M.A.R.S.U.P.I.A.L. Sean Greenslade Nico Gallardo Chris Griffin Jared Raby Wesley Rice Advisor: Les Moore Sean Greenslade Nico Gallardo Chris Griffin Jared Raby Wesly Rice Advisor: Les Moore 1

Agenda Background Review of previous presentation 1.Customer Requirements 2.Engineering Requirements System Analysis 1.House of Quality 2.Functional Diagram Concept of Architecture Development Engineering Analysis Risk Assessment Test Plan 2

Background Carnegie Robotics’ Badger Robot Achieves versatility through modular attachment system Advantages Rugged All terrain Chassis Universal mounts Field payloads Disadvantages Limited Payload Capacity Excessive Weight Limited Radio Range No included peripherals 3

Current Products Talon Specialized for military only use Tracked drivetrain lb robot weight 1000m Transmitter Range $230k 4

Current Products Packbot Used by military and civilian personnel Tracked drivetrain 5

Current Products Husky Civilian Use Four Wheel Drive train 2.3 mph 3 Hour Runtime 6

Problem Statement Robotic platforms 1.Search and Rescue 2.Bomb defusal 3.Farm field seeding These robots aren't versatile MARSUPIAL aims to combine the functionality of separate platforms into a single system. 7

Additional Deliverables Functional Prototype Test Data Documentation (User Manual, Design, etc.) Software 8

Customers and Users Robotics have a multitude of uses Military and civilian applications Search and rescue Bomb defusal Farm field seeding Fire Department Existing robots are effective at their respective tasks Less frequently robot incorporate task versatility into their design 9

Open Items Functional Decomposition Risk Assessment Engineering Requirements 10

Customer Requirements #WeightRequirement 13Mobile Ground Platform 23Modular payload design 33Follows industry standards 43All terrain - rubble / indoor stairs 53Reliable communication (Controller / Platform) 63Durable chassis/Maintenance Interval 72Adequate computational power 83Keep base mechcanical design 92Remote viewing capability 103Obstructed line of site communication 112Reparability (Failure rate, not normal maintenance) Legend: 3 - Most Important - Must Have 2 - Medium Important - Preferable to have 1 - Least Important - Nice if possible 11

Engineering Requirements #RequirementSourceUnits of MeasureThreshholdObjectiveTest 1Mean Time Between FailuresCR11Hours> 400> 600Calculated 2Quick Change PayloadsCR2Minutes< 10< 5N/A 3Safety StandardsCR3N/AMIL-STD-883-E Comparison to Known 4Environmental StandardsCR3N/A > IP-54> IP-68Dust & Water Test 5Base Platform WeightCR1Lbs< 125 < 75Scale 6Data Transfer Rate over MeshCR9Mb/s > 2> 3Throutput Tests 7Vehicle SpeedCR1M/s >2.2 >6.8Speed Test 8Max Payload WeightCR2Lbs >50 >100TBD 9Maintain Current Size EnvelopeCR8inches 30 x 22 Tape Measure 10Video Feed ResolutionCR9Pixels > 320 x 240 > 1080 x 720N/A 11Frame RateCR9Frames/sec > 25> 30N/A 12Flat ground inclineCR4Degrees > 40> 45Inclined Drive 13Stair InclineCR4Degrees > 38> 42Stair Climb 14Step Obstacle SizeCR4Inches > 6hx8w> 8hx6wObstacle Test 15Ground pressure exerted by vehicleCR4PSI < 4< 1.5Weight over Area 16 Mechanical Shock testCR6g> 3 > 4Drop test 17Platform Runtime with PayloadCR1Hours > 3> 4Runtime Tests 18Communication RangeCR5Meters> 200> 400Range Test 19Computation Benchmarking - FFT 8192KCR7milli sec < 500 < 120Prime 95 20Communication Packet LossCR10% < 100Network Reliability

House of Quality Mean Time Between Failures Quick Change Payloads Safety Standards Environmental Standards Base Platform Weight Data Transfer Rate over Mesh Vehicle Speed Max Payload Weight Maintain Current Size Envelope Video Feed Resolution Frame Rate Flat ground incline Stair Incline Step Obstacle Size Ground pressure exerted by vehicle Mechanical Shock test Platform Runtime with Payload Communication Range Computation Benchmarking - FFT 8192K Communication Packet Loss Customer Requirements #WeightRequirement 13Mobile Ground Platform x xxx xxx xx 23Modular payload design x x x x 33Follows industry standards xx 43All terrain - rubble / indoor stairs xx xxxxx 53 Reliable communication (Controller / Platform) x x x x x 63Durable chassis/Maintenance Intervalx x x x 72Adequate computational power xx xx 83Keep base mechcanical design x xxx xxx 92Remote viewing capability x x x 103Obstructed line of site communication x xx x x 112 Reapairability (Failure rate, not normal maintinance) x x

Benchmarking Specs. UnitsMARSUPIALPackBotTalon RuntimeHrs344 Speedm/s Platform Weightlbs Payload Weightlbs Footprintin. x in.30 x 2227 x 1634 x 22 14

Concept & Architecture Development 15

Drawings 16

Functional Decomposition 17

Morph Chart PackBotConcept AConcept BConcept CConcept D Mode Of Transportation Tracks LegsWheelTracks Overcome Rubble ArmsSuspensionWalk OverJump OverGrappking Hook Overcome Stairs ArmsSuspensionWalk OverJump OverRoll Over Moving Power Source Battery Fossil Fuel EngineSolarH2 Fuel Cell Coms To Robot RaioRadio IRTether Visual Feedback Still CameraIRLidarStill Camera Coms With Payload CAN?CANEthernetSerial Apply Payload Pins/Spring/SlotsBolts/SlotsPicatinnyRatchets/Springs 18

Morph Chart Cont. Concept Datum/PackBotConcept AConcept BConcept CConcept DTalonHuskyBadger Criteria Vehicle Speed5.8mph Overcome Stairs8"x10"SSSSS-S Overcome Rubble12"-+++-S- Flat Ground Incline60deg Surface PressureLow(tracks)S--SS-- ModularityYesSS-SSSS Payload Application Time<10min+-SS-++ None LOS CommsNone++SSSSS Comms Range1000m++--S-S Safety StandardsYesSSSSSSS Max Payload Weight~25lbs Size Envelope(mm^3)17.8Hx52.1Wx88.9L+-+-S-S Video FeedbackYesSSSSS-S Runtime w/payload~2.5hrs Computational PowerMinimal+S---SS Environmental ratingIP67SSSSSSS Summation Summation Summation S

Selected Concept PackBotConcept AConcept BConcept CConcept D Mode Of Transportation Tracks LegsWheelTracks Overcome Rubble ArmsSuspensionWalk OverJump OverGrappking Hook Overcome Stairs ArmsSuspensionWalk OverJump OverRoll Over Moving Power Source Battery Fossil Fuel EngineSolarH2 Fuel Cell Coms To Robot RaioRadio IRTether Visual Feedback Still CameraIRLidarStill Camera Coms With Payload CAN?CANEthernetSerial Apply Payload Pins/Spring/SlotsBolts/SlotsPicatinnyRatchets/Springs 20

System Architecture 21

Engineering Analysis Power Requirements Torque Requirements Center of Gravity Requirements Processing Capabilities System Weight Network Bandwidth 22

Engineering Analysis – Power Idle (W)Nominal (W)Max (W) CPU (i7) CPU (beaglebone)3610 Radio unit113 System microcontroller112 Camera025 Headlights02040 Drive train Cumulative Power (W) Estimated Runtime (hrs) Battery Data BatteryCapacityUnits BB Wh x4828Wh 23

Engineering Analysis - Torque Vehicle Weight(lb) Load/ Wheel (lb) Radius Drive Wheel (in) Accel Time(s)Velocity (fps) Angle Incline(deg) Crr (rolling resistance) Coeff of friction Resistance Factor(bearings) 15070% TTE=total tractive EffortTTE(lb) = RR(lb) + GR(lb) + FA(lb) RR=Force to overcome rolling resistanceRR(lb)=VW*Crr GR=force to climb GradeGR(lb)=VW*sin(Angle Incline) FA=force to accelerate to VelocityFA(lb)=VW*Velocity(ft/s)/(32.2(ft/s2)*accel time(s)) MTT=Max tractive TorqueMTT=loadwheel(lb)*Coeff*radius Tw=Wheel Torque NeededTw=TTE(lb)*radius*Resistance factor TTE(lb)RR(lb)GR(lb)FA(lb)MTT(lb)RPM English Metric(N) TTE has to be Less that MTT possible Tw(in-lb)Torque per motorPower Needed English kW Metric(NM)

Engineering Analysis – Center of Gravity Forward Slope ThetaBase Line 4030 Max angle before tip Max Height of CG Side Slope ThetaBaseline 4019 Max angle before tip Max Height of CG Factor of safety 1.33 Max Y distance from CG 7.14 Max X distance from CG 7.14 New max height 8.51in 21.62cm 25

Preliminary Test Plan  Data Transfer Rate  Experimental – Test File  Speed  Flat Surface – Measured Distance timed  Maximum Incline  Adjustable Ramp Incline Test  Stair Incline  Stair Climb Test – Specified Step Incline  Clear-able Obstacle Size  Specified Size (Rubble, Cinderblocks, etc.) 26

Preliminary Test Plan Cont.  Mechanical Shock  Drop Test (dropped from height)  Run Time  Guaranteed by Design and Verified by Experimental Testing  Communication Range  Experimentally Tested During Proof of Concept  Field Range Test  On-board Computational Power  Benchmarking – Prime95 Benchmark 27

Project Schedule 28

Risk Assessment RiskSeverityOccurance ProbabilityMitigationOwner 1Staffing/engineering ability41 Consultation with advisor/customer Scale back of scopeNico 2Budget51 Consultation with advisor/customer Scale back of scopeWes 3Machine setbacks31Plenty of lead timeWes 4Shipping setbacks31Plenty of lead timeNico 5Part setbacks31Plenty of lead timeJared 6Incorrect Engineering Analysis23Thourough verification of analysisPer subsystem 7Ordering errors33Thourough verification of BOMNico 8Catostrophic prototype failure51 Proof of concepts Small scale tests befor large scale testsChris 9Time constraints24 Consultation with advisor/customer Scale back of scopeJared 10Hardware failure34 Thorough design verification Spare componentsChris 11Mechanical failure34 Thorough design verification Spare componentsWes 12Software failure34 Thorough design verification Spare componentsSean 13Environmental factors15Review weather conditionsJared 14Technological limits31Review current technologiesSean 29

Conclusions Questions? 30

Backup Slides 31

Use Scenarios 32

Use Scenarios 33

Use Scenarios 34

Use Scenarios 35