Summer Research Continued

Summer Research

Team Design Brief:  Design a multi-functional ROV capable of transporting objects, determining sound and temperature readings, and manipulating seals and locks. The ROV will be operated in a clear, lit test pool and be able to submerge to a maximum depth of four meters.

Individual Design Brief:  Design a manipulator used to pick up, carry, and relocate items within a swimming pool, while not impeding the motion of the ROV.

Research related to the problem: For the MATE competition the ROV needs to complete certain tasks. The four tasks are resurrecting HUGO, collecting samples from a cave, sampling a vent site, and sampling a bacterial mat. Each task has a specific set of requirements needed to be completed in order to receive full credit. The first task is resurrecting HUGO. First, the ROV must remove one pin to release the high-rate hydrophone. Then, using the claw the ROV must remove the HRH from the elevator. Next, using the hydrophone the team must identify the rumbling site. The ROV must then install the HRH in a .5 by .5 square in the rumbling area. The cap must then be removed from HUGO’s junction box, and the ROV must retrieve the HRH power cable from the holder. Lastly, the claw must insert the power connector into the port. This completes the first of four tasks. In the next task the ROV must collect samples within a dimly lit cave. The ROV must be able to enter the cave and maneuver to the back wall of the cave. Next, the ROV must collect 3 samples and maneuver out of the cave. Lastly, it must return the samples to the team on the surface. The next task is to sample a vent site on the bottom of the pool. The ROV must measure the temperature of the vent fluid at three different locations along the height of the vent chimney. Next, it must create a temperature versus height graph of the data. Lastly, the ROV must collect a sample of the vent spire and return to the surface. The final task is to sample a bacterial mat in the pool. The claw must collect a sample of the mat so that it is removed and no longer in contact with the seafloor. The ROV must then return to the surface with the sample.

Research related to atmosphere and mood:  The intended mood for our project must be serious. We are entering a competition with a long set of specific rules that we must adhere to. While adhering to the competition rules we must also design our ROV to be as efficient as possible. It must be able to complete all the tasks without problems and without violating any competition regulations. We must make sure that our ROV is completely water sealed in order to protect the essential parts of the ROV. For this design form follows function, everything must be designed to function and perform its’ task correctly and the form will follow. All of this work requires a great deal of detail and concentration, which is why the mood of the design needs to remain serious throughout the design and construction process.

Research related to conditions of use: The ROV and its three different components, electrical, mechanical, and structural, will all be operated in a competition pool or on land. It can be tested at the Marine Academy of Science and Technology’s Systems Engineering Lab, Sean Coppinger’s home, or Ryan van Doorn’s home. There is also a possibility of being able to use the Monmouth University pool as a testing area. The ROV will be tested in its individual parts and as a whole. There are many people involved in this ROV project. They include myself, the mechanical engineer, Ryan van Doorn, the electrical engineer, and Sean Coppinger, the structural engineer. Other people that are involved include our specific mentors. My 1^st mentor is Scott Thomas who has a degree in mechanical engineering, and works for a construction firm. My 2^nd mentor is Hans van Doorn who is an electrical engineer for L’oreal USA. Lastly, our Systems Engineering 2 teachers, Mr. Cuttrell and Ms. Green supervise and evaluate our projects via our blogs. All of these people are very involved in our ROV design project for the MATE ROV competition.

Research related to end user: The final product for the ROV design project will be a fully operational marine ROV that meets all specifications and can complete all mission tasks. It will combine three different elements, the hull design, the electrical system, and the manipulator or the claw. The hull will house the other two systems, while providing equal buoyancy. The electrical system will power the ROV and the claw will manipulate the objects in the pool to complete our assigned tasks. The ROV needs to be able to complete the assigned tasks of the MATE ROV competition that are listed on the competition website. If each element of the project is designed well the project will succeed.

An ROV competing in the MATE ROV competition

An ROV competing at rhe MATE ROV competition

The MAST Systems Lab. One possible area for testing.

          

October Log Post (10/20 and 10/21)

On Wednesday the 20th I worked on my exploded view for the manipulator. This involved drawing the arm, gears, the actual claw, and other moving parts. I also worked on revising my testing procedures by adding further detail to the different testing area descriptions. On Thursday the 29th I continued to work on my testing procedures, while also beginning to piece together the claw in Auto CAD.

October Log Post (10/15, 10/18, 10/19)

On Friday the 15th I worked on drawing my final solution in Auto CAD. I spent the entire class period drawing and was mostly finished by the end. The next class, Monday the 18th, I was absent from class. On Tuesday the 19th I continued drawing my final solution in Auto CAD and added an observation sheet to my testing procedures. I also made slight changes to my rationale to fit my final design exactly.

Design Matrix

Specifications	Alternate Solution 1 Horizontal Claw System	Alternate Solution 2 Modified Horizontal Claw System	Alternate Solution 3 Vertical Claw System
Must create as little friction through the water as possible	10 Small surface area; only the two claws as opposed to the cage	8 Larger surface area due to cage design	10 Small surface area; only the two claws as opposed to the cage
Must be able to pick up and place objects throughout the pool at the competition site	8 Can pick up objects successfully, but may not be able to carry as effectively as the cage design.	10 Better able to pick up, carry, and relocate items with cage design	8 Can pick up objects successfully, but may not be able to carry as effectively as the cage design.
Must be confined to one power source	10 Pneumatic	10 Electric motor	10 Electric motor
Power must be electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic	10 Pneumatic	10 Electric motor	10 Electric motor
Manipulator must be able to transport objects without damaging the manipulator/object	7 Can transport object, but the object is partially exposed.	10 Transports the object within the safety of the cage design.	7 Can transport object, but the object is partially exposed.
The manipulator must be able to open to 4 inches	9 With just the two claws and no cage this design can easily open to 4 inches.	8 The cage design may inhibit the claws ability to open as wide as the other two designs.	9 With just the two claws and no cage this design can easily open to 4 inches.
Must be able to complete all assigned tasks	8 Meets all specifications, but not as successfully as the cage design.	9 Overall, best meets the specifications of the design.	7 Meets all specifications, but not as successfully as the cage design.
Must be able to carry objects around the pool, without dropping the items	8 Can carry object; not as efficient as cage because the object is not encased within anything. Only held of by pincers of the claw.	10 The cage design most easily allows for transportation of items around the pool.	8 Can carry object; not as efficient as cage because the object is not encased within anything. Only held of by pincers of the claw.
Totals	70	75	69

Rationale

            As the mechanical engineer for my team’s ROV project, I am tasked with constructing a manipulator used to pick up, carry, and relocate items within a swimming pool, while not impeding the motion of the ROV. For this task I have created three alternate solutions. My alternate solutions include the horizontal claw system, the modified horizontal claw system, and the vertical claw system. The manipulators need to be able to perform a wide range of tasks, including manipulating seals and locks, collecting samples, and relocating items from the pool to the surface. Each solution is viable and can complete the tasks assigned.

            My 1^st alternate solution is a horizontal claw system. It has one pincer like claw coming off of either side of the arm. The arm is straight and rectangular in shape in order to fit into Sean’s hull design. It utilizes a tooth arm and gears in order to function. There is one 1” gear and one pincer has a 1/8” gear, while the other has a ½” and ¼”. The arm will be 6 inches long. Each claw will be 2 inches long. The claw will be composed of plastic and will use a pneumatic power system to power it. There are many pros and cons to the horizontal design. The system will be powered using pneumatics, which while not as accurate as an electric motor; it is a very reliable power source. It is also a simple power source that is unlikely to fail or impede the ROV in any way. Although, the air pressure from the pneumatic power system may disrupt the buoyancy of the ROV slightly. Similar to the vertical design, this design allows the claw to be able to very easily grab items in the pool, but not necessarily be able to hold on to the item that well during transit.

            My 2^nd alternate solution is a modified version of the horizontal claw system. It has a pincer-like claw on each side of the arm, but it has a top and bottom set in order to create a cage as well. There will be bars running from top to bottom in order to enclose the cage. This will allow the ROV to grab and hold on to objects more easily. Once again the arm is straight and rectangular in shape to accommodate Sean’s hull design. It utilizes a tooth arm and gears to function. There is one 1” gear and one pincer has a 1/2” gear, while the other has a ½” and 1/2”. The arm will be 6 inches long. Each claw will be 2 inches long and the bars that form the cage will be 2 inches tall. The claw will be composed of PVC piping and will be powered using pneumatic power. There are many pros and cons to this design. This design is similar to the horizontal claw system in principle, but it expands that design with the two level addition and the cage. This is the major benefit of this particular design. It can grab items in the pool just as well as the other two designs and the cage allows it to better contain the objects once they are picked up. This makes relocation of items within the pool much easier and safer. The system will be powered using an electric motor, which will enable us to accurately manipulate the claw. One motor will be to open and close the claw and one motor will be to rotate the claw so that it can take on additional tasks. Although, the air pressure from the pneumatic power system may disrupt the buoyancy of the ROV slightly.

            My 3^rd alternate solution is a vertical claw system. It is similar to the horizontal system, although it is in a different position and has different gear ratios. It has a claw coming off the top and bottom of the claw arm. Once again the arm is straight and rectangular in shape to accommodate Sean’s hull design. The claw will come together to encase the object on the top and the bottom. The gear ratio will not be equal and will allow the bottom claw to move faster than the top claw. This is so that the bottom can scoop up the object quickly and then have the slower top claw come down and close on top of it. The arm will be 6 inches long. The claws will be 2 inches long each. The claw and arm will be composed of PVC and will use an electric motor to power it. There are both pros and cons to this design. The vertical design with its unique gear ratio, where the bottom comes up faster to meet the top, allows it to scoop up items easily. This would allow the ROV to be able to grab certain items that could be in difficult positions. Also, has pincer like claws which are excellent for grabbing items. Although, I am worried that this claw design is not optimal for holding on to the items while in transit around the competition area. The claw is powered with an electric motor, which may be more accurate, but is also prone to becoming water logged and shorting out. It is also more complicated and more likely to malfunction than the pneumatic power system.

            In conclusion, as my final solution I have chosen solution two, or the modified horizontal system. It is the two level horizontal claw with the cage. It is powered using two electric motors, one to open and close and one to rotate the angle of the claw. This design most effectively meets the requirements of the design. It most easily can pick up and secure items for transport around the pool. It also has the easiest to use and most reliable power source. Overall, the horizontal claw design is the most efficient design to complete all of the competition tasks, and the design matrix further backs this statement up.

October Log Post (10/4 and 10/5)

On Monday I did my last log post for September and the first day in October. I also did further work related to the comments on my blog, related to my design brief, specifications, and limitations. On Tuesday the 5th I began revising my testing procedures and finished them today.

September Log Post 2 (9/29, 9/30, 10/1)

On Wednesday I typed up my 1st log for September. I also gathered addtional pictures to support my background information. On Thursday I created my marking period calendar with all of the due dates for the marking period. I also created the design matrix for the rationale for my final solution. On Friday I got comments from Ms. Green on my blog and began to fix the errors on my design brief, specifications, and limitations. I also began work on typing up an essay on my rationale.