Since the last status report, I have completed simulation for path planning, working path planning code that can be deployed on the robot, and fully implemented though not yet tested obstacle avoidance code. We are not using SLAM and Nav2 any more. We are now using preloaded map, A* algorithm, and dynamic path re-planning. I also worked on the final presentation slides and gave the presentation last Wednesday. For the rest of the time, I will help with further testing of path planning and fixing any problem with obstacle avoidance. If time allows, I will use Lidar data to replace the preloaded map.
Andy’s Status Report for November 22
This week, I focused on selecting a new power source and building the simulation for our robot. I calculated the power requirements for all components and identified a power bank that should meet our needs. On the simulation side, I completed the basic software setup, and my next step is to begin running and testing the simulation. We are currently behind schedule due to several component failures, so I will need to devote more time to the project for the remainder of the semester.
Throughout this project, I’ve found that watching YouTube videos of similar projects is an effective learning strategy. These videos are especially helpful when I’m working on tasks that are new or unfamiliar to me. They allow me to quickly understand fundamental concepts, compare different approaches, and verify my own design decisions.
Andy’s Status Report for Nov. 15
Last week, I focused primarily on the robot’s motor system. I successfully achieved full control of one of the motors, and since all wiring is already in place, extending this control to all four motors should be straightforward. Our next step is to test the remaining motors, which we expect to complete tomorrow.
Overall, I am on schedule, though slightly delayed due to hardware failures with the LiDAR and thermal camera, which have slowed our group’s progress. My next tasks are to help set up the new LiDAR unit and begin work on SLAM and path planning.
For verification of the motor system, I will test whether the robot can move forward smoothly and execute accurate left and right turns and rotations, as these maneuvers are essential for navigation and obstacle avoidance. I will create a test script that controls the robot to perfom different kinds of maneuvers and observe whether the robot carries them out correctly. I will also measure the robot’s straight-line speed to verify that it meets the design requirement of achieving at least 0.3 m/s.
Andy’s Status Report for November 8
Last week, I focused on assembling the robot, and the assembly is now mostly complete. All components have been mounted except for the thermal camera and LiDAR, though both have been tested and successfully connected to the system. The robot is now powered — the motors are operational — but I still need to verify that the control pins are correctly wired and develop the motor control script.
My goal for this week is to implement and test the motor control logic to ensure reliable operation before the interim demo. Next week, I plan to extend the script to include turning functionality and verify its performance. Although I am slightly behind schedule, I have been making steady progress and expect to catch up by dedicating a few extra hours over the next two weeks.
Andy’s Status Report for November 1
This week, I adjusted the powering plan and the motor control plan. I am now using 18650 batteries only to power the whole robot. Powering RPi5 is actually not an easy problem. Its standard current input is 5A. Though the minimum current requirement is 3A, any unstabilility at this current level would cause RPi5 to black out. And unfortunately, most power banks are only 3A. As a result, I decided to order an UPS board to power the RPi5. I also decided to use L298N as motor controller for more stability.
Now, I have fixed the problems in the design of the motor system and are ready for assembling the robot. I am behind the schedule now, but I would work on the project a lot tomorrow and should be able to catch up a significant part of the progress. By putting a little bit more work next week, our group should have a basic working robot model at the interim demo.
Andy’s Status Report for October 25
This week, I worked with my teammates to set up the respberry pi and adjusted the powering plan for our robot. Some other time was spent on the ethics assignment. Due to the problems with the previous powering plan, I am now behind the schedule. I should be already working on robot assembly at this time according to the original plan. I plan to spend more time working on the project with my teammates. For next week, I will first work on chassis assembly and help with software tasks. I will start robot assembly as soon as I got all the parts I need.
Team Status Report for October 18
There have been many minor changes and modifications to the design since the previous status report as we have worked on the design more and added more details. The current design is described in detail in the Design Report. There have not been any changes to the design since the Design Report was completed.
One main risk we have now is the powering plan. The current powering plan is not guaranteed to work as none of us is an expert of circuits and batteries. We will work together on this later to resolve the problem.
Another risk right now is that we have not yet implemented or combined the system yet, so we don’t yet know what problems we’ll run into as we do this. In order to mitigate this risk, we plan to order the parts early this week and start connecting everything to the Raspberry Pi and the chassis. This way we will discover any problems that we might have with the implementation sooner rather than later.
Part A: Our design considers global factors in that we have designed our search and rescue robot to work for a floor of any building. This is why we have designed our robot to be versatile, in that it can discover the layout of the building and does not rely on the building having only a layout that is found in buildings locally. Additionally, our design does not rely on a floor plan of the building being available ahead of time, since for many buildings this may not be the case. This way, our design should allow the robot to be useful for buildings of a variety of architectures across the world, allowing the robot to be helpful in urban search and rescue in a building in any city.
Part B: Our design takes cultural and ethical factors seriously, especially when it comes to saving lives. In rescue situations, people naturally expect technology to be dependable, and it can be hard to accept if someone isn’t saved because of an error in a new system. That’s why we focus on making our robot highly reliable with a very low false negative rate as it should never miss a person in need. The robot is also meant to reduce the risks faced by rescue workers by handling dangerous tasks on their behalf. In this way, our project supports the shared belief that life of rescue workers is as important as people who need help.
Part C: Our design addresses the environmental concerns of keeping humans safe and out of harm from dangers that may appear in a building setting. Our project is also committed to a low-energy-consumption solution to the problem of search and rescue in a building situation; while this is intended primarily to allow our system to be as effective as possible by exploring as much building area as possible because it would not be primarily limited by power, this will also have a secondary effect of minimizing use of environmental resources, i.e. power. Finally, by allowing a rescue team to quickly locate and evacuate people at a disaster site, the process of containing the site to prevent dangerous substances from polluting or destroying the surrounding environment (such as in the event of a gas leak, or building fire) could happen much quicker as well, thereby mitigating environmental damage that could be brought along in such a scenario.
A was written by Jeremy; B was written by Andy; C was written by Soren.
Andy’s Report for October 18
For the week before the fall break, I completed the design for the robot base and computation unit and finalized the design report with my teammates. I have worked out most of the technical details, including the wiring plan and the control program for the mecanum wheels. These details are documented in the design report, and I have provided well justifications for them.
The only remaining issue is the powering plan. While the current design should work in terms of voltage requirements, I am not fully confident about its feasibility since I have limited experience with circuits and batteries. I plan to work with my teammates to refine and verify the powering plan in the coming weeks.
Overall, I am on schedule, with only a slight delay caused by the power system uncertainty. It should be easy to catch up once the issue is resolved. My next steps are to assist in implementing the SLAM and path planning algorithms and to begin developing the control program. Completing these components will help us determine the final configuration of the computing unit as soon as possible.
Andy’s Status Report for October 4
This week, I worked with my teammates on the design review presentation and continued developing the vehicle design. After evaluating different options, I decided that a chassis equipped with magnum wheels would be the best foundation for our vehicle, as it should provide strong mobility and maneuverability. Overall, I am on schedule.
My next step is to explore the motor controller and control algorithms, focusing on how to make the robot turn or rotate effectively. By next week, I plan to finalize most of the design, order the required parts, and complete the design report.
Additionally, I looked into another robot platform called iRobot Create. It is a highly programmable and capable system, but it is no longer widely available. The inventory currently lists iRobot Vacuum models, so I plan to investigate whether they can serve as a substitute. If they are suitable, I may adjust our vehicle design accordingly.
Andy’s Status Report for September 27
At the beginning of this week, I looked deeper into drone design and found that the requirements were more complex than expected. Beyond the standard components, we also needed ESCs, a flight controller, a gyroscope, and an altimeter. These essential parts alone would consume over half of our budget, and adding a USB camera and a high-resolution thermal camera would push us well beyond our limits. Because of this, we decided to pivot away from drones.
I then explored the idea of indoor search-and-rescue drones. This use case was more reasonable since limiting operations to indoor spaces removes the challenge of long-range control. However, I still faced difficulties with the RC control aspects of drone design.
After meeting with our instructors, we formally decided to switch from drones to indoor ground vehicles. I began researching suitable platforms and initially considered the iRobot Create, but since it is no longer widely available, I shifted focus to on-shelf robot car kits, such as the ELEGOO UNO. While these kits are basic, they provide a reliable chassis we can expand upon without losing time on building vehicles from scratch. This means that we can put more time on algorithm designs, which we are are better at.
Next, I will focus on how to handle vehicle rotation and how to integrate lidar into the system. Although the project change has set me slightly behind schedule, I am confident I can quickly catch up with this more practical and achievable direction.