P15542: X-Y Camera Rig Multidisciplinary Senior Design
MSD Team Tia Damman ME Communications Fabrice Bazile EE Team Facilitator Eli Clamplett CE Edge Updator Ben Maher ME Deliverable Planner Paul Jung EE Lead Researcher Sara Bjork IE Project Manager
Agenda 1. Problem Statement 7. Morphological 2. Use Scenario Analysis 3. Time Lapse Video 8. Concept Selected 4. Customer/Engineering 9. Feasibility Requirements 10. Test Plan 5. Risk Analysis 11. Project Plan 6. Functional 12. Questions Decomposition
Problem Statement ● Alpha Project - 14542 created X-Y Camera Rig used to image large works of art for MET ● Mounted perpendicular to art piece, it takes multiple pictures that are later stitched together ● Current design sways ~2” ● Due to the current lift design: MET has to use wooden blocks to shift rig forward ● Several aspects are safety hazards: no way to stop, no handles
Problem Statement (cont.) ● Our goals: ○ Reduce sway of camera and rig ○ Provide z-directional movement ○ Provide an automated calibration routine ○ Add necessary safety features ○ Misc. subsystem improvements: motor setup, wire configuration, lighting placement
Use Scenario
Time Lapse Video embedded https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bzd8o47ype8p3ro/AADxAKqDIYdxbOncAnUH89C7a?dl=0
Customer Needs
Engineering Requirements
Risk Analysis
Functional Decomposition
Functional Decomposition
Functional Decomposition
Functional Decomposition
Morphological Analysis
Current Rig
Concept Selection 1st Iteration
Concept Selection 2nd Iteration
Concept Selection 3rd Iteration
Concept Selection 4th Iteration
Concept Selection 5th Iteration
Option #1 Pro ● Distance sensors will allow accurate positioning of the camera without risk to the artwork ● The gimbal will allow accurate and precise leveling of the camera ● Using the lift forks will allow easy incorporation of Z axis movement Con ● Requires a new lift which will severely diminish our budget
Option #2 Pro ● Incorporates powered vertical movement of the lift but also allows the user to move it manually with a crank ● 2 axis gimbal will provide accurate leveling of the camera Con ● Adds weight to the overall rig ● The extension arm would be difficult to control accurately and remotely
Option #3 Pro ● The parts are well within budget limitation ● Automated movements Con ● Requires hard stops in every direction which will reduce the range of the camera ● Requires manual verification of leveling system ● Bulky, unwieldy, and visually unappealing ● Wheel Foot Stop is difficult to use on an object in motion
Option #4 Pro ● Cheapest option ● Incorporates light show for entertaining museum patrons ● Works out legs Con ● Reflection of light from lasers off different surfaces will result in inaccurate camera positioning ● The foot pedal pump is easier than the crank but powered movement is what the customer wants in the Y direction ● Incorporates wooden blocks to help position the camera ● Manual leveling is necessary for the camera
Concept Selection ● Distance Sensors ● Camera Gimbal ● Base Stability ● Hand Brakes and Program Control ● Automate crank (replace motor if necessary) ● Fork Extension
Feasibility: Handles Question: What kind of handles will be best for rig? ● This question can be answered through research and analysis of different kinds of handles Background/Assumption ● Current handle does not have safety features. Analysis ● Long handle: $9.98 ● Short handle: $2.98 ● Chest handle: $3.99 ● Lever handle: $7.69 ● Edge supported handle: $3.98 Decision will be made after meeting with safety manager.
Feasibility: Brakes Question: What kind of brakes will be best for the rig? ● This question can be answered through research and analysis of different kinds of brakes Background/Assumption ● There are not any brakes installed on the rig currently. Analysis ● handle brakes: $15.95 ● wheel brakes: $16.99 Handle brake will be the best option, due to the ease of implementation and the relatively low cost
Feasibility: Reducing Sway Question: How can we reduce the sway of the camera/rig? ● This question can be answered through analysis and background understanding of current gimbal. Background/Assumptions: ● Gimbal: ServoCity pan and tilt system MPT-2100DS - currently not being used, MET also has a higher quality system on site ● Mast expands through telescoping mechanism Analysis: ● Camera sway is due to rig sway, which is a property of the rig ● Additional support providing base stability will reduce rig sway ● Current gimbal with z-axis movement can solve camera sway The best option is to implement the gimbal system purchased and get software operating successfully to adjust positioning.
Feasibility: Lighting Question: Should we re-evaluate the lighting on the rig design to balance the COG? ● This question can be answered through analysis of the system structure. Background/Assumptions: ● P14542 - estimated 8lbs of lights in design, actual amount is 25lbs ● Currently to counter the rig going backwards, wooden blocks are used to push the system forward to keep the camera aligned, but already front heavy Analysis: ● With the 17lb increase, the structure will not fail - but could tip forward if base is not secured and more weight is added to camera assembly ● Must examine current customer setup alongside structure schematic to determine optimal lighting placement The best option is to discuss camera weight/location with customer in detail and retrieve previous MSD Team’s schematic to do further structural analysis.
Feasibility: Distance Sensors Question: How will the camera rig avoid hitting obstacles and track its position? ● This question can be answered through analysis and research of distance and proximity sensors Background/Assumptions: ● There will be enough power to operate the device ● There will be a place to mount the device on the rig ● Enough sensors to monitor all directions of movement Analysis: ● Sonar Sensor: Accurate measurement up to 300 cm, cost of $26, power of 5 V ● IR Sensor: Accurate measurement up to 150 cm, cost of $15, power of 4.5 V ● Optical Sensor: Accurate measurement up to 150 cm, cost of $7.50, power of 4.5V The sonar sensor would be the best option due to the relatively low power usage, low cost, and high range of accurate measurements
Feasibility: Remote Device Question: Can we control the camera rig remotely? ● This question will best be answered through research and the analysis of mobile computing devices Background/Assumptions: ● Assume no pre-existing software Analysis: ● An iPad application to control the system would be simple to implement, but potentially lacks the necessary processing power to handle taking pictures ● A mac mini would be more difficult to implement, but would contain the necessary processing power. However, the mac mini is considerably less mobile. ● An iPhone would be similar to the iPad in simplicity, but would have even less processing power than an iPad. The iPad would provide the best solution, due to the high mobility and adequate processing power.
Feasibility: Motor Question: Can the current motor be used with a new setup or will a new motor be needed? ● This question will best be answered through research of the current motor and setup and analysis of possible changes Background/Assumptions: ● Current motor is ¼ HP with a torque of 125 in-lbf ● Previous team measured a torque of 300 in-lbf needed to raise the lift ● A 1:2.44 gear ratio was used which put the torque at 305 in-lbf ● Assume an actual torque needed of 500 in-lbf Analysis: ● Torque = 125 (in-lbf) * 4/1 (Gear Ratio) = 500 (in-lbf) Changing the gear ratio from 1:2.44 to 1:4 will result in an increase in torque which may save us the cost of buying a new motor. The current motor cost $469 so it would be a substantial savings. It would be a slower rise time for the lift it but should work in theory.
Feasibility: Z Axis Movement Question: How far will the camera need to adjust in the z direction and is this achievable with the chosen design? ● This will best be determined through research of the current lift as well as analysis Background/Assumptions: ● The calculations will be for the max height of the vertical lift - 230 (in) 19’ 2” ● Max possible angle of sway will be considered - currently unknown but assume 5 degrees ● Current fork length is 27 (in) Analysis: ● Height = 230 (in) ● Angle = 5 (deg) = 0.0873 (rad) ● Z direction movement = Height*Angle = 230*0.0873 (in*rad) = 20.08 (in) The calculated movement is within the range of the current fork length so the chosen design option will cover the z axis distance.
Test Plan ● Test the location control of the camera in regards to a fixed point ○ Z axis movement and gimbal operation ● Confirm elimination/reduction of sway ● Software operation ○ Automated operation of rig ○ Calibration ● Sensor interfacing ● Motor performance ● Brake system along with wheel performance ● Remote control capability ● Final testing on artwork
Project Plan
Recommend
More recommend
