PIC Evaluation/ Development Board Dec02-12 December 10, 2002 Client: ECpE Department Faculty Advisors: Dr. Rover, Dr. Weber Chad Berg, Luke Bishop, Tyson Stichka, Nick Veys

Presentation Outline Problem Statement Design Objectives End-Product Description Assumptions/Limitations Project Risks/Concerns Technical Approach Evaluation of Project Success Recommendations for Future Work Human/Financial Budgets Lessons Learned Closing Summary

Problem Statement Many project implementations require the use of a microcontroller However, the development of a Peripheral Interface Controller (PIC) solution is often beyond the expertise and available time of the design team

Design Objectives Design and implement a board to enable future senior design teams to quickly and easily use a PIC solution in their projects  Flexible  Easy to Use  Cost Efficient  Software Libraries

End-Product Description Microchip 16F876 Based Solution  CAN Interface  Character LCD Display  7 Segment Displays  Serial (RS232) Interface  Temperature Sensor  Speaker Software Libraries for All Components

Assumptions/Limitations Assumptions:  Users have an electrical/computer engineering background  Users have access to a personal computer with a free parallel port  Users have C programming skills Limitations:  Budget of $100  Size Constraints  Environmental Constraints

Project Risks/Concerns Design Error  Over 100 traces and 200 pins  Software depends on working hardware Device Failure  Socket interfaces were used for crucial components Loss of a Team Member

Technical Approach The requirements for this project were relatively open-ended The 16F876 was chosen for versatility CAN interface provides interoperability with industrial/automotive equipment Other devices were chosen for their uses in practical applications

Technical Approach C was chosen for rapid development The following libraries were implemented  Character LCD  RS232  Seven segment displays  CAN Initialization and diagnostic routine was also created

Technical Approach Programmer  P16Pro compatible hardware  Parallel port interface  Cheap, reliable  Lots of software support

Technical Approach Eagle was used for schematic and PCB  Widely used, supported  Simple, powerful interface  Linux/Windows support  Provides schematic capture and PCB layout

Technical Approach Schematic Capture using custom-made parts Form logical connections for use in PCB layout

Technical Approach

Project Success MilestonePercent Completed Project Definition100 Subsystems Designed100 Board Layout Completed & Simulated100 Peripheral Subsystems Prototyped and Tested100 Prototype Board Assembled100 Programming Environment Developed100 Supported PIC Tested Successfully100 C Libraries Developed100 Full Documentation Written & User Tested100 Sample Code for Every Module Written100 Final Board Operational100 Project Total100

Further Work Use the design provided to create even better senior design projects Additional pins available on the PIC for future expansion Design is flexible enough to be customized for a particular project

Human Budget Team MemberOriginal Estimated Effort Revised Estimated Effort Actual Final Effort Chad Berg65 Hours129 Hours105 Hours Luke Bishop60 Hours140 Hours107 Hours Tyson Stichka62 Hours126 Hours98 Hours Nicholas Veys70 Hours134 Hours119 Hours Totals257 Hours529 Hours429 Hours

Financial Budget ItemOriginal Estimated Cost Revised Estimated Cost Actual Final Cost Electronic Components$30 $20.44 Character LCD Display$30 $0 Dual-Layer PCB$70 $34 Power Supply$6 $9.95 PIC Microcontroller$20 $8.19 Poster$15$80 P16PRO40 Programmer$0$20$18.95 Hi-Tech C Compiler$0$1000$0 Total$171$1256$171.53

Lessons Learned Being a team doesn’t mean doing everything together! Tasks must be divided between team members to finish on time Each member must take responsibility for delivering Communication

Summary A flexible PIC development solution is important for future senior design students This design costs half of comparable commercial products The software libraries provide significant additional value

Q&A