ANACONDA ANtenna with Autonomous, CONtinuous Data - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

ANACONDAANtenna with Autonomous, CONtinuous Data trAnsferCustomer : RECUV- Dr. Dale LawrenceProject Advisor : Dr. John Farnsworth

Spring Final Review

20 April 2015

1

Mechanical Lead

Gloria Chen

Comms. Lead

Tyler Clayton

Electrical LeadKarsen Donati-Leach

Testing/Safety LeadEmily Eggers

Systems LeadTyler Herrera

Manuf. LeadAdam Kemp

Financial LeadKate Kennedy

Software LeadSarek Lee

Project ManagerKamron MedinaSlide2

AgendaProject Purpose and ObjectivesKate KennedyDesign DescriptionKarsen Donati-Leach and Tyler HerreraTesting OverviewGloria Chen

Testing ResultsTyler ClaytonSystems Engineering

Tyler HerreraProject Management and ConclusionKamron Medina

20 April 2015

2Slide3

Project Purpose and Objectives20 April 20153Slide4

Problem StatementANACONDA seeks to replace the manual monitoring and pointing method of tracking a UAV, which RECUV (Research and Engineering Center for Unmanned Vehicles) currently relies on. It will also maintain communication when a UAV passes out of the visual range of the ground station. 20 April 20154

Requirement

Description

FNC.1

ANACONDA

will provide a

900 MHz link between the UAV and Ground Station, and will operate independently from the ground station through GPS data parsing and Wi-Fi communication. The link will be maintained up to 30 km.FNC.2The ANACONDA system will be operable in up to 15 m/s winds and survivable up to

30 m/s and will be weatherproof up to IP53 against water and dust.FNC.3ANACONDA will attempt to reacquire a tracking lock after 20 seconds of lost signal.Slide5

5Telemetry, Scientific DataConOps20 April 2015

RECUV Aircraft (acquired)

Radio (900 MHz; 10 kbits/s)

≤ 45 m/s

(ground speed)

30 km

Slant Range

RECUV Ground Station (acquired)Wi-Fi10 m range

+ 90° to -30° ElevationTelemetry, Scientific DataANACONDAProject Aircraft Commands

Aircraft CommandsCommunications SystemSupport Structure

Guy WiresContinuous360° AzimuthSlide6

6Telemetry, Scientific DataConOps20 April 2015

RECUV Aircraft (acquired)

Radio (900 MHz; 10 kbits/s)

≤ 45 m/s

(ground speed)

30 km

Slant Range

RECUV Ground Station (acquired)Wi-Fi10 m range

+ 90° to -30° ElevationTelemetry, Scientific DataANACONDAProject Aircraft Commands

Aircraft CommandsCommunications SystemSupport Structure

Guy WiresContinuous360° Azimuth

Components focused in this presentationAntennaMotor and motor controllersSlide7

Functional Block Diagram20 April 20157

RECUV Aircraft (acquired)

ANACONDA Communication and Tracking System

CUPIC (acquired)

Pointing Algorithm

Motor

Controller/Driver (x2)

GPSParsingTracking Data (GPS)Desired Azimuth/Elevation angles(0.33 Hz)

Patch AntennaHLCMD (1-20 Hz)RECUV Ground Station (acquired)

XBee WiFiHLCMDHLCMD

Support Structure (Mast and base)Mechanical Interface (pinned together)

Motors(x2)Voltage12 VXBee Radio900 MHz

HLCMDGimbal MovementMission Data (

MD) at 1-20 Hz(GPS, Flight Status, Scientific Data)High Level Commands (HLC)(new waypoints, locations)Radio Comm

Wired CommWi-FiMechanical InterfaceMD Mission DataHLC High Level CommandsSlide8

ConOps 2GPS signals provide only location, not orientation.Establish two points provides a relative vectorAntenna must be “locked on” to UAV to use the absloute guidance method of GPS parsingImplies we need to know where the antenna is pointing, not just where it isCalibration steps orient the antenna so it is known where it is pointing.20 April 20158Slide9

9

Up

North

Center of Earth

GPS Position

ANACONDA Position VectorUAV Position VectorRelative VectorSlide10

10Ψ = Angle Between Relative and Boresight

θ

North

East

Up

ψ

Up

North Center of EarthGPS Positionϕ

= Elevation Angleθ = Azimuth AngleBoresight VectorRelative VectorUAVAngle Between UAV and Boresight

Elevation AngleThree Angles of Concern:Azimuth AngleFor calibration, need to relate Boresight and Relative vectors to known angular positions.ϕANA FRAMEDuring operation, motors drive ψ to 0°, maintains a “lock” by aligning Boresight with Relative VectorSlide11

11Ψ = Angle Between Relative and Boresight

θ

North

East

Up

ψ

Up

North Center of EarthGPS Positionϕ

= Elevation Angleθ = Azimuth AngleBoresight VectorRelative VectorUAVAngle Between UAV and Boresight

Elevation AngleThree Angles of Concern:Laser point tells operator where to place UAV during calibration

Azimuth AngleLaser fixed to gimbal, cannot rotate azimuthally relative to the antenna.This aligns Boresight in the Azimuthal Directionϕ

= 0° Slide12

12Ψ = Angle Between Relative and Boresight

θ

North

East

Up

ψ

Up

North Center of EarthGPS Positionϕ = Elevation Angleθ = Azimuth Angle

Boresight VectorRelative VectorUAVAngle Between UAV and BoresightElevation AngleThree Angles of Concern:

Laser point tells operator where to place UAV during calibration

Azimuth Angleϕ

Antenna forced to 0° position using mechanical stops.0° = 0° 

EastNorthSlide13

13Ψ = Angle Between Relative and Boresight

θ

North

East

Up

ψ

Up

North Center of EarthGPS Positionϕ = Elevation Angle

θ = Azimuth AngleBoresight VectorRelative VectorUAVAngle Between UAV and BoresightElevation Angle

Three Angles of Concern:Laser point tells operator where to place UAV during calibration

Azimuth Angleϕ

Antenna forced to 0° position using mechanical stops. = ϕ   = 0° 

0°Relative vector’s angles in the WGS-84 frame provide pointing angles.  Pointing Angles Aligned:

This aligns Boresight in Elevation direction with the North – East PlaneSlide14

Levels of Success20 April 201514Level 1

Communicate with Ground Station through Wi-FiAutonomous track and communicate with UAV at 900MHz

Level 2Level 1 CriteriaTrack UAV traveling 45 m/s ground speed in sphere of influence

Data transfer rate of 10kbit/s.

Level 3Level 2 Criteria

Active signal reacquisition after 20 seconds of communication lossWithstand winds up to 30 m/s Dust and precipitation, IP-53

Level 4Level 3 CriteriaCan be assembled in less then 10 minutes by a single person.Gimbal storage of 1 cubic footMinimumMaximum

CompleteProjected to be completeIncompleteAntenna Beam Width Characterization TestControls Test

Tracking TestMechanical Loading TestTests to be DiscussedSlide15

System Set-up20 April 201515

2

Assemble poles and

comms

system to create antenna mast.

Make sure to feed power wire through each mast section.

3

Attach all guy wires and stake first and second guys.1Stake base to ground (2 stakes)PinsSlide16

System Set-up20 April 201516

4

Power on the System

+ -

12 V Car Battery

5

ANACONDA initializes peripheralsSlide17

20 April 201517

6

Push mast to vertical position.

System Set-up

7

Stake in final guy wire.

5m

Hold UAV next to mast for GPS calibration

8Slide18

System Startup20 April 201518

+ -

12 V Car Battery

9

User places UAV in position over designated location

10

UAV transmits its location, establishing ANACONDA orientationSlide19

System Startup20 April 201519

12

Launch UAV.

+ -

12 V Car Battery

11

Track is now establishedSlide20

Critical Project ElementsCPE.1.1 Develop algorithms that track the UAV within a 30 km sphere of influence and attempt to reacquire communications with the UAV if communications are lost.

CPE.1.2 Provide a communications link between UAV and ground station via 900 MHz radio

to the UAV and Wi-Fi to the ground station.CPE.1.3 Provide supporting hardware that moves the antenna quickly enough to

track a UAV flying at 45 m/s, and allows the antenna to be mounted 5 m above the ground.

20 April 2015

20Slide21

Critical Project ElementsCPE.1.1 Develop algorithms that track the UAV within a 30 km sphere of influence and attempt to reacquire communications with the UAV if communications are lost.

30 km sphere of influence depends on antenna beam patternHad some trouble verifying antenna beam pattern and -3dB beam widthNot enough time to implement reacquisition algorithm

20 April 2015

21Slide22

Critical Project ElementsCPE.1.3 Provide supporting hardware that moves the antenna quickly enough to track a UAV flying at 45 m/s, and allows the antenna to be mounted 5 m above the ground.Depends on antenna beam width, controls and gimbal responseInitiation of motor response delayed by latency in motor controllers

Response times are not fast enough to track a UAV at 45 m/s for an overhead flyby.

20 April 2015

22Slide23

Design Description20 April 201523Slide24

Mechanical Overview20 April 201524

Guy Wires

+ -Battery

1 m

1 m

1 m

1 m

1 m

12V BatteryGimbalMast

Ribbed aluminum mastFive 1m sections 3 guy wires staked into the ground.2 stakes at base to prevent rotation.

Rotating electrical connector in gimbal mount for continuous azimuthal rotation.Rotating ElectricalConnector10”Rotational

Prevention StakeMain StakeSlide25

Mechanical Overview20 April 201525

Custom gimbal

with aluminum frame and 2 DoF.

Range of motion:

360° azimuthal

0-90°

elevation60° half power beam width of antenna allows for coverage of -30° elevation.Rotational AxisGearRatioTotal ReductionAzimuthBevel Gear3:1198:1ElevationWorm Gear10:1270:1Slide26

Mechanical Overview20 April 201526

Gimbal fits in 12.5”x12”x12” storage volume.

5mW Laser allows for azimuthal calibration

Azimuth Rotation Direction

Elevation Rotation Direction

Maxon

brushed DC motors & planetary gearheads allow for track in most difficult casesElectronics located near antenna to reduce cable losses- GPS parsing, commands, Wi-Fi

Thrust bearing and rotating electrical connector allow for continuous azimuthal rotationWorm gear is non-back drivable, reducing power use when not moving900 MHz,10 dBi Patch antenna gives beam width and range needed to fulfill requirementsSlide27

Electrical Functional Block Diagram20 April 201527

XBee WiFi

RadioXBee RF Radio

Microcontroller(CUPIC)

UART4

UART63.3 V

Azimuth MotorRotary Encoder12V

5 VElevation MotorRotary Encoder12 V Current12VTorque3.3 V

TorqueElevationControllerAzimuthControllerTTL to RS232Conversion ChipUART1UART8

ANACONDAPCB BoardUAV GPS PositionComplete Packet of the UAV

CommandedAzimuth AngleCommanded Elevation AngleEncoder FeedbackEncoder Feedback1) Receive GPS postion of the UAV2) Command the motors to point at the UAVMicrocontroller has 2 tasks12 V CurrentSlide28

Tracking Algorithm20 April 201528

Wait for / retrieve incoming

packet from XBeeParse Packet for Packet Type

Copy and relay to ground station

Compute Pointing Angles

Do nothingSave time stamped UAV GPS location and speed

Watchdog timer for ReacquisitionEnter reacquisition modeRetrieve two previous UAV GPS locations to use for linear extrapolationResetCheckIf not resetin 20 secOtherwise

OtherwiseCommand Motors

If GPSPacketIf previous motorcommandis completeReacquisition

Tracking LoopTimer Was Reseti.e. performs at a 0.05 Hz loop(Performed at 10 Hz, Packet sent at 10 Hz)(Time to Complete: 3 s)Component Not CompleteCustomer Request - Not Requirement

Computes θ,ϕ in the ANA FrameSlide29

Test Overview20 April 201529Slide30

Test Overview – Phase 120 April 201530

Software | Tracking AlgorithmTracking algorithm tested using Simulink simulation of flying aircraft

Level 1 SuccessHardware | GimbalElectrical components tested through Matlab or XCTULevel 1 SuccessStructural | Mast SupportMast wind loading simulated with increasing massesLevel 3 Success

Phase 1

Gimbal/

Tracking Integration

Tracking AlgorithmGimbal

Full SystemPhase 2

Phase 3

Support Structure

Feb. 2015

March 2015

April 2015CompleteProjected to be completeIncompleteSlide31

Test Overview – Phase 220 April 201531

Phase 1

Gimbal/

Tracking Integration

Tracking Algorithm

Gimbal

Full System

Phase 2

Phase 3Support Structure

Feb. 2015

Integration | Gimbal + Tracking Developed code into CTested 900 MHz link with UAVVerified Wi-Fi communication with ground stationLevel 1 SuccessIntegration of components and software delayed schedule by 2 weeks.

March 2015April 2015

CompleteProjected to be completeIncompleteSlide32

Test Overview – Phase 320 April 201532

Phase 1

Gimbal/

Tracking Integration

Tracking Algorithm

Gimbal

Full System

Phase 2

Phase 3Support Structure

Feb. 2015

March 2015

April 2015Full System | Functionality TestsTracking Beam Width Speed & Pointing Accuracy Level 2 Success

Full System | Environmental TestsWater/Dust testLevel 3 SuccessFull System | Setup & StartupSet up timeLevel 4 SuccessCompleteProjected to be completeIncompleteSlide33

Test Overview20 April 201533

Full System | Functionality Tests

Beam Width Vital assumption of 60° beam width drove models for tracking, motor torque requirements, beam width error, and antenna purchaseValidation required in order to track during most constraining caseSpeed & Pointing Accuracy Pointing accuracy- must be within ±5

° for trackMotor settling time- must complete 180° in

2.5sValidation required to give pointing accuracy model to customerTracking Must be able to track UAV at maximum flight speed in most constraining case

Mast Bending Vital to pointing accuracy with 30 m/s wind loading

CompleteProjected to be completeIncompleteSlide34

Test Results20 April 201534Slide35

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Model20 April 201535

Horizontal Antenna Beam Width(Provided by antenna

specification sheet)

Angle in 30° increments

Attenuation

in 5 dB

increments30°60°-5-100Beam PatternChose seven points at 10° increments from 0° to 60°Link budget performed at each selected point to estimate the received powerXBee radio provides RSS accurate to 1 dBmThis corresponds to a change of ±10°Greater than ±5° requirement on set up

Thus it can not be usedSlide36

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Model20 April 201536

0°, 10

dBi

10°, 9

dBi

60°, -1 dBi

Horizontal Antenna Beam Width(Provided by antenna specification sheet)Chose seven points at 10° increments from 0° to 60°Link budget performed at each selected point to estimate the received powerXBee radio provides RSS accurate to 1 dBmThis corresponds to a change of ±10°Greater than ±5° requirement on set upThus it can not be usedSlide37

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Test Setup20 April 201537Whip Antennaat fixed location

Patch Antenna

d =

const

Top Down View

Antenna Gain

PatternPurpose: To characterize the half-power beam widthFurther tests are neededInitial tests using XBee radios showed that the half-power beam width is about 40 ± 20° however the results were erraticImportance: Validates models which previously assumed a 60° half-power beam widthTest:Kept both antennas at fixed distanceWhip antenna attached to spectrum analyzerPatch antenna attached to signal generatorManually point gimbal to 30 ± 1.2°Test set-up moved around business fieldMultipath from nearby buildings/objects may change results significantlySlide38

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Test Setup20 April 201538

d = const

Whip Antennaat fixed location

Patch Antenna

30

°

Top Down ViewAntenna GainPatternPurpose: To characterize the half-power beam widthFurther tests are neededInitial tests using XBee radios showed that the half-power beam width is about 40 ± 20° however the results were erraticImportance: Validates models which previously assumed a 60° half-power beam widthTest:Kept both antennas at fixed distanceWhip antenna attached to spectrum analyzerPatch antenna attached to signal generatorManually point gimbal to 30 ± 1.2°Test set-up moved around business fieldMultipath from nearby buildings/objects may change results significantlySlide39

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Test Setup20 April 201539

d = const

Whip Antennaat fixed location

Patch Antenna

30

°

Top Down ViewAntenna GainPatternPurpose: To characterize the half-power beam widthFurther tests are neededInitial tests using XBee radios showed that the half-power beam width is about 40 ± 20° however the results were erraticImportance: Validates models which previously assumed a 60° half-power beam widthTest:Kept both antennas at fixed distanceWhip antenna attached to spectrum analyzerPatch antenna attached to signal generatorManually point gimbal to 30 ± 1.2°Test set-up moved around business fieldMultipath from nearby buildings/objects may change results significantlySlide40

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Test Setup20 April 201540

Angle from Bore Sight [deg]Expected Result[dBm

]0 ± 1.2-55.91 ± 0.22-30 ± 1.2-58.91 ± 0.22

+30 ± 1.2

Purpose: To characterize the half-power beam width

Further tests are neededInitial tests using XBee radios showed that the half-power beam width is about 40 ± 20° however the results were erraticImportance:

Validates models which previously assumed a 60° half-power beam widthTest:Kept both antennas at fixed distanceWhip antenna attached to spectrum analyzerPatch antenna attached to signal generatorManually point gimbal to 30 ± 1.2°Test set-up moved around business fieldMultipath from nearby buildings/objects may change results significantlySlide41

Controls TestingPurpose: Characterize settling time & pointing accuracyImportance:1) Simulink tracking model determined 0.4Hz was the minimum required frequency to track an overhead flyby at 45m/sNeed to move 180° in 2.5s to maintain a track2) Error budget requires pointing accuracy within

TEST: Used infrared photogates to determine time from start to settle within

20 April 2015

41

Des.1.3 ANACONDA and the UAV shall remain in communication

Des.1.3.1 Communication link shall be acquired with a UAV flying up to 45 m/s

PhotogatesStart0°CommandedAngle+5°-5°GimbalRecord Actual EndingAngle

Photogates

Infrared EmitterInfraredDetectorVoltageoffSlide42

Controls Testing Results20 April 201542

Max Offset

Average Offset4.5°3.5°Azimuth Motor Pointing Accuracy

Actual position recorded for each angle from 20

° to 180

° (5° increments)

Results fall within bounds as required by error budgetMain error due to bevel gear backlash0.06” gap  3.2° error Position Error [°]

Desired Position(0° error)Necessary RequirementSlide43

Controls Testing Results20 April 201543

Max Offset [s]Average Offset [s]0.10

0.05Motor Rotation Rates

Actual motor response matches theoretical modelValidates and ensures motor model is accurate for future testing & simulations

180° turn performed in 2.29s

Allows 0.21s for software loop

Necessary Requirement for 180° rotationSlide44

Tracking Test

20 April 2015

44

1

2

3

Des.1.3 ANACONDA and the UAV shall remain in communication

Des.1.3.1 Communication link shall be maintained with a UAV flying up to 45 m/s

Purpose: Characterize max UAV flight speed for overhead flybyCharacterize minimum range for 45 m/s ground speed

Importance:Validate tracking algorithm and simulation models created during design phaseError budget allows for 5° error in azimuth and 5° error in elevation at any point in time during the track.Simulated ScenarioSlide45

Tracking Test

Simulated data packets

created and sent to ANACONDA to simulate a UAV overhead flyby

ANACONDA Gimbal

Laptop

Data PacketsSlide46

Camera Monitoring Elevation

Camera Monitoring Azimuth

Absolute Encoder: Elevation

Tracking Test

Simulated data packets

created and sent to ANACONDA to simulate a UAV overhead flyby

Motor encoders + camera measuring system used to compare absolute position with theoreticalCameras used as absolute encoders to check motor encoders for slippageError budget allows for ±5° error in at any point in time during the track.Absolute Encoder: AzimuthSlide47

Tracking Test Results20 April 201547

Model Comparison

Error Between Model Position and Interpolated Encoder Position

Time (s)

Position Error (°)

Model Position

Encoder PositionAzimuthal results onlyModel assumed a linear motor response Compared encoder measured position with model positionMaximum Error Allow : ± 5°Maximum Error Found: ±4.5°Allowed Time: 3 s

Measured Time: 2.19 sAzimuth shown to perform better than expectedAble to track UAV at 45 m/sOperable at Minimum Range of 331 mElevation remains to be testedMust Finish By This Time

Angular Position (deg)FrequencySlide48

Tracking Test Results20 April 201548

Azimuthal

results onlyModel assumed a linear motor response Compared encoder measured position with model position

Maximum Error Allow :

± 5°

Maximum Error Found: ±4.5°Allowed Time: 3 sMeasured Time:

2.19 sAzimuth shown to perform better than expectedAble to track UAV at 45 m/sOperable at Minimum Range of 331 mElevation remains to be testedLessons Learned:Characterization tests proved more difficult

than first anticipatedFull system test requires entire system functional and fully builtOtherwise can cause secondary problems (i.e. breadboard)Error cascade through testing setup can cause results to be “unusable”Extensive study into test setup and performance must be conductedSlide49

Mechanical Load TestingPurpose: Characterized tip angular deflection θ of mast under wind loadsImportance:Error budget allows tip rotation of θ = 5° under 15 m/s windsCentral mast deflection of 20.95 cmTest:Mast joints were loaded in 5 lbf increments

with sandbagsMeasured central deflection and calculated θMast was simply supported

20 April 2015

49

Des.2.1.1.1 ANACONDA shall function in wind up to 15 m/s and survive up to 30 m/s

ADD Picture for bending test

Des.2.1 ANACONDA shall survive adverse conditionsDes.2.1.1 Wind shall not disrupt ANACONDA performance

FFF

Fθ

g5m*ACTUAL LOAD TESTING*TEST IDEALIZATIONMastSandbag Loads

Tip DeflectionSlide50

Mechanical Load Testing Results20 April 2015Actual results averaged 1.7 times greater than theoretical maximum deflectionMain error due to joint slop Model did not include thisAccounts for 0.509° of error from all 4 jointsNot truly simply supported

ParameterModel

Actual Load to Deflect 5°81.85 N49.87 NWind Speed to Deflect 5°39.60 m/s

31.05 m/sFactor of Safety39.60/15 = 2.64

31.05/15 = 2.07

Necessary Operation Range

11.67 N(15 m/s winds)Slide51

Testing ConclusionAntenna Beam Width Test:Beam width could be 60°, initial results estimates beam width to be 40 ± 20°Beam width must be 60 ± 3.6° using higher fidelity testsControls Test:Able to move gimbal 180° in azimuth in less than 2.5 sValidated motor response modelTracking Test:Azimuth tracking showed to be able to perform overhead flybyElevation testing still needs to be performedMast Bending Test:Mast deflection was 1.7 times greater than model predicted, still within error budget20 April 2015

51Slide52

Systems Engineering20 April 201552Slide53

Systems Engineering20 April 201553Slide54

Systems Engineering – Fall 20 April 201554Slide55

Systems Engineering – Fall20 April 201555

Key Issues:

Needed to seek advice on initial models sooner

Lessons Learned:

Ask questions early and often

Successes:

Software and electrical provided models that drove mechanical designAll subsystems worked closelySlide56

Systems Engineering – Spring 20 April 201556Slide57

Systems Engineering – Spring20 April 201557

Successes:

Software and electrical worked closely each day

Small integration tests occurred as hardware was procured

Key Issues:

Attempted to solve problems without expert advice

Lessons Learned:Seek several opinions from PAB more oftenSlide58

Project Management20 April 201558Slide59

ApproachRoles were taken to be more of guidelines, tasks were volunteered for rather than delegatedIncreased intrinsic motivationGave responsibility to team members for tasksDid not micromanageOffered suggestions for approaches to difficult problems but was open to others’ viewsFilled as needed to ensure work was done on time20 April 201559Slide60

Key Lessons LearnedNeed to implement a more rigorous scheduleBy allowing people to take charge of tasks, you must also implement a system to ensure tasks are completedBurn down lists are excellent forms of communicationHolds individuals responsible for particular tasksBy linking lists to the schedule it is easy to monitor team progressNeed to be more specific with tasks20 April 201560Slide61

BudgetDifference in electrical expenses mostly due to testing materials and unforeseen expensesDataHawk and CUPIC boards, PCB board, attenuators, miscellaneousLargest expense: motors and motor controllers ($1505.00)Materials cost to reproduce system: $2600.00Plan to buy one extra motor and controller with leftover funds20 April 201561

Budget

CategoryCDR EstimateActual ExpenseMechanical System$1127.11$1,387.88

Electrical System$1367.94

$2,461.73Total$3120.05

$3,849.61Slide62

Cost in IndustryAssume each team member spent 15 hrs per week on projectSpent 30 weeks working on project

20 April 2015

62Slide63

ConclusionANACONDA project was an overall successFully fulfilled Level 2 success pending elevation resultCan withstand required loadsLessons learned and future changes would include: Design is an iterative process, the product can always be improved.Have various off-ramp solutions prepared for critical project risks.Effective team communication is vital to success.With each iteration, meticulously update models revolving around the design. Proud of the project outcome and experience gained20 April 2015

63Slide64

ANACONDAThanks You20 April 201564Slide65

Backup Slides20 April 201565Slide66

XBee RSS Bin SizeRF Data Rate (Low) of 10 kbpsSensitivity: -110 dBmProvides lower bound for RSSI rangeUpper Bound is -40 dBmBin size of XBee:Average Bin Size from model:0.18 dBm/deg = 5.5 deg/dBmSo, based of the model, the best bin size for the Xbee in terms of degrees is:

20 April 201566Slide67

Error Budget – AzimuthParameterAllocated Error(deg)Safety FactorGPS uncertainty of both ANACONDA and UAV2.02Slop in mast pins3.22Slop in

mast – stake interface3.02Startup Procedure (laser)

2.82Gear resolution2.62Uncertainty within erecting mast

16.22Tip rotation5

2.1Uncertainty in horizontal -3 dB beam width3.6

UnknownPointing accuracy5Unknown

20 April 201567Slide68

XBee RSS Bin SizeRF Data Rate (Low) of 10 kbpsSensitivity: -110 dBmProvides lower bound for RSSI rangeUpper Bound is -40 dBmBin size of XBee:Average Bin Size from model:0.18 dBm/deg = 5.5 deg/dBmSo, based of the model, the best bin size for the Xbee in terms of degrees is:

20 April 2015

68Slide69

Antenna Beam Width Characterization – Expected ResultsWill need 60 ± 3.6° half-power beam widthError budget allocationFirst align bore sight0.0 ± 1.2°Then test ±30° from bore sight30.0 ± 1.2°20 April 201569

Angle from Bore Sight [deg]

Expected Result[dBm]0 ± 1.2-55.91 ± 0.22-30 ± 1.2

-58.91 ± 0.22+30 ± 1.2Slide70

Compute Commanded AnglesLat, lon, and alt of UAV are converted from WGS-84 to a local ENU coordinate frame called ANAAzimuth and elevation angles are determined for both antenna and UAV in local frameCommanded angle is sent in number of encoder counts20 April 201570

Y

/ North

Z

/ Zenith

X

/ EastANACONDA GPS LocationANA FrameANACONDASlide71

Compute Commanded Angles20 April 201571

φ

θ

Y

/ North

Z

/ ZenithX / East

Pointing VectorIn ANA FrameLat, lon, and alt of UAV are converted from WGS-84 to a local ENU coordinate frame called ANAAzimuth and elevation angles are determined for both antenna and UAV in local frameCommanded angle is sent in number of encoder countsSlide72

Reacquisition: Linear ExtrapolationArray of previous locations and speeds are saved with a time stampArray is searched for two points that are a specified time difference apart Linear extrapolation is then used to predict the location of the UAVHas not been implemented20 April 201572

X

UAV at

UAV at

Predicted LocationSlide73

Compute Commanded Angles20 April 201573

 Slide74

Reacquisition: Linear Extrapolation20 April 201574

Where:

 Slide75

Antenna Beam width Results – Using XBee RadiosVaried both distance and angle from bore sightRecorded both RSS as well as the number of received telemetry packetsResults:-3 dB beam width: 40 ± 20°All packets are either received or droppedBased off test results, a higher fidelity test will be performedCharacterized:Half-power beam widthMotivation:All models are derived from the 60° half-power beam width assumptionSatisfy level 1 success20 April 2015

75Slide76

Antenna Beam width Results – Using XBee Radios20 April 201576Parameters of the testDistance: 30 mAttenuation: 20 dBThree trials of data taken at each pointInconsistency between trials

Need further testing to resolve higher accuracyAngle from Bore Sight

[deg]Actual RSS[dBm]Expected RSS[dBm]0

-43, -43, -43-455

-45, -45, -48–10-43, -45, -44

-4615-44, -49, -45–20

-47, -49, -48-4725-54, -52, -49–30-48, -47, -46-4835-47, -48, -51–40-52, -50, -54-5045-51, -54, -57–Slide77

Mast SetupResultsTime taken to assemble support system: 20 min.Discrepancies:Gimbal was not completely assembledGuy wires were not completely assembled at start of testStakes were not fit to guy wire loops, had to make new makeshift stakesWith another test, 10 minute set up will be completed. 20 April 201577Slide78

Mast Deflection Corrected For Slop20 April 201578Slide79

20 April 201579ANACONDA Schedule

Task

CDR Estimate

Actual Completion

Days Behind

Procurement

1/9/20151/23/201514Final Board Rev2/13/2015

2/6/2015-7Integration Completion2/27/20154/8/201540

Machining Complete3/13/20154/3/201521

Systems Testing3/16/2015Ongoing>35ScheduleOnly 25 days of margin