1 / 20

Subsidized by DGA, organized by Onera

International universities mini UAV competition http://concours-drones.onera.fr Philippe Choy, ONERA. Context. Subsidized by DGA, organized by Onera Open to engineering schools and universities (2 nd cycle degree program) Goals :

jeri
Download Presentation

Subsidized by DGA, organized by Onera

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. International universitiesmini UAV competitionhttp://concours-drones.onera.fr Philippe Choy, ONERA

  2. Context • Subsidized by DGA, organized by Onera • Open to engineering schools and universities (2nd cycle degree program) • Goals : • Demonstrate the operational interest presented by mini UAVs to seek objectives in an urban landscape • Bring forth innovative concepts and solutions, constitute a library of technological subsets • Original method : an initial financing is awarded to the competitors (leaded by a French team) because of the difficulty of the technological challenge

  3. Why organize a competition ? • Stimulate the university research in the field of mini UAVs and micro-technologies • Favor the French-French and international cooperation, if possible to discover competence (laboratories) abroad which could lead to future cooperation • Competitions are highly esteemed by students (Shell Marathon, E=M6 cup) • Why appeal to engineering schools and universities ? • Because the "academics" (students and teachers) can have simple and original ideas, and can afford to take more technological risks than the manufacturers • Most of the schools and universities have research laboratories • This subject can easily join a motivating educational project (multidisciplinary aspect)

  4. University MAV competition • low navigation autonomy • low size is privileged • Flying robots competition • fully autonomous • very heavy (and expensive) What already exists in the States The competition organized by DGA and Onera proposes an intermediate approach • Direct DARPA funding to university laboratories

  5. To know everything about the DGA competition :http://concours-drones.onera.fr • Bilingual French / English • Regulationdownload(final version:September, 2003) • Application form • List of the registered competitors • Frequently Asked Questions • Latest news

  6. May 03 end 03 Defence of technical dossiers Second defence of technical dossiers Application year 1 40 k€ awarded to 10 teams 40 k€ awarded to 9 other teams Financialcontribution(only teams leaded by a French school or university) Schedule Sept 02 June 03 Sept 03 June 04 Sept 04 June 05 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Academic years April 05 June 04 Application ends Safety dossiers Operational and static testing In flight demonstrations Pricegiving 

  7. The great day : June 2005 • - A static judgement • - An “operational” judgement • Markingcriteria (appendix IV of the regulation) • Design : miniaturization, micro-technologies, endurance, vulnerability, assembly / disassembly / transport… • Navigation autonomy :take-off and landing, tele-piloting or autonomous navigation in free space or • below the tops of buildings • Operational capacity : achievement of mission objectives,real-time transmission and\or data storage, stabilisation, images quality, targets identification…

  8. 1/ arrival of the competitors 5/ search for snipers (pre-indicated facades) sniper 3/ search for simples objectives Soldiers / check point 4/ stabilized image transmission barricade vehicle 7/ moving towards destination (team + material) 8/ end The operational testing (2005) 2/ system deployment ; UAV(s) launch Point of departure 6/ UAV recovery - system packing Final destination Zone area :  1 km2

  9. Considered site for the final test • Artificial village(thus uninhabited) • streets width : 10 - 15 m • 1 ou 2 floors ; only one 3 floors building (< 10 m) • highest point : church’s bell tower (10 m) ; trees  20 m • Place not revealed today for security reasons (army area, near a shooting range)

  10. Applications result in June 2003(first financial assistance allocation) • 23 teams registered • 20 technical dossiers presented • from 6 to 60 students & professors • one team associated with foreign university (Mexico) • association between 2 schools / universities for 8 teams • 10 financial assistance allocated

  11. 40 k€ Beneficiaries of the 10 first financialcontributions • Université de Technologie de Compiègne (projet AURYON) • École Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et d'Aérotechnique (projet AMADO) • École Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et des Microtechniques • École Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Métiers (Paris) – Université de Clermont-Ferrand • École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris et École Centrale de Paris (projet Oiseau artificiel) • École Centrale de Paris et École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris (projet Quadricoptère) • Groupe ESIEE (projet Puls’ESIEE) • Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Strasbourg  (projet Cigognes) • Université d'Évry Val d'Essonne (Laboratoire des Systèmes Complexes - projet XSF) • École Supérieure de Conception et de Production Industrielle et CNAM (projet AéroDRONES)

  12. The jury of June 2003 : 16 members • Chairwoman : Mrs Fargeon, DGA • Ministry of Defence • DGA (SPMT, CTA) (2), French Army Staff (1) • French research organisations • ONERA (2), École des Mines (1) • European organisations • Saint-Louis Institute (2), European Spatial Agency (1), Royal Military Academy of Brussels (1), Pisa University (1) • Manufacturers (4) • Dassault Aviation, EADS, Sagem, Thales • + some observers (Ministry of Defence) not having participated in the vote

  13. Coaxial ducted rotors with cyclic and collective pitch (3) • Coaxial ducted rotors with fins (1) • Tilting wing & body (2) • 4 tilting rotors (1) The proposed technical solutions • Aerodynamic concepts (1/2) :

  14. 4 rotors (6) • Flapping wings (2) California University • Ducted main and tail rotors helicopter (2) • Fixed wing(s) (2) The proposed technical solutions • Aerodynamic concepts (2/2) : • R/C helicopter (1)

  15. + video glasses • R/C transmitter • Computer • Joypad • Graphic tablet with sensitive screen (« high level » navigation orders ) The proposed technical solutions • Human-Computer Interaction : • Joystick or « piloting glove »

  16. The proposed technical solutions • Onboard equipment : • Motorization : electric or fuel (choice sometimes remaining to make) • Camera(s) : fixed, directional (1 or 2 axes) or panoramic • Generally Inertial Measuring Unit + GPS + additional systems • Rangefinders / obstacles detection : IR, laser, ultrasound, stereoscopy • Development of sensors / actuators using MEMS technology

  17. The proposed technical solutions • Specific softwares developments • Images analysis (environment reconstruction, help for targets or obstacles detection) • Often ambitious piloting-navigation function (high level of decision-making autonomy), requiring a step by step approach « by increasing difficulty levels » • « AI type » algorithms for navigation

  18. Comments of the jury • For the first series of financial contributions, the jury has decided to support the projects proposing innovative developments (aerodynamics, components, algorithms...) • the human and educational means implemented also influenced the choices of the jury • But certain projects (even among the first 10 prize-winners !) contain gaps which it will be necessary to try hard to fill before the final test. It remains in particular to refine : • the aerodynamic concepts and the piloting systems • the choice of numerous components • the balances of masses, volumes and powers • …and it will be necessary to manage well the available time (only 2 years left !)…

  19. The continuation • February 2004 : Second exam of the technical dossiers and allocation of 9 new financial contributions • The technical solutions should begin to converge (and be more concrete…) • June-September 2004 : Safety test • Foreseen during the “JMD 2004”(see final version of the regulation, appendix II) • Exam of the safety dossiers : will allow the jury to make a technical point one year before the final test and to give the last recommendations • Demonstration test (optional, public) : will allow the competitors to demonstrate the advancement of their project (and possibly to have the last contacts in case of difficulties)

  20. Conclusion The competition is today on the right track • Important number of competitors • Ambitious, interesting projects from the organizers’ point of view • but… • The jury regrets the low foreign participation(however, the application deadline is still far)

More Related