Slide 1

Final Presentation

Slide 2

Chris Johnson, Team Leader Tim Hahn Bradley Lesher Michael LaPuma Project Advisor: Gene Hou Student Advisor: Stanton Coffey Collaborators (ECE Department) Clayton Stagg John Too Matt Hinsen Haole Guo

Slide 3

Slide 4

The manufacturer of the pontoons proposed for the new design was unable to furnish the items in the time we required. Using the AHP process implemented by Dr. Hou, the team was able to analytically determine the best design alternative to proceed with.

Slide 5

Design tool used to analytically compare different design ideas and ultimately converge on a single design concept. Starting with 4 unique designs, we assigned a numerical score to each individual attribute of the design (weight, deck size, ease of assembly). Using pair-wise comparison, the attributes of each design were graded against the same attributes of the other designs. The design that proved to be the best analytically is the design we chose to continue the project with.

Slide 6

New hull design utilized materials already on hand. Machine shop was used to cut aluminum rails for the deck frame. Once rails were cut, assembly was completed by simply bolting frame members together and fastening deck surface to frame.

Slide 7

First operational test used to determine appropriate deck height, buoyancy and maneuverability. Communication and navigation systems also tested. Vessel proved to be very seaworthy with negligible impact to maneuverability due to the addition of fourth pontoon. Wireless communication system operated flawlessly and navigation through marked channel was successful.

Slide 8

In order to complete the ball retrieval task in the upcoming ASV competition, an efficient and compact means of deploying and retrieving the car was required. Several ideas were considered, including a swinging crane and an articulating arm. The design we used was a folding ramp designed by Bradley Lesher.

Slide 9

Technical drawings and aluminum stock were provided to the machine shop and the ramp parts were fabricated. The servo used to drive the assembly was one we had on hand. Calculations were completed to insure servo was capable of providing the torque required to deploy ramp.

Slide 10

Slide 11

Hull Design Testing validated the need for pontoon mountings that allow for adjustment of pontoon position and height. Impact of fourth pontoon on steering and maneuverability was negligible. Without the addition of the fourth pontoon, necessary buoyant force and overall stability would not have been achieved.

Slide 12

Deployment Ramp Testing showed the difficulty in maintaining a flat and level surface from which to deploy the car from the ramp. Design of a method to insure car will make smooth transition from ramp to platform is necessary before competition. A system to raise the height of the deployment ramp off of the deck will also need to be designed.

Slide 13

Total cost for the ASV project came to $2446.71, well below the total project budget of $5000. Most expensive items were the cameras (GoPro and Logitech webcams) and the Pelican case used to house the CPU and Arduino controllers. And of course, the $500 competition entrance fee. Majority of the total cost of project was from the many small items used in the fabrication of the ramp and the electronic components used to control the various systems on the ASV.

Slide 14

Slide 15

Main goals for the semester included designing and building a new hull platform, designing and building a deployment mechanism for the autonomous car, installing all electronic components on new platform and evaluating and testing all systems and components. All goals for the semester have been met and the ODU ASV team has a new craft to compete in this years ASV competition.