ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 10  Spring 2005 Jer-Wei Lam (Sean) Jacinto Chang Ming Sum Wong Kevin Muthuri Team Lead Web:

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Greg Beau SerajAnanya. Outline  Project overview  Project-specific success criteria  Block diagram  Component selection rationale  Packaging design.
Advertisements

Left to Right: Michael Kelton, Ethan Hall, Greg Wegman, Vashisht Lakhmani.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 6  Spring 2010 Digital Sound Projection.
Outline Project overview Project-specific success criteria Block diagram Component selection rationale Packaging design Schematic and theory of operation.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 10  Spring 2008 Paul Ng Daniel Bixby Matt Ligocki David Collins Paul Ng Daniel Bixby Matt Ligocki David Collins.
Design Review: RoboSiM Robotic Surveillance in Motion
ECE 477 DESIGN REVIEW TEAM 7  SPRING 2013 COST ROBOT CAROLINE TRIPPEL, ANDREW LOVELESS, ERIC OSBORNE, BRYAN DALLAS.
ECE 477 F INAL P RESENTATION T EAM 10  S PRING 2013 Ruiyang Lin Vipul Bhat Julia Liston Krithika Iyer.
Jordan Wagner Justin Spencer Mark Sears John Jachna.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 03  Fall Outline Project overviewProject overview Block diagramBlock diagram Design challengesDesign challenges.
ECE 477 FINAL PRESENTATION TEAM 7  SPRING 2013 COST ROBOT ERIC OSBORNE, BRYAN DALLAS, ANDREW LOVELESS, CAROLINE TRIPPEL.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 8  Spring 2008 Mike Cianciarulo, Josh Wildey, Robert Toepfer, Trent Nelson.
Ryan McLean John-Michael Mulesa Joe Perrin Zach Schoenberger Formal Design Review.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 01  Fall 2013 Paste a photo of team members here, annotated with names of team members.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 4  Spring 2008 Zach Dicklin Amy Ritter Ian Bacon Eric Yee.
ECE 477 Design Review Group 14  Spring 2005 Paste a photo of team members here, annotated with names of team members.
Solar Telematics System ECE 477 Design Review, Team 8, Spring 2012 Paste a photo of team members here, annotated with names of team members. Craig Lechlitner,
ECE Grande ECE 477 Design Review Team 3 - Fall 2008.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 16 − Spring 2013 Scott Stack Neil Kumar Jon Roose John Hubberts.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 11  Spring 2005.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 8  Fall Outline Project overviewProject overview Block diagramBlock diagram Professional componentsProfessional.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 1  Fall 2005 Kwun Fung Yau Chad Carrie Zubin Rupawala Manoj Jacob.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 2  Fall Outline Project overviewProject overview Project-specific success criteriaProject-specific success criteria.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 9  Fall 2005 Tim Miller Clif Barnes Drew Heinrich Steven Kady.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 7  Fall 2005 Tarun Siripurapu Nichole Mattson Colleen Shea Siddharth Sen.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 20  Spring 2013 Jordan Wagner Justin Spencer Mark Sears John Jachna.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 9  Fall 2004 Paste a photo of team members with completed project here. Annotate this photo with names of team members.
Treasure Chess ECE 477 Team 2 - Spring 2013 Parul Schroff, Brock Caley, Sidharth Malik, Jeremy Stork Final Presentation Final Packaged Design.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 14  Spring 2005 BENNY PARICHEY RAKESH ANUBHAV.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 11  Fall 2005 ChadJeffMel Maruf.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 6  Spring 2005 Mike Lowe Eric SuJohn Parlindungan KamBiu Chan.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 9  Fall 2009 Josh Piron, Jacob Pfister Kevin Templar, Mike Phillips,
ECE 477 Design Review Team 2  Spring 2006 Prashant Grimella Andy Brezinsky Tim Sendgikoski Clark Malmgren.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 14  Spring 2013 Paste a photo of team members with completed project here. Annotate this photo with names of team members.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 3  Spring 2005 Paste a photo of team members with completed project here. Annotate this photo with names of team members.
Team 6 DOODLE DRIVE Alexander Curtis Peachanok Lertkajornkitti | Jun Pan | Edward Kidarsa |
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 12  Spring 2013 Xirong Ye Zongyang Zhu Chun Ta Huang Libo Dong.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 1  Spring 2012 Paste a photo of team members with completed project here. Annotate this photo with names of team members.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 18  Spring 2013 Derek Pesyna, Tim Brown, Evan Foote, Doug Wile.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 2  Spring 2005 Paste a photo of team members with completed project here. Annotate this photo with names of team members.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 01  Spring 2014 Paste a photo of team members with completed project here. Annotate this photo with names of team members.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 3  Spring Outline Project overviewProject overview Project-specific success criteriaProject-specific success criteria.
Team: CHEE WHOOO Spring 08. The Team Mitchell La Puente-Project Leader Josh Miyamoto-Software Richard Ordonez-Hardware.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 11  Fall 2004 Jeff Killen Brandon Ade Drew Whipple Matt Compton.
Colin Graber Jason Kohl Jacob Varnau Cameron Young ECE 477 Design Review Team 2 - Spring 2015 R.I.S.K.
1 © 2008 RoboRubik ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 11 – Spring 2008 Tyler Heck Dave Bukiet Erik Carron Casey Kloiber.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 7  Spring 2005.
Mark Randall & Kevin Claycomb Faculty Advisor: David Mitchell Industrial Sponsor: IEEE.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 5  Spring 2010 Fred Grandlienard Andrew Gregor Kevin Mohr Ryan DeFord.
Treasure Chess ECE 477 Team 2 - Spring 2013 Parul Schroff, Brock Caley, Sidharth Malik, Jeremy Stork Design Review.
ECE 477 Design Review Team 10  Spring 2009 Scott Shaw Hussain Vasi Matt Sbai John Fawcett.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 4  Spring 2011 Petra M. Alex B. Alex G. Kim S.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 4 Spring Outline Project overviewProject overview Block diagramBlock diagram Design challengesDesign challenges.
ECE 477 Design Review Group 5  Spring Outline Project overviewProject overview Project-specific success criteriaProject-specific success criteria.
ECE 477 FINAL PRESENTATION TEAM 6  SPRING OUTLINE  Project overview  Block diagram  Design challenges  Individual contributions  Project demonstration.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 01  Fall Outline Project overviewProject overview Block diagramBlock diagram Design challengesDesign challenges.
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 2  Fall 2005
<Add team picture or relevant project picture here>
ECE 477 Design Review Team 13  Spring 2007
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 04  Spring 2010
ECE 477 Design Review Team 13  Spring 2007
ECE 477 Design Review Team 6 - Spring 2012
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 5  Spring 2005
ECE 477 Design Review Group 10  Spring 2005 I, Robotic Waitress
ECE 477 Design Review Group 10  Spring 2005 I, Robotic Waitress
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 10  Spring 2008
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 1  Spring 2008
ECE 477 Final Presentation Team 13  Spring 2011
ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 10  Spring 2005
Presentation transcript:

ECE 477 Final Presentation Group 10  Spring 2005 Jer-Wei Lam (Sean) Jacinto Chang Ming Sum Wong Kevin Muthuri Team Lead Web:

Outline Project overviewProject overview Block diagramBlock diagram Professional componentsProfessional components Design componentsDesign components Success criteria demonstrationsSuccess criteria demonstrations Individual contributionsIndividual contributions Project summaryProject summary Questions / discussionQuestions / discussion

Project Overview Robotic Waitress projectRobotic Waitress project Deliver food to designated table autonomouslyDeliver food to designated table autonomously Comprises of two major components – robot and control centerComprises of two major components – robot and control center Tables’ routes stored in the microcontroller allows control of the robot from control centerTables’ routes stored in the microcontroller allows control of the robot from control center Avoid obstacles using IR sensorsAvoid obstacles using IR sensors

Block Diagram

Professional Components Constraint analysis and component selection rationaleConstraint analysis and component selection rationale Patent liability analysisPatent liability analysis Reliability and safety analysisReliability and safety analysis Ethical and environmental impact analysisEthical and environmental impact analysis

Constraint Analysis Computational RequirementsComputational Requirements –Traveled distance –Sufficient Flash Interface RequirementsInterface Requirements –Servo Motors –IR Sensors –RF communication –LCD Power Supply ConstraintsPower Supply Constraints –5V and 4.8-6V supplies –.5Amps current draw in main board Packaging ConstraintsPackaging Constraints –Limited by chassis of main robot Cost ConstraintsCost Constraints –To be kept to a minimal

Component Selection Rationale Robot BaseRobot Base Microcontroller - ATmega32Microcontroller - ATmega32 Digital Sharp GP2D15 IR Distance Measuring SensorsDigital Sharp GP2D15 IR Distance Measuring Sensors 16x2 LCD – Hitachi controller based16x2 LCD – Hitachi controller based LINX 418Mhz 315Mhz RF RXM/TXMLINX 418Mhz 315Mhz RF RXM/TXM Continuous Rotation Ball-Bearing ServosContinuous Rotation Ball-Bearing Servos

Patent Liability Analysis Searched on the US Patent and Trademark Office Patent #6,597,143 (2001)Mobile robot system using RF module Patent #6,667,592 (2001)Mapped robot system Patent #6,760,647 (2003)Socially interactive autonomous robot Similar Project “Robotic Waitress” at the University of Rochester No patent is infringed by our project

Reliability/Safety Analysis Micro-controller MTTF: 423 yrsMicro-controller MTTF: 423 yrs LM7805 MTTF: 196 yrsLM7805 MTTF: 196 yrs RF Modules MTTF: 13 yrsRF Modules MTTF: 13 yrs Worst case scenario for RF module failure:Worst case scenario for RF module failure: –No communication with control center –Unsatisfied customers

Reliability/Safety Analysis Schematic divided into four functional blocksSchematic divided into four functional blocks –Power Circuitry Failure would cause damage to micro & other componentsFailure would cause damage to micro & other components –Micro-controller block Failure would result in random data at output pinsFailure would result in random data at output pins –Sensor block Inability to detect obstacles, food on trayInability to detect obstacles, food on tray –RF Modules Failure causes inability to receive instructions & send alerts to control centerFailure causes inability to receive instructions & send alerts to control center

Ethical/Environmental Analysis Potential job loss for human waiters/waitressesPotential job loss for human waiters/waitresses –Higher efficiency and lower operating costs –Leading to increased unemployment. SafetySafety –Currently electronics are not fully protected from outside exposure

Lead solder may be health hazardLead solder may be health hazard –During assembly, tray mounting should be done in separate locations. The use of batteries may cause disposal issues.The use of batteries may cause disposal issues. –Potential use of li-po batteries which are environmentally friendly but must be “neutralized” before disposal. Ethical/Environmental Analysis

Design Components Packaging design considerationsPackaging design considerations Schematic design considerationsSchematic design considerations PCB layout design considerationsPCB layout design considerations Software design considerationsSoftware design considerations

Packaging Design Robot:Robot: Mark III Robot ChassisMark III Robot Chassis 2 Wheels, wedge for support2 Wheels, wedge for support Bright RED wheelsBright RED wheels 8 inch-diameter round tray8 inch-diameter round tray Custom mount for LCD displayCustom mount for LCD display Robot base approx 5” X 4”Robot base approx 5” X 4” Control Center:Control Center: RadioShack Project BoxRadioShack Project Box Size approx 3” X 2” X 1”Size approx 3” X 2” X 1”

CAD - Packaging

Final packaging

Schematic Design Overview of Main Module Schematic

Schematic Design Overview of Main Module Schematic Reset Circuitry LM7805 Voltage Regulator

Schematic Design Overview of Main Module Schematic

Main board size: 4” X 3”Main board size: 4” X 3” Control Center size: 3” X 2.6”Control Center size: 3” X 2.6” Bypass capacitors close to componentsBypass capacitors close to components Ground plane for RF TXM & RXMGround plane for RF TXM & RXM RXM and TXM separatedRXM and TXM separated Short traces to antennaShort traces to antenna Wide traces for ground and powerWide traces for ground and power PCB Layout Design

Main Board PCB Layout

PCB Layout Design Control Center PCB Layout

Software Design – Functionality Control CenterControl Center - Select tables - Display status and alerts MicrocontrollerMicrocontroller - Display status on LCD - Move to the desired table - Detect obstacles and Food - Send alerts back to PC

Software Design - FlowChart Main Initialization Self-diagnosis routine Any input data from USART? Decode Instruction Acknowledge/Send Alert to PC Yes No Food Taken? Obstacle Detected? Movement Done? Execute Movement Yes No

Software Design – Change of Software Approach Original Approach - PC calculates route and tells robot how to move Current Approach - Routes are stored in robot - PC tells robot which table to go

Success Criteria Demonstrations 1.Project-specific success criteria #1 - demo demo 2.Project-specific success criteria #2 - demo demo 3.Project-specific success criteria #3 - demo demo 4.Project-specific success criteria #4 - demo demo 5.Project-specific success criteria #5 - demo demo

Individual Contributions Team Leader – Sean Jer-Wei LamTeam Leader – Sean Jer-Wei Lam Team Member 2 – Ming Sum WongTeam Member 2 – Ming Sum Wong Team Member 3 – Kevin MuthuriTeam Member 3 – Kevin Muthuri Team Member 4 – Jacinto ChangTeam Member 4 – Jacinto Chang

Team Leader – Sean Jer-Wei Lam Programming RobotProgramming Robot –Motion & Sensor functions –Diagnostics Component ResearchComponent Research Packaging Design & FabricationPackaging Design & Fabrication Board PopulationBoard Population WebmasterWebmaster Testing and DebuggingTesting and Debugging

Member 2 – Ming Sum Wong Programming SoftwareProgramming Software –Control Center Application –Synchronization Mechanism –RF & Control Logic Functions Component ResearchComponent Research RF Prototyping and ResearchRF Prototyping and Research RF Communication PrototypingRF Communication Prototyping Testing and DebuggingTesting and Debugging

Member 3 – Kevin Muthuri Programming RobotProgramming Robot –Synchronization Mechanism –RF & Control Logic Functions Component ResearchComponent Research RF Communication PrototypingRF Communication Prototyping PCB Layout DesignPCB Layout Design Testing and DebuggingTesting and Debugging

Member 4 – Jacinto Chang Implemented Navigation AlgorithmImplemented Navigation Algorithm RF Communication Prototyping and ProtocolRF Communication Prototyping and Protocol Component ResearchComponent Research Board PopulationBoard Population SchematicSchematic Testing and DebuggingTesting and Debugging

Project Summary Important lessons learned:Important lessons learned: –Component Selection and Research has to be done early –RF is noisy and unreliable –For PWM to work, an extremely accurate clock is necessary –Total current draw calculations are critical –Must always double check Schematic diagrams and PCB Layouts –Wheel slippage due to insufficient traction –Check for cold solder joints –Prototyping is expensive

Project Summary Second iteration enhancements:Second iteration enhancements: –Better positioning system with sensors on the table for location feedback –Use wider wheels for better traction –Provide keypad for food ordering –Voice synthesizer –Human voice recognition

Questions / Discussion