Abstract - teamnautilus.weebly.comteamnautilus.weebly.com/.../5/7/93578030/senior_desig… · Web viewTeam Nautilus will utilize their engineering and design skills to make these

University of Houston

Senior Design I MECT 4275

Fall, 2016

Team Nautilus Report

Matthew ByrneDouglas SeagravesRoland RodriguezWendell Briggs

Team Nautilus Page 2 of 20

ContentsAbstract......................................................................................................................................... 3

Objective........................................................................................................................................4

Deliverables................................................................................................................................... 4

Marine Advanced Technologies Education....................................................................................4

MATE Competition History........................................................................................................5

2015 MATE Competition........................................................................................................5

2016 MATE Competition........................................................................................................6

2017 MATE Competition............................................................................................................7

Research........................................................................................................................................ 8

History of ROV........................................................................................................................... 8

Industry......................................................................................................................................9

Market Research......................................................................................................................10

Team Structure............................................................................................................................11

Mentors................................................................................................................................... 11

Materials......................................................................................................................................12

Concepts...................................................................................................................................... 14

Cost & Man hours Estimate.........................................................................................................15

Risk Matrix................................................................................................................................... 15

Project management................................................................................................................... 16

Milestones & extras.....................................................................................................................17

Appendix A – Risk Matrix.............................................................................................................18

Appendix B – Gantt Chart............................................................................................................ 19

Works Cited................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 1 - Sample material cost...................................................................................................13Figure 2- Initial Cost Time estimate.............................................................................................15


AbstractTeam Nautilus is a highly motivated senior design team, composed of four mechanical

engineering technology students from the University of Houston. The objective for the team is

to design and build a fully functional underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to compete

in the 2017 Marine Advanced Technology and Education (MATE) competition. The ROV will

have several unique features that are beyond the 2017 MATE competition requirements; the

first will be the use of two manipulating arms (one power arm and a dexterous articulating

arm). The power arm will be used to stabilize the ROV and will be operated through the use of

hydraulics. The articulating arm will have 3 degrees of freedom and be operated by

servomotors. The second unique feature is a vortex hydro cannon to clear sand and silt

disturbed by the thrusters in order to have unobstructed video feed. The third unique feature is

the ability to lift a payload of 30 pounds underwater by utilizing rotating thrusters.

Team Nautilus will utilize their engineering and design skills to make these complex

systems work as one. These tools will allow the ROV to successfully manipulate underwater

objects and complete the multiple tasks for the 2017 MATE competition. The team will use the

2016 fall semester for planning and design, then will utilize the 2017 spring semester to execute

the plan and manufacture a fully functioning ROV. Team Nautilus will team up with industry and

faculty advisors for advice, guidance, and complex problem solving. The initial ROV has an

estimated overall budget of $15,400. The team will acquire the capital needed to finance the

project by aggressive fundraising techniques and by establishing a large network of industry

professionals and mentors.


ObjectiveThe objective is to design and build a Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle, (ROV) for

entry into the MATE 2017 Explorer class ROV competition. The ROV will be able to navigate

unassisted (driven by remote) under water and complete the various missions as prescribed in

the competition rules. The ROV will consist of a durable frame to encase all of the peripherals, a

camera to aid in navigation and identification of mission objectives, a drive thruster system to

maneuver and steady the ROV under water, a logic system to analyze and interpret sensors (as

required by MATE competition missions), a power arm to provide stability and an articulating

arm for the retrieval and manipulation of objects under water.

Deliverables Design and construct an ROV within the design constraints of the MATE competition

Operate the ROV through LabVIEW

Incorporate a fluid powered arm

Incorporate three degrees of freedom in the articulating arm/gripper

Lift a 30 pound payload under water

Increase a thruster’s baseline velocity by 5%

Build the ROV to fit in a 24” circle footprint on the largest dimension

Incorporate a camera that will rotate to see 270° around the ROV

Incorporate a self-correcting gyroscope

Incorporate a remote system to change the thruster orientation

Build and incorporate a vortex hydro cannon

Marine Advanced Technologies EducationThe Marine Advanced Technologies Education (MATE) Center is an organization and

education center that has partnered with industry and educators to advance marine

technologies and showcase career opportunities for students. This education center offers

professional development workshops for students and educators to better prepare themselves


for the workplace, as well as teach about current marine technologies in the workplace. Also

MATE prides itself with promoting and introducing students to the STEM field. The organization

was established in 1997 and has been holding an ROV competition for K12, community colleges,

and university students since 2001. The annual MATE ROV competition is internationally

recognized and teams from around the world participate.

The annual competition challenges teams to design, fabricate, and then compete in

unique, real-world scenarios. The scenario for each competition changes each year. Due to the

complexity of the tasks and the range of participants, MATE divides all ROVs into three classes:

Explorer, Ranger, and Scout. Depending on the ROV class, there are minor differences within

the competition guidelines. All teams competing must accomplish several tasks in front of a live

audience. One of the aspects that makes this competition unique is that not only are the teams

graded on preforming several underwater tasks with their robot, but also on product

presentation, technical documentation, marketing display, and a safety inspection. The teams

are graded by educators and industry professionals.

MATE Competition History2015 MATE Competition

The theme for the 2015 MATE competition was Arctic Ocean drilling and took place in

St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador Canada. There were three different missions in which

each mission had several tasks to be completed. The teams were given 5 minutes to get the

ROV into the water and ready to start the mission. Next the teams had 15 minutes to complete

as many missions as possible. Then the teams were given 5 minutes to remove the ROV from

the water. If a team takes extra time to remove the ROV, points are deducted from the overall

score. The first mission was named Science Under the Ice. This mission consisted of deploying

the ROV through a hole in the ice to collect samples, place a sensor in a designated location,

survey an iceberg, and identify several species in the area. The second mission was dubbed

Subsea Pipeline Inspection & Repair. The first task was to find a corroded section of a pipe

during an inspection, remove the corroded section and bring it to the surface, repair the section

that was removed, and prepare a wellhead for installment of a subsea christmas tree. The final

mission was named Offshore Oilfield Production & Maintenance. To complete this mission


teams had to check the ground on an oil platform leg, find the angle the wellhead makes with

the seafloor, and measure water flow through a pipeline.

For the 2015 competition, Jesuit Robotics from Jesuit High School won the Explorer class

competition with a total of 569.83 points followed by Eastern Edge from Memorial University

with a final score of 525.50 points. The winning team’s ROV had an estimated cost of $12,800

and used three specialized frames for extreme conditions. The final cost including re-used items

was $33,921.36.

2016 MATE CompetitionThe 2016 competition was designed to simulate a trip to one of Jupiter’s moons, a coral

reef identification and study, and a rig shutdown process. As in the 2015 competition, the

teams were given 5 minutes to get the ROV into the water and ready to start the mission, 15

minutes to complete as many missions as possible, and 5 minutes to remove the ROV from the

water. If the teams take extra time to remove the ROV points are deducted from the overall

score.

This competition consisted of five missions. The first set of missions were named Outer

Space: Mission to Europa, and consisted of connecting an environmental sensor to a power

hub, measure the temperature of a vent, and take pressure readings. The second mission Inner

Space: Mission-Critical Equipment Recovery required the teams to identify specific equipment

by serial numbers, and transport the specified equipment to a recovery basket. The third

mission, Forensic Fingerprinting, required the teams to collect oil samples, return the samples

to the surface, and analyze the samples gas chromatographs. The forth mission, Deepwater

Coral Study, challenged teams to collect two coral samples, bring the samples to the surface,

and then photograph a coral colony. Rigs to Reefs was the final mission, which required teams

to plant a flag in a designated location, attach a wellhead cap to a flange, and lock down the

well head with bolts.

The 2016 MATE competition was held at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston,

Texas. The first place team was Memorial University of Newfoundland with a total cost of

$6,731.00 and a total of 9750 man hours on it. The second place team Jesuit High school with a

total budget of $27,416.56 and spent 3800 hours constructing it. The third place team


AMNO&CO spent $9,560.82 and a total of 4000 hours constructing it. There were 33 teams

that competed in the competition, and the average money spent on ROV construction was

$9,473.00 with an average 3100 man hours. The median amount spent was $8,348.00 and the

median hours spent was 2038 man hours. Purdue University was the team that spent the most

money in the competition at a total of $27,100.00 and 6500 hours building the ROV. Purdue

University took 13th place in the competition. At a reported $2530.00, Hong Kong Polytechnic

was the lowest spending team with a man hour investment of only 495 hours. Copia Lincoln

Community College was the lowest man hours spent on the project. It should be noted that the

lowest reported hours and money spent only accounted for changes made to an ROV from

previous years and not the total project.

2017 MATE CompetitionThe 2017 Mate mission briefing was released at the time of writing, detailing only

preliminary missions and requirements. There will again be four missions to be completed in

one demonstration run. The first mission will be called Commerce: Hyperloop Construction and

will be composed of five tasks. The first task is to insert two rebar reinforcement rods into

position in a steel baseplate. Then the ROV must install a frame onto the baseplate, remove a

pin to release the chains holding the frame, and transport and position a hose for pouring

concrete into the frame. Finally the ROV must retrieve the three positioning beacons and return

them to the surface.

The second mission will be named Entertainment: Light and Water Show Maintenance.

The first task in the mission will be to disconnect the power cable from the platform, and turn

the valve to stop the flow of water to the platform. Next the ROV will disengage the locking

mechanism at the base of the fountain, remove the old fountain, and install a new one. Last the

ROV will re-engage the locking mechanism at the base of the fountain, turn the valve to restore

the flow of water to the platform, reconnect the power cable to the platform, and return the

old fountain to the surface, side of the pool.

The third mission will be Health: Environmental Cleanup. The ROV will use a simulated

Raman laser to determine if contaminants are present in two sediment samples. It must then

collect a 100 mL sediment sample from the contaminated area and return it to the surface. The


sediments will be simulated by agar. Next, the ROV will collect two clams from the

contaminated area and return them to the surface. Lastly a cap will be placed over the

contaminated sediments.

The final mission will be Safety: Risk Mitigation. The ROV will need to locate four cargo

containers, activate each container’s Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (This will be

simulated by shining a light into a port on the side of the container to activate the sensor), and

obtain RFID data via Bluetooth. The data will be used to determine the container’s

identification number, contents, and if the contents are high risk. (MATE will provide a

container manifest.) A buoy marker will need to be attached to the eye-bolt on the container

with high-risk cargo. The distance from the high-risk container to the other three containers

will need to be determined, as well as the direction from the high-risk container to the other

three containers. The distance and direction will be used to make a survey map of the incident

site. (MATE will provide a blank map with 0.25 meter squares.)

ResearchHistory of ROV

The history of the underwater ROV is brief due to the relatively recent conception of the

technology. The first tethered remotely operated vehicle was made by Dimitri Rebikoff in 1953.

In the early 1960’s the United States Navy saw the value of utilizing this new technology and

funded a majority of the development and testing of ROV’s with the primary purpose of

recovering and salvaging lost ordinance and wreckage. This lead to the development of Cable-

Controlled Underwater Recovery Vehicle (CURV). The next major advancements came during

the 1970-1980s when the offshore oil and gas industry starting using ROV’s. This lead to the

development of different ROVs to accomplish different tasks. Since then ROV development has

been strongly correlated with the offshore oil industry. Now ROVs are used to survey

underwater structure, environmental monitoring, and pipeline surveying to name a few.

ROV Types in order of increasing functionality:

Small electric vehicles- Primarily used for observation and inspection typically only have

a camera and go to depths of 300m


High Capacity Electric ROV- larger versions of SMV can dive to 6000m. Still only

equipped with cameras. Small electric power supplies limit the use of other peripherals

or tools.

Work Class Vehicles- Powered electrically and hydraulically so they can perform more

tasks. Typically limited payload and lift capacities. This class of ROV will have a

manipulator and a grabber

Heavy work class ROV- Most advanced version capable of working up to 3000m of water

and lift capacities of up to 11,000lbs. Most have multiple manipulators and grabbers as

well as specialized tool attachments.

Autonomous Underwater Vehicles- The next step in ROV technology. Only military

testing is known to exist in AUV’s. Hybrid AUV’s may be seen in the near future to

reduce the umbilical size from the ROV to the ROV Types in order of increasing

functionality

Industry The ROV industry is vast and has become well diversified. Most ROV’s now are built for a

specific tack or are capable of attaching and detaching several different instruments to

accomplish the current task at hand. The industry offers ROV’s for hobbyists, large industrial

applications, and underwater exploration. Industrial ROV’s are generally governed by API 17H

and ISO 13628. The two standards are nearly identical and are considered interchangeable. The

standard gives recommended practices for the development and design of ROV’s, the interfaces

on subsea production systems, as well as ROV Classifications.

Per API 17H, ROV’s are defined as “Free swimming or tethered submersible craft used to

perform tasks such as inspection, valve operations, hydraulic functions, and other general

tasks.” [1] The ROV’s are generally grouped in the following main categories:

OBSROV (observation class ROV; MCA Class I and Class II) —small vehicles fitted with

cameras/lights and may carry sensors or inspection equipment. They may also have a

basic manipulative capability. They are mainly used for inspection and monitoring.

WROV (work class ROV; IMCA Class III) —ROVs normally equipped with a five-function

grabber and a seven-function manipulators. These commonly have multiplexing controls


capability that allows additional sensors and tools to be operated without the need for a

dedicated umbilical system. WROV are split into two classes: medium WROV and large

WROV depending on their defined work scope. WROVs can carry tooling packages to

undertake specific tasks such as tie-in and connection function for flowlines, umbilicals,

rigid pipeline spools, and component replacement.

For an industry use, the company OCEANEERING is considered a world leader. OCEANEERING

designs, manufactures, and operates their fleet of ROVs and as of January 2015, OCEANEERING

was operating 336 work class ROV systems. Due to the high demand and extensive work

necessary, OCEANEERING employs over 2000 people to run their offshore ROVs.

Market ResearchThe ROV market has been set up so that it can cater to recreational and industrial

applications. One of the larger markets for the ROV is for the hobbyist. Most of these models

are used for underwater viewing and recreation. Several companies produce different sized

models from small to medium ROV’s. These ROV’s are usually under forty-five pounds and can

range from 99 dollars DIY kits to 30,000 dollar professional models. Most of these come with a

tether that connects the control module with the ROV. The control module allows steering of

the bot, and allows real time viewing of the ROV’s on board camera system. Some of the

smaller models also come with a manipulating arm. Several examples of this class of ROV are

the DTG2 Worker with a base model cost of approximately 9,500.00 dollars, the HydroView Pro

7M which retails for approximately 16,000.00 dollars, and the ROVEEE priced at 33,000.00

dollars with a five thruster set up and extended tether.

ROV’s created for the purpose of industrial application also make up a large portion of

the market. These ROV’s are usually designed for underwater pipeline survey and also special

oil rig applications. Some of these applications would be installing a manifold on an oil well,

monitoring a well head, or assisting in sealing oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico where the water

depth can reach up 9,000 feet. These machines are usually designed to accept several different

types of manipulating arms, which are attached or detached depending on the task at hand.

These arms are used to lift, screw, and rotate object into a more desirable fashion. These ROV’s


are usually operated by a small team working in remote locations. Most of these ROV’s are

large and bulky and weigh from 50 to 14,000 pounds. They are also usually very expensive with

prices ranging from 50,000 to 2,000,000+ dollars.

Team StructureThe team is structured in a way to optimize the team’s production. Matthew Byrne was

chosen to be the team lead by group decision. This decision was based on his management

experience and overall leadership qualities. Once this decision was made the team then broke

down the ROV’s components and operating systems into several major and sub-categories.

Then based on our current knowledge of ROV’s, the team grouped all the major and sub-

categories of the ROV into four master groups. These master groups were then discussed and

debated amongst the team, and finally assigned to team members. The final designation of

responsibilities is as follows: Wendell Briggs as the frame and materials lead, Roland Rodriguez

as power and articulating arm lead, Douglas Seagraves as electronics lead, and Matthew Byrne

as team lead and thruster design lead. These positions were assigned to maximize the team’s

potential and to fully utilize each team of the member’s unique set of abilities.

MentorsOne of the biggest factors for success are mentors. This was a particular aspect of the

project that the team wanted to take advantage of the most. Mentors play a key role due to

their ability to leverage their life long experience and industry expertise, offer advice for

problems encountered, and shine light on some possible future problems. The selection

process began with a team meeting. During this meeting team members voiced potential

problems with the project and possible teachers, associates, and industry professionals that

might offer help to engineering students. Once a list of names was compiled, the team then

listed their qualifications and pros and cons.

The team assigned some of the members recruiting tasks based on personal

relationships and opportunity. The first target was Professor David V. Rypien for faculty advisor

because of his motivation to teach and active outreach to students. He has also been a licensed


PE in the state of Texas since 1991. Having a licensed professional engineer to advise the group

was a major goal since the team members all aspire to obtain a PE license in the future. The

next acquisition was of Ryan Payne to fill the alumni spot. One of the major reasons for

selecting Ryan was because of his prior experience with Professor Raresh Pascali, and was also

on an infamous senior design team that built an ROV for the MATE compotation which flipped

the breakers at NASA. Ryan will be a critical tool in advising the team of potential issues when

following the MATE guidelines, and offer guidance when the team hits a wall. The next slot the

team filled was an industry advisor. Billy Snider, who works for FMC Technologies, was asked.

Billy is a University of Houston graduate and recently has been appointed to the Engineering

Alumni Association. The last position that needed to be filled was the underclassman. This was

a tough decision and the group used the assistance of a graduate student who made a few

suggestions of students. This decision is still underway but will be resolved soon.

MaterialsThe materials that will be utilized to construct the team’s ROV will have to withstand

large amounts of pressure. Another consideration is that the team wants to keep the weight of

the ROV low, so the unit can be lifted and moved by two or three people. Also the different

thruster orientations and two arms will increase the forces acting on ROV. The ROV will be in

compression from the hydrostatic pressure and will also be subjected to torques. This will cause

axial and shear stresses on the ROV, which the materials used for the frame must be able to

withstand. Some of the materials that the group are considering are polymers, metals, and

composites.

Some of the metals that are being considered are carbon steels, alloy steels and

aluminum. Carbon steels generally have a density of 7850 kg/m3, an elastic modulus from 190-

200GPa, and a Poisson’s ratio from .27-.3. Alloy steels generally have about the same density,

elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio, but have a greater hardness and are more brittle than

carbon steel. Alloy steels do not have as much ductility as carbon steels and is much more likely

to have critical failures. Carbon steels are more likely to corrode than some alloy steels, and

since the materials will be in contact with corrosive agents. Also machining carbon steel will be


much cheaper than machining the alloy steels. Aluminum on the other hand offers light weight

and strength.

Aluminum has a density of about 2800 kg/m3. This is much lighter than any types of

steel. The 7000 series of aluminum alloy has a modulus of elasticity of 71.7 GPa, Poisson’s rato

of .33, and with a ultimate tensile strength of 552 MPa. The 7000 series has good machinability

and for the aluminum alloys as the series goes down to 6000 and down the machinability

decreases and the modulus of elasticity deceases some as well.

Figure 1 - Sample material cost

Some of the different types of flotation material that are currently being considered are

polyisocyanurate and syntactic foam. Both of these two foams have high compressive strength

and good insulation properties. These two types of foams are currently being used in the ROV

industry. Polyisocyanurate foams are relatively cheap and are easily formed into desirable

shapes. Syntactic foam is used mainly for deep water application, costs more, and is encased in

resin, so it is harder to manipulate into desirable shapes.

ConceptsOne of the main concepts that will be applied during the design and construction of the

ROV will be Archimedes principle, static fluid principles and the relationship between the center

of gravity and the center of buoyancy. The use of the Archimedes principle will be to determine


the buoyant force that is acting on the ROV. This force will be equal to the weight of the liquid

that is displaced by the ROV. This force will act on the ROV, so if the weight of the liquid

displaced is less than the weight of the ROV, the vehicle will sink. If it is the opposite way

around then the object will float.

Another important concept that will be taken into consideration when finding the

hydrostatic pressure acting on the vehicle will be the static fluid principle. This principal states

that the static pressure acting on and object is only dependent upon the depth of the object,

the shape of the object, the density of the fluid, and the acceleration due to gravity. Using this

principal, the team will be able to approximate the static pressure that will be applied to the

ROV as it descends into various depths. This information will be critical for selecting the

different materials that will be used to manufacture the remotely operated vehicle.

Another important aspect of the ROV that will be considered will be the location of the

center of buoyancy and the center of gravity. The stability of the vessel is directly related to the

relation of these two points. The easiest way for the vessel to be stable is to have the center of

gravity and the center of buoyancy aligned with one another. This includes considering the

distance between these two points. The distance between these two points corresponds with

the righting force that the ROV will experience when the center of gravity and center of

buoyancy become unaligned due to different forces applied to the ROV in different locations.

Examples of this could be forces due to the arm lifting an object underwater or currents in the

water pushing the ROV.

Cost & Man hours EstimateThrough the first stages of the project, an initial cost and time estimate were created.

Initially, it is estimated that the cost of the project to total $15,312.50 with a need of 2326 man

hours. The following is a breakdown:

Activity Approximate Time (hours) Approximate Cost


MATE documentation 120 $0

Frame Design 120 $0

Articulate Arm Design 160 $0

Logic System Design 160 $0

Drive Design System 240 $0

Remote Interface Design 160 $0

Waterproof Enclosure Design 160 $0

Build Frame 180 $2,200

Build Arm 200 $2,400

Build Logic System 180 $2,700

Build Drive System 240 $2,500

Build Remote Interface 150 $1,500

Assemble ROV 160 $500

Test ROV 80 $200

Register for MATE 16 $250

Contingency $3,062.50

Totals 2326 $15,312.50

Figure 2- Initial Cost Time estimate

The cost estimate is a “living document”, and will change as the semester progresses.

Risk MatrixThe first step in this process was to identify the potential problems that could hinder the

completion of the ROV. This was accomplished during a team meeting and through group

collaboration. The following list identifies the areas for concern: fundraising, materials and

product selection, lab view programming, MATE completion, system integration,

communication, system complexity, time management, sub systems, weight, registration, and

team member contribution. The next step was to go down the list and as a group rate the

probability that a problem will occur. Once this was accomplished the team went back down

the list, and designated the severity or impact the problem would have on the overall project if


it was to occur. Once this was accomplished the team made a list of solutions for the problems

and list of ideas to reduce the probability of a problem occurring. The risk matrix created is

shown in Appendix A.

One of the problems the team has identified is fundraising. Some of the ideas to

mitigate this issue would be attending the 2016 Marine Technology Society BBQ, networking,

and budget cuts. The next risk identified was the Procurement and selection of materials. Some

of the possible solutions for the problem are a group decision on dropping particular

deliverables, and design modification. Another risk that the group will encounter is

programming in LabView, which to reduce the risk of included early research and contact

mentors for advisement. Another solution considered for this issue is contacting computer

science majors within the University of Houston. Another possible risk is group communication.

Some of the things the group currently does to decrease the likely hood of this occurring is the

creation of a group text, Team email, and weekly meeting. Then other possible solutions the

group has agreed on are to involve the professor and have an intervention, voting the member

out of the group or put on probation. For this extreme action to take place there would have to

be a unanimous vote between the three members. These are just a few example of problem

analysis that have been planned for by the group. These plans ensure that if a problem is to

arise, the team is ready and has a plan of action or contingences to fall back on to reduce the

overall effect of the problem.

Project management Estimated time completions Insert Gantt chart Scope creep w/ added and extra deliverables General idea for Sunday meetings Weight constraint impact

Milestones & extrasThe team has made several decisions on meeting location and team building events to

benefit the group as a whole and encourage team bonding. The team quickly made the decision

to have a weekly meeting at the team leader’s house. This was an easy decision as he is


centrally located to all other group members. A majority of the members live close to this

location and it is easily accessed due to the freeway set up in Houston. These meetings have

created unity amongst the team and helps to keep group members on task. A major

accomplishment for the team was finding Ryan Payne as a mentor early on in the project. The

team was able to interview Ryan before the CTR was approved. The team again utilized car-

pooling to maximize group bonding, reduce overall gas consumption, and minimize the overall

environmental footprint of the group.

Teambuilding is viewed by the group as an essential requirement necessary for cohesion

and ultimate success. Teambuilding events are seen as an investment into the group. This time

could otherwise be used to design, analyze or contribute to the project, however, the team

agreed that a strong bond can prevent future frustrations which could lead to greater

inefficiencies. Two teambuilding events that have been set up to go camping event and have a

family BBQ. The team feels that it is important to build moral, and also bring the groups family

members together to strengthen the team.


Appendix A – Risk Matrix

Risk Matrix created 10/2/16


Appendix B – Gantt Chart


Works Cited[1]

American Peteroleum Institute, "Remotely Operated Tools and Interfaces on Subsea Production Systems 17H," API Publishing Institute, Washington, DC, 2014.

[2]

MATE Center, "MATE - Marine Advanced Technology Education :: ROV Competition Home," 29 August 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.marinetech.org/files/marine/files/ROV%20Competition/2017%20competition/Missions/2017%20Competition_Product_Demo_Spec%20briefing_FINAL.pdf. [Accessed 6 September 2016].

[3]

Oceaneering International Inc., "ROV Services," OCEANEERING, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.oceaneering.com/rovs/. [Accessed 8 October 2016].

Documents

Abstract - teamnautilus.weebly.comteamnautilus.weebly.com/.../5/7/93578030/senior_desig… · Web viewTeam Nautilus will utilize their engineering and design skills to make these