Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV Competitio n

29
Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV Competition Client: Space Systems & Controls Laboratory (SSCL) Advisor : Matthew Nelson Anders Nelson (EE) [email protected] Mathew Wymore (CprE) [email protected] Kale Brockman [email protected] Stockli Manuel [email protected] Kshira Nadarajan (CprE) [email protected] Mazdee Masud (EE) [email protected] Andy Jordan [email protected] Karolina Soppela [email protected] 491 Team Component 466 Team Component 1

description

Client: Space Systems & Controls Laboratory (SSCL ) Advisor : Matthew Nelson. 491 Team Component. Anders Nelson (EE) [email protected] Mathew Wymore ( CprE ) [email protected] Kale Brockman [email protected] Stockli Manuel [email protected]. Kshira Nadarajan ( CprE ) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV Competitio n

Page 1: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

1

Design ReviewMay 11-10: Autonomous UAV Competition

Client: Space Systems & Controls Laboratory (SSCL)Advisor : Matthew Nelson

Anders Nelson (EE)[email protected]

Mathew Wymore (CprE)[email protected]

Kale [email protected]

Stockli [email protected]

Kshira Nadarajan (CprE)[email protected]

Mazdee Masud (EE)[email protected]

Andy [email protected]

Karolina [email protected]

491 Team Component

466 Team Component

Page 2: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

2

Project Plan

Project Statement Conceptual Sketch Functional Requirements Constraints and Considerations Market Survey Risks and Mitigation Resources and Cost Milestones and Schedule

Page 3: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

3

Problem Statement

Aim: To participate in the International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) August 2011 http://iarc.angel-strike.com/ Overall Challenge: To penetrate a

building, navigate through the corridors and complete another task like identifying a USB stick▪ Our specific challenge: To build a platform

capable of flying autonomously, stabilizing and avoiding obstacles

Page 4: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

4

Conceptual Sketch

Page 5: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

5

Platform Concept

Page 6: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

6

Functional Requirements

1.5kg Maximum Total Platform Weight Battery Powered

Capable of >10 minutes of flight time (12 minute goal)

Operational Onboard stability control▪ Recovery time goal of three seconds or less▪ Entirely self-contained hover behavior

Wireless base station communication▪ Wireless link capable of at least 42 meters▪ System capable of JAUS-compliant telemetry

Page 7: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

7

Functional Requirements (continued) Expandable

Potential for navigation in a GPS-denied environment▪ Support for USB laser rangefinder▪ Considerations for computer vision system

Potential for executing remote autonomous commands

Connectivity for manual remote kill switch Connectivity for wire-burn USB stick drop-

off system

Page 8: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

8

Constraints and Considerations Weight

Batteries Power draw mainly from motors for lift▪ Lift based on weight-completing interdependence

Compatibility Must integrate into 466 team’s vehicle platform

Time Deliverables due at end of school year Team has other time-consuming obligations

Experience Team has limited experiences on aspects of the

project

Page 9: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

9

Market Survey

Unique because it’s ISU’s

Page 10: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

10

Risks and Mitigation

Too large a bite Scope limitations Market survey Advisor knowledge

Multiple-team structure Weekly meeting to check up Shared Dropbox Email communication

Page 11: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

11

Hardware Cost

Page 12: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

12

Total Cost

Page 13: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

13

Milestones and Schedule

Project plan, design document complete

Page 14: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

14

Design

Functional Decomposition Detailed Design Technologies Used Test Plan

Page 15: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

15

Functional DecompositionControl System

Main controller Flight controller

Sensor System Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) Cameras, Range Finders

Will not be selected by us.Software SystemPower System

Page 16: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

16

Page 17: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

17

Controllers

Main Controller – Gumstix Overo Fire Supported by Summit expansion board Linux with USB host for laser WiFi communications Other sensor inputs (A/D)

Flight Controller – PIC24 with nanoWatt XLP IMU input PWM output I2C interface with Gumstix

Page 18: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

18

Sensors Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)

Takes in 9 DOF measurements Outputs to Motor Microcontroller through serial

interface Sampling Analog Device’s High Precision IMU

External Sensors IR/sonar sensors▪ For basic obstacle avoidance▪ Used as a fail safe for navigation system

Range Finders and Vision Systems▪ To be selected by later teams for SLAM

Page 19: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

19

Software

Page 20: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

20

Power Motors are Main Power Draw

Require 11.1 V Each Typically Draw 6A

Competition Requirements 10 Minutes of Flight + 2 Minutes for Safety Range

Battery 11.1 V - 3cell LiPo Batteries Assume 30A worst case draw – 6Ah capacity required

One Battery is bulky and inhibits thrust Thus Parallel Combination Used

Allows flexibility of battery placement Lowers required capacity per battery

Page 21: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

21

Test Plan Stability

Test motor stability control with varying degrees of external disturbance and record response

Communication Test distance and speed of communication between platform and

remote base Flight Control

Determine accuracy of movement from various control commands

Obstacle Avoidance Determine reliability and accuracy of obstacle avoidance from

movement in various directions Endurance (Power)

Will run the battery under expected load while monitoring voltage over time

Page 22: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

22

Current Status

Documentation Project plan, design doc complete

Design Most hardware selected Software sketched

Implementation Start over break Flight demo in early March

Page 23: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

23

Individual Contributions

Contributions Anders – Team Lead, Sensor Research Mazdee – Power System Research Kshira – Software System Research Mathew – Control Hardware Research

Implementation Expected LaborTeam Member Control System On-Board Programming Sensor Integration Power System Communication System Parts&Integration Testing Final System Testing TotalAnders Nelson 20 10 15 10 5 40 60 160Mazdee Masud 20 10 10 15 5 40 60 160Mathew Wymore 15 30 5 0 10 40 60 160Kshira Nadarajan 15 30 5 0 10 40 60 160Total 70 80 35 25 30 160 240 640

Page 24: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

24

Plan for Next Semester

Test Individual Components Power System Implementation Test Integration of Components Stabilization Control Implementation

Establish Autonomous Hovering Software Implementation

Simple Flight Capabilities from established commands

Testing of Total Design

Page 25: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

25

Questions?

Page 26: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

26

Backup Slides

Page 27: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

27

Hardware Options Scoring

Page 28: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

28

IMU Comparison ScoringIMU Comparison Power (mW) Score Weight (g) Score Volume (cubic cm) Score Resolution Score

Name/CompanyAtomic IMU 6 DoF - XBee Ready 81.6 1 2 43.475 1 .00403g/tick-Low, .977deg./tick1IMU 6DOF Razor - Ultra-Thin IMU 36.3 2 2 5.61 2 .83-3.33mV/deg/s, 300mV/g 19 Degrees of Freedom - Razor IMU - 16MHz 44.0385 2 2 14 2 300deg/s 2IMU 6 Degrees of Freedom - v4 with Bluetooth® Capability 555 -2 2 43.68 1 500deg/s 3Memsense customized solutions High -3 0 1 3LandMark™ 21 IMU - 1 Cubic Inch "LN Series" 1419 -3 55 0 16.4 2 3ADIS16405: High Precision Tri-Axis Gyroscope, Accelerometer, Magnetometer75 1 0 29.0928 1 .0125degree/s/lsb 4

<50 : 2 50-100 : 1 100-200 : 0 200-400:-1 400-800 : -2 800+ : -3

Negligable: 2 >50g : 0 <25: 2 25-50:1 50+:0

Price ($) Score Score (output)Additional Features Past Required Source

Digital: 2 Analog: 0 TOTAL SCORE

99.95 1 2 8 http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=918489.95 1 0 8 http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9431

124.95 0 2 1 11 http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9623449.95 -2 2 1 5 http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8454

Contact for pricing -2 2 1 http://www.memsense.com/?? -1 2 3 http://www.gladiatortechnologies.com/PRODUCTS/IMU/product_LandMark21_IMU_LN_Series.htm

700(0) 2 2 3 13 http://www.analog.com/en/mems/imu/adis16405/products/product.html

<50 : 2 50-100:1 100-200:0 200-300: -1

300+: -2

Page 29: Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV  Competitio n

29

Potential Arena Layout