Idea Matrix

Solution 1



Solution 2

Solution 3



Research

The objective of the design process is to aid in designing and building an ROV collaboratively. The function of the ROV is to perform a series of tasks in an unpredictable, underwater environment. The goal is to compete in, and ultimately win, the MATE's ROV competition.

Problem
The Marine Advanced Technology Education Center holds many different ROV competitions annually. The different competitions involve students from middle schools, high schools, home schools, community colleges, and universities. Different competition classes exist for varying levels of sophistication of the ROV's. My ROV will be entered in the Ranger class. As part of the competition, the ROV will be tasked with the completion of a series of underwater tasks. In the past, these have included grasping objects with a robotic arm, taking the temperature of different areas of water, listening to the site of sound production, and navigating a cave.

Figure 1: Example of a giant ROV used for naval operations

Figure 2: Example of an ROV used in Oil Operations

Environment/Conditions of Use
Each of MATE's ROV competitions are held in a pool. The pool shown on the official pool tour is outdoors and 6 feet deep, but the pool may be indoors or outdoors. Whether the pool is outdoors or indoors this year should not affect the competition. There may be slight discrepencies between sunlight and indoor light, but these are negligible. Presumably, the competition will not be held in bad weather outside. Since the competitions will be conducted in a pool, currents should not be taken into account. Still, the underwater environment can be unpredictable, as any small drift may affect the position of one of the competition materials. The competition involves a task in which the ROV must explore an 80 cm by 80 cm cave, which is pictured below. This could be a potential snag area for the hull. The hull must accommodate the cave by being small and maneuverable enough to negotiate the cave without difficulty.

Figure 3: Potential Outdoor Pool

Figure 4: Potential Indoor Pool

Figure 5: 80cm x 80 cm Cave

End User
The finished ROV will be used in competition. It will be controlled by one of the three members of my group. My group consists of myself, Matt Gannon, and Matt Johnson. The electrical expert is Matt Gannon. He will be designing the control system of the ROV, and he will most likely be the most familiar with it. For this reason, Matt G. is probably the best choice for the person who will control the ROV. He is right-handed and has large hands. Matt will be manning the ROV from the poolside control shack, pictured below. Matt Johnson and I will be doing auxiliary work, including management of the cables.

Figure 6: Poolside Shack

Figure 7: Engineering Group/End User

Rationale

The idea matrix shows that Solution 1 is the best suited for the job based on the specifications. Using these guidelines, it should be the best solution for the parameters of the competition, including environment and use.

One con of solution 1 is its size and shape. A box is not very hydrodynamic, and it is the largest solution. As a result, it lost points in the idea matrix in the area of propulsion, as drag provides more resistance. It also lost points in the easy to operate category, as it is clunky and somewhat burdensome to use. Its bright spots were its neutral buoyancy and its ability to accommodate the robotic appendage.

Solution 2 also had some trouble because of its shape. While it was designed to make smooth landings on the floor of the pool, it did provide for excellent maneuverability. The fact that it is heavier than neutrally buoyant may play to its advantage in landing, but it makes the ROV harder to control. While this solution did not receive the worst grade on any one specification, it never received the best grade.

The main disadvantage of solution 3 is its size. While its power to size ratio is excellent, it is small and may provide trouble when trying to fit it with a robotic appendage. Additionally, it may have trouble handling all the competition materials that must be picked up along the way. The positive to this solution is its relative power and maneuverability. It would be easily operated by the control expert, although the fact that it is lighter than neutrally buoyant may not facilitate smooth movement through the water column.

Solution 1 is the solution that will be implemented. It is best suited for completing the competition tasks. The factors that were considered in the idea matrix were the specifications, and they included propulsion, buoyancy, maneuverability, size, and accommodation of the robotic appendage.

Calendar