Self Evaluation

Scope of Project

Project Information

The project that completed this year was the Underwater Remote Operated Vehicle (UROV). The UROV was created in accordance with the 2009 Marine Advanced Technology Education (MATE) Northeast Region UROV Competition. The MATE Competition is held each year at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy located in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. The competition was held on April 25th, 2009. This year, the MATE competition, was divided into four events: Engineering/Communication Report, Poster Evaluation, Technical Report, and an Underwater Mission. The theme of this year’s competition was Underwater Submarine Rescue. This theme was seen in all events of the competition. In the Underwater Mission, the UROV was required to, in a twenty minute time slot, survey for five damage points, open and hatch, transport ELSS (Rescue) pods, open and air valve, plug in an air hose, and mate the UROV to the submarine.
To be successful at the competition, the MAST team needed to work from the end of August until the middle of April. The team went through a design stage, developmental stage, construction stage, and finally, a testing stage. With all phases of the project completed the UROV was ready to compete at the 2009 MATE Northeast Region UROV Competition.

Individual Role

The team that designs the UROV is made up of three members. This year the three members included Thomas Ferrara, Kevin Iannacone, and Nicole Depasquale. Due to the complexity of the project, the design is broken down between the three members. Kevin Iannacone was in charge of the Hull and Propulsion. Nicole Depasquale was in charge of the Electrical and Control System. Thomas Ferrara was in charge of the Arm and Claw System.
As the leader of the Arm and Claw System, Thomas Ferrara needed to design a claw that would work together with the hull design, be able to be constructed in the time allotted, be reliable in the competition (and under fifteen feet of water), and be able to complete the mission tasks. As any designer, Thomas Ferrara needed to go through all the phases of design including brainstorming, alternate solutions, developmental work, and design finalization. The final design then needed to be constructed in the lab and tested in the pool. All phases needed to be finished before April 24th, 2009.
As a team member, Thomas Ferrara needed to work well with his team. Open lines of communication needed to remain open. At any point in the nine months of work, Thomas Ferrara had to be open to help his team mates with any issues.
Description of Solution

Design Process

Due to the nature of the competition, the requirements for the claw were not released until late winter. The curriculum of the school requires each student to have submitted a design by that time. The two conflicting time lines caused issues for Thomas Ferrara. Throughout the year, Thomas Ferrara went through three main designs. The issues that Thomas Ferrara ran into to and the reasons why designs were changed can be seen in the attached document.

Final Solution Design Description

The final solution includes a (1) two outward facing forks and (2) two downward facing prongs. The combinations of these two products were designed to complete the required mission tasks.
(1): The two outward facing forks are made of two six inch long (half inch outside diameter) schedule forty PVC piping. The two forks are connected to the one and a quarter inch UROV frame via a one and a quarter inch PVC T-Piece with a one and a quarter inch to half inch adapter. At the end of each fork is a forty five degree elbow. All connections are secured with PVC Primer and PVC Cement.
(2): The two downward facing prongs are made of two nine inch long (one and a quarter inch outside diameter) schedule forty PVC piping. The two prongs are connected to the one and quarter inch UROV frame via a one and a quarter inch PVC T-Piece. All connections are secured with PVC Primer and PVC Cement.

Final Solution Mission Completion Description

The (1) outward facing forks and the (2) downward facing prongs would be used together, with the help of the UROV propulsion to complete the tasks diagrammed by the 2009 MATE Competition.
Mission Task #1: Survey the Damage Points: This mission would be completed with the cameras.
Mission Task #2: Move ELSS Pods to Interior of Submarine: This mission would be completed with the arm/claw system. The hatch would first be rotated one-hundred and eighty degrees to an open position using the downward facing prongs. The prongs would be placed in between the open slots of the hatch. Using the UROV propulsion, the UROV would spin on a point. The leverage created by the UROV combined with the force of the arm/claw system locked into the hatch would open the hatch (the hatch required 2 N of force to open). Once the hatch was unlocked, the outward facing forks would hook under hatch and the UROV would propel upwards and forwards, revealing the interior of the submarine. The UROV would then move towards the ELSS pods. The outward facing forks would hook the U-Bolts of the ELSS Pods. The ELSS pods would then be carried over to the open crate. Using the UROV propulsion, the ELSS pods would fall into the open crate. The hatch would then be closed in the same way it was opened.
Mission Task #3: Provide an Air Line to the Submarine: The mission would be completed with the arm/claw system. The air valve would be opened by hooking under the PVC switch. Once hooked, the valve would be opened by having the UROV propel upwards and over to the left. When the air valve was open, the UROV would hook the handle of the door using the forks. The door would then be opened. The UROV would then propel to the surface and retrieve the air hose (place in the two outward facing forks). The air hose would then be carried down to the bottom and placed in the open.
Mission Task #4: Mate the UROV: This mission would be completed using the hull.

Original/Final Discrepancies

As stated before the original design was changed in major ways two times. Comparing the original design to the final product would be impossible because the final product is based off a completely different idea then what the first design was. To accurately compare design to product one would have to look at the final design and the final product. The final design was decided upon after two major changes. The description of the final design can be found product has no discrepancies with the final design. However, as was said, the original design and the final product vary completely, the reasons for changes and the differences between them can be seen in the attached document.

Self-Evaluation

Success and Failures

Throughout the year of work there were a number of events that could qualify as a success or as a failure. The following is a list of successes:
1. The UROV was completed by the date of the competition, April 25th, 2009. The UROV was able to compete in all aspects of the competition. The UROV and its arm/claw system did its job. As a major success, the MAST Team placed 8th place overall
2. The UROV and the arm/claw system passed all basic checks. The arm/claw system was able to pass the sturdiness test, strength test, and overall effect test.
3. All components of the UROV (Electrical, Hull and Propulsion, Arm and Claw) were able to work in synchronization.
4. The UROV and the arm/claw system were built in the systems engineering lab with only student assistance in the time allotted.
5. Thomas Ferrara was able to complete designs and drawings of all designs created throughout the year.
6. Thomas Ferrara was able to alter and change designs with the change in competition requirements and issues in the lab.
7. Thomas Ferrara was able to complete all Systems Engineering II assignments with very high marks.
The following is a list of failures:
1. The UROV was not able to complete all of the mission tasks due to a equipment malfunction.
2. The arm/claw design needed to be redone several times throughout the entire year.
3. Thomas Ferrara ran into several constructions issues, especially with the Servo Motor Design and had to change designs due to those issues.
4. The MAST Team had communication issues and was not always in sync with each others ideas.
5. Thomas Ferrara had some difficulties keep open a line of communication with his instructors and his one mentor.
6. Thomas Ferrara had some difficulties managing his time to complete all the assignments in a calm manner (although they were all completed in a timely manner).

Lessons Learned From Failures

Due to the immense amount of changes that occurred over the year of design, Thomas Ferrara went through a lot of frustrating and stressful times. At these points there was some failure. As one can see above, some of the failures that were reached included problems with time management and organization, communication issues with peers and instructors, as well as design issues. All of these issues stemmed from the design changes. Although the failures were upsetting, a lot was learned from the mistakes. First, it is always important to maintain constant communication. This holds true with both your team mates and your “employer” or leader. In our situation, we lacked constant communication and our design was affected by it. Had we met on a regular basis we would have had designs that fit together more naturally. Also, miscommunications, such as when construction for each part, would have been avoided and the UROV would have been finished sooner. In regards to the instructors or mentors, it is important to always see from their perspective. Although they might not be correct, it may appear to them, from what they see, that they are perfectly right. Arguments over points of view are always going to be futile. Second, it is necessary, that when planning a major project like this one, to organize all ideas and materials. When one has a lot of deadlines, time management is key. Both organization and time management can make or break a project.
Some other failures, such as the breaking of the cameras, taught the team that you should always expect the unexpected. What seemed to be the one thing that was constantly working was the one thing that failed. This event has taught the team that you always need to check and double check even the constantly working equipment.
At first failure seems to be exactly that, just a failure, but in the end it proves to be a positive idea. From all the times the team had failed, the team has learned from them. From failure comes improvement.

Other Lessons Learned

Throughout the year there were many other things that I learned, but not from failing. One of the major things that was learned was how to work well on a team. In order for the UROV to be successful, the team needed to work in a coordinated manner. This included sacrificing time to help one another.
Also, I was able to learn a lot about technology and construction. I learned a lot about programs such as AutoCAD and ProDesktop. In the systems lab I was able to become more proficient with many of the lab tools.
By going through the design process, I was able to fine tune my capability of turning an idea into a quality product. The design process also taught me how to think outside the box.
In general, through competing with the UROV I was able to learn about scientific topics, mathematical topics, engineering topics, and exploration topics. At the competition I learned about the uses of UROV and submarine rescue.
Overall, being a member of the UROV design team has provided with me with dozens of lessons learned. Whether the lesson came from failure, such as learning how to manage my time, or if the lesson just came from pure learning, such as learning about the world of UROV, it was definitely worthwhile to be a member of the UROV group.

Design Flaws and Improvements

Before one even looks at the design itself, I want to look at the Design Process Flaws and where improvements could be made. As could be seen throughout this document, I had to go through many design changes all because the competition did not release their requirements until late into the MAST Curriculum. Looking back on this, I should have realized that the competition rules might have been different the year’s before. Had I thought of this, I would have planned fully two or three different designs, each design with a unique capability and separate materials. Going into December, with three fully completed designs, I would have had more ideas to choose from and alter once the competition rules were released.
Looking back on the project it is much easier to tell where one made mistakes in the designing of a product. Especially after viewing what other teams thought of at the competition and seeing how well my arm design work, I can analyze where I could have made improvements.
There were some fundamental flaws in my design. The first of these flaws was that it could not accomplish the third task completely. The third task, which involved providing air to the submarine, could not be completed because the arm/claw system could not hold the air hose on the correct angle in order for it to be plugged in. A second flaw that I have considered is the material choice. At the time of design, PVC was the most obvious and readily available. For that reason, I chose PVC as my material. Had I gone further into the thought process, I would have realized, that the size of the PVC just added weight to the UROV. A thinner rod material such as a steel rod or a smaller diameter PVC could have been used on the prongs and forks.
After attending the competition, I saw a lot of possible improvements based upon the other designs which were used. First, many teams used pre-manufactured items to accomplish their tasks. Some of these materials included boar hooks. By using these pre-manufactured materials, the teams had given themselves an advantage. All of these materials are reliable and secure in their design. Also, several teams had great ideas for motors. One of the many motors that was used to operate the claw was a bilge pump. Often bilge pumps are seen as converted motors but never before had we seen it used to control a claw. Last, my teams solved the air hose issue (that I had had) by creating a stand which could secure the air hose and keep it on a forty-five degree angle.
In general, when coming up with the design one must always think outside the box in regards to power source, materials, and grabbing device. As was seen at the competition, sometimes the simpler the design is, the better it does; complex designs have more chances of failure.

Improvement of Skills

The first area where skills were improved was in the PROBLEM SOLVING area. Like all designs, there were many bumps in the road to finally reach a finished product. As said before, I ran into many of these. From these obstacles I began to improve my problem solving skills. I learned how step back from a situation and analyze it completely and calmly. Once the problem was fully explored I attempted to think of a solution to fix it. The solution would then have to be checked for any fundamental errors. Once completely check, the solution would need to be fully planned out. Also, when running into problems, I have learned that it is okay to look for guidance. When I had design issues with the servo motor design, I should have asked Ms. Green or Mr. Alfonse to preview it. Had I done this, the flaws in design would have been caught earlier in the game. With their guidance I would have been able to come up with a more sound idea.
The second area where skills were improved was in the COMMUNICATION area. Throughout the entirety of this course, communication was one of the biggest issues. The communication that needed to exist had to be consistent between team members, teachers, and mentors. A major skill improved was how to keep open lines of communication. When working for someone or with someone it is always important to keep them updated on any issues or changes. In general, meeting often with group members to discuss thoughts is beneficial. Through the curriculum of this course, I was able to improve my general communication skills such as speaking in front of an audience, drawing for an instructor, or writing about key ideas. Through many presentations, CAD Designs, and writing assignments, I was able to increase my proficiencies in all three areas.
The third area where skills were improved was in the ORGANIZATIONAL area. By having a multitude of due dates, one needed to constantly organize his/her time in an orderly fashion. In design, there is always a lot of paper work being shuffled around; having organizational skills it is key to not losing any work. With ideas, it is also necessary to be organized. If someone comes up with several ideas but does not organize them in a presentable manner, the ideas are rendered useless.

Conclusion

Looking back on this year I can definitely say I have learned a lot. The lessons that I have learned will carry over into college and furthermore, into my career. Being able to design an underwater ROV as a high school class is not an opportunity that comes often for students, and I am glad that I took advantage of it.
Like always there were some obstacles during the year. Many of these times, the obstacles became long, drawn out and stressful issues. However, without these obstacles one can never progress fully. These failures have provided the team and me with our greatest learning experiences this year.
Even though there were a lot of obstacles this year, I certainly cannot say that there were absolutely no successes. I feel confident in saying that designing a fully functional underwater operated vehicle is a great success. Moreover, our team placed in 8th place among teams that had three to four times the group size, ten or more times the budget, and a much larger range of capabilities.
When it comes to the design process, I have had my fair share of work. Finally, after three designs, and plenty of documents, I settled upon a solid idea. Although the final product seemed to be the least suitable design for the tasks that were required, I believe that in the end it faired the best. The design was simple and reliable and was able to accomplish all the tasks. Had the UROV not undergone other issues, I believe the UROV would have completed more of the tasks at the competition.
In summary, designing the UROV arm/claw system was without a doubt a learning process. I was able to gain skills in many areas. In nine months, three high school students competed with a competitive UROV. Through thick and thin, Systems Engineering II has prevailed as a great course, with many benefits to the students. Through all of the year’s work, I am proud of both the failures and successes which I have e