AUTONOMOUS UAV COMPETITION PROJECT PLAN ---------------------------- Iowa State University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Senior Design May 2011-Team 10 0 | Page Faculty Advisor Client Space Systems & Controls Laboratory (SSCL) Team Members Anders Nelson Kshira Nadarajan
43
Embed
seniord.ece.iastate.eduseniord.ece.iastate.edu/projects/archive/may1110/docs... · Web viewAutonomous UAV Competition Project PlanIowa State University Department of Electrical and
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AUTONOMOUS UAV COMPETITIONPROJECT PLAN
----------------------------
Iowa State University Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Senior Design May 2011-Team 10
Date Submitted:October 14, 2010
0 | P a g e
Faculty AdvisorMatthew Nelson
ClientSpace Systems & Controls Laboratory
(SSCL)
Team MembersAnders Nelson Kshira NadarajanMathew Wymore Mazdee Masud
The requirements in labor that will be used for this project can be broken into 3 main
sections. The sections of labor are in Documentation, Design, and Implementation. These
sections can each be further divided into subtasks that must be accomplished for the overall
project. The figures below list out how the tasks will be split between members of the senior
design team as well as the totals for each section of labor.
Documentation Expected LaborTeam Member Project Plan Plan Presentation Design Document Design Presentation Final Documentation TotalAnders Nelson 10 10 15 10 15 60Mazdee Masud 10 10 15 10 15 60Mathew Wymore 10 10 15 10 15 60Kshira Nadarajan 10 10 15 10 15 60
Total 40 40 60 40 60 240
Design Expected LaborTeam Member Past Competitor Research Parts Research&Selection Sensors Setup Power System Control System Communication System Software System TotalAnders Nelson 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 65Mazdee Masud 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 65Mathew Wymore 10 10 10 0 5 10 20 65Kshira Nadarajan 10 10 10 0 5 10 20 65
Total 40 40 40 20 30 40 50 260
Implementation Expected LaborTeam Member Control System On-Board Programming Sensor Integration Power System Communication System Parts&Integration Testing Final System Testing TotalAnders Nelson 20 5 10 10 15 40 60 160Mazdee Masud 20 5 10 10 15 40 60 160Mathew Wymore 5 35 10 0 10 40 60 160Kshira Nadarajan 5 35 10 0 10 40 60 160Total 50 80 40 20 50 160 240 640
This section includes the items needed for implementing our project. These are the
electronic components for the platform. This list does not include those items used for
implementing the platform that will be done by the Engr 466 Senior Design Team. This list is
an estimate of the ideal case. The exact items bought may differ depending on funding, which
is not currently set.
Components EstimatePart Name Est. Cost per Unit Number of Units Total CostExternal SensorsLaser Range Finder $1,100 1 $1,100Camera $40 1 $40Internal SensorsIMU $100 1 $100Power6,500mAh Lipo Battery $150 1 $150Microcontrollers32-bit Controller $40 1 $40Communications90m Transmitter/Receiver $40 2 $80MiscellaneousMisc. Items (e.g.-wiring) $40 1 $40
Parts Total without Platform: $1,550
4.3 Financial Requirements
The following is the summary of the financial requirements for this project. This is
The following is an excerpt of the rules from the International Aerial Robotics
Competition (IARC) Mission 6 outline. Mission 6 is the current mission, being held in
August 2011.
“ General Rules Governing Entries1. Vehicles must be unmanned and autonomous. They must compete based on their ability to sense the semi-structured environment of the Competition Arena. They may be intelligent or pre-programmed, but they must not be flown by a remote human operator. Any number of air vehicles may be deployed so long as the gross aggregate weight of each air vehicle does not exceed 1.50 kg.2. Computational power need not be carried by the air vehicle. Computers operating from standard commercial power may be set up outside the Competition arena boundary and uni- or bi-directional data may be transmitted to/from the vehicles in the arena however there shall be no human intervention with any ground-based systems necessary for autonomous opera-tion (computers, navigation equipment, links, antennas, etc.).3. Data links will be by means of radio frequencies in any legal band for the location of the arena.4. The air vehicle(s) must be free-flying, autonomous, and have no entangling encumbrances such as tethers. The air vehicle(s) can be of any type. During flight, the maximum dimension of the air vehicle can not exceed one (1) meter. The maximum takeoff weight of the vehicle cannot exceed 1.50 kg. The vehicle must be powered by means of an electric motor using a battery, capacitor, or fuel cell as a source of energy. The vehicle must be equipped with a method of manually-activated remote override of the primary propulsion system.5. A maximum of two (2) non-line-of-sight (NLOS) navigation aids may be used external to the designated flight area. It will be assumed that these navigation aids were positioned by a mother ship around the building (but not on top) prior to a aerial robotic sub vehicle launch. The navigation aids must be portable, and must be removed once the team leaves the compe-tition area. GPS is not allowed as a navigation aid. 6. The aerial robotic system is required to be able to send vehicle status and navigation solu-tions to the Judge’s remote JAUS-compliant data terminal via the JAUS protocol. This will be done according to the JAUS Standard Set which will be provided to all official teams. Im-agery may be delivered to a separate team-supplied terminal using JAUS protocols but other signal formats will also be acceptable. Similarly, kill switch transmissions may use JAUS protocols, but can be achieved by other means without penalty. If more than one aerial robot is deployed simultaneously, intercommunication between the aerial robots may be by any means and any protocol desired. 7. Upon entering the arena under autonomous control, aerial robots must remain within the bounds of the arena or the attempt will end. Vehicles leaving the arena or in the Judges’ opin-ion, are about the leave the arena, will have their flight terminated by a Judge. Flight termina-tion actuation will be controlled by a Judge, not the team. Each team will supply the desig -nated Judge with its manually-actuated kill device as they enter the arena prior to their at -tempt(s), and must demonstrate that the kill switch is functional for the Judge. Either separate
22 | P a g e
kill switches can be provided for each vehicle in multiple vehicle swarms, or a single kill switch that disables all vehicles in the swarm simultaneously is deemed acceptable.8. The ground station equipment other than the optional navigation aids, manual kill switch mechanisms, and Judges’ JAUS-compliant terminal interface must be portable such that it can be setup and removed from the arena quickly. A suggestion would be to setup the equip-ment on a roll-cart similar to that shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Roll-Cart.
OperationsTeams will be given four (4) flight attempts. The team with the highest static judging score will be given one (1) additional attempt. Each team will be given 15 minutes to setup their system and adjust parameters. If the team is unable to launch an aerial robot within the 15 minute window, the attempt is forfeited. Each team is granted one (1) pass. Once a set of at-tempts has been completed by a given team, the entire team will be required to leave the arena. No hardware may be left in place.During the static display of the vehicle(s), the vehicle(s) will be measured to verify the 1 me -ter maximum dimension constraint. The vehicle(s), in takeoff configuration will be weighed to verify the 1.50 kg maximum weight restriction. The vehicle(s) will also be examined to as-sure that all kill switch functions are fully operational prior to flight. Competition AreaThe competition flight area (arena) will be constructed within an area that is approximately 30 m long by 15 m wide, and 2.5 m high. This area will be divided into a number of rooms and corridors with various obstacles of various heights. The launch location will be fixed at a distance of 3m and oriented toward a 1 x 1 meter (minimum) opening into a corridor. Navi-gation aids, if used, may be located anywhere in a 3 meter perimeter bounding the outside of the arena (see Figure 2). A list of typical materials and construction notes (which may be updated from time to time) is provided at http://iarc.angel-strike.com/IARC_Arena_Construction.pdf so that teams can construct similar practice arenas for use in refining their aerial robotic systems prior to arrival on the Competition day.”
23 | P a g e
6.4.2 Appendix II – Brief Market Survey
IARC Entries
The most succinct survey of the autonomous UAV field, in relation to the IARC, is the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s 2010 Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues. The papers from the symposium, detailing seven teams’ entries in the 2010 competition, can be found online at http://iarc.angel-strike.com/symposium2010.php.
Embry-Riddle
Perhaps the most innovative entry was Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s SamarEye monocopter.
To fly, the SamarEye rotates quickly about its center of mass. Though interesting and entertaining to watch, this design would be both difficult to implement and impractical in terms of an environment mapping or object recognition platform.
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
SDSMT’s UAV, SERV, is a more traditional, quadrotor design, and likely similar to the future platform of this project. SDSMT began development of the SERV platform for the 2004 competition. The 2010
24 | P a g e
Figure 1 - The SamarEye, courtesy of www.rdmag.com
Figure 2 - SERV, courtesy of uav.sdsmt.edu
incarnation of SERV used a Hokuyo laser range finder, CMOS camera and a Gumstix Obero Fire onboard computer.
25 | P a g e
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
The Indian Institute of Technology’s entry was also a quadrotor platform powered by a Gumstix onboard computer and using a Hokuyo laser range finder. The UAV communicated with a base station using a Wi-Fi link built into the Gumstix board, but the symposium paper suggests that migration of all processing to the onboard computer is a future goal.
Non-IARC Considerations
Research into autonomous UAVs is hardly limited to the IARC. Other market considerations include non-IARC university projects, off-the-shelf UAV platforms and hobbyist sites.
MIT SWARM - http://vertol.mit.edu/index.html
Figure 4 - A UAV SWARM, courtesy of vertol.mit.edu
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been extensively researching multiple-UAV systems since at least 2004. The current project deals with swarm health monitoring in order to facilitate 24-7 mission capabilities.
26 | P a g e
Figure 3 - IIT Madras's quadrotor platform
Parrot AR Drone - http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa
The Parrot AR Drone is available for consumer purchase $300 from Amazon.com. This quadrotor platform is controlled through Wi-Fi by an iPhone or iPad. The platform also sends video imagery to the controlling device. An ultrasound range detector serves as an altimeter, and an ARM processor running a Linux distribution takes care of the onboard processing.
www.diydrones.com
DIY Drones is “a site for all things about amateur Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.” With over 11,500 registered members, DIY Drones has an active community with forums, blogs and several open-source Arduino-based autopilot projects with purchasable hardware.
Market Survey Conclusion
Quadcoptors are the most common platform in the competition. They offer the best stability, maneuverability, and reliability that are needed for this type of competition. In addition, the use of a laser rangefinder is also a very common sensor. Despite the higher power consumption and weight than other options in sensors, the much longer range, accuracy, and reliability makes it the standout option of use in the competition.
27 | P a g e
Figure 5 - Parrot AR Drone
6.4.2 Appendix III – Sensor Comparison
28 | P a g e
Sensors Advantages DisadvantagesIR Power Consumption is less Lower range