Kooler Kart

Mid-Semester PresentationDesign I

October 3, 2013

Team Members

Team Leader: Joseph RatliffObstacle Detection

Subsystem

Ryan Crownover-TrueMotion System

Controls

Michael Tyler RossMotion Detection

System

Robert Lee JonesPower System Design

Team Advisor: Dr. Raymond Winton

Outline» Problem» Solution» System Overview» Constraints• Technical• Practical

» Approach» Progress• Timeline

» Questions

Problemand

Solutions

Problem» Currently, cooler transportation

is:• Time consuming• Cumbersome• Exhausting

» Source: Requirement of human involvement

Solution» The Kooler Kart will reduce the need

for human involvement in a cooler transportation process.

• Hands free

• Designed to be user friendly.

• Incorporates an easy way to charge.

System Overview

Beacon Drive SystemMicrocontroller

Object Detection

Beacon Detection

User

Kooler Kart

DesignConstraints

Technical Constraints

Name DescriptionBeacon and Obstacle Detection Distance

The Kooler Kart must detect a beacon at a distance of 3 meters and ambiguous obstacles at a distance of 1 meter.

Field of Vision The Kooler Kart must be able to detect the beacon and ambiguous objects at a 180 degree field of view from the front of the unit.

Refresh Rate The Kooler Kart must refresh all sensor information in no more than 100ms.

Power Requirements Unit must charge internal batteries via 120VAC power source at 10A or less.

Notifications User must be notified by alarm if beacon is out of range or when the battery reaches 50% or 10% charge.

Practical Constraints

Type Description Definition

Manufacturability

Must hold and transport a standard size cooler and navigate through public places

• Hold the weight of a 25qt cooler (~60lbs loaded)

• Fit through standard doorway (< 30” wide)

Sustainability Battery life must provide for travel to and from a remote event

• 4 hours of movement• 4 miles of distance

Approach

Approach: Sensor Hardware Overview

Transmitter

Receiver

Arduino Due

Type Pros Cons

Ultrasonic • 6m range• Unaffected by light• Affordable <$20 per

sensor

• Affected by servo noise• Unaware of object’s shape

Infrared • Not affected by servo noise

• Affordable <$20 per sensor

• Aware of object’s shape

• 3m range• Cannot be used in sunlight• Extra noise on signal

Approach:Sensor Hardware: Obstacle

Detection

Type Pros Cons

Ultrasonic • 6m range• Unaffected by light• Affordable <$20 per

sensor

• Affected by servo noise• Unaware of object’s shape

Infrared • Not affected by servo noise

• Affordable <$20 per sensor

• Aware of object’s shape

• 3m range• Cannot be used in sunlight• Extra noise on signal

Approach:Sensor Hardware: Obstacle

Detection

Type Pros Cons

Arduino Due

• Some members with experience

• 12V • Community supported

ultrasonic libraries

• Cost: $49• Limited analog outputs• Limited interrupt

capabilities

PIC24H • All members have experience• Cost: $15• Versatile pins and interrupts

• High hardware overhead• 3.3V• Lack of relevant libraries

Approach:Microcontroller

Type Pros Cons

Arduino Due

• Some members with experience

• 12V • Community supported

ultrasonic libraries

• Cost: $49• Limited analog outputs• Limited interrupt

capabilities

PIC24H • All members have experience• Cost: $15• Versatile pins and interrupts

• High hardware overhead• 3.3V• Lack of relevant libraries

Approach:Microcontroller

Approach:Software

Software must control the drive system, object detection, and beacon detection.

Motion Control

Object Detection

Beacon Detection

Simultaneous software development

Approach:Software Block Diagram

Power On Wait for init

Follow enabled?

Beacon detected?

Move towards beacon position

Collision detected?

Move to avoid collision

Alarm

no

no no x 5 sec

no

yes

yes

Approach:Best Case 1

Kooler Kart

User70%

speedNo Collision Objects

Travel Direction

Approach:Best Case 2

Kooler Kart

UserCollisio

n Object

Travel Direction

Approach:Best Case 2

Kooler

Kart

UserCollisio

n Object

Travel Direction

Approach:Best Case 2

Kooler Kart User

Collision

Object

Travel Direction

Approach:Worst Case 1

Kooler Kart

Travel Direction

User100% speed

Approach:Worst Case 1

Kooler Kart

Travel Direction

User100% speed

Collision

Object

Approach:Worst Case 1

Kooler

Kart

Travel Direction

User100% speed

Collision

Object

Out of Range

Approach:Worst Case 2

Kooler Kart

Travel Direction

UserCollisio

n Object

Approach:Worst Case 2

Kool

er

Kart

Travel Direction

User

Collision

Object

Out of Viewing Angle

Prototype Progress

Progress: Frame and Drive System

Progress: Battery System

Timeline» November:˃Week 1:• Hardware Demonstration• Further Testing and Improvements

Task August September

October 1

October 2

November

Project Plan

Hardware Acquisition

Roles Established

Drive System

Beacon

Object Detection

Alarm System

Full Integration

Real Case Testing

References[1] Eric. Infrared vs. Ultrasonic - What you should know. 2008.

Online: http://societyofrobots.com/member_tutorials/node/71

[2] “Arduino Due,” in Arduino. 2013 Oct. 2. Available:http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardDue

[3] “Ultrasonic Module HC-SR04,” in Hobby King. 2013 Oct. 2. Available: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__31136__ultrasonic_module_hc_sr04_arduino.html

Kooler Kart

Mid-Semester PresentationDesign I

October 3, 2013