Team Status Report for 3/29

What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?

One of the most significant risks currently is that the stepper motors will not have enough speed to complete the pickup sequence in 8s. We have had to run the gantry slower than the maximum setting as the frame currently isn’t well-built enough to handle the stresses. We plan to address this by changing the frame to using aluminum extrusions instead of aluminum angles. One other risk is that the stereo camera might not be accurate enough to sense the depth for accurate placement of the end-effector on the trash items. Currently our contingency plan for this is to use a pressure sensor to detect when the end-effector touches the object.

Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?

Other than the change to the frame mentioned above, there are no planned changes to the existing system. This change was necessary as parts of the gantry were bending and buckling during the gantry’s movements. Replacing the aluminum parts costs around $60, which is not much of a problem since after the purchase we still have around $250 of budget remaining.

Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred.

There are no schedule changes as of now.

Team Status Report for 3/15

What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?

The most significant risks to our project is getting the machine learning model to real-time speed. In particular, the YOLOv8 architecture can achieve real-time speed on the Jetson Orin Nano however it has been noted it is incredibly frustrating to do so as it is careful speed and accuracy tradeoff analysis. To mitigate this risk, the model not being fast enough, we need to approach the speed and accuracy tradeoff analysis very meticulous, in particular we plan to have a detail log that we can reference to determine the sweet point for our use case.

Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?

There are no current changes made to the existing design of the system.

Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred.

There are no schedule changes as of now.

Team Status Report for 2/22

What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?

Currently, the most significant risk to the success of the project is the end-effector design. It has to be able to adapt to a wide range of surfaces, and there is a decent change that our current design might not be enough to achieve that. We recently decided that we would be adding a vacuum pump to the end-effector in order to create a better suction for items that are porous, have irregular surfaces, and/or heavy. If this doesn’t work, we will pivot to a claw-like end effector.

Another risk to our design is our current depth estimator. Right now, we plan to use a stereo camera in order to obtain the height of the objects so that the end-effector knows how far down it should travel. If there are problems with the resolution or the reliability of the depth reading that we get from this camera, it would prevent the gantry from moving to the correct location. The current contingency plan is to add a pressure sensor onto the end-effector if the readings end up being too coarse or unreliable.

Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?

We’ve added a vacuum pump to the end effector, as from some initial testing the suction cup end effector is not of adequate consistency when it comes to picking up some basic trash items. This does not incur any costs, except to our budget.

Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred. 

No schedule changes have been made.

Team Status Report 2/15

What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?

The most significant risk we could face right would be a poor design for the z-axis end effector. Currently, we are exploring (and have placed an order for) a couple of suction cup end effector and pressurized mechanisms to enable pick up and drop off. However, going forward, we need to be very careful as we are most likely going to depend on off-the-shelf components and the wait time to have these arrive is longer than we would like. In order to mitigate this risk we are going to place orders for these off-the-shelf parts if we have really thought hard about how these off-the-shelf components will integrated into the end effector. This way we can use our limited time more effectively. The main contingency plan would be to fail back on designing some of vacuum system to pick up and drop off items.

Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?

No major changes have been made yet.

Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred. 

No schedule changes have been made.

 

Part A was written by Alejandro, Part B was written by Teddy, and Part C was written by Ethan.

Part A:

With respect to public safety, SortBot helps in reducing the risk that human sorters take when interacting with trash inside trash processing facilities. Our robot reduces the risks of workers being cut by the trash they’re sorting and being exposed to harmful chemicals that could shorten their lives and livelihoods. Additionally, the reduction of manual labor the workers will have to do would also decrease the risk of musculoskeletal related injuries. On the aspect of welfare, our robot would allow workers to move from doing monotonous skilled labor to being more specialized workers. They would be exposed to less hazardous roles and would have more opportunities to advance their skill sets leading to career growth. Finally, our robot would improve the recycling rates of trash sorting facilities which would allow for a less polluted planet.

Part B:

With respect to social factors, SortBot would be able to help establish recycling in countries not just within, but outside the US. Currently, due to the costly and labor-intensive nature of recycling, many economically weaker countries do not have the infrastructure to implement recycling. However, SortBot will be able to reduce costs associated with recycling, making recycling feasible in the countries which cannot currently afford it.

Part C:

With consideration of economic factors, SortBot is made solely from off-the-shelf components that can easily be assembled together without requiring additional fancy tools or machinery. Most of the complexity of SortBot comes from the custom software in each module, however, this can easily be replicated or made entirely open sourced for people to use. There should be no difficulty in setting up a system to mass produce many SortBots as nothing “weird” is done during its assembly. SortBot is also easily to be distributed to waste management facilitates as none of SortBot’s components require any additional handling and operate for a long time before breakdown. SortBot simply needs a wall outlet. This plug-and-play nature was one of our major design goals with SortBot, both in price and easy installation (needing multiple additions to aid the integration of sort would be expensive).

Team Status Report for 2/8

What are the most significant risks that could jeopardize the success of the project? How are these risks being managed? What contingency plans are ready?

The most significant risk we could face right is that our expectations of our software and hardware do not match reality. In order to mitigate this we have employed a lot of unit testing to verify our assumptions. For example for the machine learning pipeline, we are trying to pay close attention to the dataset we are training on (we are watching out for class imbalance, lighting, resolution, and etc) to ensure that what we train on will be indicative of reality. The current contingency plan for this is to keep looking for data and potential aggregate multiple datasets together. Another risk is the fact that the end effector we choose may not be compatible with a considerable amount of the objects we intend on working with. In that case, we intend on possibly purchasing another end effector such as a gripper with the remaining funds, in addition to the suction type end effector.

Were any changes made to the existing design of the system (requirements, block diagram, system spec, etc)? Why was this change necessary, what costs does the change incur, and how will these costs be mitigated going forward?

No major changes have been made yet, however, we still need to decide on the final specs for the camera (720p vs 1080p).

Provide an updated schedule if changes have occurred. 

No schedule changes have been made.