1. Project Manager: Zachary Novak Mechanical Design Lead: John Chiu Team P14029: McKibben Muscle Robotic Fish Lead Engineer: Seaver Wrisley Controls Lead: Felix Liu

2. AGENDA Problem Statement Final State vs. Customer Needs Delays Final Budget Process Evaluation Deviations from MSD I Suggestions for Future Work Documentation Customer Reflections and Feedback

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT This project is designed to prove the feasibility of McKibben muscles for use in underwater robotic applications, and to develop core technology and a platform for other teams to use in the future.

4. PROTOTYPE ATTRIBUTES VS DESIGN CRITERION Average Speed = 4.89 in/s Approximated Turning Radius = 28.28 in

5. PROTOTYPE ATTRIBUTES VS DESIGN CRITERION

6. UNFORESEEN SCHEDULING DELAYS Acrylic component construction: late redesign of box and strut dimensions Waterproofing Issues: leaks in box structure, and manifold/fitting leak Component Damage: MEGA, Bluetooth shield, Solenoids, cracked lid, cracked polycarbonate viewing window, redesign of lid closure (steel cross member) Communication Redesign: implementation of Bluetooth over USB/serial, component lead time, time to verify functionality, time to interface both modules Structural Design: choice to go with fiberglass shell on front, misjudging amount of Ecoflex for skin, multiple revisions of substructure (none, mesh, foam), problems mounting Velcro to skin Buoyancy: more difficult than expected, late subsystem redesign, constantly changing properties (shell, skin substructure) required constant readjustment Tuning/Optimization: longer than expected

7. BUDGET Started with $500, got approved for $600 (addition of Bluetooth connectivity, replacement of damaged Solenoids) New Budget$600.00 Total Spent (w/shipping)$697.39 Overage$97.39 Shell Cost$153.14 Total, less shell$544.25 Much of the shell build material is still available for use as lab supplies This doesn’t include the cost for replacement Bluetooth shield or MEGA

8. PROCESS Design process was followed well (MSD I) Functional Decomposition  Morphological Chart  Pugh Analysis Many aspects of the programs goals/process are geared toward bringing a product to market and aren’t necessarily directly applicable to a research based project such as this MSD II “process” was quite different than MSD1 Build/test/analyze 6-Step Problem Solving Process was used.

9. DESIGN QUALITY: CHANGES FROM MSDI Addition of fiberglass shell for “head” section Lid closure redesigned with steel cross member Inline inlet filter added Optimal program doesn’t actuate all joints Forward=1 and Turning=2 Modifications to fittings/gaskets/adhesives to eliminate/reduce leakage Modifications to lid to increase structural integrity after 1 st failure Peripheral buoyancy removed in favor of moveable foam on top Tail material changed to gasket for increased rigidity/propulsion Bluetooth communication added

10. FUTURE WORK Structurally robust platform for future expansion Time spent in construction could be used to greatly improve motion characteristics with existing platform Inclusion of sensors/programming to increase autonomy and eliminate the need for “canned” programs  increased realism CE/EE project similar to the Essex project Potential interfacing with other projects from this year Underwater communication team: potential for communicating between multiple fish. If all else fails, mount the fish on the wall, install a speaker, and program the fish flop and sing “don’t worry, be happy” for moral support to future teams working in the BAD lab FEEDBACK FROM ANYONE / Should we take out or add anything?

11. DOCUMENTATION We’ve done an excellent job on the EDGE website, both in terms of content and readability Confident future teams would be able to quickly review and understand what the process and outcomes were Customer documentation still in the works Video stepping through setup and run procedures Either video or text troubleshooting manual Code explanation to aid future expansion work and parameter adjustment

12. ARE YOU SATISFIED? Overall Impression of the current state of the “product” What would you have liked to see done differently? Anything to focus on for final documentation/video