Ongo-03 Micro-CART Microprocessor-Controlled Aerial Robotics Team Advisors Dr. John Lamont Professor Ralph Patterson III Team Members 2 nd Semester1 st Semester Greg Elliott (Team Leader)Stephanie BerhowDavid Stulken Ross EisenbeisDylan Connor Arvin GandhaRyan D’AcquistoInterdisciplinary Members Preethi PrabhakarWail EltingariAndy Cook (ME) Andrew RihaPhilip HaubrichAndrew Nahra (ME) Steven WalstromRichard 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 definitions AttitudeThe orientation of an aircraft's axes relative to a reference line or plane, such as the horizon AUVSI Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International FMCFlight mission capable GPSGlobal positioning system GSSGround station system IARCInternational Aerial Robotics Competition IMUInertial measurement unit OSOperating system PC-104+Intel x86-based controllable board PICProgrammable interface controller PitchRevolution of a vehicle forward and backward on a central axis PWMPulse width modulation RCRemote control RollRevolution around the longitudinal axis of a vehicle UAVUnmanned aerial vehicle UPSUninterruptible power supply WIKI(What I Know Is) A public documentation repository YawRevolution 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 (60 o -100 o ) No extreme environments, e.g. fog, rain, etc. Possible wind, light precipitation, adverse topography of the competition location.

Intended User (s) Initial users Current 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 use Entry 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 –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 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 considered ActivityApproachesAdvantagesDisadvantagesSelected New Documentation WIKI NotebooksNonedisorganized illegible loss of data OnlineRead Accessibleloss of data WIKIRead/Write Accessible Secure User Friendly None Hardware Enclosure Carbon Fiber Board Plastic BoxSafe ContainmentHeavy Large Awkward Carbon FiberLight Weight Low 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 Design Data 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 connectors instead of soldered-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 design is overkill Now, use the original landing gear with aluminum extensions

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

Resources and Schedules

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 evaluation ComponentTasksCurrent Status GPS softwareTest and verifyIncomplete Mounting schemeImplement, test, and verifyComplete SonarPurchase, test, and verifyIncomplete Sonar softwareDevelop, test, and verifyIncomplete Compass softwareTest and verifyComplete Wireless data linkTest and verifyComplete Flight Control SoftwareDebug, test, and verifyIncomplete Composite enclosureDesign, lay-out, and purchase composite hardwareComplete

Project evaluation ComponentTasksCurrent Status Autonomous flight controlTestIncomplete Helicopter electronicsTest and verifyComplete HelicopterDetermine center of massIncomplete Test standAcquireComplete Translational flight controllerComplete, test, and verifyIncomplete Senior designUpdate websiteComplete Senior designFulfill reporting requirementsComplete Senior designDocument on the WikiIn 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 management Anticipated potential risks: Risk: Helicopter cannot lift current payload Management: Perform additional load tests frequently Research increased engine power Reduce component weight Risk: Loss of funding Management: Use current funds cautiously Seek additional sources of funding Risk: Loss of team member Management: Overlapping team member skills Encourage thorough documentation

Risk and risk management Anticipated potential risks: Risk: Helicopter damage from collisions Management: Allow only skilled pilots to fly the helicopter Utilize test stand for simple flying Implement manual override kill switch Risk: Slow Turnaround Management: Factor in the turnaround time Risk: Injury for vehicle malfunction Management: 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?