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?