1 / 14

P10203 LV1 motor controller Final Review May 14, 2010

P10203 LV1 motor controller Final Review May 14, 2010. Electrical: Kory Williams, Adam Gillon , Oladipo Tokunboh Mechanical: Louis Shogry , Andrew Krall. Agenda. Project Overview Customer Needs Design Specifications Project Status Schedule Budget Testing Results Issues and Findings

minda
Download Presentation

P10203 LV1 motor controller Final Review May 14, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. P10203 LV1 motor controllerFinal ReviewMay 14, 2010 Electrical: Kory Williams, Adam Gillon, OladipoTokunboh Mechanical: Louis Shogry, Andrew Krall

  2. Agenda • Project Overview • Customer Needs • Design Specifications • Project Status • Schedule • Budget • Testing Results • Issues and Findings • Conclusions and Future Work

  3. Project Overview • The purpose of the LV1 motor controller project was to reduce the cost of the previous generation RP1 motor controller while also improving size, manufacturability and appearance. • Our team was to work closely with the other coincident LV1 projects (P10201, P10202, P10205) to create a functional robotic land vehicle with the capability to transport a 1 kg payload.

  4. Customer Needs • The controller is easy to manufacture and assemble. • The controller is modular, (can be configured in several different options to support varied functionality). • The controller has a low risk implementation and is stand-alone. • The controller is able to properly interface with the other modules of the Land Vehicle Platform. • The controller is able to be used by first year mechanical/electrical engineering students. • The controller is able to make the platform move with sufficient agility and controllability. • The new design shall improve upon the aesthetics of the RP1. • The controller makes effective use of the space provided by the Chassis. • The new design is cost effective, (cheaper than the RP1 with the same, or improved performance characteristics). • The controller is durable and can withstand repeated use with minimal maintenance. • The controller has a reasonable battery life. • The controller is able to be upgraded by future Senior Design teams with little redesign or component replacement needed. • The controller makes use of Prior Generations Designs and Research.

  5. Design Specifications

  6. System Architecture

  7. Product Development Process • Phase 0: Planning • Define Project Goal • Develop Customer Requirements • Define Engineering Metrics • Phase 1: Concept Selection • 2 Rounds of PUGH Concept Selection • Analysis of existing RP1 • Phase 2: Product Design • Pspice Simulations • Validation using engineering calculations • Phase 3: Final Design • Detailed Schematics and Layout • Finalized BOM • Phase 4: Building • Order parts • Assembly and mounting • Phase 5: Testing • Subsystem • Interfacing MSD1 MSD 2 0 2 4 1 3 5 Current State

  8. Project Status • Controller is able to function independently of the other modules on the LV1 platform. • Controller is able to communicate over the Wireless communications link with the GUI. • Controller is able to drive all four motors at the same time (unmounted) • Battery is compatible with regulation circuits on the controller.

  9. Schedule • Interface testing with Wireless team completed on schedule. • Interface testing with Chassis and Motor Modules fell behind 2 weeks. • Full System testing is still incomplete. Final tests will be run when the platform can be run on the ground.

  10. Budget • Total Cost of Two Controller Units is $798.00 including shipping for parts and components. (20% reduction from the RP1). • Total cost does not include encoder cables that were purchased late due to a miscommunication with the motor module team. • Some components like the mounting plate for the PID controller can be removed from BOM since they were not used.

  11. Testing Results • Subsystem Testing • Voltage Regulator boards are functional and able to limit an 8.4V input to 5V (Logic) and 5.93V (Servo). • Motor Driver boards are able to amplify a PWM input signal and provide the stall current condition (1.6A). FWD/REV and speed control are confirmed. • I2C interface between Control Units is confirmed and communications between the devices has been established. • Controller interfaces with the GUI via a wired connection.

  12. Testing Results (cont) • Interface Testing • Communications with the Wireless Team has been established using the GUI to send motor control commands. • Using the GUI, we are able to move the drive motors bidirectionally and with varied speed. Servos are also able to be rotated 180 degrees. • Battery successfully powers up regulator circuits and provides enough voltage to maintain constant Logic and Servo Levels. • Encoder Functionality has not yet been evaluated since motors cannot be driven in contact to the ground.

  13. Issues and Findings • As a subsystem, the controller can operate as intended in the design. • Full System Integration has not yet been established since we are unable to move the robot on the ground. • When the motors try to overcome static friction, there is a large risk of permanent damage to both the drive motor and the motor driver circuitry due to a large current draw. Current limiting circuits may be required in order to obtain proper control of the platform.

  14. Conclusions and Future Work • There are some additional layout issues that can be resolved to make external connections easier. • The thermal coating considerations were dropped due to time restrictions and limited resources. • Additional software knowledge is required for alteration of GUI or program of MCU Unit and PID Controller. • Linear Regulators could be replaced with switching regulators to reduce power loss.

More Related