Team Sasquatch MAE 489 4/1/13 Alex Lee Josh Anderson Nick Upham Vincent Velarde Rod Nez Ryan Doyle (Left to Right)

To create a stable aerial platform for use in forensic engineering. Stable Reliable Capable of video recording Problem Statement

Solution Electrical Components Housing: Controller, Receiver, Sensors Batteries (2) Arch (2) Electrical Speed Controller (4) Arms (4) Propeller (4) Connector Rods (2) Camera Mount Point Motors (4)

Requirement Validation Matrix RequirementsValidation Frame- less than 0.1 inches deflectionAnalysis Center of Gravity in Center of FrameInspection Settling Time less than 5 secondsAnalysis and Inspection Overshoot less than 10%Analysis and Inspection Sampling period less than 0.04 secondsInspection Ability to maintain flight in 10 Mph windsAnalysis and Inspection Quality VideoInspection 300 Foot radio rangeTesting 3 pound minimum payload capacityAnalysis and testing 2 year fatigue lifeAnalysis 100 Newton impact force for frameAnalysis

Key Characteristics Propellers and motors provide thrust Powered by LiPo batteries Stability provided by microcontroller and sensors Durable frame

Key Characteristics Recording Flight Thrust Propulsion Control Stability and Response SensingCommand Electrical Power Frame

Design Process Research of prior art showed that multi-rotor craft were most suitable to meet the requirements. Further analysis amongst multi-rotor crafts, ranging from three to six rotors, showed that a four rotored craft, or quadcoptor, held the ideal mix of thrust, flight time, and stability.

Project Metrics

Labor Budget 488

Labor Budget 489

Material Costs ITEMBudgeted Cost ($)Actual Cost ($) Motors80TBD ESC’s80TBD Propellers40TBD Microcontrollers40TBD Sensors (IMU, Compass, Altimeter, Proximity) 100TBD Wireless Communications60TBD Hand Controller50TBD Power Supply50TBD Frame Materials160TBD Control System Test Stand50TBD Wireless Video System100TBD Fasteners, Wires, and Connectors20TBD Total780TBD

Conceptual Design Research of Prior Art – “Design and Control of Quadrotors with Application to Autonomous flying” – Available micro controllers and sensors. – Research into batteries and electric motors.

Conceptual Design Candidate Concepts – Single Rotor – Tri Rotor – Quad Rotor – Hex Rotor

Conceptual Design

Preliminary Design Trade Studies Frame Material Carbon Fiber Aluminum Titanium Steel Microcontroller Arudino Uno Arduino Mega Arduino System PIC Controller Bluetooth Xigbee RF Battery Type LiPo NiMH LiFe NiCad Motor Turnigy D3536/9 NTM AX-2810Q ICE Control Approach PD PID PI Propeller 12 x x x 6 12 x 8 Slow Fly

Preliminary Design Work Plan Thrust Analysis Propeller and Motor Trade POC Test Hardware Selection Battery Analysis Microcontroller Trade Study POC Testing of Controls Hardware Selection Battery Trade Study Hardware Selection Frame AnalysisFrame Design FEAOptimization

Analysis Plan: Frame FrameSkidsHand CalcsFEAMotorHand Calcs POC Testing StructureHand CalcsFatigue Matlab calcs DeflectionFEA

Analysis Plan: Control Systems ControlsBattery Power Requirements Flight TimePOC TestingMicrocontrollerPID TestingPOC Testing System Modeling Simplify System PID Transfer Function Response Analysis

Trade Study Example: Microcontroller CriteriaOption AOption BOption COption D Cost Approx. $25$35$45$60 Memory32 Kb512 Mb128 Kb256 Kb ProgrammingAnyLinux/PythonArduino/C++ Hardware Compatibility 14 I/O pins 6 Analog 6 PWM 18 I/O Pins HDMI 39 I/O pins 16 Analog 15 PWM 54 I/O pins 16 Analog 14 PWM User supportLow to moderateModerateModerately HighHigh Issue: Reads sensor data, derives error, uses control algorithm to develop a response Options: A. In-house Assembly B. Raspberry Pi C. Maple D. Arduino The final selection is a specialized Arduino which is very cost effective.

Trade Study Example: Motor CriteriaOption AOption BOption C Power (Watts) Draw (Amps) Weight (grams) Issue: Providing thrust for the system. Options: A. Turnigy D3536/9 B. NTM C. AX-2810Q Option A was selected because it has the lowest draw which is the most important criteria while also having no major disadvantages. Although Option A is the heaviest, having the least draw allows for optimized weight saving by the use of lighter, smaller batteries.

Analysis Example: Fatigue

Defining Equations:

Example POC Testing Purpose of test: Find thrust for motor and propeller and flight time Results: Performance not as expected Conclusions: Need to redesign test Effect on design:Battery sizing

Continued POC Testing Purpose of Test:Repeat Thrust test to find flight time and loading. Results:Performance as expected Conclusions:Results valid Effect on:Battery sizing, forces on frame, and flight time established

FMEA - Summary Failure mode Probability of Failure End EffectSeverity Detection Method Ability to detect Initial RPN Reduction Method New Probability New RPN Fatigue3 Structural failure 8 Operator Observation 9216Fatigue analysis172 Power Failure6 Loss of flight capabilities 9.5 Operator Observation 5285 Feedback and quality and Testing 4190 ESC Failure4 Loss of flight capabilities 9 Operator Observation 10360Quality ESC's2180 Landing skid failure 5 Structural damage 6 Operator Observation 7210Analysis3126 Microcontroller Failure 2 Loss of Control 10 Loss of Control 9180 Quality microcontroller 190

Goal Function Optimization: Cost Initial Estimate Began Pricing Frame reduction and better vendors Change batteries Changed camera Made of carbon fiber

Goal Function Optimization: Flight Time Incorrect Battery Changed Battery Lightening Frame

Solid Model—Final Design Electrical Components Housing: Controller, Receiver, Sensors Batteries (2) Arch (2) Electrical Speed Controller (4) Arms (4) Propeller (4) Connector Rods (2) Camera Mount Point Motors (4)

Detail Design Structural Assembly Motor Assembly PropellersMotors Frame Assembly Body Assembly Central Node ArmsTop PlateFasteners Landing Assembly Skids Assembly Connector Rods Arches Bottom Plate

Detail Design Controls Assembly On-Board Controller Altimeter Arduino Mega 6-Axis IMU Proximity Sensor CompassXBee Ground Controller XBeeLCD Screen Control Sticks Arduino Uno Power System BatteriesESCs

Manufacturing Biggest Challenges Inaccurate machine shop lead times No prior knowledge of machining or soldering No workshop space to store and assemble Lack of fabrication equipment

Manufacturing

Development Challenges Budget Long Lead Hardware Hardware Failures Difficult Analysis

Hardware Failures Hardware failures posed a major problem during the development process. ESC failures Microcontroller failure. Wire connector failure. Motor failure.

Validation Summary > 0.1 in. deflection (pic of ANSYS) CG in center of frame (Solidworks output) 3 lb. minimum payload(thrust test results) Settling Time <5 seconds(for these MATLAB output) Overshoot <10% Sampling period <.04 seconds

Validation Summary Maintain flight in 10 MPH winds (test results) Quality Video (inspection) 300 ft. radio range (testing) 2 year fatigue life (analysis) 100 N impact force (analysis)

Project summary Quadcopter stable aerial video footage Best hardware selection Designed and optimized frame Developed own controls system Integrated design components Achieved successful flight

Success factors Twice a week meetings Decisions based upon vote Team strived for optimum output with feasibility Detailed pre-planning

Lessons Learned Get machining parts into shop early and monitor very regularly Provide ample time to test hardware Budget time correctly for hardware failures