Autonomous Robotic Fish to detect Harmful Algae Blooms (HABS)
FINAL PROPOSAL:
Design Team: 4 Team Facilitator: Dean Aslam
Team members: Taha Tareen, Jamie Jacobs, Stephen Garrett, Woodard Williams Eric Jackson,
Carl Coppola, Robert Morris, Allen Eyler
Date: 02/4/09
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aquatic ecosystems are undergoing dramatic changes due to human activities and change in
climate, which results in environmental pollution and affects human wellbeing. The proliferation of
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) is caused by cyanobacteria producing toxins which accumulate rapidly
in water bodies, thus proposing a great danger to our lives. At Michigan State University, the goal is to
advance knowledge and transform lives. Through detecting harmful algal blooms (HABS) in threedimensional water bodies, this project gives students an opportunity to achieve the goals of MSU by
making the world a healthier place.
To achieve the goals set by the team, the most critical issues surrounding the project are the
implementation of Graphical User Interface (GUI), digital signal controller (DSC), and the wireless
integration. The following steps are to be taken as the basic requirements of the project. For bacteria
detection the HAB sensor will be interfaced in to the circuit and the GUI will be updated accordingly.
An infrared sensor (IR) will also be implemented for avoiding collisions in water bodies. The electrical
casing inside the fish will be made for locking the circuit inside and is according to the conceptual
design of the robotic fish itself which also has a compass integrated for the direction movement.
Finally demonstrating the fish in the water tank or a lake will provide the results and ensure success.
The final design is a smooth body fish, similar to the current shape, with two fins used for
balance and one bottom fin used as a rudder. The bottom rudder fin will be used for direction control.
Whiskers will be placed on the front of the fish for collision detection. The PCB, battery pack, and
servo will be contained in an aluminum water tight container inside the fish body. The bulk of the
weight will be distributed towards the middle of the fish to provide the best weight distribution
scheme. Upon completion the robotic fish will sense HAB, avoid harmful collisions, and swim in the
intended direction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction………………………………………………………………....2
Background …………………………………………………………….......2
Design Specifications………………………………………………….........2-6
Table 1 and 2…………………………………………………...............3
Table 3 and 4…………………………………………………………...4
Table 5,6 and 7…………………………………………………………5
FAST Diagram……………………………………………………………...6-7
Figure 1………………………………………………………………….7
Conceptual Designs…………………………………………………….......7-10
Figure 2 and 3…………………………………………………………..8
Figure 4 and 5…………………………………………………………..9
Figure 6 and 7…………………………………………………………..10
Rankings of Conceptual Design………………………………………........11
Table 8 and 9…………………………………………………………..11
Proposed Design Solution…………………………………………………..12
Figure 8………………………………………………………………...12
Risk Analysis……………………………………………………………….12-13
Project Management Plan…………………………………………………..13-15
Budget………………………………………………………………………..15
Table 10…………………………………………………………………15
1
INTRODUCTION
With the environment constantly changing due to human abuse of the planet, scientists are
constantly faced with the challenge of coming up with new, more effective methods of
understanding/predicting an ecosystem’s response time to global change. One of the more severe
concerns of the planet is the aquatic ecosystems. As a result of different contaminants and toxins
already disturbing our water, proper functionality of ecosystems and human welfare are dangerously at
risk. More specifically, the abundance of harmful algal blooms (HABs) is becoming a more critical
issue. In freshwater, HABs are caused by cyanobacteria producing potent toxins. These toxins can
negatively impact water supplies and accumulate in fish. In the purpose of this project is to continue
the development of an autonomous robotic fish that can detect harmful blooms. Consequently, this
specific research should be able to open the door for better ways of monitoring the various water
bodies of the Earth, and in the future, better ways of understanding ecosystem behavior.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the robotic fish project was initiated by the Smart Microsystems Laboratory (SML) on
the campus of Michigan State University. The mission of SML is to enable smarter, smaller,
integrated systems by merging advanced modeling, control and design methodologies with novel
materials and fabrication processes. The purpose of this task was to build small mobile platforms to be
used in aquatic wireless sensor networks. Since August of 2005, SML has developed three generations
of robotic fish.
The first design, G1, was developed by a senior design team. It was equipped with a
microcontroller and wireless communication and was controlled through graphical user interface. The
outer shell was a commercially available toy fish, modified to accommodate the circuitry. In August
2006, the G1 greatly improved on the specific problems such as space optimization and waterproofing
of the circuit. The second version of the G1 was smaller size and weight. Additionally, it was
equipped with a temperature sensor which allowed for a more life like, true mobile sensing
capabilities. However, like the first model, the circuit was still confined to a toy fish shell. In 2007, a
new prototype was introduced with ranging abilities and a custom built outer shell. New methods were
also used to for better waterproofing the circuit. In 2008, the robotic fish was upgraded once again.
This time the main focus of the upgrade consisted of computation capabilities. Instead of using a
microcontroller, a digital signal controller was used which allowed for the implementation of two more
complex ranging algorithms. Also, this design included an onboard battery power source which
allowed for increased hours of run time. Throughout each generation of the robotic fish, the most
significant prototype constraints included: the design of the outer shell to keep the circuit completely
dry, mobility, and using the proper applications to transform the robotic fish from a mere fixed sensing
circuit to a mobile robot.
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
The objective of this project is to build an autonomous robotic fish that is capable of three
dimensional diving, wireless feedback controls, and detecting harmful algae blooms in diverse aquatic
ecosystems. The product will exist as a prototype for developing a group of sensor carrying robotic
fish that will monitor lakes and possibly help prevent deteriorating water quality. In order to
accomplish the goal of our project the group determined which requested design criteria was feasible
for the given time constraints. Table 1, shown below reflects these decisions.
2
Table 1. Feasible Design Criteria
Design Components
Feasible?
HAB Sensor
Collision
Sensors
Direction
Control
Body
Shape
P
P
P
P
WTC
Accel./ Pressure Micro
Packaging Propulsion Gyro. Sensor Camera
P
P
O
O
O
Solar
Panel
O
To fulfill the objective the following constraints, ordered in terms of importance to the customer,
must be satisfied:
1.) The robotic fish must be interfaced with a small sensor that can detect harmful algae blooms
in water bodies.
The desirability of this aspect of the design is very high. The sensor detects cyanobacterial
(algal) pigments that emit fluorescence when excited by certain light waves. The sensor would
then record the concentration of algae and send information remotely to a laptop on shore.
HAB Sensors – Shown in Table 2 below
Cyclops 7: The Cyclops 7 is a submersible fluorometer designed for integration into a third party
platform that supplies power and data logging. This product boasts low power consumption
(less than 300mW), small size (weight: 5 oz; length: 4.3’’ x 0.9’’), and light sensitivity
(dynamic range: low 0-5 µg/l; high 0-500 µg/l). The Cyclops 7 is designed to integrate with the
C6 Multi-sensor platform. The sensor platform adds an extra 6 lbs and 10.2‘’ to the product
size.
Phytoflash: The phytoflash is a submersible active fluorometer that can be used to detect natural
concentrations of cyanobacteria in diverse water systems. The phytoflash is small in size
(weight in water: 1.01 lbs; length: 12’’ x 3 ‘’), light sensitive (dynamic range: low 0-5 µg/l;
high 0-100 µg/l), and has low power consumption (consumes less than 1W). The device does
not require integration into a specific third party source.
Table 2. Feasible Sensors
HAB Sensor
Usable?
Best?
Cyclops 7
Phytoflash
LI190SZ
YSI 6131
P
P
O
O
P
O
O
O
2.) The graphical user interface (GUI), digital signal controller, and circuit board must be
updated.
Currently the GUI, digital signal controller, and circuit board are designed for a fish that moves
in two dimensions. For the robotic fish to work correctly, all components of the phase one, two
dimensional fish must be upgraded and interfaced with sensors.
3.) The robotic fish should be equipped with wireless feedback controls.
The feedback control will allow the team to precisely know which direction the robotic fish is
heading. This will be accomplished by interfacing the fish with a compass or magnetometer.
Direction Control
Servo: A servo is a small device that has an output shaft used to control the direction of the fish. The
output shaft can be set to specific angular positions by sending a signal to the servo. As the
signal changes the angular position of shaft also changes.
3
DC Motor: A small DC motor use output torque converted from a power source to direct the robotic
fish. This option would be the most power consuming.
IPMC: Ionic polymer metal composite (IPMC) materials are highly active actuators that bend in the
presence of low voltage. When the polarity of the voltage is reversed the polymer bends in the
other direction. This bending motion resembles the movement of a fish and provides similar
mobility in the water.
Table 3. Feasible Direction Control
Direction Control
Servo
DC Motor
IPMC
P
P
P
O
P
O
Usable?
Best?
4.) The robotic fish must be interfaced with a sensor that can detect approaching objects.
This sensor will protect the fish from crashing into rigid objects and becoming damaged. The
sensor will detect an object and an event will occur in the circuitry that will allow the fish to
turn and avoid the obstacle.
Collision Sensors- Shown in Table 4 below
IR Sensors: Collision avoidance sensors send infrared (IR) signals in the form of radio waves to detect
an approaching object. The sensor then sends a signal back to the microcontroller allowing time
for evasive action.
Whiskers: Artificial whiskers will be attached to the front of the robotic fish for navigation purposes.
When the whiskers collide with an object the amount of deformation of the whisker shape will
determine the voltage signal sent back to the microcontroller. This allows the robotic fish to
either swim through trivial obstructions or avoid more stable structures.
Table 4. Feasible Collision Detection Sensors
Collision Sensors
Usable?
Best?
IR Sensors
Whiskers
P
O
P
P
5.) The robotic fish should possess a versatile packaging scheme and a suitable body shape.
With the help of team members with a mechanical engineering background, an upgraded
robotic fish body and packaging can possibly enhance the state of the art of robotic fish. The
robotic fish should resemble the appearance of an actual fish and the encasing must be water
proof so that the electrical components will be protected.
Body Shape- Shown in Table 5 below
Jellyfish: The body of design one is shaped like a jellyfish with a long fin connected to the bottom.
The design would float on the water and survey the surface. The fin would be there for
stability in the water and direction control.
Tuna Fish: This body shape is composed of two dorsal fins for direction and a causal fin (tail) for
propulsion. This body shape allows for hydrodynamic mobility in the water. The polymer in the
tail would produce the propulsion for this design.
Manta Ray: The manta’s diamond shaped body is a perfect model for lake exploration. The pectoral
fin would be used to guide the fish and keep it stable while a causal fin would propel the device
in the water.
4
Tuna Fish 2: The same body shape as tuna fish 1 with no bottom rudder fin.
Design 1: Jellyfish
Design 4: Tuna Fish 2
Design 3: Manta Ray
Design 2: Tuna Fish
Table 5. Feasible Body Designs (pictures above)
Body Shape
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3
Design 4
O
P
O
P
Usable?
Water Tight Compartment (WTC) Packaging – Shown in table 6 below
Pill Bottle: The shape of a pill bottle would keep out water with a twist on cap and house the
electronic components inside. There might be extra unused room because of the width of a pill
bottle.
Pop Bottle: The length and width of a pop bottle would be perfect for the tuna fish design. The only
problem that would arise is cutting opening the bottle to store the components inside and then
sealing it.
Pop Can: The pop can is made of aluminum so opening and soldering a part of
the can close would be an advantage in this design.
Table 6. Feasible Water Tight Compartment Designs
WTC Packaging
Usable?
Rank?
Pill Bottle
Pop Bottle
Pop Can
P
3
P
2
P
1
6.) The robotic fish should be capable of swimming 1.5 cm/s or faster.
To effectively monitor a lake within the battery life of the robot, the fish should be able to
swim 1.5 cm/s. An increased speed will also enable the sensor to detect more harmful algae.
Propulsion – Shown in Table 7 below
Single IPMC: A single IPMC would be used like the causal fin of a fish. The horizontal bending
motion of the material would propel the robotic fish forward.
Multiple IPMC: Multiple IPMC would provide more power to propulsion and allow the device to
move faster.
Propellers: Propellers would be created using a dc motor. The torque outputted from the motor would
rotate, displacing the water and moving the fish forward. The concern of this option is power
consumption.
Table 7. Feasible Propulsion Designs
Propulsion
Single IPMC Multi. IPMC Propellers
Usable?
Best?
P
P
O
O
O
O
5
7.) The team must demonstrate the operation of the mobile sensor platform (including wireless
communication and GUI) in a water tank.
Demonstration of the robotic fish in a tank will prove the capability of the project to move to an
actual lake, if environmental conditions allow. Also, the operation of the fish in water will be
tested.
The autonomous robotic fish will be designed based on the preceding criteria. To determine the
desirability of a design, the following set of criteria has been developed:
1.) Function
This parameter determines if the design follows the mandatory constraints identified above.
It is the first and most important aspect of the design.
2.) Size
The robotic fish body must be large enough to hold the HAB sensor and the other electrical
components. Also, what must be considered is that if the fish is large in size and light in
weight it will displace more water and have a difficult time submerging.
3.) Weight
The weight of the robotic fish design can affect ascension or descension in the water. To
descend the fish must weigh more than the water it is displacing. To ascend the fish must be
more buoyant than the water. A design with the ability to control weight while in the water
is preferable.
4.) Energy Consumption
The robotic fish will run on batteries, so monitoring energy consumption is relevant to a
good design. The rate of power consumed directly determines how long the device can stay
in the water and detect harmful algae. A robotic fish that can use less energy and still be
effective in its operation is highly desired.
5.) Reliability
This parameter concerns the ability of the design to perform tasks and operate in a
consistent manner.
6.) Aesthetics
Appearance can have a large impact on marketability. A robotic fish that has a very close
resemblance to a real fish can draw a lot of attention by looks alone.
7.) Delivery Date
A design that is too complicated may not be achievable by the delivery date. Each design
must therefore be rated on its feasibility of completion time.
FAST DIAGRAM
In Figure 1 below is the FAST diagram for the design of the HAB sensor. A FAST diagram was not
completed for the entire scope of the project because it would be extremely large.
6
ASK HOW
ASK WHY
Select Sensor with
size, weight, and
interface suitable
for mounting on
the robotic fish
Build Robotic
Fish that detects
Harmal Algal
Blooms (HABs)
Identify
Suitable
Cyanobacterial
Sensor to
detect HABs
Interface
Sensor
Design
Circuit Board
Survey Existing
Cyanobacterial Sensors
Select proper Digital
Signal Controller (DSC)
and Graphical User
Interface (GUI) to
accommodate sensor
Determine appropriate
placement and most
suitable design
Figure 1. Fast Diagram
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DESCRIPTIONS
Using the preliminary matrices shown in the design specifications portion of this document
four designs were proposed as solutions. The first proposed solution will be referred to as design 2a
for the remainder of this paper. All four of our designs have the exact same placement of the HAB
sensor and whiskers, which can be seen in figure 3 below. Design 2a has the body type as shown in
Figure 2 below. The tail of the fish will consist of two IPMC (artificial muscle polymer). The two
IMPCs will work in a “V” to “I” motion. In this way, IMPCs could provide more forward propulsion.
The bottom fin will be used as a rudder, which is connected to a servo. This rudder will be used for
direction control. The two fins coming out of the fish at angles will provide extra balance to the fish.
Inside the fish body will be a controller PCB, a servo, and a battery pack. In design 2a, taking a birds
eye view of the fish, the battery pack, servo, and PCB will be distributed from one side of the fish to
the other as shown in Figure 3 below.
The second proposed design will be referred to as 2b for the remainder of the paper. The body
shape is exactly the same as the body shape for design 2a. The main differences between the two
designs are the placement of the battery pack, PCB, and servo, as well as the number of IPMCs. In
design 2b there will only one IPMC providing forward propulsion. In this design the PCB will be
placed above the servo and the batteries. The servo will be positioned in the middle of the fish
between 2 separated batteries, see Figure 4 below for a sketch.
The third proposed design solution will be referred to as 4a for the remainder of the paper. The
body shape is similar to that of both design 2a and 2b but here will be no rudder fin. The body design
is shown in Figure 5 below. The 2 fins that were used for balance in the first two designs will be used
for direction control. These two fins will be connected to the servos. As shown in Figure 6 below,
design 4a makes use of 2 servos again. The movement of these 2 IPMCs will be exactly as like the
situation stated above. In design 4a, the battery pack will be split and the servo will be placed in the
center. The PCB will be placed in the back of the fish towards the tail.
The fourth proposed design will be referred to as 4b for the remainder of the paper. The body
shape will be exactly the same as design 4a. Design 4b will make use of only one IPMC but will also
use 2 servos. Each servo will be controlling a separate side fin. The placement of the PCB, battery
pack, and 2 servos is shown in Figure 7 below. The servos will be placed at an angle and the PCB will
be towards the bottom of the fish between the servos. The battery pack will be behind this, toward the
tail of the fish.
7
Figure 2. Body Design for 2a and 2b
Whiskers
Battery
Pack
HAB
Sensor
PCB
Servo
IPMC
Figure 3. Proposed Design 2a Top View
8
Servo
Battery
Pack
PCB
IPMC
Figure 4. Proposed Design 2b Top View
Figure 5. Body Design for 4a and 4b
9
Battery
Pack
Servo
PCB
IPMC
Figure 6. Proposed Design 4a Top View
Servo
PCB
Battery
IPMC
Figure 7. Proposed Design 4b Top View
10
DESIGN RANKINGS
Determination of the current design concept was attained through a series of comparisons of key
qualities and attributes believed to be integral in both the design process and desired operation of the
robotic fish. First, a feasibility matrix was developed in order to reduce the number of conceptual
designs to the two that best accomplished the most important functions. Table 8. shows the designs
and which criteria needed to be fulfilled. If a certain design was believed to be unable of sufficiently
fulfilling a criterion, it received an “x”, corresponding to a design flaw, and the two designs with the
fewest flaws would proceed to the next stage of comparison.
Table 8. Feasibility Matrix for All Original Design Concepts
Feasibility Matrix - Semifinals
Design 2a Design 2b Design 4a Design 4b
Direction Control
HAB Sensor
Collision Detect.
Weight Dist.
Single IPMC
Cost
Manufacturable
Critical Flaws
P
P
P
O
O
P
P
2
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
0
P
P
P
P
O
P
P
1
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
0
After being compared, the two designs chosen to proceed were Designs 2b and 4b. The second stage of
design comparison was facilitated via a selection matrix, which is shown below, in Table 9.
Table 9. Selection Matrix for 2 Final Design Concepts
Selection Matrix - Finals
Weighting Design 2b Design 4b
Servo Quantity
Weight
Cost
Batt. & PCB Loc.
Rudder Loc.
Maneuverability
Power Consum.
Heat Generation
Submersible
Fish Mimicry
8
7
5
4
3
6
10
9
2
1
Total Score:
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
66
87
Each factor was first weighted by importance on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most important and
1 being the least. Each design was then ranked against the other on how well it met each criterion. The
design which met the desired criterion best received a rank of 1, while the other was ranked 2, unless
both designs fulfilled the criterion equally, in which case, both were given a rank of 1. Once ranked,
the weight of each criterion was multiplied by the rank given for each design, and scores were
calculated by summing the products for each design. The design with the lower score was then chosen
to be the current design concept. As can be seen, the winning concept turned out to be the Design 2b
concept.
11
PROPOSED DESIGN SOLUTION
As shown in Figure 8 below the electrical and mechanical design plan has been determined.
The beginning phases of the electrical design and the mechanical design will be making forward
progress simultaneously. The electrical engineers will be working on the PCB design while the
mechanical engineers are working on the body design and body construction. The body shape and
design must reflect the shape and size of the PCB. After these two objectives have been completed the
water tight construction can begin. At this point the testing can begin on the full model. Along the
way testing will be done on individual parts of the fish. For a more detailed description of these tests
see the attached Gantt chart.
Electrical Design
Mechanical Design
PCB Design
Body Design
Part Purchasing
(ICs, HAB sensor, etc.)
PCB Modeling
(Express PCB)
Body Modeling
(Unigraphics NX6)
PCB Construction
Body Construction
GUI Modification/
Debugging
Circuit Testing
Electrical Component
Organization
WTC Installation
Hydrodynamic Analysis
(FLUENT)
Electrical Component
Installation
Dry-Testing
In-Water Testing
Debugging/Modification
Debugging/Modification
Key Process
WTC
Body Casing
WTC Testing
Casing Testing
Lake Demonstration
Process Component
Final Process
Figure 8: Design Solution Process Diagram
RISK ANALYSIS
1.) The robotic fish must be interfaced with the HAB sensor:
The risk involved in integrating the HAB sensor is the highest and most critical. The integration
of the sensor is the most sought out requirement for the robotic fish and thus, the essential focus of
12
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
our project. The most critical issues are the size of the sensor, the dissipation of heat and the
decoding of the data.
The graphical user interface (GUI), digital signal controller, and circuit board must be
updated:
The risk involved around this specific design specification is moderate because it all previous
coding was done in C#. The team must modify the original code according to the design
parameters and the features surrounding the project.
The robotic fish should be equipped with wireless feedback controls:
The wireless feedback control is a moderate risk because the directional movement of the fish must
be known at all times and corrected immediately to ensure the fish is moving in the correct and
intended direction always.
The robotic fish must be interfaced with a sensor that can detect approaching objects:
The risk involved in incorporating the IR sensor or whiskers is low. The group does not anticipate
any problems in this area.
The robotic fish should have a versatile packaging scheme and body shape:
The fish needs to have a water tight packaging scheme which must enclose the PCB, the battery
pack, and the servos and enclose it completely so it is water proof. The body shape also has to be
designed to integrate everything so that it operates as expected. Considering all these factors of
size, waterproofing and overheating, the team believes this area will be a high risk.
The robotic fish should be capable of swimming 1.5 cm/s or faster:
The sponsors have informed the team that speed is not a huge factor it is, therefore, projected to be
a low risk.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the following sections, the technical tasks to be completed by each member of the group are
explained.
Carl will be fulfilling two main duties, along with several other ME group tasks, which include
building the body, WTC, and in-water testing. The first main duty will be to mediate between the EE
and ME members of the group by explaining technical ideas when necessary and helping in the design
of both the mechanical and electrical aspects of the project. The latter includes, but is not limited to,
aiding in the programming of the GUI, design and construction of the PCB, CAD modeling of the
body design, and . Carl’s second main duty will be the integration of the electrical components into the
final body. This entails organizing the electrical components and constructing a water-tight
compartment (WTC) that will enclose said components. In addition, once the WTC has been
constructed and the electrical components installed, he will dry-test everything prior to installation into
the body, ensuring that all the electrical and mechanical components are working and operating in
concert as desired. After the dry-test and any required debugging, he will install the WTC into the
body and test again to make sure that everything works correctly within the body. Once installed and
working correctly, in-water testing will be conducted and the results will be shown to the professional
and faculty advisors who will give feedback on the prototype and decide if any changes need to be
made.
Eric will be taking measurements of the physical parameters of the packaging.
The parts will be modeled using NX modeling software, and built by using the tools in the Machine
Shop. The physical materials required consist mainly of aluminum sheets and an aluminum can. This
process will begin in the middle of March, and the preliminary phase should last about two weeks.
After each optimization phase, necessary changes will be made to the models and to the physical
casing. This should last for the remainder of the project period, until a final product is made.
Allen Eyler will work on the CAD modeling (In UGS NX and in Ansys) and fluid simulation
(in FLUENT) of the robotic fish in order to optimize the design. Once this design has been finalized,
13
he will assist with the manufacturing of the fish. After manufacturing, he will participate in the testing
and troubleshooting of the final product.
Woodard and Jamie are responsible for the PCB design. Currently they have the wireless base
station populated and ready for use. Also, they have the up to date photos for the existing controller
PCB, as well as, the parts list required to assemble the PCB for the specific project. Woodard and
Jamie have the Gerber files that give us the particulars of the PCB. However from the files obtained,
there are some discrepancies between the photos and the Gerber files. In an effort to proceed
accordingly, Dr. Tan's graduate assistant, Freddie Alequin, has been contacted to clarify and provide
proper documentation of the differences between the photos and Gerber files. The digital signal
controllers (DSC) have been ordered. Next, Jamie and Woodard will deliver a sufficient PCB design
layout for each component of the project. When this task is complete, they will know the appropriate
size the PCB and the design can be completed and sent out for manufacturing. When the PCB is
returned the parts can be soldered on the board. Testing will be done to ensure the board is working
correctly and this will conclude the main deliverables for this section.
Taha Tareen and Stephen Garrett will be responsible for the coding of the DSC to be used in
the project. The timeline for the deliverables for the whole programming will take about 15 days. The
tasks are going to be divided in writing the lines of code for all our inputs and outputs. The inputs
include the temperature sensor, battery indicator, whisker sensor, HAB sensor, microphone module,
digital compass, In-circuit serial programmer (ICSP) and the wireless module. The outputs peripheral
connections to the DSC will be going to the in-circuit serial programmer, wireless module, the actuator
module and the compass. The outputs to the ICSP are needed to reprogram the DSC in case of some
unexpected bug errors or simply for updating purposes. The output connection to the buzzer is also
very important for the ranging purposes of the fish and to the actuator module for the movement of the
fish as well. To code all these inputs/outputs this timeline will be divided to about 2 days per
input/output.
Robert will be filling several roles in this project. These are research of: design, and analysis of
the body and fin shape, particularly concerning the area of hydrodynamics, as well as the construction
and testing of the fish body. The first of these roles, the research of the body and fin shapes, involves
researching previous robotic fish, particularly with regards to body decisions, as well as studies on the
efficiency and thrust of various fin shapes. From this research, Robert will design a body shape to be
optimized with regards to several hydrodynamic properties, primarily drag, as well as component
fitting. To optimize the design, the computer analysis program FLUENT will be utilized to analyze
potential designs and the results will be used to determine the optimal design. If time allows, the
HEEDS optimizer may be used to assist in the creation of the body shape. Once the most promising
designs have been designed, initial body shape testing will be performed to verify the results from the
computer analysis programs. Once this initial design work is completed, Robert will assist the other
group members in the construction of the robotic fish. Finally, Robert will assist in the testing of
various aspects of the robotic fish.
The proposed schedule identifies a feasible timeline for the completion of the project and all
required deliverables. Also, because two distinct disciplines of engineering are collaborating to bring
the robotic fish into reality, there exists a sub-schedule for each group. While still operating as one
team and sharing ideas, the electrical engineers follow an electrical construction schedule while the
mechanical engineers follow a mechanical construction schedule. This way, both components of the
device can be constructed simultaneously and then combined to assemble the complete prototype. The
project is scheduled for completion in early April.
14
A summary of the schedule is as follows:
Completion Date
Pre-proposal
2/06/2009
Proposal
2/20/2009
Oral proposal presentation
2/23/2009
Electrical construction
3/16/2009
-circuit assembly
Student Technical Lecture
3/20/2009
Demonstration #1
3/20/2009
Mechanical construction
3/24/2009
-casting assembly
Electromechanical Integration
4/7/2009
Demonstration #2
4/10/2009
Final Report
4/29/2009
Final Demonstration
5/1/2009
Attached is the full schedule (Gantt chart) viewable in Microsoft Project.
BUDGET:
The price and quantities for all required purchases are listed below in Table 10. The items
listed with a $0.00 cost were recently given to us so no longer require purchase. The largest purchase
was the Turner Electric HAB sensor, Cyclops 7. The group researched the Cyclops 7 sensor, along
with many other sensors, and through conversations with both the sponsors this sensor was decided
chosen. The solid standard C-7 testing apparatus will allow us to test the sensor (once integrated)
without placing the sensor in the water. This will prove to be useful as the group nears the end of the
project for testing and debugging. Other than these major purchases all purchases are standard PCB
components for the controller PCB inside the fish.
Table 10. Price List
Manufacturer
Sipex
E-Switch
Analog Devices
Tyco Electronics Amp
Lumex Opto
Digi International/Maxstream
Fairchild Semiconductors
Ohmite
Susumu Co Ltd
Tyco Electronics Amp
Tyco Electronics Alcoswitch
Norcomp Inc.
Linx Technologies
Maxstream
Nichicon
Susumu Co Ltd
Susumu Co Ltd
Susumu Co Ltd
Susumu Co Ltd
Susumu Co Ltd
Susumu Co Ltd
Susumu Co Ltd
Panasonic-ECG
Panasonic-ECG
Panasonic-ECG
Micrel Inc.
National Semiconductor
International Rectifier
Diodes Inc.
Honeywell SSEC
Harwin
Yageo
Murata Electronics N. America
Kemet
Pulse
Taiyo Yden
Microchip
Turner Electric
Turner Electric
Turner Electric
Turner Electric
Total Cost
MFG Part Number
Qty Price/Unit
SP3203EEY-L/TR
1
$0.00
EG1218
1
$0.00
ADP667ANZ
1
$0.00
5520250-3
1
$0.00
SSL-LX5093GD-12V
1
$0.00
XB24-AWI-001
1
$0.00
2N3904BU
1
$0.00
TA205PA1R00JE
2
$2.00
RR1220P-202-D
1
$0.14
640453-6
1
$0.35
MMS42
1
$3.69
25631001RP2
2
$3.07
ANT-2.4-CW-RH
1
$4.74
JF1R6-CR3-4I
1
$5.00
UVR1V470MDD
4
$0.11
RR1220P-471-D
4
$0.14
RR1220Q-560-D
1
$0.14
RR1220P-683-D
3
$0.14
RR1220P-393-D
3
$0.14
RR1220P-223-D
1
$0.14
RR1220P-101-D
2
$0.14
RR1220P-102-D
5
$0.14
ECH-U1C103GX5
6
$0.35
ERJ-6GEYJ915V
1
$0.08
ERJ-6GEYJ515V
1
$0.08
MIC29300-3.3WU
1
$5.45
LM62CIM3
1
$0.98
IRF7307TRPBF
2
$1.18
1N5817-T
1
$0.42
HMC6352
1
$30.00
M22-7140642
1
$1.38
9C08052A1002FKHFT
4
$0.01
GRM21BF51C106ZE15L
5
$0.25
B45197A3336K309
2
$0.72
P1167.563NLT
1
$1.44
LMK212SD104KG-T
3
$0.48
DSPIC30F4013
4
$8.83
2100-000-C
1 $1,768.00
2100-750
1
$75.00
2100-900
1
$349.00
Warranty
1
$150.00
Total
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4.00
$0.14
$0.35
$3.69
$6.14
$4.74
$5.00
$0.44
$0.56
$0.14
$0.42
$0.42
$0.14
$0.28
$0.70
$2.10
$0.08
$0.08
$5.45
$0.98
$2.36
$0.42
$30.00
$1.38
$0.04
$1.25
$1.44
$1.44
$1.44
$35.32
$1,768.00
$75.00
$349.00
$150.00
$2,452.94
Circuit
Base Station
Base Station
Base Station
Base Station
Base Station
Base Station
Base Station
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Item Description
Serial Transceiver with Logic Selector 3V RS 232
Switch Slide SPDT 30V 0.2A PC MNT
IC REG LDO 5V or ADJ LIN 8-DIP
Connector Mod Jack 6-6 R/A PCB 50AU
LED 5MM 12V Green Diffused
Module Zigbee 1MW w/wire ant
NPN Transistor 200mA
Res Thick film power 1.0 Power
RES 2.0K OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
CONN HEADER RTANG 6POS .100 TIN
SWITCH SLIDE 4PDT 2POS MMS SER
CONN RCPT 2MM VERT SGL ROW 10POS
ANTENNA 2.45GHZ 1/4 WAVE RP/SMA
2.4Ghz 2.4Ghz ant U.FL fem to RPSMA fem cable
CAP 47UF 35V ELECT VR RADIAL
RES 470 OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
RES 56 OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
RES 68.0K OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
RES 39.0K OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
RES 22.0K OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
RES 100 OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
RES 1.0K OHM 1/10W .5% 0805 SMD
CAP .01UF 16V PPS FILM 0805 2%
RESISTOR 9.1M OHM 1/8W 5% 0805
RES 5.1M OHM 1/8W 5% 0805 SMD
IC REG LDO 3A 3.3V TO263
IC TEMPERATURE SENSOR SOT-23
MOSFET N+P 20V 4.3A 8-SOIC
DIODE SCHOTTKY 20V 1A DO-41
MODULE COMPASS DGTL 2AXIS 24PLCC
2x6 Switch Socket
Resistor 10k ohm 1/8W 5% 0805
Ceramic Capacitor 10uF 16V Y5V 0805
Capacitor Tantalum 33uF 16V 10% Low ESR
INDUCTOR PWR SHIELDED 42UH SMD
CAP CER .10UF 10V 0805 LOW DIST
DSC Microcontroller
HAB Sensor Cyclops 7
Hab Sensor Cord
Solid Standar C-7 Testing Apparatus
Sensor Warranty
15