, disconnect of the battery from the charger. Next,

place the battery (and charger if unable to safely disconnect) in a safe place such as a metal trash

can or driveway.

Ensure that the LiPo batteries are operated within their specified voltage and temperature bounds

to prevent degradation and/or failure. LiPo batteries should never be discharged below 3.0 volts

as discharging below 3.0 volts will not accept a full charge and may experience problems

maintaining voltage during use. Additionally, if the battery cables have to be modified to accept

a new connector ensure that these cables cannot accidentally cause a short circuit. Allowing a

short circuit can cause fire or explosion [1].

Once the ArduCopter is powered on and the rotors begin to spin they become a cutting hazard

and potential flying debris source. At no time should anyone attempt to touch the rotor blades

while the motors are being powered regardless if the rotors are spinning or not. If the motors

have power but are not moving, one should turn off the system and investigate the problem in a

safe manner. Failure to do so may result in a motor becoming freed while powered and the rotor

blade to rapidly accelerate and become a cutting hazard. The motors rotate at speeds in excess of

5000 rpm which is fast enough to cause serious damage and/or injury to both the rotor blades and

anything they strike. A blade that strikes a solid object may break apart and send debris flying

through the air. It is important that anyone near or operating the ArduCopter wear appropriate

eye and/or face protection at all times.

The ArduCopter platform is by no means perfect and components are known to occasionally fail.

As a result it is possible that the system may become highly unstable and crash. In the event that

this happens, one should not attempt to catch the falling platform as there may still be an active

rotor blade. Common modes of failure for the system as a whole are electrical faults within the

electronic speed controller, motor failures, blade failures and loss of power. Loss of power is

commonly encountered when attempting to operate the system to the maximum limits of the

LiPo cell and can often be mitigated by ensuring an adequate flight time safety margin is adhered

to. Safely landing the ArduCopter prior to entering the flight time safety margin can help to

reduce power failures in addition to user error resulting from apprehension or tension spawning

from the need to land quickly to prevent a loss of power event.

NOTE: the system may lose power due to a component failure apart from the battery. Should a

power failure be encountered, all electrical components, including the battery, should be checked

to verify safe operation prior to operating the ArduCopter again.

REFERENCES

[1] "Batteries & Battery-Powered Devices. Aviation Incidents Involving Smoke, Fire, Extreme

Heat, or Explosion," Federal Aviation Administration, 2013.

boeing v/tol 2 team s.w.a.g. statement of...

Documents