team p14029: mckibben muscle robotic fishedge.rit.edu/edge/p14029/public/sdr...

Project Manager: Zachary Novak Mechanical Design Lead: John Chiu Lead Engineer: Seaver Wrisley Controls and Instrumentation Lead: Felix Liu

Team P14029: McKibben Muscle Robotic Fish

AGENDA •  Project Background

•  Problem Statement •  Deliverables •  Market Evaluation •  Customer Requirements and

Constraints •  Engineering Specifications with

House of Quality

•  System Analysis and Concept Generation

•  Functional Decomposition •  Morphological Analysis

•  Concept Development

•  Existing Solutions •  Alternatives Considered

•  Body Styles •  Pressurization Systems •  Communication methods

•  Pugh Analysis •  Selected Concept •  Projected Budget •  System Architecture

•  Project Planning

•  Engineering Analysis Needed •  Test Plan Outline •  Risk Assessment •  Scheduling

PROJECT BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

This project is designed to prove the feasibility of McKibben muscles for use in underwater robotic applications, and to develop core technology and a platform for other teams to use in the future.

The project specifically seeks to develop a soft-bodied pneumatic fish that looks, moves, and feels like a fish. The robotic fish should be capable of swimming forward, backward, and turning, most likely using Body Caudal Fin propulsion, and the primary mechanism for generating the swimming motion must be McKibben muscles.

DELIVERABLES

•  A functional prototype which meets all customer requirements, and that may be used as a platform to be expanded upon by future MSD teams

•  Detailed documentation covering project design, testing, and fabrication

•  Appropriate test data ensuring all customer needs are met

•  Detailed user manuals for operation and troubleshooting

•  Suggestions for future expansion

MARKET NICHE •  Government

•  NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) •  Total 2014 Budget: 5.4 Billion

•  Survey and Monitoring Projects: 24.8 Million •  Ocean Exploration and Research: 29.1 Million

•  Private Fields

•  Offshore Drilling Market •  Projected 2018 Value: 121 Billion •  Predicted to spend 640 Billion this year just to find oil •  Case Study: Oceaneering International Inc. (OII)

•  90% of 1.97 Billion revenue from oil & natural gas sector •  Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) account for 630 Million

•  Underwater tasks: drill support, installation/construction support, pipeline inspection, surveys and subsea production facility operation and maintenance

CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

Project Category Customer Need # Customer Need Description Importance

CN1.1 Swims straight forward 9CN1.2 Swims straight back (not important if it can turn sharply enough) 1CN1.3 Turns 6CN1.4 Uses body caudal motion 1

CN1.5 Can swim in a three foot deep tank 9

CN1.6 Is submersible 9

CN2.1 Moves like a fish 9

CN2.2 Looks like a fish 9

CN2.3 Feels like a fish 3

CN2.4 Soft body, at least around joints 3

CN3.1 Uses McKibben muscles (constraint) 9

CN3.2 Uses water, air, or CO2 as working fluid (constraint) 3

CN3.3 Robust platform (can be built onto and used repeatedly) 3

CN4.1 Skin material is soft 1

CN4.2 Materials are corrosion resistant 1

CN5.1 Remote controlable or programmable (constraint) 9CN5.3 Fish is safe to operate and handle 9

Cost CN6.1 Budget negotiable, keep cost low and reuse old components 3

CN7.1 Documentation of all analyses 9CN7.2 Bill of materials 9CN7.3 Detailed instruction manual 9CN7.4 Publishability of results 1

User InteractionRobo

tic Fish

Pow

ered by McKibben Muscle

sCustomer Needs

Swimming abilities

Aesthetics

Desired

Metho

ds

Materials

Document-‐a

tion

CONSTRAINTS

Constraint # Constraint Description

C1 Uses McKibben muscle actuation

C2 Uses air or water as a working fluidC3 Remotely controllable or programmable

Constraints

ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS Selected engineering specifications •  Maximum turning radius: Two body lengths •  Maximum height: 3 feet

•  Operation time: 1 hour

•  Corrosion spec: ASTM 610

•  Safety

•  Maximum voltage present: 24V DC •  Maximum allowable pressure: 70psi •  Maximum pinching force in joints: 10lbs

•  Body and fin motions: 30% tolerance to published values (next slide)

FISH MOTION PARAMETERS

SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND

CONCEPT GENERATION

FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS (1 OF 2)

Communication

Wireless Option w/ Buoy

Soft Robotic Air Muscle

Tethered Option w/ Spooled CableWireless Option

DC Motor

Harp Type Manta Ray

McKibben Muscle w/ Pulleys McKibben Muscle w/ Linages

Body Caudal Fin Motion (Oscillation) Median Paired Fin Motion

Syringe Pump DC Pump

CO2

Eel

Body Caudal Fin Motion (Undulation)

Remote Controlled

Transmit Commands

Radiowaves Telepathic

Onboard Minions

McKibben Muscle w/ Flexible Membrane

Locomotion Mechanism

Fish Type

Locomotion Type

Process Commands

Arduino Self Controlled Labview w/ User Interface

Actuation Source

Chemical Reaction

Actuation Method

Servos Cams Rack and Pinion Solenoid Valve Block

Power Source

Battery Wall Plug Solar Wind

Bluetooth Sonar/Voice Commands

Actuation Fluids

Water Air

Membrane / Skin Materials and Methods

Paper Mache Plastic Soft Polymer Skin Fiberglass

Cables

Screenprinted

Turning Mechanism

Body as Rudder Independed Paired Fin Control Bias Weight and Carve Side-‐Mount Thrusters (Water, Air, Prop, etc.)

Stamped Texture (Scales etc.) Painted Features

Body Structure

Mesh Cage Molded Plastic Formed Metal Cast Iron Fiberglass Universal Joints

Remote Controlled

Transmit Commands

Radiowaves Telepathic

Onboard Minions

Process Commands

Arduino Self Controlled Labview w/ User Interface

Plastic Soft Polymer Skin Fiberglass

Chemical Reaction

Power Source

Battery Wall Plug Solar Wind

Bluetooth Sonar/Voice Commands

Actuation Fluids

Water Air CO2

Air Bladder

Depth & Orientation Control

Low Center of Gravity (Keel) Extended Stabilization Supports Well Balanced Design

Cables

ScreenprintedStamped Texture (Scales etc.) Painted Features

Body Structure

Mesh Cage Molded Plastic Formed Metal Cast Iron Fiberglass Universal Joints

Membrane / Skin Materials and Methods

Paper Mache

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS (2 OF 2)

•  Morph Chart on Edge

CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

EXISTING SOLUTIONS

BEST CURRENT BIOMIMETIC FISH

Due to the innovative nature of this project, there isn’t anything currently on the market to directly compare to. However, University of Essex successfully constructed an excellent biomimetic fish utilizing servomotors in place of air-muscles.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED •  Communication Methods •  Body Styles •  Pressurization Systems

COMMUNICATION METHODS

Tethered to floating platform

Tethered to outside of tank

Unt

ethe

red Pros: Wow factor, no cables to get

in the way, lifelike appearance Cons: More complex, need to accommodate onboard power and fluid, no real-time control

Teth

ered

to

Buo

y

Pros: More robust communication, can put water-sensitive equipment on buoy, possible real time control Cons: Tether might impede motion, less lifelike appearance

Teth

ered

to

Out

side

of T

ank Pros: Most robust communication,

less spatial concerns, more power and working fluid supply options, possible real time control Cons: Least aesthetically appealing, tether may affect maneuverability

BODY STYLES

EEL Many joints would be needed to create smooth undulatory motion. Pros: •  Increased maneuverability •  Potential for increased speed •  Tighter turning radius with

proper sequencing Cons: •  Much more complex; more

muscles and higher cost •  Higher potential for

catastrophic failure

MANTA RAY System of flexible ribs,

cables, and McKibben muscles used for propulsion. Pros:

•  McKibben muscles can be used quite easily

Cons:

•  Uncertainties around maintaining proper orientation.

SALMONOID Body consisting of 3 sections with 2 joints. Pros:

•  Fewer muscles, easier to implement and control

•  Less probability of failure

Cons: •  Concerns about turning

radius with only 2 joints

PRESSURIZATION SYSTEMS

PADDLE WHEEL Rotate paddle wheel via McKibben muscles and linkage system Pros:

•  Easy to implement, would facilitate easy reverse motion

Cons:

•  Issues with non-lifelike motion •  Difficulty turning

•  Doesn’t use muscles in manner that customer desires

SYRINGE PUMP System with microprocessor controlled servos, actuating pairs of syringe pumps in unison Pros: •  Balanced lifelike motion at joint

•  Precise control via servo

•  Possibility for autonomous behavior

Cons:

•  Separate servo and pump pair needed for each muscle pair

•  Cost and size concerns

•  Limited linear actuation

CENTRIFUGAL PUMP Pressure provided by centrifugal pump, distributed to muscles by microprocessor controlled solenoid manifold Pros:

•  Individual muscle control

•  Potential for autonomous untethered operation

•  Can add additional actuation circuits

Cons:

•  Size/weight concerns •  Binary nature (off/on) may lead to actuation

speeds that are less than lifelike

•  3.6A at 24V DC at full flow; can run for over 1 hour with current batteries

Evaluation criteria Manta Ray Design

Padd

le-‐w

heel design

Untethered salmon

Essex fish

Untethered eel

Tether required? Yes s s + + +Cost Good + -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐Space required Good s -‐ -‐ s -‐Communication robustness Good s s -‐ s +Waterproofing importance Low s s -‐ -‐ -‐Speed Poor s s + + +Muscle delay time Medium -‐ -‐ s + sRealtime control Yes s -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐Premade programs Yes s s s s sEffective turning Medium + + + + sFish-‐like look and feel Medium -‐ -‐ + + -‐Depth control Poor -‐ -‐ + + +Maintaining orientation Poor -‐ -‐ + + -‐Uses McKibben muscles Yes s s s -‐ sNumber of actuators required High + + s + -‐Safe Medium s -‐ + + +Feasibility for 2 semesters Yes s s -‐ -‐ -‐User friendly control Low s s + + s

+ 3 2 8 10 5s 11 8 4 3 5-‐ 4 8 6 5 8

Tethered sa

lmon

DATUM

PUGH ANALYSIS (1 OF 2)

•  Essex fish was the best available concept •  Does not meet the requirement of using McKibben muscles!

•  Untethered salmon was best concept

PUGH ANALYSIS (2 OF 2)

Essex fish

Manta Ray Design

Padd

le-‐w

heel design

Untethered salmon

Tethered sa

lmon

Untethered eel

Datum -‐1 -‐4 0 -‐2 -‐25 -‐1 -‐6 2 Datum -‐3-‐-‐ 3rd 5th 1st 2nd 4th

+'s minus -‐'s

Best to worst

COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED FURTHER

Feature Concept 1 Concept 2

Body Style Salmonoid Salmonoid

Propulsion System Centrifugal Pump Syringe Pump

Communication Interface

Untethered Untethered

• Required feasibility analysis to decide between the two concepts

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS •  Had to perform feasibility analysis to

decide between the two concepts •  Did volume calculations in order

estimate volumetric flow rate •  Assumed that ~20psi was enough to

actuate muscles, as fast jerky actuation is undesired

0.753.001.33

1.252.402.951.62

224

6.480.028

0.51940.84

Cycles per secondFlow (in^3/min)Flow (gal/min)

Initial diameter (in)Initial length (in)

Initial volume (in^3)

Final diameterFinal lengthFinal volume

Volume change (in^3)

Volume per cycle (in^3)Volume per cycle (gal)

Per individual muscle

Muscles per joint# of joints

# of muscles

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS – COSTING •  Preliminary costing for pump and solenoid pressurization

option was $232 •  Preliminary costing for syringe pump pressurization

system was $208, assuming no additional linkage is required

SELECTED CONCEPT: #1

(Untethered)

TENTATIVE PROJECT BUDGET

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

Detailed System Architecture (too large to show here)

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REQUIRED •  Feasibility analysis was a subset of the total engineering

analysis required •  Flow chart was created to show how parameters relate

into component sizing •  Illustrates relationships between calculated variables,

inputs, and outputs •  File displayed on Edge

TEST PLAN OUTLINE •  Salt Spray/Fog Test (ASTM B117-11) •  Motion Analysis •  Student Poll of “fishiness” aesthetics

•  Turning Radius Measurement (Ensure R<2L)

•  Waterproofing test (IP68)

•  Buoyancy Test (ρave ≈ 1000 kg/m3)

RISK ASSESSMENT SCALE

1This cause is unlikely to happen

1

The impact on the project is very minor. We will still meet needs on time within budget, but it will cause extra work

2

This cause could conceivably happen

2

The impact on the project is noticeable. We will deliver reduced functionality, go over budget or fail to meet some of our Engineering Specifications

3This cause is very likely to happen

3

The impact on the project is severe. We will not be able to deliver anything, or what we deliver will not meet the customer's needs

Severity ScaleLikelihood Scale

RISK ASSESSMENT (1 OF 3)

ID Risk Item Effect Cause

Like

lihoo

d

Seve

rity

Impo

rtanc

e

Action to Minimize Risk Owner

Describe the risk brieflyWhat is the effect on any or all of the project deliverables if the cause actually happens?

What are the possib le cause(s) of this risk?

L*SWhat action(s) will you take (and by when) to prevent, reduce the impact of, or transfer the risk of this occurring?

Who is responsib le for following through on mitigation?

1 Does not move like a fishWe would fail to meet a very important design requirement

The design of the fish could not accurately mimic a fish

3 3 9

We need to look heavily into the literature to find good models that can aid in designing a fish that can mimic realistic motion

Mechanical Engineer

2 Project Scope too large Project not completed on time Poorly defined project limits

2 3 6Project scope will be assessed by our guide and the customer on a weekly bases

Mechanical Engineer

3 Power Source becomes faultyPrevents the system to operate

Possible faults in the waterproofing, power surge, etc.

2 3 6Make sure that the waterproofing is checked upon usage or after reassembly.

Mechanical Engineer

4 Faulty waterprooging Damage onboard electronics.Not properly sealed electronics compartment 2 3 6

Make a procedural list when opening and closing the cabin to make sure that all sealed components are reassembled correctly.

Mechanical Engineer

5 Materials arrive late

This would push back deadlines and possibly hinder our means to achieve deadlines.

Ordered parts are done last moment or it took too long to get a list of parts to order

2 3 6

If we are to build something or require something to be ordered, allow at minimum of 2 weeks or ship time before anything is due.

Mechanical Engineer

6 Program of the fish does not work as planned

The fish will not perform our intended actions

Too many bugs in the program

2 3 6Leave plenty of time to program and testing to eliminate bugs in the system/program.

Mechanical Engineer

7The fish is too heavy or light and the bouyancy controls cannot compensate for it.

The fish will sink and cause a redesign

Utilizing too much material without calculating the end weight in the design process

2 3 6

Keep lighter materials in mind during the design process and use a CAD program to calculate the mass of the fish.

Mechanical Engineer

8Team members don't contribute equally Fall off of pace

Other obligations, lack of time, etc. 2 3 6

Make sure that work is distributed equally Mechanical Engineer

9 Doesn't feel like a fish Doesn't meet one of the customer requirements

Improper texture or hardness of outer fish casing

3 2 6Have other materials to make outer casing from

Mechanical Engineer

10 Doesn't turn within two body lengths

Doesn't meet one of the customer requirements

Poor turning efficiency/speed, inability to change thrust vector

3 2 6 Proper simulation and testing Mechanical Engineer



Like

lihoo

d

Seve

rity

Impo

rtanc

e






11 Our project goes over budgetCannot complete the project's scope

Utilizing expensive parts or too many of them 2 2 4

Create each system with the most optimal cost to effect Mechanical Engineer

12 Poor orientation control Fish sits sideways, swims ineffectively

Our active/passive stablization becomes faulty or broken

2 2 4

We could make sure that the fish has a low center of gravity to aid in keeping the upright position. Leave enough time to test whatever stablizations we add to the fish.

Mechanical Engineer

13 Muscles tear off of mounting Specific joint doesn't actuate

Improperly constructed muscle mount fixtures, loose mounting hardware, excessive pressure spikes

2 2 4Ensure muscles are attached securely

Mechanical Engineer

14 Fish fails corrosion testFish rusts, degrades appearance and motion at joints

Poor material selection, waterproofing techniques

2 2 4Use corrosion resistance materials, this conflicts with budget

Mechanical Engineer

15Motors or pumps deadhead and are damaged Motors or pumps burn out

Insufficient flow rates and/or cooling and/or too extreme conditions

2 2 4

Shut off pumps when pressure is adequate instead of continuous operation; possibly use variable speed components

Mechanical Engineer

16Chosen materials/designs do not stand up to the rigors of testing/perfoming

The fish will break and cause a redesign.

Not enough analysis of the system's structure. 1 3 3

Make sure to analyize the structural components to accommodate the forces experienced. Have simulations to confirm our analysis.

Mechanical Engineer

17 Losing a team member Less manpowerLiving in parents basement beats MSD 1 3 3 Make MSD fun Mechanical Engineer

18 Electrocution hazard Safety hazard Exposed voltage 1 3 3Minimize voltage present and isolate electrical system Mechanical Engineer

19 Components don't all fit within the fish body

Redesign of fish bodyNot knowing the space required before building the body

1 3 3Determine space required for components before designing body

Mechanical Engineer

20 Parts are damaged during buildHave to buy more parts; hurts budget and schedule Mishandling 1 2 2

Careful handling; buying durable components Mechanical Engineer

21 Incorrect voltage supplied by battery for the components

Need another or different battery

Improper battery and pump or motor combinations purchased

1 2 2Make sure components are compatible (and interchangeable) prior to purchase

Mechanical Engineer

22Microcontroller doesn't have enough capability to run fish adequately

Need to purchase another microcontroller

Not enough prior analysis to ensure microcontroller has sufficient capabilities

1 2 2Determine size and capabilities required of the microcontroller prior to purchase

Mechanical Engineer



Like

lihoo

d

Seve

rity

Impo

rtanc

e






23 Actuation fluid leaksCauses a loss of power to the system preventing intended purpose

A rupture in the fluid membrane or faulty seals. 2 1 2

Make sure we know the pressure limits of the fulid membrane and design in a way that prevents any ruptures. We should also check seals to make sure they are in working order.

Mechanical Engineer

24 The fish cannot swim backwardsFailure to complete a project goal

The backwards motion may be too complicated or difficult to achieve with a give setup

2 1 2

Do research on different types of backwards swimming motion and choose one that is the most feasible to our project.

Mechanical Engineer

SCHEDULE Schedule on Edge

QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? FEEDBACK?

team p14029: mckibben muscle robotic fishedge.rit.edu/edge/p14029/public/sdr...

Documents