1
Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology Evaluation
MSD-II
FINAL PROJECT
PRESENTATION
AGENDA
Project Status

Individual Team Member vs. Norms and Values

Deliverables Checklist

EDGE Review

Rubric Review
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

2
PROJECT STATUS

Sensors:

Test fixtures are designed and built
 MCU:

Can now record data to microSD card
 Data can be transferred to PC
 All sensors were connected and tested for
compatibility and function.

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

With additional filtering and signal processing
overall accuracy could be much improved.
Overall, phase I complete
3
INDIVIDUAL TEAM MEMBERS STATUS
What were your personal responsibilities and
where are you against your plan (compare to
your original plan)?
 Have you utilized your plan effectively in MSD II
and is your current assessment of status
realistic?
 Have you documented all related work and data?
 What would you have done differently during the
quarter (as an individual) knowing what you
know now?

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
4
MEMBER VS. NORMS
Punctual

Thorough

Accurate

Professional and Ethical

Demonstrates the core RIT values of SPIRIT

Committed
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

5
DAVID MONAHAN, ME

Overall Responsibilities

Project Manager

Expected MSD2 Responsibilities (from MSD1 Project
Review)
Start Building Test Fixtures
 Verify Accuracy of test fixtures with multiple tests
 Facilitate merging of P10010/P10011 testing efforts
 Concept Generation: Shock and Impact testing

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Assemble & execute weekly meeting agendas
 Keep track of what team needs to do on a week-to-week basis
 Ensure major deliverable compliance- all bases covered?

6
DAVID MONAHAN, ME

Status

Continued project manager role


First 5 weeks: mostly individual testing/construction
Final 5 weeks: much heavier schedule & management
Brainstormed alternative fixtures during weeks 1-3

Goniometer & Flex Fixture delivered Week 5/6
Led Technical Paper efforts
 Performed Flex Fixture & Shock Testing
 Developed Pendulum model & MATLAB code
 Ultimately did much more data manipulation than
expected during final two weeks



Mostly due to late introduction of Pendulum fixture
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

Documentation



Fixture Manufacturing Plans
Fixture Procedures
MATLAB Code & Figures
7
DAVID MONAHAN, ME

Recommendations

Future leaders:

Test Fixture: Controllable input





Tighter management during first 5 weeks
 Ensure all deadlines are met!
 Ripple effects undesirable
Labview?
GUI: both actual model and measured sensor data tracked &
analyzed simultaneously
Provides variety of scenarios
Take advantage of Sara’s spine fixture if possible!
MATLAB


Better way of integration for non harmonic data
Trapz function? Simulink model?
 Consult with resident MATLAB experts (Crassidis)?
 Utilize alternative programming methods- C?
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

8
JAMES STERN, ME

Responsibilities
Sensor Interface Lead: Limb Kinematics, Sensor
Placement, Sensor Configuration.
 Liaison with Human Interface Team.
 Sensor Technology Assistant.
 Enclosure Assistant.

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
9
JAMES STERN, ME

MSD2 Plan

Order parts for Test methods
Start Building Test Fixtures
Verify Accuracy of test fixtures.
Help with testing sensors
Integrate sensors and microcontroller and repeat tests.
Include Human Interfaces enclosures with sensors testing
Test sensors for durability with cycle testing and shock tests.
Status






Parts were received and tests fixtures were built (modifications
needed to be mad to original plans)
Test fixtures were verified
Flex sensors were tested, and data was analyzed to correlate voltage
to angles using Trendline in excel
Flex sensor was tested using p10011 under-armor sleeve.
Flex sensors went through cycle analysis (1000 cycles)
Ordered 2 * DE-ACCM3D2 to complete shock testing. Could
withstand of 500G’s of shock (Test included p10011 enclosure).
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation







10
JAMES STERN, ME

Recommendations





P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

Start building of test fixture in MSD1, would have given more
time for testing.
Implement rotational servo motors on fixture so the tester can
rotate sensors at a set rotational speed.
Make fixture out of non metallic material, or at least cover it with
a rubber.
Design a easier and more universal way of attaching sensors to
test fixture.
Should have thought about acceleration test methods in MSD1
Impact Test, Not Shock test to see if enclosure could withstand an
impact and keep sensor safe.
11
CORY LAUDENSLAGER , EE

Responsibilities





P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

MCU/Sensor Interface Lead: Ensure Sensor
Technologies can Interface to MCU
Sensor Selection Assistant
MCU Selection Assistant
Battery Analysis
BOM Creation / Ordering Parts
Sensor Testing / Test Plan
12
CORY LAUDENSLAGER, EE

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

MSDII Plan
 BOM Creation / Select Vendors / Order Parts
 Soldering of Headers on Sensors
 DE-ACCM2G2 Test / Test Procedure / Data Analysis /
Future Recommendations
 Ultra-Thin IMU Test / Test Procedure / Data Analysis /
Future Recommendations
Status
 All Parts Ordered and Received on Time
 All Sensors Soldered and Powered Up
 DE-ACCM2G2- Steady State/Position Analysis
Completed and Sensor Document Created
 Ultra-Thin IMU- Steady State/Rotation/Position
Analysis Completed and Sensor Document Created
13
CORY LAUDENSLAGER, EE

Recommendations
Future Data Analysis is Required
-Point by Point Integration for Both Rotation
and Position

A More Efficient Means to Display Data for
the User

Kalman Filtering to Account for Drift in
Gyroscopes
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

14
JANVI GAUTHAMAN, EE(BIOMED)

Responsibilities

Sensor Technology Lead

Documentation Lead
Ensuring that all documents are on EDGE
 Taking minutes during meetings, updating agenda (MSDI)

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Sensor research, Sensor selection, Sensor Evaluation,
Sensor review (with Dr. Phillips), Final Sensor Selection
 Test plan (MSDI) sensors (on a component level)
 Execution (MSDII) of testing for sensors (on the sub-system
level- integrating with the MCU)
 Testing the Atomic 6DoF IMU, and the Flex Sensor.

15
JANVI GAUTHAMAN, EE

MSDII Plan
Test the Atomic sensor for basic functionality
 Check the Atomic sensor for Accuracy
 Test the Atomic with the MCU for integration.

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Test the Flex sensor for basic functionality
 Check the Flex sensor for Accuracy
 Test the Flex sensor with the MCU for integration.
 Test the Flex sensor for accuracy at different bend
positions.

16
JANVI GAUTHAMAN, EE

Status
MSDI: Extensive research on market solutions and technology
solutions, Final sensors were chosen bought, Sensor
Feasibility for every sensor was done, risks were updated
consistently. Feedback from previous presentations were
considered and action items were added as needed

MSDII:
 All documentation of knowledge, data, results, writeups are thoroughly uploaded to EDGE.
 Atomic IMU was tested for its basic functionality on three
fixtures.
 All data was analyzed –pendulum, was most useful.
 Flex sensor was tested for
 accuracy
 bend position
 life cycle
 With P10011 interface
 MCU interface (possibly adding noise)
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

17
JANVI GAUTHAMAN, EE

Recommendations




P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

Test the Atomic with a constant acceleration,
velocity, position fixture/ motor – so as to lessen some
of the variables.
Build fixtures beforehand.
Find more applications of, and documents, go
through source codes of the Atomic to better
understand it. (Lot of functions, poor
marketing/documentation).
Flex sensor- better interface.
Try the more expensive flex sensor for highly
accurate applications.
18
BRIAN GLOD, CE

Responsibilities

Data Lead

Sensor Interface Assistant


Assist EE’s with sensor/MCU interface circuitry
Communication Assistant
Assist with storage of sensor data
 Assist with PC/MCU communication


P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Interpret and filter sensor data
 Convert data to desired format for storage
 Design PC user interface
 Analyze sensor data (degrees, angles, etc)

EDGE/SVN janitor
Assist David with organization
 Fix it when it’s broken

19
BRIAN GLOD, CE

MSD2 Plan

Order MCU components (before break)

Become familiar with the Arduino IDE


MCU, cables, power supplies, etc (see Electrical BOM)
Write small programs for testing interrupts, ADC and DIO
operations, microSD card read/write operations
Work closely with Assis in designing the MCU software
Break down the programming into small blocks
 Assign programming tasks to Assis and myself


Maintain communication with EE’s for sensor integration


Assist in testing and sensor data analysis
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

Continue to keep the Risk Assessment document up-todate
20
BRIAN GLOD, CE

Status

MCU logs data to microSD card

Developed PC / host software that reads the sensor
data file and converts the digital values back into
analog voltages

Helps tremendously in data analysis – using these values,
angles may be calculated (Cory / discrete integration)
Assisted with sensor data acquisition
 Debugging of circuitry and code

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Selectable inputs from 0 to all 16 analog channels
 Worst-case sample rate of 240 Hz for all 16 channels
 Comma separated values (CSV) format
 Contains raw acceleration data, may be converted to
other formats as necessary (ie: C3D)

21
BRIAN GLOD, CE

Recommendations

Use interrupts for sampling ADC channels

May be able to use a plane old data logger


Allows for other operations while waiting for a sample
 Write to micro-SD, on-chip data analysis, etc
Much smaller; but…ADC inputs? Speed?
Filter the digitized ADC values through a calibration curve to
improve accuracy


Currently off by as much as 50 mV – tens of degrees
Full curve (1024 values?); or subset, say 512 values?
Smaller MCU with more ADC inputs (if possible)
 External / more accurate ADCs


P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

May have to deal with custom PCB layout and high-frequency
considerations
22
ASSIS NGOLO, CE

Responsibilities

Communications Lead





Microcontroller Assistant



Assist EE’s with interfacing MCU to Sensos
Assist EE’s in running sensor tests on MCU
Data Assistant


Develop storage solution
Interface SD card to MCU
Design file format for storage for PC accessibility
Capture and Coordinate Data
Analyze collected sensor data
Assist with general MCU programming
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

Project Plan Manager


Keep tasks on schedule
Fix it when it’s broken
23
ASSIS NGOLO, CE

MSD2 Plan




P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

Perform research on storage interfacing methods
Look for an appropriate C/C++ libraries to use with
micro SD card
Modify selected library for use with the
ATmega1280
Create a CSV file format that make sit easy to
identify data from each sensor along with a
timestamp
Perform analysis on acquired data, to obtain velocity
and displacement from acceleration
24
ASSIS NGOLO, CE

Status
Micro SD card interfacing successful
 Data logging successful


Data analysis successful

Matlab analysis with double integration successful
 Velocity determined from acceleration
 Displacement determined from velocity
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
CSV file can be written and read from with ease
 FAT16 formatted SD card can be plugged into PC easily
 Matlab and MS Excel can access the CSV files easily

25
ASSIS NGOLO, CE
Interrupts
Avoid polling
 Improve performance


Dedicated data logging MCU
Have more analog channels
 More precise
 Calibration curves to ADC values to increase accuracy

P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

26
EDGE
https://edge.rit.edu/content/P10010/public/Home
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Review as a team:
27
DELIVERABLES CHECKLIST & ONLINE STATUS
Customer Needs- Done

Engineering Specifications- Done

Risk Assessment- Done

Test Plan- Done

Previous Presentation Documents- Posted

Project Plan- Done

Other Deliverables??
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation

28
CONCLUSIONS

DE Sensor


Good for linear movements in determining position from
acceleration
Atomic

Razor
Least accurate in determining position from acceleration.
 Very accurate in determining rotational angles.


Flex
Accurate in lab, but in reality best for repeated motions
where accuracy is not main function
 Cheap, durable, easy to use, portable-satisfies all major
customer needs (at least JJ)
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Moderately accurate in finding position from acceleration.
(<DE sensor, >Razor)
 Has internal processor- not documented well
 Does not meet portability requirement


29
RUBRIC REVIEW

Go over rubric elements as a group
Concerns?
P10010: Motion Tracking Technology
Evaluation
Questions?
30