Fall 2016 Biped Experiment- Ankle Servo

Servo Ankle

By: Alan Valles (Electronics and Control Engineer)
Approved by: Ijya Karki (Project Manager)

Table of Contents

Introduction

An unique design of Fall 2016 BiPed is the use of ankle servos. An experiment was done in order to see how much mass/weight can be held up on one ankle servos at a time. This is one of the primary constraints when selecting materials because the entire weight of the robot must be turned with the ankle servos.

Study

All Servo motors have a stall torque which is the amount of torque that causes the servo to be fixed or not move.

Torque = Force * Lever arm and Force = mass*acceleration_due_to_gravity.(9.8m/s^2).

However, the ankle servos are slightly different than conventional servos because the entire weight of the robot is not hanging directly on the lever arm, but rather the force of the object due to gravity is parallel to the shaft of the servo. Under Ideal conditions, the Center of Mass would be Entirely over the shaft which would mean there is no torque. However, the test was done to see how much mass could be put directly on top of the servo.

servo-experiment1

Figure 1

A Centech scale with a maximum reading of 500g was used for measure the weights of various objects. Ultimately, a coffee cup was used as the maximum weight of about 450g. However, the movement of the servo with the weight on top was not stable. 450g was the maximum mass achieved before the material was not stable directly on top of the servo. A plastic plate was fixed to the top of the servo in order to load the plate with various materials.

servo-experiment2

Figure 2

servo-experiment3

Figure 3

servo-experiment4

Figure 4

servo-experiment6

servo-experiment5

/* Sweep
 by BARRAGAN <http://barraganstudio.com>
 This example code is in the public domain.

 modified 8 Nov 2013
 by Scott Fitzgerald
 http://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Sweep
*/

#include <Servo.h>

Servo myservo;  // create servo object to control a servo
// twelve servo objects can be created on most boards

int pos = 0;    // variable to store the servo position

void setup() {
  myservo.attach(9);  // attaches the servo on pin 9 to the servo object
}

void loop() {
  for (pos = 0; pos <= 180; pos += 1) { // goes from 0 degrees to 180 degrees
    // in steps of 1 degree
    myservo.write(pos);              // tell servo to go to position in variable ‘pos’
    delay(15);                       // waits 15ms for the servo to reach the position
  }
  for (pos = 180; pos >= 0; pos -= 1) { // goes from 180 degrees to 0 degrees
    myservo.write(pos);              // tell servo to go to position in variable ‘pos’
    delay(15);                       // waits 15ms for the servo to reach the position
  }
}

The Arduino Servo.h library was used in conjunction with the test code above. However, the default delays were modified in order to slow down the motion for test mass stability. I improved the process by using other smaller masses that are more compact and easier to load and balance onto the test plate. Visual inspection showed that the servo motor performed with no noticeable speed decrease even with nearly 500g on it. This was a surprising result and in the future more in depth study will be done to load it past the maximum scale reading of 500g.

Conclusion

In conclusion, various masses were loaded onto the top of a servo. The maximum mass on affixed on top of the servo was 450g. However, based on visual inspection and more mass can be attached as long as it is stable.

Reference

[1] https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/Sweep

Fall 2016 Biped Trade Off Study- Ankle Servos

Table of Contents

Ankle Servo Selection

By: Alan Valles (Electronics and Control Engineer)
Approved by: Ijya Karki (Project Manager)

Introduction

The most recent design calls for 4 servos to be utilized. Two servos will function to shift the center of mass onto the planted foot during walking motion. The remaining servos will as the ankle which will allow the robot to turn during walking motion.

Study

Since there are four different servos that have different requirements, the ankle servos will be compared. The other servos are still to be determined so that the necessary torque required to move the CoG to balance while turning is considered.

Servo MFG Voltage Torque(stall) Mass Cost
9g Varies 4.8-6V 18.9 oz-in 9g Free(3.95)
ES08A Emax 4.8-6V 21oz-in 8.5g 4.95
HS-53 Hitec 4.8-6V 16.70z-in 8g 7.19

Under ideal conditions, the CoG will be directly on top of the shaft therefore, torque requirements will be dependent based on the position of CoG and total weight of the robot. Due to these assumption, all of the servos will meet the torque requirements. Therefore, the primary constraint will be cost. This leads BiPed to utilize existing TRC inventory and select the 9g servo. If the servos were to be bought due to stripped gears on existing parts or other issues with inventory, the Emax will be purchased depending on the total budget of the robot due to other subsystems.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current existing inventory of 9g servos will be used for the ankle servos. This is due to the primary constraint.

Resources

[1]http://www.robotshop.com/en/9g-micro-servo-motor-4-8v.html#description

[2]http://www.emaxmodel.com/es08a-ii.html

[3]http://www.robotshop.com/en/hs-53-feather-nylon-gear-servo-motor.html

Fall 2016 Biped Trade Off Study- Motor

Table of Contents

Battery Selection

By: Alan Valles (Electronics and Control Engineer)
Approved by: Ijya Karki (Project Manager)

Introduction

The walking Biped robot requires a dc motor to control its walking motion. A DC motor can vary in specifications such as operating voltage, current, RPM, torque, and size. Therefore, it is necessary to pick a DC motor that will operate within our electronic system. Furthermore, the customer requested that the walking motion be produced using DC motors.

Study

Most hobby or toy DC motors operate at a high RPM in the hundreds or even thousands of revolutions per minute. Our current mechanical design has us use a Tamiya gear box in order to step the RPM done and to increase the torque ratio. The Tamiya gearboxes are usually recommended for this since they are flexible in the gear ratio available in one single kit.  For example, the Tamiya 70167 Single gearbox (4-speed) Kit has 4 possible gear ratio configurations, 12.7:1,38:1,115:1, and 344:1. Thus, to meet schedule requirements an all in one Tamiya motor and gearbox subsystem is preferred. However, The Robot Company has existing components that are GM-9 which will also be considered.

Table 1 Motor Comparison

Motor Manufacturer Voltage Stall Current NoLoadCurrent RPM Torque Cost
70167 Tamiya 3V 2100mA@3V 150mA@3V 12300 .5 0z-in 7.55w/gearbox
1117 Pololu 6V 800mA@6V 70mA@6V 11500 N/A 1.99
GM9 SolarBotics 3-6V 400mA@3V 50mA@3V 40RPM 44oz-in Free

The will output 5V so actually testing will need to be done. As Table 1 shows, the motor that comes default with the Tamiya gearbox will be much higher than the required stall current. The PTC fuse is rated for 750mA so this is our driving constraint. Pololu 1117 is just above the PTC rated value so it should be sufficient, but more testing must be done to verify. In conclusion, it is recommended that the Tamiya Gear box be used, but the default motor be replaced by the pololu 1117 which is the same form factor. Secondly, a design which utilizes a single GM9 will also be considered. It is important to note that the DCDC converter outputs 5V. Thus, the motor will be driven at 5V. It has been shown that running Tamiya motors higher than spec voltage is adequate at 5V to meet mission profile[4]. However, this will shorten the life cycle of the DC motor and is not recommend but it is an option.

Conclusion

In Conclusion, The Pololu 1117 DC motor with Tamiya Gearbox in the 70167 will be utilized in the BiPed Design. The gearbox will allow for flexible configurations resulting in adjustable torque and rpm outputs. Furthermore, the motor chosen will utilize a 130 hobby motor form factor which is required to integrate with the Tamiya gearbox.

Resources

[1]https://www.pololu.com/product/118
[2]https://www.pololu.com/product/1117/specs
[3]https://www.pololu.com/product/188/specs
[4]https://www.pololu.com/docs/0J11/all#3

Fall 2016 Biped Trade Off Study- Battery

Table of Contents

Battery Selection

By: Alan Valles (Electronics and Control Engineer)
Approved by: Ijya Karki (Project Manager)

Introduction

A Battery must be chosen in order to provide power to the entire system of the Biped. The motors and servos will be the main power sink onboard our system. The rest of the unit will be nominal in comparison to the continuous rotation that will be provided to the motors during normal walking operation.

Study

The default design of the 3Dot board was chosen by the Arxterra team to utilize a 3.7V RCR 123A. However, the team designed the 3Dot board to be flexible and allows for an external battery utilizing a JST connector. In order to meet scheduling requirements, we will assume that the proper discharge rate is used across entire system.

Battery Mfg Voltage Capacity 1hr power Chemistry Mass Cost
RCR123A Varies 3.7V 650mAh 390=>1.4W Li-ion ~50g Free
B0072AEHIC Turnigy 7.4V 1000mAh 600->4.4W LiPo ~23g 9.89
LP-503562 Adafruit 3.7V 1200mAh 720->2.6W LiPo ~23g 9.95
34117 Tenergy 7.4V 2200mAh 1320->9.7W LiPo ~136 14.99

Conclusion

As an estimation, the motors should draw anywhere between 150mA – 300mA at 5V (1.5W)during normal operation. Another estimation is that the cutoff voltage will be reached at .4V capacity. Thus the entire battery capacity cannot be utilized. However, the servos utilized will be have a operating voltage range of 4.8-6V. Although they can be utilized directly at 3.7V if they are connected directly to the battery, the voltage will decrease as the battery voltage lowers over time. Thus, a LDO will be used to regulate the voltage to the servos. Thus, a 7.4V battery will be used in order to raise the voltage delivered to the servos, since the mission profile calls for a worst case of 60 minutes. The battery should be able to supply at a minimum 1.5W continuously. Therefore, the Turnigy B00 will be selected due to its compromise between cost, mass, and capacity. Furthermore, it operates at the necessary voltage. Since it is used for hobby RC cars it also has necessary discharge rates.

Resource

[1]https://www.amazon.com/Turnigy-1000mAh-Lipo-HobbyKing-Battery/dp/B0072AEHIC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1478476586&sr=8-2&keywords=7.4v+lipo

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Olight-Lithium-ion-Rechargeable-Batteries-Flashlights/dp/B01K7I05G8

[3] http://www.robotshop.com/en/lipo-battery-cell—37v-1200mah.html

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Tenergy-2200mAh-Battery-Banana-Connector/dp/B0192AVMGO/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1478477368&sr=8-5&keywords=7.4v+lipo&refinements=p_89%3ATenergy

[5] http://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_battery_specifications.pdf

[6] http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/Selecting-the-Optimal-Battery-WP.pdf

Fall 2016 Biped Trade Off Study- String for Lateral Balancing

Table of Contents

String Material

By: Hector Martinez (Manufacturing Engineer)
Approved by: Ijya Karki (Project Manager)

Introduction

For the Biped Project, we have considered the following materials for our Biped lateral balancing system. The system requires two weights attached to a servo through a lever and string. The purpose of this study is to choose a suitable string material to support the two weights, and allow the proper range of motion to allow the system to work properly, i.e. make the robot balance.

Material Chart

Material Costs Safe Load Pro Con
Manila Rope (Fiber Rope) $0.05 – 2.23 /ft .15kN (5mm dia)

~15.2kg

1. Durable

2. Flexible

3. Biodegradable

4. Cheap

1. Shrinks when wet

2. Difficult to unknot when wet

3. Fibrous

4. Only found in braided strands

Nylon $0.22 – 0.68 / ft .326kN (5mm dia)

~33.2kg

1. Elastic and shock absorbing

2. Long lasting

3. Rot proof

4. Chemical resistance

5. Can be bought in single strand

1. Weak against UV rays

2. Susceptible to heat

3. Loses strength when wet

Polyester $0.10 – 0.36 / ft .284kN (5mm dia)

~28.9kg

1. Rot and UV resistant

2. Retains properties wet or dry

3. Abrasion resistant

1. Not suitable for heavy duty applications

2. Susceptible to chemicals

3. not elastic, not very shock absorbent

Conclusion

Based on the research we have decided to use Nylon. The elastic and shock absorbing properties of Nylon make it perfect for a toy robot that will inevitably be used and played with and may be put through some rough times. Nylon also has the highest Safe Load rating of the three materials, and even though it is highly unlikely the rope will be used anywhere near this rating, it’s only a few cents more per square foot. The biggest reason for choosing Nylon is the ability to purchase it in a single strand. This allows us to use it in areas where space is an issue, having to use string/rope that is braided makes it difficult to use in such applications.

Resources

1. http://www.knotandrope.com/store/pc/Manila-Rope-c3.htm?pageStyle=m&ProdSort=19&page=2&idCategory=3&viewAll=yes
2. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/manila-rope-strength-d_1512.html
3. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nylon-rope-strength-d_1513.html
4. https://knotandrope.com/store/pc/home.asp?gclid=Cj0KEQjwqfvABRC6gJ3T_4mwspoBEiQAyoQPkf52P_avp4P23eVobtda_agXx5x95YtQhVcXsBSvCBsaAkE-8P8HAQ
5. https://survivalblog.com/ropes_and_rope_making_by_be/https://www.usnetting.com/rope/selection-guide/#polyester

Fall 2016 Biped Material Trade-Off Study

Table of Contents

Building Material

By: Hector Martinez (Manufacturing Engineer)
Approved by: Ijya Karki (Project Manager)

Introduction

For the Biped Project, we have considered the following materials for manufacturing prototypes as well as for our final robot. The following chart shows advantages and disadvantages for that material.

Material Comparison Chart

Material Price Pro Con
PLA $20-165 /kg 1. Ideal for small parts2. Higher printing speed

3. Hard, soft, and flexible  variants

4. Wide range of colors

5. Plant based

1. Odor while printing2. Requires additional support while printing.

3. Some printers incapable to print PLA

4. Risks of cracks in finished product

ABS $19-175 /kg 1. Strong2. Quick solidification

3. Flexible

4. Higher temperature resistance

1. Requires heated printer bed2. Fumes while printing

3. Weak against moisture

Acrylic $3-122 /sq ft 1. High impact resistance2. Chemical resistance

3. High heat resistance

4. Weather resistance

1. Poor solvent resistance2. Subject to stress cracking

3. Low continuous service temp

Aluminum $7 / cm3 1. Strong/lightweight2. Non Magnetic

3. Electrically conductive

4. Recyclable

1. Variation in surface texture2. Expensive

3. Abrasive to tooling

Conclusion

Through careful consideration we have decided to move forward and build the Biped robot with a mix of acrylic and ABS. The use of acrylic will be more time efficient. Acrylic will allow us to quickly laser cut less intricate parts such as linkages that simply extrude outwards. The time frame to laser cut is minimal compared to the time frame to 3D print. For example, laser cutting can be accomplished in little as a minute while 3D printing could last for multiple hours. We would use ABS to produce more complicated pieces, such as the foot. The foot is considered a more complicated piece because it consists of a cut that will house the color sensor. Thus, substituting laser cutting for 3D printing intricate pieces is a more practical approach.

 

 

References

1.   http://www.3ders.org/pricecompare/
2.   http://www.absplastic.eu/pla-vs-abs-plastic-pros-cons/
3.   http://www.jwwinco.com/engineeringtips/prosconsaluminum.html
4.   http://elementaluminum.tripod.com/id8.html
5.   https://all3dp.com/metal-3d-printer-guide/
6.   https://all3dp.com/best-3d-printer-filament-types-pla-abs-pet-exotic-wood-metal/#carbon
7.   http://www.makergeeks.com/me3dprfi.html
8.   http://www.3dxtech.com/firewire-carbon-fiber-peek-3d-printing-filament/
9.   https://plastics.ulprospector.com/generics/3/acrylic
10. http://www.sdplastics.com/sdplas2.html

Fall 2016 BiPed : Preliminary Project Plan

Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

Brandon Perez (Systems Engineer)

Ryan Daly (Electronics and Controls Engineer)

Ijya Karki (Manufacturing Engineer)

Table of Contents

Work Breakdown Structure

Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) diagram, shows the responsibilities of each BiPed group member. A top level view of the job requirements can able to found in the product breakdown structure provided below. In each division of the product, readers are provided with a detailed explanation of what each team member will be responsible for their part.

final-wbs-tree-diagram

Figure 1 : Work Breakdown Structure

Product Breakdown Structure

The Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) outlines what products are required to be designed by each group over the course of the semester. The PBS is broken down into a consecutive algorithm in order to ensure a successful completion of the product. Note that the blocks, containing what is produced, are not limited to intervention by other team members. The block labeling allows for a broad overview of what each members responsibilities are without going into details of each product.

product-breakdown-structure

Figure 2 : Product Breakdown Structure

 Project Schedule 

The project schedule details the necessary work that needs to done to implement the BiPed. In addition to the schedule, a projected timeline of deadlines and dates can also be found. In the link provided, readers can find a visual presentation of what the proposed schedule for implementing the BiPed. ProjectLibre was the tool used to implement the schedule. By manipulating the dates provided, if we are able to refine and solidify our requirements early, it gives us more flexibility with our days for coding; validation tests and also unforeseen events.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzIcuzRpcmk4T3ZYX20wUmlPUmM/view?usp=sharing

Burn down and Project Percent Completion

The project percent completion and burn down chart provides a visual representation of the tasks that needs to be completed for the BiPed. It also allows the team to know how much of the current work load has been done.

breakdown-chart

Figure 3 : Breakdown Chart

Project Cost Estimate

The Cost Report summarizes how much each physical part of our product will cost. Details about shipping are not included in each resource since they can be bundled in the same order when ordering multiple parts from the same vendor. Amazon has no shipping charges if the parts are picked up at our Amazon pickup location at our University. The Project Allocation was determined based off what Rofi, the previous BiPed cost to be initially built.

cost-report-2-1

Figure 4 : Cost Estimates

System Resource Reports

Brandon Perez (Systems Engineer)

Mass Report

The mass report summarizes an expected mass of our individual physical products of the BiPed. Most of the items were easy to determine since details about most electronic components contain a mass value on their spec sheets or on their vendor’s website. The PLA Platsic mass was determined based off what the previous BiPed weight. All “Actual Mass” values will be determined when obtaining the physical parts. Project Allocation value is an idealistic estimate of what we think the BiPed’s mass should be limited to.

mass-report-2

Figure 5: Mass Report

Power Report

The power report summarizes how much power each electronic component will be consuming. No values shall be needed for the mechanical hardware since power consumption due to kinetic energy will only reflect in the power consumed by our electromechanical devices such as our dc motors and servos. Project Allocation value was determined based off how much constant power our two batteries would supply over the course of an hour.

power-report-5

Figure 6 : Power Report

Fall 2016 BiPed : The Preliminary Design Documentation

By:    Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

          Brandon Perez(Mission, Systems and Test)

          Ryan Daly(Electronics and Control)

          Ijya Karki(Manufacturing)

Mission Objective and Mission Profile

– Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

The Robot Company has assigned our engineering team to design the 6th generation of the Biped robot, however, this model will utilize a non-servo based walking motion. The Biped should be able to statically walk with a final goal of being able to demonstrate dynamic walking. The Biped should be able to walk on various surfaces and walk on terrains that have an inclination of a maximum 6.5 degrees. In addition to that, the Biped need to walk around while avoiding obstacles with the help of ultrasonic sensors. The design change was initiated due to the fact that prior Biped models had gears wear out before its mission objectives were completed. In the initial stage of the product, the customer would like this Biped to be able to run on DC motors and be able to turn both left and right on. At the end of the build, the Biped will be asked to participate in a game where it needs to be to be able to outrun velociraptors and climb over different inclinations.

Table of Contents

Suggestions for future Biped teams:

  • Get approval for all purchases – Due to time constraints, our team was in a rush to get parts in to begin implementation.  We focused our attention on completing our mission objective without considering our customers’ expectations.  It is important to complete the objective as well as pleasing the customer.
  • Replace servos with better quality – We had servo issues throughout the semester. We always had a spare servo in hand due to the unpredictability of servo failure.
  • Make RoFi lighter – The servos would spasm causing RoFi to fall.
  • Lower the center of mass – Due to RoFi being so top heavy, it was difficult implementing walking on an inclined surface.
  • Implement the ultrasonic sensor, accelerometer/gyroscope and cordless walking – Due to customer request, we focused a lot of our attention getting RoFi to walk the figure 8 obstacle course and neglected other features.
  • Get RoFi asap – We had to do a lot of documentation throughout the semester, we did not get to work on RoFi until about one month into the semester.
  • Project Manager – As Project Manager I had a lot of paperwork in the beginning of the semester. Work slowed down in the third month, so I dedicated a lot of my time getting RoFi to walk and assisted the engineers where I could.
  • Be cautious of free 3D printing – Verify that the quality of the 3D printing material is to your liking.
  • Understanding the customer – Realize that the customer has multiple projects and classes and will claim things were said or were not said that you may need to address.  Communicate and verify all concerns with the customer, student teacher and president.
  • Update Mission Objective – Our mission objective said that the incline was 8 and 6 degrees; we measured the incline and it varied from 14 to 7 degrees.  The room was also a burden to work in because the room was popular for labs and lectures.

https://www.arxterra.com/spring-2016-rofi-project-summary/#Program_Objectives_Mission_Profile

Comments – Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

I find this section of the blog post to have been extremely helpful.  The above section which was provided by last semester’s project manager identified areas to focus on when building future BiPed because they might have overlooked it when they were building their own robots. This section is to help us learn from last semester’s mistakes and have a little bit of an easier time when building future Biped robots.

Review of Literature

Analysis of Past Level 1 Requirements

Requirement Evaluation Rubric

  1. Is the requirement, Quantitative, Verifiable, and Realizable?
  2. Is the requirement located at the correct level (1 –Program/Project)
  3. Is the requirement response to a higher level requirement or customer’s objective (Requirement Flow Down)? Is the linkage clearly defined?
  4. Does requirement provide link to source material?
  5. Does requirement move the design process forward?
  6. Are equations used to calculate a requirement provided and are answers correct?
  7. The requirements that are missing are the hardest to discover and will be factored into your evaluation.
  8. Is language in form of a requirement?
  9. Avoid multiple requirements within a paragraph (i.e breakup statements that contain multiple requirements)
Requirements from Spring 2016 Wednesday Requirement Evaluation Rubric Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Modifications to RoFi shall not exceed $320 Y N N N N N Y Y Y
RoFi shall acknowledge and avoid objects within 3 feet Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y
RoFi shall traverse carpet, linoleum tile, and metal surfaces N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
RoFi’s runtime shall be greater than 15 minutes Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
RoFi shall cross over a threshold, at approximately a 45° angle and a height of 2 cm Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
RoFi shall ascend an incline that is initially an 8° slope which then decreases to a 6° slope Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
RoFi shall complete the figure 8 obstacle course through the Arxterra Application during finals week (Monday, May 9 – Saturday, May 14, 2016) Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
Vision shall be provided through the on board phone N Y Y N Y N N Y Y

Section 3: Requirements 

-Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

Spring 2016 New Requirements: Level 1

  1. The Biped will be finished by the 9th of December, 2016 as designed in the CSULB calendar to correspond with the duration of the EE 400D class.

http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/F’16%20Syllabus.pdf

  1. Shall use one 3Dot board embedded system.

http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/F’16%20Project%20Objectives%20and%20Mission%20Profile.pdf

  1. Shall use one custom SMD I2C shield.

http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/F’16%20Project%20Objectives%20and%20Mission%20Profile.pdf

  1. The BiPed shall participate in an end of semester (December 9th, 2016) game where the BiPed’s goal is to outrun Velociraptor out of the arena with Goliath serving as its “eyes.”

 http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/F’16%20Project%20Objectives%20and%20Mission%20Profile.pdf

  1.  The BiPed shall use two DC motors to control walking movement of two legs. The choice of the DC motor will be compatible with the 3DOT board.   
  1. The BiPed shall walk statically and should demonstrate dynamic walking over flat, inclined, and declined surfaces for the entire duration of the game without falling over.
  1.  Control of the walking robots will use the Arxterra Android or iPhone application operating in RC mode

http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/F’16%20Project%20Objectives%20and%20Mission%20Profile.pdf

  1.  The BiPed should be able to turn left and right at a maximum of 90 degrees at a time. 
  1. The BiPed should be able to maneuver around the arena and should avoid collisions with surrounding objects.

System/Subsystem (Level 2)

– Brandon Perez (Missions, Systems and Test)

  1. Should use four ultrasonic sensors to support the BiPed in preventing numerous collisions into surrounding objects. Refer to requirement 9, level 1.

Quantitative: four ultrasonic sensors.

Verifiable: Through the use of ultrasonic sensors, the BiPed should be able to detect nearby obstacles such as walls, and react accordingly so as to not run into these objects.

Realizable: The BiPed should have one sensor on the four “faces” of the robot: one on front, one on back, one on each side. The BiPed should be able to be aware of its environment in all four directions.

2. BiPed will have a Bluetooth v 4 .0 BLE Transceiver integrated circuit that will be able to communicate with the class website of Arxterra. Refer to requirement 7, level 1.

Quantitative: The BiPed should use one Bluetooth v 4.0 BLE Transceiver.

Verifiable: The BiPed will be controllable through the use of the Arxterra Android or iPhone application.

Realizable: The 3Dot Board will utilize the a Bluetooth v 4 .0 BLE Transceiver to communicate with the Arxterra application to be remote controlled.

3. The 3Dot board shall be powered by a single CR123A 3.7V 650mA rechargeable Li-ion battery. A 9V battery will be used to amplify the 3Dot board’s signals. Refer to requirement 2 and 4, level 1.

Quantitative: The 3Dot Board will use a single CR123A 3.7V 650mA battery and one 9V battery will be used as an external power source.

Verifiable: Through the use of the CR123A battery to power of the 3Dot Board the 3Dot Board’s 5V turbo boost and dual DC motor driver should power the 1.5V-9V DC Motors. The 9V battery will be used to amplify the 3Dot Board’s 3.7V signals to drive the 4.8V servo motors.

4. The Biped will use 2 DC motor to control its main walking motion. Refer to requirement 5, level 1.

Quantitative: The BiPed will use two DC motors for walking.

Verifiable: The Biped should be able to walk with the use of two DC motors.

Realizable: A DC motor will be placed in each leg to drive the walking motion

5. The Biped should use one wheel attached to one motor on each foot to execute the left and right turns. Refer to requirement 8, level 1.

Quantitative: The Biped should use one wheel attached to one motor on each foot (two wheels in total total).

Verifiable: The Biped’s wheels will be tested to ensure that it successfully turns left and right.

Realizable: A wheel on the side of the foot running clockwise or counterclockwise will help drag the feet and therefore position the Biped into the desired angle it wants to face when performing a turn.  

6. The I2C shield will utilize 4-pin connectors as well as a four pin cable assembly to connect the four ultrasonic sensors via the I2C interface. Refer to requirement 3, level 1.

Quantitative: 4-pin connectors, four pin cable, four ultrasonic sensors

Verifiable:  An ultrasonic sensor would be tested to ensure proper communication with the I2C interface

Realizable: The 4 ultrasonic sensors in each face of the BiPed (90 degrees apart) will help ensure the BiPed or the user has awareness of its surroundings.

7. Biped should use a gyroscope as a sensor to determine its position with respect to the ground and shift center of mass in front of it or behind it when walking on inclined or declined surfaces respectively. The MPU-6050 (Gyroscope + accelerometer) should be used since it was implemented by previous BiPed projects and test software is readily available.  Refer to requirement 6, level 1.

Quantitative: Rotating gears at the hips will be 180 degrees out of phase

Verifiable:  The BiPed should have the center of mass shifted from one  foot to the other foot as a result of the hip placement of each leg being out of phase by 180 degrees  during the gear rotation at the hips.

Realizable: Shifting the weight over one foot to the other will help ensure our BiPed is stable and balanced at all times during the complete walking cycle on both flat, inclined, and declined surfaces.

Section 3: Design Innovation

– Gifty Sackey (Project Manager)

The brainstorming and brain writing exercise mainly focused on answering three main problems we needed to consider when implementing and building the Biped. Among the problems we had to consider, was for the Biped to be able to maintain balance, while walking on bumpy terrain and inclined planes; the biped should be able to turn left and right and lastly the biped must be able to outrun its opponents. In completing our brainstorming requirements, we used the attributes listing, dunker diagram models and lateral thinking methods.

System/Subsystem (Level 2)

  1. Should use four ultrasonic sensors to support the Biped in preventing numerous collisions into surrounding objects. Refer to requirement 9, level 1.

Quantitative: four ultrasonic sensors.

Verifiable: Through the use of ultrasonic sensors, the Biped should be able to detect nearby obstacles such as walls, and react accordingly so as to not run into these objects.

Realizable: The Biped should have one sensor on the four “faces” of the robot: one on front, one on back, one on each side. The Biped should be able to be aware of its environment in all four directions.

2. BiPed will have a Bluetooth v 4 .0 BLE Transceiver integrated circuit that will be able to communicate with the class website of Arxterra. Refer to requirement 7, level 1.

Quantitative: The Biped should use one Bluetooth v 4.0 BLE Transceiver.

Verifiable: The Biped will be controllable through the use of the Arxterra Android or iPhone application.

Realizable: The 3Dot Board will utilize the a Bluetooth v 4 .0 BLE Transceiver to communicate with the Arxterra application to be remote controlled.

3. The 3Dot board shall be powered by a single CR123A 3.7V 650mA rechargeable Li-ion battery. A 9V battery will be used to amplify the 3Dot board’s signals. Refer to requirement 2 and 4, level 1.

Quantitative: The 3Dot Board will use a single CR123A 3.7V 650mA battery and one 9V battery will be used as an external power source.

Verifiable: Through the use of the CR123A battery to power of the 3Dot Board the 3Dot Board’s 5V turbo boost and dual DC motor driver should power the 1.5V-9V DC Motors. The 9V battery will be used to amplify the 3Dot Board’s 3.7V signals to drive the 4.8V servo motors.

4. The Biped will use 2 DC motor to control its main walking motion. Refer to requirement 5, level 1.

Quantitative: The Biped will use two DC motors for walking.

Verifiable: The Biped should be able to walk with the use of two DC motors.

Realizable: A DC motor will be placed in each leg to drive the walking motion

5. The Biped should use one wheel attached to one motor on each foot to execute the left and right turns. Refers to requirement 8, level 1.

Quantitative: The Biped should use one wheel attached to one motor on each foot (two wheels in total total).

Verifiable: The Biped’s wheels will be tested to ensure that it successfully turns left and right.

Realizable: A wheel on the side of the foot running clockwise or counterclockwise will help drag the feet and therefore position the Biped into the desired angle it wants to face when performing a turn.  

6. The I2C shield will utilize 4-pin connectors as well as a four pin cable assembly to connect the four ultrasonic sensors via the I2C interface. Refer to requirement 3, level 1.

Quantitative: 4-pin connectors, four pin cable, four ultrasonic sensors

Verifiable:  An ultrasonic sensor would be tested to ensure proper communication with the I2C interface

Realizable: The 4 ultrasonic sensors in each face of the BiPed (90 degrees apart) will help ensure the BiPed or the user has awareness of its surroundings.

7. Biped should use a gyroscope as a sensor to determine its position with respect to the ground and shift center of mass in front of it or behind it when walking on inclined or declined surfaces respectively. The MPU-6050 (Gyroscope + accelerometer) should be used since it was implemented by previous BiPed projects and test software is readily available.  Refer to requirement 6, level 1.

Quantitative: Rotating gears at the hips will be 180 degrees out of phase

Verifiable:  The Biped should have the center of mass shifted from one  foot to the other foot as a result of the hip placement of each leg being out of phase by 180 degrees  during the gear rotation at the hips.

Realizable: Shifting the weight over one foot to the other will help ensure our BiPed is stable and balanced at all times during the complete walking cycle on both flat, inclined, and declined surfaces.

Section 3: Design Innovation

The brainstorming and brain writing exercise mainly focused on answering three main problems we needed to consider when implementing and building the Biped. Among the problems we had to consider, was for the Biped to be able to maintain balance, while walking on bumpy terrain and inclined planes; the biped should be able to turn left and right and lastly the biped must be able to outrun its opponents. In completing our brainstorming requirements, we used the attributes listing, dunker diagram models and lateral thinking methods.

Section 4: Systems/Subsystem Design  

  1. Product Breakdown Structure Refer to : http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/Lectures/Week%2004%20Modeling/e_Product%20Breakdown%20Structure.pdf

Section 5: Electronic System Design

Brandon Perez (Mission, Systems and Test)

  1. System Block Diagram

system-block-diagram3

  • Fritzing diagrams

frizzing-diagramfriz

Section 6: Mechanical Design

3D mechanical rendering of the system with subassemblies clearly identified (exploded view of the system)

  1. Descriptions of the subsystems, their interfaces and requirements

Section 7: Design and Unique Task Descriptions

Subsystem Descriptions (Ryan Daly – Electronics Engineer)

  1. Electronic components will be sourced from distributors in the U.S. with quantity already in stock to receive components promptly to begin construction as soon as possible.
  2. Wireless control of the Biped will be done using the Arxterra app and a Bluetooth module connected to our 3Dot Board. This includes walking, stopping, and turning the Biped in RC mode.
  3. The Bluetooth module will be chosen to have a supply voltage of 3.3V per the 3Dot Board’s voltage capacity.
  4. The ultrasonic sensors will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s I2C interface and power capabilities.
  5. A gyroscope sensor will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s I2C interface and power capabilities.
  6. The DC motors will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s power capabilities.
  7. The servo motors will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s power capabilities.
  8. Power supplies will be chosen so that the robot can operate for at least 30 minutes.
  9. Power supplies will be designed to supply the correct voltage to each component.

http://web.csulb.edu/~hill/ee400d/F’16%20Project%20Objectives%20and%20Mission%20Profile.pdf

Subsystem Tasks

  1. Bluetooth Module

Subsystem Description

Wireless control of the Biped will be done using the Arxterra app and a Bluetooth module connected to our 3Dot Board. This includes walking, stopping, and turning the Biped in RC mode.

Subsystem Task

Find a Bluetooth module that is compatible with the 3Dot Board that will allow for communication between it and the Arxterra app.

Design Process

The 3Dot Board supports the use of a Bluetooth Module to communicate wirelessly with the Arxterra App. The ATmega 32U4, which is what controls the 3Dot board, has two pins for controlling a Bluetooth module: RXD (Digital Pin 2) and TXD (Digital Pin 3). Therefore, we are looking for a Bluetooth module with 4-pins (RS232 interface): Vcc, Gnd, RXD, and TXD. Vcc is something to keep in mind since our 3Dot Board only outputs 3.3V. Therefore, our Bluetooth module must either be compatible with 3.3V or we must create another power supply circuit and tap that voltage to power the module.

Previous semester’s Goliath, who also used the 3Dot board for their design, used the HC-06 Bluetooth Module. Pathfinder used this module also. This device is an acceptable choice for this project. This module only requires 3.3V-6V for operation, so it would work great with the 3Dot’s on board power supply. It also supports the 4-pin serial interface we are looking for. Furthermore, this module is cost effective at ~$8.99 and provides coverage for up to 30ft.

Testing

A test should first be conducted using an Arduino and our preferred Bluetooth module while we wait for or 3Dot board’s production to familiarize ourselves with the method of Bluetooth communication. The test should include functionality at 3.3V since that is what our 3Dot board will supply, as well as effective communications at distances up to 30ft.

  1.    Ultrasonic Sensors

Subsystem Description

Ultrasonic sensors will be used to detect the Biped’s surrounding environment.

Subsystem Task

The ultrasonic sensors will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s I2C interface and power capabilities.

Design Process

Four ultrasonic sensors will be placed on each “face” of the biped: one on the front, one on the back, and one on each side. These ultrasonic sensors should utilize the I2C interface.

Devantech SRF02 Low Cost Ultrasonic Range Finder is a good option. The cost is relatively low ($13) compared to other similar I2C ultrasonic sensors starting in the $20s. This sensor can detect ranges from 15cm to 6m which is comparably better than the cheaper HC-SR04 which can only detect up to 500 cm. One thing to keep in mind is that the SRF02 requires a supply voltage of 5V and should not exceed 5.5V, so we should route the 5V power supply on our shield to power this sensor.

Testing

The ultrasonic sensor will be tested to be sure that the servos respond quick enough that our robot will come to a complete stop or avoid obstacles, without falling over, when detected.

  1.     Gyroscope Sensor

Subsystem Description

A Gyroscope Sensor will be used to detect tilting of the Biped so that it can balance itself on inclined planes.

Subsystem Task

A gyroscope sensor will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s I2C interface and power capabilities.

Design Process

A gyroscope sensor will be located at the torso of the Biped and should have an I2C interface to connect with the 3Dot Board’s pcb shield. The gyroscope will work to detect tilts that the Biped will encounter, which could either be from being pushed by an external force or by walking up inclined planes. This will provide feedback to the microcontroller to stabilize our robot.

The MPU-6050 requires 2.375V-3.46V to operate and has an I2C interface as well, which would make this sensor appropriate for use on our robot.

Testing

The gyroscope sensor should be tested such that when a forward tilt is experienced, the servo motors that will be located at the ankles of the robot will turn so that the feet will tilt forward for the Biped to balance. Furthermore, if the sensor detects a backwards tilt, the servo motors will tilt the feet backwards to balance.

  1.     DC Motors

Subsystem Description

Four DC motors will be used on the Biped: two at the hips to drive the walking motion and two at the feet to drive the turning motion.

Subsystem Task

DC motors will be chosen to be compatible with the 3Dot’s onboard dual DC motor drivers. Since the 3Dot board currently only supports 2 DC motors we must be able to generate our own circuit on our shield that can drive two more DC motors.

Design Process

Two DC Motors at the hips will spin the gears that will drive the walking motion. This method will shift the center of mass from left to right to allow for walking and eliminate the need of a servo motor at the hips to shift the hips left and right. These two DC motors will be driven by the TB6612FNG Dual DC Motor Drive located on the 3Dot Board. The DC motors will be rated to operate at 5V since the 3Dot Board supports a 5v Turbo Boost for driving DC motors.

The Biped will use two DC motors located at its feet to turn left and right. We have already used up the two DC motor drivers on the 3Dot board and we will need to use two more. To accomplish this, we can add a similar motor driver circuit that we see on the 3Dot board to our pcb shield. This would require us to tap the 5V power source on the shield to power a TB6612FNG Dual DC Motor Driver. This motor driver requires a supply voltage of 2.7-5.5V. The Motor Driver also uses six digital input pins to control the rotation of the motor. Our 3Dot board does not have any accessible DIOs so we will use TI P/N PCF8574 which is an IC chip with an I2C interface that outputs 8 DIOs. We will use these DIOs to control the TB6612FNG. This 8-Bit I/O Expander for the I2C-Bus requires 2.5-6.6V for operation so we will route the 5V power supply from our shield to power this IC chip.

Testing

The DC motors should be tested such that they provide torque even when under load, showing that they can move our robot.

  1.     Servo Motors

Subsystem Description

The Biped will use two servo motors: one at each foot to tilt its feet forwards and backwards to stabilize itself when walking up or down inclined/declined planes.

Subsystem Task

Servo Motors must be chosen to either be compatible with the 3Dot Board’s onboard 3.7V servo dual servo motor driver ports.

Design Process

The 3Dot board supports 2 servo motors, capable of operating both motors at 3.3V. The problem is that most servo motors are operational at around 4-6V. To overcome this problem, we will route the pins for the servo motors to our shield which will use a 9V battery and an LM7805 voltage regulator to power the servo. While Vcc will require 5V, a 3.3V PWM signal will be sufficient to drive the servo.

Testing

The servo motors will be testing to ensure that a Vcc of 5V and a 3.3V PWM signal will be sufficient to drive them since this is what our design calls for. Furthermore, as explained above, we will need to test these servos with other sensors to make sure that they respond to the feedback from the sensors.

  1.     Power Supply

Subsystem Task

The Biped’s power supplies must be chosen such that each component will receive the proper power for operation.

Design Process

The 3Dot Board has two battery connection points. The first battery holder supports a CR123A 3.7V 650mA rechargeable Li-ion battery. The second is an external battery connector where we will connect a second 3.7V battery which, when looking at the block diagram for the 3Dot board, shows that these batteries will be connected in parallel. Choosing a 3.7V battery as the second batter is important for a few reasons. First, when connecting batteries in parallel, they should always be the same voltage, especially if the lower voltage battery is rechargeable. The battery with a higher voltage will charge the battery with a lower voltage, and with no protection circuit for charging the battery, it could overcharge and become damaged. So then, why use another battery at all? If we use two 3.7V batteries in parallel, we can increase the available current and the milliamp-hours. Increasing the available current is useful because we are feeding this 3.7V into a 2.5W boost converter. This boost converter will draw a higher current at a lower voltage to convert this power into a higher voltage with a lower current. It does this to boost the incoming 3.7V to about 5V to power the TB6612FNG Dual DC Motor Driver.

A second power source will exist on the pcb shield that will consist of a 9V battery and an LM7805 voltage regulator to generate a 5V power supply for the components in our design that are not compatible with 3.3V and need 5V to operate.

Testing

Testing each component with the exact power that we will be supplying it with our 3Dot board will be crucial in determining the functionality of each component in our finalized system.

Manufacturing Engineer Research

 (Manufacturing Engineer -Ijya Karki)

Review of Literature

Reviewing old material provides a greater insight on why past Biped projects were successful or not successful. My focus of reviewing old material was on the different Manufacturing complications and successes to guide how our group could tackle various problems.

3D Printing

Final Project Debriefing, December 20, 2013 https://www.arxterra.com/final-project-debriefing/

3D Printing Versus Molding, April 28, 2015 https://www.arxterra.com/3-d-printing-versus-molding/

Fall 2013 documented the successful, precise 3D printed parts. They predicted a long lifespan of the printed plastic components. The main issues that were encountered occurred later in the project when additional modified designs of parts were created. They had trouble with screwing the components together and the fit of the old and new parts.

Spring 2015 documented the reasons that 3D printing was chosen. The main reasons were because 3D printing is customizable, and cheap. They specified renting a machine for 30$ (not including the cost of plastic.) The main con the team expressed about 3D printing is the limitation that the material must be plastic. The team explored the option to mold materials. Pros of molding is the strength of the molded object. Cons of molding is that it isn’t as customizable as 3D printing, and it costs a lot.

This team faced problems after 3D printing. The manufacturing engineer forgot to allow room to loop wires through the different brackets that were created.  

Materials

Material Choice, April 28, 2015 https://www.arxterra.com/material-choice/

ABS or PLA? Choosing The Right Filament http://makezine.com/2014/11/11/abs-or-pla-choosing-the-right-filament/

Spring 2015 documented the various plastics considered for 3D printing. The group chose to go with PLA plastic because it is lightweight and cheap. Some noted disadvantage of PLA was limited flexibility, and the fact that it is weaker than molded plastic. Advantages of ABS plastic is it is more flexible, and it has as higher temperature resistance than PLA. Some disadvantages of ABS is that it is harder to 3D print and more time consuming. Advantages of molded standard plastic is that it has the strongest bond compared to PLA and ABS. Disadvantage of standard plastic is price and harder to modify parts than 3D printing.

PCB Layout

PCB Design, November 18, 2014 https://www.arxterra.com/pcb-design/

Spring 2016 RoFi PCB Layout, May 1, 2016 https://www.arxterra.com/spring-2016-rofi-pcb-layout/

Fall 2014 documented the custom design of their PCB. Manufacturing completed the soldering of the board. They highlighted their PCB layout as one of the successes of the semester. It performed the as anticipated.

Spring 2016 provides a list of steps to make sure that the group’s created PCB design is compatible with the Fabrication House DRC check. The documentation also provides steps on converting file type to gerber files. This group’s project summary explains how the gerber files are given to the president who then orders the board and the components. It took a week and a half to get all the components. The Manufacturing Engineer is responsible to solder these parts together.

Ideas and Advice

Final Documentation MicroBiPed, May 16, 2015 https://www.arxterra.com/final-documentation-microbiped/

Fall 2013 suggested to increase the size of any components around the chosen motor to allow room for the motor to spin.

Fall 2014 suggested to prototype the Biped before printing the actual parts. Avoiding 3D printing for the prototype is possible, we would just have to explore our options. Prior to assembling the custom PCB design,, draw out the anticipated look of the board. They faced issues with connecting female pins to the PCB. They ended up using jumper wires to connect the ground pin.

Spring 2016 suggests to purchase parts after the approval of the customer. Confirm that the 3D material is the best type for the project before committing to the material. Document all interaction with the customer to avoid confusion in the future regarding things that were asked for. If values change make sure to update documentation or make note of the change.

Review of Old Requirements

Requirements, April 21, 2015 https://www.arxterra.com/requirements/

Examining past level 1 requirements that pertain to manufacturing

Requirement Evaluation Rubric Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Design a new custom PCB (Fall 2014) Y Y Y N Y N N Y
The μBiPed must weigh no more than 1 kilogram in order to facilitate the miniaturized size of the μBiPed. Otherwise, if the μBiPed is too heavy the project may not be realizable (Spring 2015) Y N Y N Y N N Y
The μBiPed must be miniaturized as is dictated by its own name, size 7 inches (Spring 2015) Y Y Y N Y N N Y

Examining past level 2 requirements that pertain to Manufacturing

Requirement Evaluation Rubric Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Manufacture Professional custom PCB to help alleviate any loose wires hanging on the robot and reduce weight distribution (Fall 2014) N Y Y N Y N N Y
In order to successfully miniaturize the μBiPed, micro-servos will be used. Type of micro-servos are MG92b after testing. The project must test the micro servos using SolidWorks or through math analysis in order to determine if micro servos provide enough torque to complete the project (Spring 2015) N Y Y N Y N N Y
Due to the miniaturization of the μBiPed, a PCB board will be fabricated that includes the wiring for the gyro, the Bluetooth IC, and the servo pins that will allow for the microcontroller to interface with the assembly (Spring 2015) N Y Y N Y N N Y
In order to traverse multiple surfaces the μBiPed’s legs must have some type of thread or rubber sole added to it (Spring 2015) N Y Y N Y N N Y
A lightweight material must be used for the frame in order to keep within the specific mass restrictions of the μBiPed; the type of material is PLA. Testing must be done as to whether or not the μBiPed can be made of plastic, or if a lighter material must be used (Spring 2015) N Y Y N Y N N Y

Most of the listed requirements do not meet 1 of the rubric because they miss the quantitative requirement. Requirements that didn’t miss 2 of the rubric were placed in the wrong level of requirements. No requirements evaluated provide a link to source material, therefore they do not meet 4 of the rubric. No requirement needed equations which is 7 on the rubric. No requirement meet is formatted in the right language, thus it does not meet 8 on the rubric. Requirements that did not meet 9 had a requirement that could have been split up into two sections.

Fall 2016

Going through the old Biped blog posts, I got a clearer view about the complications past groups ran into. I was also able to determine what manufacturing strategies were most beneficial. By evaluating older requirements, I have a better understanding about how to continue with my subsystem requirements. First I will discuss the suggestions I have for the upcoming semester.

3D Printing

3D printing has been successful for the past semesters. I would suggest continuing forward with this method to produce parts of our robot. Cautionary facts to consider will be the time it takes to print, the spacing of material (or wires), and picking the right dimension of screws.

Materials

Due to the fact that we will be 3D printing our parts, we will have to use plastic. To keep the cost of our robot low, we could go with PLA.

PCB Layout

The main concern with the PCB layout is the ordering/arrival time of the product. I suggest to factor this time into the schedule.

Ideas and Advice

I would like to utilize the advice provided by past semesters as much as possible so that we can avoid as much problems as possible. I suggest creating 3D models of components while keeping in mind that we may need room to move or add wires. I suggest that we make as many sketches as possible to visualize our product before finalizing ideas. I also suggest checking up with the customer weekly to make sure that we are producing the product that the customer had in mind.

3d-image-of-biped

3D modeling

Wheels

Wheels added to the Biped will help the robot turn right and left. One foot will remain stationary on the the ground while the second foot will slightly be elevated in the air. The wheel attached to the foot that is still on the ground will rotate backwards and turn the biped in the direction of whichever foot is on the ground. For example, when the biped is on the left foot it will turn left and when the biped is on the right foot it will turn right.

Body

The final body design dimension is yet to be finalized. However the body width will be larger than the body height. This goal is to keep the body close to the ground as possible.

Legs / Feet

The feet will be connected to the body through the leg parts. Although the final design dimensions have not been chosen, the feet itself will be larger than the width of the body to prevent it from loosing stability.

Fall 2015 MicroBiPed Summary

PROJECT SUMMARY

By Paul Oo (Project Manager)
Approved by Paul Oo (Project Manager)
Approved by Railly Mateo (Systems Engineer)

IMG_1949

Executive Summary

Project Objectives and Mission Profile:

Fall 2015 MicroBiPed (BiRex) is inspired by the BiPed designed by Jonathan Dowdall of Project BiPed. The profile for this semester’s project is to use the BiPed & μBiPed designs to create a toy robot. The chosen design for a BiPed toy is a Tyrannosaurus Rex. To push the profile towards a feasibility demonstration requires a large emphasis on performance and budget. The objective of this project is to complete an obstacle course whilst controlled and communicating with the Arxterra™ Android application.    

The detailed changes made to the Project Objective and Mission Profile can be found here.

Design:

explode

Figure 1 – Exploded Model

The image above shows the full 3D SOLIDWORKS structure. In this exploded view, the structure shows each individual component designed on SOLIDWORKS. Although there are additional components, (PCB, sensors, wires, and battery) this image shows the overall design of structure.

Details on the structure can be found further in this blog post under “Hardware Design.”

Project Features:

sUT1KxuhOODsvIs

Figure 2 – BiLeg

BE1erpvREUroUMP

Figure 3 – BiLegs

KacvikPYbjjddWS

Figure 4 – BiHead

BuwU8tfdkHppg8I

Figure 5 – BiTail

CEtJCOXbzxYY4ha

Figure 6 – BiFeet

The images above shows the creative solutions we implemented on this year’s µBiPed. During the production of the structure, our little BiRex was given the nickname of Bisexual T-Rex. Coincidentally, the name fit the design. Every one of these features have the capability to be flipped and still be functional.

Further analysis of Figure 6 (BiFeet) can be found in the Stress Analysis blog post.

System Design

block diagram(1)

Fig. 7 – System Block Diagram

The block diagram above shows the updated block diagram for BiRex. This system diagram shows the high level information; mainly connectivity between subsystems through their peripherals. The blocks are positioned based on their subsystem information. As taught in EE 346, the microcontroller (Arduino Micro) acts as the computer to receive (inputs) and send out (outputs) information throughout the whole system.

Each subsystem’s properties can be understood by reading the Updated Interface Matrix and Finalized System Block Diagram blog posts.

Experimental Results

Conducted Experiments:

List of Experiments

Title of Experiment

Type(s) of Experiment

Walking Configuration and motion
Prototype Leg, legs, and full structure
3D Printing Servo holder
Battery Power Budget
Gyroscope Connection
Ultrasonic Connection
Servo Driver Connection
Servo Leg, legs, and full structure
Ankle Legs and full structure

The table above is a full list of experiments conducted after the PDR and up to the CDR. The titles that are bold are the next three topics (Battery, Prototypes, and Ankle) that give further information of each experiment.

Battery (Power Budget):

Item Quantity Max Consumption Average Consumption Total Average Consumption Total Max Consumption
MG92B (servos) 6 0.7488170658 0.02 0.12 4.492902395
Arduino Micro (microcontoller) 1 0.85 0.37 0.37 0.85
Ultrasonic Sensor
1 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
Gyroscope 1 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065
HC-06 (Bluetooth) 1 0.04 0.008 0.008 0.04
Total 0.5195 0.9115
Regular Amps Available: 2 Surge Amps Available: 10
Margin%: 284.985563 Margin%: 85.0343344

The above table presents the electronics subsystem that comprises of this year’s µBiPed project. The subsystem consists of both the main (Arduino Micro) and sub-components (servos, ultrasonic sensor, gyroscope, and Bluetooth communication). These components were then spec’d for quantity, max, average, total average, and total max current consumption. From this data, we used the specs from our chosen battery to find marginal current ratings.

The full description of the the system’s current draw can be found on the Power Budget blog post.

Prototypes:

This is the third video from the Prototypes blog post. This specific video shows how we used the prototype to get a better understanding for making our Bipedal robot walk. This model is considered the 2nd Generation (2.5) of prototyping BiRex. As you can see, it has difficulty walking. This lack of balance comes from the fact that our legs cannot support overall stability alone, thus verifying the need to add the head and tail.

Ankle:

Results:

stress

Fig. 8 – Ankle: Stress Analysis

The von Mises test results. Solidworks allows you to determine which faces are stationary and which ones have forces acted on them. The ankle, which is the thick block, has all of the forces, and the red coloration indicates where the most vulnerable area is.

As a gauge, we considered the maximum force given by the robot as F = ma, which is the mass times the gravitational constant. In our case, 1.438 x 9.8 = 14.09N. The report indicated that the maximum force is above 65000N, which is way above our total forces.

Further details of the ankle design can be found on the Stress Analysis Blog Post.

Subsystem Design

Interface Definitions:

SzTI3jcuUVDzZkg

Table 1

Table 1 above show the 1st portion of project’s updated system interface definitions. The left side of the table has information on our subsystem components, while the right side is simply the microcontroller (Arduino Micro). Each component is then defined by its pinout data (pin number and pin symbol), which is then used as information for the microcontroller’s pinout.

7vtOa7MLNMDapYW

Table 2

Table 2 above show the 2nd portion of project’s updated system interface definitions. Unlike the first table, this section focuses only on our servo interface.

Further details of interface matrix can be found on the Interface Matrix Update Blog Post.

Custom PCB Design:

Fritzing Diagram:

System Diagram

Fig. 9 – System Diagram

Breadboard:

Breadboard to Prototype (BinanoPed)

Fig. 10 – Breadboard to Prototype (BinanoPed)

Schematic:

System Schematic

Fig. 11 – System Schematic

The system schematic blog post explains the steps needed to create an eagle file. The file used for BiRex is here: Eagle Schematic.

PCB:

Introduction:

The Final PCB layout is the responsibility of the Manufacturing engineer. To maximize the grade acquired for the assignment, a combination of through hole and SMD packages were utilized in the design.

Obstacles:

The problem presents itself when there are too many components on a board. Some components will have plenty of connections, sometimes to the point where there is no choice but to block other channels. Naturally, the solution to this would be to rotate the device. However, doing so can block even more channels. Another option is to create a double sided junctions. However, the double sided wires starts blocking other bottom sided channels utilized by other components. The only other option would be to go around it. Unfortunately, the free version of EAGLE has a limit of 2 in. x 2 ½ in; therefore, we do not have the liberty of space to maneuver around the conflicted part.

pcb

Final PCB Design. Note the part with the array of blue wires connected at the bottom left. That part is the servo driver, currently in the bottom of the board. Without it on the bottom, the order of the servo pins on the bottom would be convoluted.

The image above shows our finalized design for BiRex’s PCB. The red lines represent the copper tracing on top of the board, while the blue lines are underneath. An unpopular but effective method would be to have double sided SMD’s. By having an SMD on the bottom side, it is essentially mirrored by the axis that it is flipped on. This allows for some flexibility for routing.

Further details of interface matrix can be found on the PCB Blog Post. The full BRD file is provided here: MicroBiRex-Eagle.

Hardware Design:

3D Model:

The video above shows the simulation of the designed structure. The full STL file is provided here: Repaired. The full details can be found on the Center of Mass blog post.

Software Design:

Software System Block Diagram:

software diagram

Walking Code (Introduction to IDE):

The walking code for the μBiped project was coded in the Arduino IDE using the basic syntax used in C, C++, and the like. The use of a servo-driver dictated the need of having the Adafruit servo-driver library (available here: https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit-PWM-Servo-Driver-Library) added to the already existing Arduino libraries for use. The addition of this library allowed the use of more servos than would have normally been available using the Arduino alone.

PWM:

In order to control individual servos the Arduino would use PWM signals to the servo-driver with each PWM associated with a different angle. These different PWM values were then set in an array in order to allow smooth movement of the legs, head, and tail that the servos were made to control. In order to get smoother movement, longer arrays were required to show more individualized movements.

code1

Fig. 1 – Include Files

code2

The full details of the software design can be found on the Walking Code blog post. The full IDE file is here: IDE files.

Verification and Validation:

Test plans through verification and validation is needed to show the success of the project results. This document is then used by the course instructor. The document is essentially used as a checklist with results of the project tied to project and program requirements.

The full details of the test plans can be found on the Test Plans for Verification and Validation blog post.

Project Update:

Work Breakdown Structure:

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is used by those that deal with higher level program information The list of those involved include, but are not limited to: Project Manager, Systems Engineer, President, and Division Managers.

Table 1 – Project Manager

Operation Duration Start Finish Resource Name
Project μBiPed 162 days 8/31/15 12/10/15 Paul Oo
Project Management 155 days 9/10/15 12/10/15 Paul Oo
Mission Objective 21 days 9/10/15 10/1/15 Paul Oo
Program Req. 21 days 9/10/15 10/1/15 Paul Oo
Work Allocation 21 days 9/10/15 10/1/15 Paul Oo
PDD 8 days 9/23/15 10/1/15 Paul Oo
PDR 7 days 10/1/15 10/8/15 Paul Oo
CDD 21 days 10/8/15 10/29/15 Paul Oo
CDR 7 days 10/29/15 11/5/15 Paul Oo
Documentation 168 days 8/24/15 12/9/15 Paul Oo
Final Presentation 35 days 11/5/15 12/10/15 Paul Oo
Project Video 70 days 10/1/15 12/10/15 Paul Oo

The table above (Table 1) shows the schedule created for the Project Manager. This schedule has been made to fit Fall 2015’s 400 D timeline and milestones. Furthermore, the schedule has been broken down according to program tasks (Mission Objective, Work Allocation, & Documentation). To improve this schedule, along with other members’, project managers should view this document from the first day of being assigned to their position.

The schedule for Systems, Manufacturing, and Controls Engineers can be found on the WBS blog post.

Mass Budget:

Mass is important for every project. The mass can affect both the hardware and software design. While, the components used for movement are affected by the structure (load), the software must account for the physical resistances the structure produces.

Part Quantity Individual Mass (grams) Total
(grams)
Margins
Servos 6 13.8 82.8 20%
#4 Hex Nuts and Bolts 18 20.7 372.6 10%
Frame 1 857.29 857.29 100%
Ultrasonic Sensor 1 8.5 8.5 10%
PCB (HC-06 & Arduino) 1 30.76 30.76 100%
Dynamite LiPo 1 86 86 10%
Grand Total (Grams) 1437.95 68%

The table above shows the data for mass of this year’s µBiPed project. The mass values obtained from data sheets are given a 10% margin of error. The frame’s mass is assumed to be an Aluminum build. Therefor, the mass may change drastically if a different material (polylactic acid) is more viable.

The full details of the mass budget can be found on the mass budget blog post.

Power Budget:

Power and Mass budgets are a bit more difficult to conclude early on. The reason comes from the changes that made to the structural and PCB designs as the semester progresses.

Item Quantity Max Consumption Average Consumption Total Average Consumption Total Max Consumption
MG92B (servos) 6 0.7488170658 0.02 0.12 4.492902395
Arduino Micro (microcontoller) 1 0.85 0.37 0.37 0.85
Ultrasonic Sensor
1 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015
Gyroscope 1 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065
HC-06 (Bluetooth) 1 0.04 0.008 0.008 0.04
Total 0.5195 0.9115
Regular Amps Available: 2 Surge Amps Available: 10
Margin%: 284.985563 Margin%: 85.0343344

The above table presents the electronics subsystem that comprises of this year’s µBiPed project. The subsystem consists of both the main (Arduino Micro) and sub-components (*servos, ultrasonic sensor, gyroscope, and Bluetooth communication). These components were then spec’d for quantity, max, average, total average, and total max current consumption. From this data, we used the specs from our chosen battery to find marginal current ratings.

The full details to the battery used and power budget can be found on the battery update and power budget blog posts.

Progress:

There are a multitude of ways to record the progress of your project. We used project libre as our initial source for layout the schedule. Unfortunately, the software’s user interface just wasn’t well designed. Regardless, the progress had to be documented. The most useful tool for progress actually came from using action items from the group meeting notes. This table allowed us to keep in touch of how close we are to small and large milestones.

systems pro

Systems Engineer Schedule

systems wbs

Systems Engineer – Work Breakdown Structure

action items

Meeting Notes – Action Items

Project Video:

The project video is a summary of BiRex and how we used the engineering method to produce our final result.

Conclusion for 400 D:

In conclusion, although it may seem infeasible, sticking to the program schedule will be the deciding factor to how successful your project will turn out. The project manager and system engineer should work hand in hand throughout the entire schedule to plan and prepare for any contingencies. The work they distribute is then placed on the subsystem engineers: manufacturing, electronics, controls, etc. Below is the recommendations I have personally made for future 400 D students.

Scheduling – Realistic 15 weeks

Weeks 1 – 4 : Students have two responsibilities:

  1. Become familiarized with their project (Project Documentation)
    1. The professor should debrief the intensity of the course and progress made per project (suggesting the difficulty in learning curve per project)
    2. The students should be assigned for their positions coming into the course (given that they are provided with brief and/or full outline of WBS)
  1. Become familiarized with their roles (Role Documentation)
    1. The students should be assigned role research as homework assignment:
      1. The students are then expected to present what they researched as an oral presentation (graded on content of information)
      2. Work with division managers to implement certain software assignments (then create blog posts off of what they learned)
  1. The purpose of these assignments are then to create a PDR

Notes: High learning curve for Project Manager and Systems Engineer  

Weeks 5 – 8 : Students have one responsibility: Apply new-found knowledge to implement PDR towards CDR

  1. The Project Manager and System should collaborate for scheduling
    1. The schedules can be referenced from getting access to Drive or PDR
  2. The subsystems should begin tailoring the researched 3D model, PCB, and IDE files to meet their PDR (rapid prototypes)

Weeks 9 – 15 :    More prototyping and testing

Documentation – Implementation (Project vs. Role)

Project: Arxterra – Archive

  1. Archive blog posts for individual community
    1. To make it clear, add the requirement of titling each blog post with Semester, Year, Community, and event of post.

Role: Drive – Meeting Notes, Folders, giving access

  1. Meeting Notes should be the same format (use either BiRex’s) or template from Drive.
  2. Folders should be implemented in Drive to allow clarity and ease of access.
  3. Should the students need it, request for access to previous semester’s drive folders.

Role: Software – How-to, video blog post

  1. The students should properly document their work and what they’ve learned.
    1. How-To – Fractal Antenna is an example of a blog post that gives quantitative information.
    2. Video blog post (record their work and orally annotate)

Fall 2015 MicroBiPed System Schematic

EAGLE SCHEMATIC

By Brian Walton (Controls Engineer)
Approved by Paul Oo (Project Manager)
Approved by Railly Mateo (Systems Engineer)

Introduction to Eagle:

Using EAGLE as a tool to build your schematic for all your subsystems offers multiple advantages:

1) Easy to use set-up aides with ease of schematic building
2) A large number of electronic companies support EAGLE and as such they provide libraries to add to your already existing EAGLE libraries to allow the use of their parts in the EAGLE software.
3) EAGLE comes with a built in PCB (Printed Circuit Board) software to easily go from the schematic to designing the PCB.
a) The available libraries allow using different size components as well as through-hole and surface-mounted components to add to the customization of the PCB to fit size and functionality requirements of the project at hand.
4) Building a schematic through EAGLE shows exactly what components are required for assembling the PCB allowing easy creation of a BoM (Bill of Materials) to simplify in the ordering of materials.

Our Eagle Schematic:

The full schematic can be downloaded from here: Eagle Schematic.

eagle1

Fig. 1 – Complete Layout

Project μBiped, also known as Project BiRex and Project Little Foot, required the use of a servo driver, Arduino Micro, Ultrasonic, Gyroscope, Bluetooth, and Battery Reverse Protection.

eagle2

Fig. 2 – Gyroscope

Figure 2 focuses on the gyroscope from the overall schematic. It was decided to place the IC (integrated circuit) for the gyroscope directly to the PCB instead of using through-hole pins for the component itself. As a result extra capacitors had to be added to maintain the functionality of the gyroscoope.

eagle3

Fig. 3 – Bluetooth

Figure 3 focuses on the Bluetooth from the overall schematic. The HC-06 was placed directly onto the PCB to allow wireless communication with the Arxterra application on a phone. The layout chosen for the schematic dictated the use of a HC-06 without a backboard.

eagle4

Fig. 4 – Servo Driver IC

eagle5

Fig. 5 – Servo Driver components

Figure 4 focuses on the servo driver from the overall schematic. The servo driver IC was also laid directly onto the PCB, requiring extra resistors and a capacitor to maintain functionality. In conjunction with the servo driver, figure 5 shows the components needed to use the driver. It was required to have headers to be able to attach the servos to the PCB. Resistors were added onto the signal lines. The servo driver allowed the use of up to 16 servos which was quite a bit more than the 6 required for the project. The size requirement for the PCB allowed extra servo headers to be added to the design so the PCB allows for the use for up to 12 servos.

eagle6

FIg. 6 – Arduino Micro and Ultrasonic Sensor

Figure 6 focuses on the Arduino Arduino and Ultrasonic Sensor from the overall schematic. The Arduino Micro and Ultrasonic were placed directly onto the PCB.

eagle7

FIg. 7 – Battery

FIgure 7 focuses on the battery from the overall schematic. Battery Reverse Protection was added for added safety of components. The value of the capacitor used (1000 μF) was chosen based off of the number of servos used.

 

Notes:

Once the schematic is designed it is useful to label all connections and organize the schematic to aide in PCB design.
A copy of EAGLE can be downloaded here:
http://www.cadsoftusa.com/download-eagle/