Design Review May 11-10: Autonomous UAV Competitio n

1. Client: Space Systems & Controls Laboratory (SSCL) Advisor : Matthew Nelson 491 Team Component Anders Nelson (EE) anelson7@iastate.edu Mathew Wymore (CprE) mlwymore@iastate.edu Kale Brockman kaleb@iastate.edu StockliManuel stockli@iastate.edu KshiraNadarajan (CprE) kshira90@iastate.edu MazdeeMasud (EE) mmasud@iastate.edu Andy Jordan andyjobo@iastate.edu Karolina Soppela soppela@iastate.edu Design ReviewMay 11-10: Autonomous UAV Competition 466 Team Component

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

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

4. Conceptual Sketch

5. Platform Concept

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

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

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

9. Market Survey • Unique because it’s ISU’s

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

11. Hardware Cost

12. Total Cost

13. Milestones and Schedule • Project plan, design document complete

14. Design • Functional Decomposition • Detailed Design • Technologies Used • Test Plan

15. Functional Decomposition • Control System • Main controller • Flightcontroller • Sensor System • Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) • Cameras, Range Finders • Will not be selected by us. • Software System • Power System

17. Controllers • Main Controller – GumstixOvero 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

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

19. Software

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 LiPoBatteries • 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

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

22. Current Status • Documentation • Project plan, design doc complete • Design • Most hardware selected • Software sketched • Implementation • Start over break • Flight demo in early March

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

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

25. Questions?

26. Backup Slides

27. Hardware Options Scoring

28. IMU Comparison Scoring

29. Potential Arena Layout