MP2 Log

Monday, November 15, 2010

With a delayed start to classroom time, due to the last FPU, I was able to start my supply, equipment, material, and part list, as well as plan of procedure. Had my completed developmental work reviewed. Researched aluminum sheeting and welding techniques.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Worked on the first design to the mounting bracket. The design was modified with a suggestion from Ms. Green and had a meeting with Joe Russell to establish a viable solution. Hand drew the initial design and then started to design on AutoCAD by establishing the basic frame.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Plagued with computer problems, I had to start my drawings over because I forgot to save. Again designed the brackets but ran into a design issue so I consulted with Joe and adjusted the plan accordingly.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Finalized the final design with the mounting bracket and added it to the ROV design. Began the process of rendering the drawings.

Friday, November 19, 2010

I continued to work on the orthographic and isometric renderings by dimensioning the drawings. I was only able to complete the dimensioning and rendering of the right side view.

Monday, November 22, 2010
Wrote the week 1 log. updated the calendar.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Updated calendar, updated blog, completed all the dimensioning and started to export the pictures as PDFs

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Finished dimensioning all views of the drawing.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Uploaded the pictures of the AutoCAD drawings and updated the blog.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Started the process to bid for materials by looking at sites to purchase 5052-H32 Aluminum.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Found my second store for aluminum.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Found my third store for aluminum.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Bidding for HDPE

Friday completed the biddings inquiry forms for all three companies

Monday, December 13, 2010

Called the companies to ensure they faxed it back, went to pick them up from 305, started to write up the cover sheet

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Finished the coversheet

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Finished up the third version of the bidding sheet. And readied the rest of the packet

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Absent

Friday, December 17, 2010

Worked on the press release. Filled in the mentor involvement and edited the format

Monday, December 20, 2010

Added pictures to press release

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Handed in press release

Monday, January 3, 2011 - Tuesday, January 4, 2011
finalized AutoCAD drawings

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - Friday, January 7, 2011
helped Joe test the motors, continue to bug the teachers about the materials, helped Kevin take pictures of his gear construction *absent on Friday, January 7, 2011

Monday, January 10, 2011 - Tuesday, January 11, 2011
helped Kevin take pictures of his construction process, finalized dimensions on AutoCAD renderings, created PDFs of renderings to be converted into picture files

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - Friday, January 14, 2011
compiled mentor contacts, composed FPU outline, handed in both on Friday *snow day on Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 -  Monday, January 24, 2011
Formal Progress Update Presentations *absent on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 and on Friday, January 21, 2010
*picked up the aluminum order from the main office on

Model of Intention

Developmental Work

Orthographic

Side

Top

Front

Exploded Isometric

Rendered Isometric

Plan of Procedures

Supply List
Item	Description	QTY	Size	Remarks
1	Epoxy	1	½ lb	sealing
2	Sandpaper	X	X	Material reduction

Tools & Equipment List
Item	Description	Use
1	Cordless Drill	Preparing holes for the screws
2	Screwdriver	Screwing screws for the attachment of the aluminum body into the HDPE skids
3	GTAW welding torch with various electrodes, cups, collets, and gas diffusers	Welding the edges of the aluminum body
4	Band saw with cross cut carbide blade	Cutting the aluminum frame
5	Scroll saw	Cutting the HDPE

Material List
Item	Description	QTY	Size	Remarks
1	Grade 5052 10 Gage Aluminum Sheet	1	24”X48”	Aluminum body
2	HDPE Natural Sheet	1	1”X24”X48”	skids

Assembly Steps

1. Gather the materials and tools.

2. Cut the aluminum sheet into the flat shape designated in the drawing of the body.

3. Cut the two chamber walls from the aluminum sheet.

4. Bend the edges of the flat to form the body.

5. Seal the dry chamber with epoxy.

6. Weld the dry chamber.

7. Weld the wet chamber.

Rationale

The catamaran design of solution 1 takes its form from the catamaran sailboat design. A multihull design joined by a structure creates the general frame of the vehicle. On the surface of the water, the catamaran design arguably offers the best function, considering that it provides speed, stability and large capacity. The following design is 18 inches long, 12 inches wide and 6 inches tall. The design calls for the two hulls to be constructed with a welded aluminum boxes that is 18 inches long, 4 inches wide and 6 inches tall. The joining structure is a flat high density polyethylene board that will be attached to the two hulls to create the catamaran design. Offering a relatively compact size, the design would be able to maneuver around the pool with out much concern for interfering with the features in the pool. Additionally, the balanced design ensures that there won't be tilting towards one axis. Furthermore, the layout allows for multiple thrusters to be mounted for horizontal propulsion, as well as vertical propulsion. Overall, the only concern is that the buoyancy is on the bottom, which shifts the center of gravity further up.

Design 2, which is basically an aluminum box on two plastic skids offers a great range of options to effectively accomplish the goals. The initial rationale behind the catamaran design and this design is the fact that the ROV would be able to hover over the HUGO tower. However, this design shows more potential to out perform the catamaran design because the open, unobstructed area is more "open". Other pros include the fact that the buoyancy is located near the top and the design is relatively compact, allowing the ROV to maneuver around the pool efficiently. Furthermore, the skids are an excellent mechanism to stabilize the ROV without using a large footprint, when it needs to rest on the pool floor. Nevertheless there are concerns, one of which is the aluminum box, which may cause a problem when constructing due to the limited construction resources - lack of TIG welding equipment. Additionally, the design needs to account for thruster positioning granted there is space to have multiple horizontal and vertical thrusters. Another issue is the skids, which might need to be weighed down with additional weights in order to create a neutrally buoyant system. By and large, the skid design appears to be the top candidate as it seems to have the greatest potential to meet the specifications and complete the four tasks effectively.

The last design takes my own input and places them into conventional homemade ROV designs. The "Box" design utilizes PVC piping, which is a common material in homemade ROVs. With a ballast tank for buoyancy situated on the top, and much of the weight being consolidated towards the bottom half, the 24 inch long, 12 inch wide, and 9 inch tall box is designed to be quite stable. In addition, the simple piping not only offers an easy build but also provides the necessary buoyancy to ensure that the ROV will remain neutrally buoyant. For the most part, the design takes into account the specifications, such as having the ability to move in all directions, being portable enough to be carried and launched by the mission team, and having the ability to attach thrusters, as well as cameras, a claw, thermometer, and hydrophone. However, the use of PVC as the vehicle structure limits the ability to maneuver over objects in situations such as the HUGO tower. Additionally, though the design is portable, it might create for a difficult situation when retrieving the crustaceans in the tunnel. Though the design offers many basic functions that are designed according to the specifications, some of the disadvantages, especially the inability to maneuver over the HUGO tower make the "Box" an unworthy candidate compared to the two other designs.

Research

            In order to fully understand the background of ROV design for a fully functioning ROV that is to perform a checklist of tasks in a chlorinated, fresh water pool for the 2011 MATES ROV Competition, some research needs to be completed.

ROV:

A Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle (ROV) is fundamentally an underwater robot that is controlled by an operator that is independent of the vehicle, from the surface that allows the operator to remain out of harm’s way while the ROV works in the hazardous environment below. The total ROV system is comprised of the vehicle, control, umbilical cord (tether), and power supplies. Basic features on an ROV include: thrusters, cameras, various sensors and/or tools. ROVs can vary in size depending on the work, from small vehicles for simple observation up to complex work systems, which can have several manipulators, cameras, tools, and other equipment.  

AUV:

An Autonomous Underwater Vehicle is a computer-controlled system that operates underwater. They lack any connection to the operator, considering that they are self-guiding and self-powered, unlike an ROV, which is tethered. Since the inception of the first AUV, they have advanced greatly. From simple movement similar to a torpedo, AUVs are now capable of gliding from the sea surface to ocean depths, and back. Others can stop, hover, and move like blimps or helicopters do through the air. And resembling the functions of ROVs, AUVs can be inserted in a multitude of environments, ranging from intertidal waters to the ocean floor. All of these functions can be focused for some tasks. Today, many AUVs are being utilized by the Navy for mine hunting. They are also finding usage in ocean research.

UAV:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are remotely operated airplanes that are used in place of sending humans into air for reasons that include: danger, dullness, or dirtiness. Many UAVs are used in military application for reconnaissance or attacks. Controlled from half-way across the country, pilots are able to control the plane in a safe cubicle, away from the warzone. Using bandwidth to exchange data, the pilot is able to send direct and immediate controls to the plane, usually with just a 2 second time delay.

Design:

The ROV system is a highly interrelated group of subsystems that, when functioning together, provides an impressive subsea capability. With many unique designs, there are many things to consider when constructing a functioning ROV, due to its environment, which introduces inherent factors that dictate the operation of the ROV. Because of this highly interdependent relationship, ROV system performance is a delicate balance of design and operational characteristic tradeoffs. The general subsystems of an ROV include: vehicle, tools and sensors, control/display console, electrical power distribution, umbilical and tether cords, and handling system. Thus with all these subsystems, it is understandable to see a small change be magnified across the whole ROV system.

Calendar

September Log

9/27
Looking back on the weekend, I uploaded an updated background, completed my alternate solutions, and uploaded the posts. Today, I started to read over the comments, followed by updating the alternate solutions by posting up the first entry for my first alternate solution. Need to complete the other two solution abstracts and provide an introduction and conclusion.

9/28
Considering I didn't get much done yesterday, and realize my blog is lacking overall I tried to locate some more pictures for my background page. Found about 20 images ranging from users to ROV application and uses. Lastly, added the second's solutions abstract. NEED TO FINISH.

9/29
From the gun, started working on the introduction, the third solution's abstract and conclusion. Looked over past posts to evaluate where I stand. Realize I need to add some more. Reminded that I need to complete my log, so I am posting NOW.

Alternate Solutions

Introduction

This section has been dedicated to the outlining and description of my alternate solutions. Attached are three distinct alternate solutions along with a description providing the specificaitons and capabilities. Furthermore, each solution has elementary criticisms to show which system works best, because no design will be able to attain maximum points in each category, due to the trade-offs that each component of the vehicle structure system has. Nevertheless, each and every design is viable and is able to perform the tasks. Whether each design can perform each task at a high level is another question.

Solution #1 (Catamaran)

The following design's dimensions is: 18 inches long, 12 inches wide, and 10 inches tall. The general structure of the ROV takes the shape of a catamaran that one might find in a sailboat design. The basic design consists of two riggers that are connected by a flat platform on top. The plan is to use alumunim sheeting for the riggers and place a polyethylene board on top. Metal brackets would be used to attach cameras, the manipulator, and thrusters. The concept of the design is one that is compact and allows the ROV to slide over object, which would allow it to hover over objects, especially in the sensor task where the ROV might need to hover over the sounding devices in order for the hydrophone to pick up readings. The small size would be ideal for manuevering in the tunnel. Ultimately, this first solution fits the specifications that could solve the problems.

The following design's dimesion is: 18 inches long, 10 inches wide, and 10 inches high. The generally shape of the design is a snowmobile/skid. It involves a stable platform that is derived from the skid design. Additionally, the skid platform allows the vehicle to manuever over objects. This capability allows the vehicle to position itself in various positions in order to manipulate objects in awkward areas. The slanted front side creates a hydrodynamic approach as it plows through the water. Along with the ballast area, the cameras would be able to be housed on the wall of the front panel. The hydrophone can be attached on the underside of the tank. And to provide maximum thrust, the thruster may be attacked to the sides of the ballast tank as well as the back. Lastly, the design would take on the use of two materials. The skid would either be constructed using PVC piping or polyethylene cut outs. The tank would be constructed of a aluminum body that would be Tig welded to secure the adjoing edges.


Solution #2 (Snow Mobile/Skid)

Solution #3 (Box)

This simple design is reminiscent of many larger ROVs. With a structure that takes on the shape of a rectangular prism, the vehicle is one that is very stable. Additionally, the design is flexible, meaning that it allows for many layouts. In general, it is understood that the manipulator will be placed in the front. Also, thrusters may be placed along the sides, in the back, and placed in a vertical orientation on top. Furthermore, a permanent fixture of the structure is the ballast system. In front of the tank, the camera and hydrophone may be positioned facing the manipulator. Offering key specifications such as stability and flexibility, this design is optimal as a basic design. However, due to its size and layout, this vehicle would have to drive like a car, and therefore take special caution when removing the pins, as well as removing the crustaceans. Again, the inability to "truck" over objects in order to hover over makes it difficult to complete some tasks such as the hyrdophone testing. However, it does offer a design that has had luck in the industry. Regarding luck in the industry, the ROV would be constructed out of a PVC frame using similar to many past designs that have been used at the MATES ROV Competition.

Ultimatlely, the following designs are viable solutions that help solve the situation of completeing tasks, such as retrieving crustaceans, removing pins, and taking hyrdophone readings. Additionally, the designs meet the specifications that have been outlined, which is crucial considering that the specifications are define the crucial elements that are needed to perform at maxiumum performance. In the end, the following designs, although all are viable, need to be reevaluated to determine which is the optimal design. The process of deciding will involve reviewing the specifications, as well as incorporating the systems of my partners (claw and electrical and propulsion). Along with those pieces of input, the design will be sent for evaluation by a professional in the field of marine technology and as well as a packaging engineer. Eventually, with further conclusive research, my team and I will be able to make the right decision with the right knowledge as we weigh out each design against multiple specifications using a specification grid.

Testing Procedure

Ultimately, the goal of the Capstone Design Project is to complete the design brief, which is to essentially to construct a functioning ROV. In the end, the ROV should be able to achieve basic functions such as maneuvering along an X-Y-Z plane, as well as manipulating objects and making observations. Specifically regarding the vehicle structure system, the ROV needs to meet standards as listed in the specifications, such as being neutrally buoyant or being able to maneuver through the 80cm X 80cm tunnel. The thrusters will be tested on the basis of ability to move water effectively. Additionally it must be able to be controlled effectively. The manipulator must be able to manipulate the pin, Agar, and the crustaceans. Essentially, each component should be tested before the competition to work out the kinks.

Exploratory Testing:

Before moving too far into the project, the mission team needs to use his pre-existing knowledge as well as research to ensure that what has been conceptualized has a possibility to work. This is probably the most important part of the testing period, as the outcome of the test results in the future of the project. During this period, it is essential that the mission team is completely cooperative. Additionally, they must be in constant communication in order to update each other on their developmental progress. Furthermore, the engineers of each system should be in contact with their mentors in order to receive feedback on their design. Ultimately, the knowledge from the mentor and group members which help to settle the basis for each design leads to a conclusive result.

Assessment Testing:

Moving past the developmental work of drawing, the engineer is starting to model the production product. This is the first time the engineer would be able to fully comprehend the design. Through modeling, the engineer should use materials that are similar if not identical to the final solution. In the case of the ROV, the layout should be understood from the design. In some cases, this testing procedure may need to be reevaluated in order to make a complete judgment call.

Validation Testing:

In the final stage of the project, this will essentially be the concluding test, otherwise known as the competition. It will validate whether or not is performed up to the standards spelled out or expected. After much design and prototyping, most if not all the kinks should have been worked out. The ROV at this point should be able to work as a full system.

Testing Procedure (Team)

1. Find an area that is comfortable and clear of potential hazards.

2. Unpackage and inspect the system: vehicle, control console, tether and reel, spares/tool kit, monitor.

4. Complete the dry land pre-dive inspection (check the thrusters, tether, control system, manipulator, tool, structure).

5. Deploy the ROV for testing.

6. Test the horizontal propulsion for forward, backwards, left then right to ensure that the thrusters operates correctly.

7. Test the vertical propulsion to ensure that the vertical thrusters operate correctly.

8. Test the ballast.

10. Test the cameras and/or tools.

11. Test the manipulator.

12. Post-dive inspection.

13. Rinse and wipe ROV.

14. Store ROV.

Testing Procedure (Individual)

1. Attach the thrusters, camera and/or tools, and manipulator to determine if the vehicle can hold all the components.

2. Identify if the structure meets all the specifications and limitations.

-Is the ROV able to be transported by the mission team?

-Is it a flexible, stable platform?

-Propellers clear of obstruction?

-No hazardous materials?

3. Pre-dive inspection.

4. Deploy the ROV.

5. Post-dive inspection

Remotely Operated Vehicle Observation Sheet

Exploratory Testing:

1. Is the ROV design conducive to the fresh, chlorinate water environment?

Yes     No

2. Is the ROV design able to enter and maneuver through a tunnel 80 cm x 80 cm?

Yes     No

3. Is the ROV design able to be transported by the mission team?

Yes     No

4. Is the ROV design stable?

Yes     No

5. Is the ROV design neutrally buoyant?

Yes     No

6. Are the propellers clear of obstruction?

Yes     No

Assessment Testing:

1. From initial observations of the model, does the ROV design meet the specifications?

Yes     No

2. Does initial handling of the model give a sense of durability?

Yes     No       If no, provide suggestions to improve the design. ________________

3. Will it be possible to successfully seal the housing?

Yes     No

4. Are the skids securely attached to the housing?

Yes     No

5. Does the layout provide room to attach the thrusters, thermometer, hydrophone, and claw?

Yes     No

Specifications & Limitations

Specifications

• Must be able to function in fresh, chlorinated water; The water should be considered conductive of electrical currents
• Must be capable of operating in a minimum pool depth of 1.2 meters. The maximum depth is 4 meters.
• Must be able to enter and maneuver through a tunnel 80 cm x 80 cm
• Must be a highly portable system; Must be able to be transported by the mission team
• Optimized small design and layout (flexible, stable platform) – balanced, serviceable, low drag
• Must be neutrally buoyant
• Must have vacuum sealed housing
• Keep the propellers clear of obstructions at all times
• No hazardous materials
• Must be able to move in all axis; vectored thruster configuration
• Must be able to accept thrusters, wide range of cameras, sensors, tools and more

Limitations

• must abide by MATES ROV Competition Rules (Ranger Class)
• no commercially-sourced systems
• must be a safe vehicle; must pass a safety inspection
• must be capable of operating in a minimum pool depth of 1.2 meters. The maximum depth is 4 meters.
• must be able to enter and manuever through a tunnel 80 cm x 80 cm
• must be a highly portable system; Must be able to be transported by the mission team



Figure 3: MATE International ROV Safety Check



Design Brief

Team

Design and develop a fully functioning Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) for the 2011 MATES ROV Competition to be operated by a mission team in a fresh, chlorinated water pool while performing a checklist of tasks, including maneuvering through a 80cm X 80cm tunnel, manipulating objects (grabbing three crustaceans, scooping 100mL of Agar, and pulling out PVC pins), and making observations.

Figure 2: The MATES ROV Competition logo.

Individual Component

Design and build a neutrally buoyant structure of a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) that employs a stable platform design, which incorporates the ballast and propulsion system, manipulator, camera, hydrophone, and sensors that will ultimately be operated by a mission team member in a fresh, chlorinated water pool in order to maneuver and complete a checklist of tasks.

Background

Marine Academy of Science & Technology (MAST) students have the option to design and develop a Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle (ROV)₁ for the MATES ROV Competition, as an aspect of the Systems Engineering II curriculum – the Capstone Design Project. Considering that the definition of Systems Engineering is to address the integration of the many subsystems that comprise the larger system, students work as system engineers on three-man teams to design and integrate various components (vehicle structure, propulsion/electrical system, manipulator system) that must function together in an effective and efficient manner in order to develop the “big picture” (design and develop a ROV). In the end, the ROV project results from the MATE Center and the Marine Technology Society’s ROV Committee, which organizes the annual MATE ROV Competition. The competition aims to simulate real world ROV application by having students assemble an ROV to cover tasks from deploying instruments, take sensor readings, and collect samples of geologic features, as well as organisms. Precisely, the event replicates the Loihi seamount, an active undersea volcano that rises more than 3,000 meters above the seafloor.

₁ A Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle (ROV) is fundamentally an underwater robot that is controlled by an operator that is independent of the vehicle, from the surface that allows the operator to remain out of harm’s way while the ROV works in the hazardous environment below. The total ROV system is comprised of the vehicle, control, umbilical cord (tether), and power supplies. Basic features on an ROV include: thrusters, cameras, various sensors and/or tools. ROVs can vary in size depending on the work, from small vehicles for simple observation up to complex work systems, which can have several manipulators, cameras, tools, and other equipment.  

Figure 1: An industrial Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV).

The basic concept of designing ROVs was to eliminate the human factor in underwater tasks. First developed for industrial purposes, such as inspections of pipelines, ROVs are now used for many applications, many of them being scientific. They have become an essential part of progressing industries and science.

In this specific situation, the testing will be conducted in a freshwater pool. The objectives of the competition include basic camera observations, as well as performing tasks such as navigating through a tunnel and turning, and grabbing objects and relocating them.