Project Proposal and Feasibility Study

Project Proposal and Feasibility Study

Team 11

Heather Kloet

Kaitlyn Weinstein

Monica Wood

Engineering 339 Senior Design Project

Calvin College

08 December 2014

©2014 Heather Kloet, Kaitlyn Weinstein, Monica Wood, and Calvin College

Executive Summary

Finding lost objects in marshes or shallow black-water can be a frustrating, unpleasant, and time consuming

task for humans. An amphibious robot would alleviate the stress of locating metallic objects by using a

combination of metal detection, GPS, and sonar to give a more defined location of the object. Using a

wirelessly controlled robot allows a person to look for objects from the comfort of a boat or on shore. In

this paper, the feasibility of designing and prototyping an amphibious robot for this purpose is determined.

The robot will consist of a central body, tracks for locomotion, and electronics for communication. The

body will consist of two motors for driving the tracks in forward and reverse directions, a front mounted

camera to aid in steering, and a dry box that will house a Raspberry Pi, router, battery, and sensors. The

sensors will include a GPS, a temperature and humidity sensor, sonar, and a metal detector. The treads will

be driven by a pressure wheel and have long rubber treads that will provide traction on land and act as

paddles in water. The estimated cost to prototype the robot is $500. The robot will weigh no more than 50

pounds and the structure will be a maximum of 3 feet in diameter. This will allow the robot to be easily

transported. The robot will be able to travel and communicate a quarter mile on land. The robot will be

communicated with from a separate location using Wi-Fi through a router. Video feed from the robot and

GPS coordinates will allow the user to determine the location of the robot and maneuver it using controls

on a laptop or phone application.

ii

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Calvin College and the Engineering Department .......................................................................... 1

1.2 Calvin College Senior Design Project .......................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Specification ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Team Member Bios ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.4.1 Heather Kloet ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4.2 Kaitlyn Weinstein ................................................................................................................. 2

1.4.3 Monica Wood ....................................................................................................................... 2

2 Project Management ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Team Member Responsibilities .................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Heather Kloet ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.1.2 Kaitlyn Weinstein ................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.3 Monica Wood ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.1.4 Other Management Tasks ..................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.1 Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2.2 Budget ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Project Milestones ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Fall Semester Completed Milestones .................................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Spring Semester Planned Milestones .................................................................................... 7

3 Project Clarification ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Problem Specification ................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Customer ..................................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.3.1 Performance Requirements ................................................................................................. 11

3.3.2 Physical Requirements ........................................................................................................ 12

3.3.3 Electronic Requirements ..................................................................................................... 12

3.3.4 Interface Requirements ....................................................................................................... 14

3.3.5 Cost Requirements .............................................................................................................. 14

3.4 Deliverables ................................................................................................................................ 14

3.4.1 Fall Semester Deliverables .................................................................................................. 14

3.4.2 Spring Semester Deliverables ............................................................................................. 15

iii

4 Design ................................................................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 16

4.1.1 Critical Considerations ........................................................................................................ 16

4.1.2 Design Norms ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Propulsion System ...................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Alternatives and Research ................................................................................................... 17

4.2.2 Decision .............................................................................................................................. 22

4.3 Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 23


4.3.2 Decision .............................................................................................................................. 24

4.4 Body ............................................................................................................................................ 24

4.4.1 Structure .............................................................................................................................. 24

4.4.2 Casing ................................................................................................................................. 25

4.4.3 Dry Box ............................................................................................................................... 25

4.4.4 Layout ................................................................................................................................. 26

4.4.5 Size ...................................................................................................................................... 27

4.5 Onboard Computer ...................................................................................................................... 27


4.5.2 Decision .............................................................................................................................. 28

4.6 Remote Communication ............................................................................................................. 28


4.6.2 Decision .............................................................................................................................. 29

4.7 Sensors ........................................................................................................................................ 30

4.7.1 Global Positioning System (GPS) ....................................................................................... 30

4.7.2 Onboard Camera ................................................................................................................. 31

4.7.3 Humidity and Temperature Sensor ..................................................................................... 33

4.7.4 Sonar ................................................................................................................................... 34

4.7.5 Metal Detection ................................................................................................................... 35

4.8 User Interface .............................................................................................................................. 37

4.8.1 Graphical User Interface (GUI) .......................................................................................... 37

4.8.2 Mobile Application ............................................................................................................. 38

4.8.3 Motor Control ..................................................................................................................... 38

5 Business Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 40

iv

5.1 Marketing .................................................................................................................................... 40

5.1.1 Competition ......................................................................................................................... 40

5.1.2 Differentiation ..................................................................................................................... 40

5.1.3 Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 40

5.2 Final Product Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 40

6 Feasibility ............................................................................................................................................ 43

6.1 Risks ............................................................................................................................................ 43

6.1.1 Movement ........................................................................................................................... 43

6.1.2 Wireless Communication .................................................................................................... 43

6.1.3 Floatation ............................................................................................................................ 43

6.1.4 Metal Detector..................................................................................................................... 43

6.2 Time Constraints ......................................................................................................................... 44

7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 45

8 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 46

References ................................................................................................................................................... 47

v

Table of Figures Figure 1: Team 11 Monica Wood, Kaitlyn Weinstein, Heather Kloet ......................................................... 1

Figure 2: Electronic Block Diagram ........................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3: Screw Propulsion ......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Foldable Paddles .......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 5: Foam Treads ................................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 6: Paddled Wheels ........................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 7: Propeller ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 8: NASA Crawler ............................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 9: Duck Boat .................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 10: Tracks ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 11: Amphibot Treads ....................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 12: Liquid Foam .............................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 13: Used Tires .................................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 14: Preliminary Frame Design ......................................................................................................... 25

Figure 15: Dry Box ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 16: Amphibot Preliminary Layout ................................................................................................... 26

Figure 17: The Raspberry Pi B+ ................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 18: The BeagleBone Black .............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 19: Wifi ............................................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 20: Bluetooth ................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 21: Zigbee ........................................................................................................................................ 29

Figure 22: Adafruit Ultimate GPS .............................................................................................................. 31

Figure 23: Creative Webcam ...................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 24: GoPro Hero ................................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 25: DHT22 Sensor ........................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 26: Side Scan Sonar ......................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 27: Surf PI 1.2 Metal Detector ......................................................................................................... 36

Figure 28: Tiny PI Metal Detector .............................................................................................................. 37

Figure 29: Visual Studio ............................................................................................................................. 37

Figure 30: Application Platforms ................................................................................................................ 38

Figure 31: Joystick ...................................................................................................................................... 39

Table of Tables Table 1: Individual Hours Breakdown .......................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Cost of Parts .................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 3: Spring Semester Milestones ............................................................................................................ 7

Table 4: Parts' Cost Estimate ...................................................................................................................... 41

Table 5: Break Even Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 42

1

1 Introduction Team Amphibot consists of Heather Kloet, Kaitlyn Weinstein, and Monica Wood. The team is working to

create an amphibious robot which will be capable of driving on land and propelling through water in

order to find small metallic objects in marshes, swamps, and shallow black-water. This project meets

requirements for Calvin College Department of Engineering’s Senior Design Project.

1.1 Calvin College and the Engineering Department

Calvin College is a well-renowned college with academic excellence. It is a liberal arts college based in

the Christian Reformed faith. The engineering program is one of Calvin’s top programs for its

combination of liberal arts and technical aspects. Its courses enable students to learn both hands-on and

theoretical methods. Calvin works to prepare students for real-world situations and be equipped to handle

them using a Christian perspective.

1.2 Calvin College Senior Design Project The Senior Design Project is the two-semester capstone of Calvin’s Engineering program. The goal of the

senior design project is to test and develop engineering students’ understanding of the process of

engineering design, the ability to work in a team, and basic engineering skills learned over the past three

years.

1.3 Project Specification

This senior design project will be an amphibious, remote-controlled vehicle. The vehicle, named

Amphibot, will be equipped with a number of sensory devices, including GPS, sonar, a metal detector,

and webcam, for the purpose of finding small objects lost in black water, mud, and marshes. Amphibot is

designed to be useful for fishermen, boating enthusiasts, and other water hobbyists who might need to

find items lost in shallow water. It also has use for local sheriffs’ departments aiding in car wrecks and in

criminology by finding weapons such as guns or knives.

1.4 Team Member Bios The team consists of Heather Kloet, Kaitlyn Weinstein, and Monica Wood, pictured below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Team 11 Monica Wood, Kaitlyn Weinstein, Heather Kloet

2

1.4.1 Heather Kloet

Heather is an electrical and computer engineering student. She was born and raised in

Grand Rapids, MI. In her spare time, she volunteers at Frederik Meijer Gardens Gift

Shop. She hopes to continue her education with a Master’s Degree in computer-based

fields. She enjoys reading, shopping, and listening to music. She is excited to work on

the electrical and software components of the project and help further develop

underwater exploration.

1.4.2 Kaitlyn Weinstein

Kaitlyn is a mechanical engineering student. She grew up on a farm in Leslie,

Michigan, which sparked her interest in mechanical engineering. She is pursuing a

full-time mechanical engineering position in the mid-Michigan area in order to be

near her family. In her spare time she enjoys reading, drawing, and making stuff. She

also has a minor in architecture, which she is hoping to use to build her dream home.

She is excited to work with the structure and propulsion of the robot on land and in

water.

1.4.3 Monica Wood

Monica is an electrical and computer engineering student. As the daughter of an Air

Force officer, she moved a lot throughout her childhood, attending three different

high schools and living in 7 different states. She is a cadet in the Army ROTC

program of Western Michigan University, and will be commissioning as an Active

Duty Signal Corps officer in May 2015. In February 2015 she will marry her best

friend, Cody Limback, and they hope to live in Germany for many years both during

and after her Army service. She enjoys reading, writing, and playing video games

with her fiancé. She is excited to use her knowledge of electrical engineering to build

a robot that has both civilian and military possible applications.

3

2 Project Management

2.1 Team Member Responsibilities

The team is made of a total of three members. Each team member has a set of responsibilities for which

she is ultimately responsible.

2.1.1 Heather Kloet

Heather is primarily responsible for the software components of Amphibot. She will oversee

communicating with Amphibot wirelessly, writing software for the user interface, and determining how

Amphibot will be controlled and steered by the user. She will also work with Kaitlyn to connect the

motors to the electronic systems to power Amphibot.

2.1.2 Kaitlyn Weinstein

Kaitlyn is primarily responsible for all aspects of Amphibot’s mechanical body and movement. She will

oversee the design of Amphibot’s body, choose and implement necessary motors, and design and build

the propulsion system. She will determine material needs and costs, as well as size, weight and other

physical limitations.

2.1.3 Monica Wood

Monica’s primary responsibility is for the hardware and sensors Amphibot will use to find objects and

track its location. She will oversee the purchase and implementation of the sensors, and will work with

Heather to integrate each sensor with the end user by use of a single board computer.

2.1.4 Other Management Tasks

As part of the team’s success, other management tasks were assigned to team members to ensure smooth

operation and allow the team to meet deadlines.

2.1.4.1 Team Webmaster

Heather will serve as the team Webmaster. The senior design team was tasked with developing a team

webpage that details the progress of the project, shares documentation, and serves to promote Calvin

College and the Senior Design project. Heather agreed to take on the task because of her familiarity with

Dreamweaver software and prior work in creating websites.

2.1.4.2 Weekly Project Leader

The team assigns a project leader, who is responsible for ensuring weekly goals are met, providing

weekly summaries to the team’s faculty advisor, and overseeing the work schedule for the week. To better

balance that responsibility, the leadership position is rotated on a weekly basis between all members of

the team.

2.2 Methodology In order to maintain good relationships, effectively utilize time, and produce a quality product, the team

has developed a method of weekly, all-team meetings combined with individual time and work. Time

spent on the project is tracked by an Excel sheet. Communication and document sharing is accomplished

via a combination of verbal conversations, email, Google Drive folders, Microsoft OneDrive, and the

Calvin College network shared drive.

4

2.2.1 Schedule

The team has scheduled biweekly meetings on Monday and Wednesday for an hour at 12:30 P.M. each

day. This time is spent on updating one another on individual progress, as well as to set short-term goals

and discuss overall progress. In addition to this group time, each team member is responsible for spending

at least a half hour per work day on the project, and for logging this time and what they did in a

scheduling table.

2.2.1.1 Fall Semester Work Breakdown Schedule

During the fall semester, the schedule was broken down between time spent as a team and time spent

individually. Each team member was asked to spend at least 30 minutes a work day putting effort into the

project in order to see it through to completion. As of now, individual time nets at a total of 139 total

hours of individual work, broken down in Table 1.

Table 1: Individual Hours Breakdown

Name Number of Hours Worked

Heather 48

Monica 44

Kaitlyn 47

Total: 139

The team spent two hours per week in regularly scheduled team meeting times, as well as spending extra

time at key points along the project, particularly when deliverables were due. This time nets to 24

regularly scheduled hours over the course of the twelve weeks of the semester. Additional time spent

working together summed to a total of 50 hours, which together makes a total of 74 hours of combined

effort. With the three team members working during this time, the individual work hours amount to 225

hours. Overall, the project has taken 364 hours of labor this semester.

2.2.1.2 Spring Semester Work Breakdown Schedule

As the spring semester is about building a prototype as well as doing additional research and narrowing of

scope, it is predicted that the project will take at least 3 times the amount of man-hours in the spring as in

the fall. Thus, the team plans to spend no less than 675 hours, or 225 per person, on the project. As the

spring semester and interim allows for 14 weeks before the Senior Design Night, this means a work load

of 17 hours per week per person. This is the equivalent of a part-time job, and should be manageable

during the semester.

2.2.2 Budget

In order to take charge of the budget, each desired component, sensor, tool, or piece of material for

Amphibot is researched for the best deal. Once a specific item has been chosen, the team member who

requests it will enter the item into a spreadsheet with the item’s cost. As a team, these components are

discussed and approved depending on their cost and level of necessity. Because many of the parts needed

for Amphibot can be quite expensive, the team is working hard to find the components that are cheapest

for what is required in order to stay within the set budget. The final purchasing cost list is shown below in

Table 2.

5

Table 2: Cost of Parts

Budget

Available Budget $500

Items Quantity Unit Cost Expected Cost Actual Cost Purchased?

Temp/Hum Sensor 1 10 10 9.95 Yes Raspberry Pi 1 40 40 37.44 Yes GPS Breakout 1 40 40 39.95 Yes USB to TTL Serial Cable 1 10 10 9.95 Yes Webcam 1 40 40 17.99 Yes Breadboard 1 5 5 0 No Wifi Dongle 1 7.5 7.5 0 No Electric motor 2 25 50 0 No Wheel 8 7 56 0 No Sonar 1 25 25 0 No Metal Detector 1 45 45 0 No Nuts and Bolts 20 0.2 4 0 No Male to Male Wires 1 2 2 0 No MicroSD Card 1 12 12 0 No

Total Spent $346.50 $127.68 Total Left $154 $372

2.3 Project Milestones The team used a list of specific tasks throughout the semester as milestones to judge completed progress

and future goals. The milestones completed in the fall semester are laid out in this section, as well as

predicted milestones for the spring.

2.3.1 Fall Semester Completed Milestones

With the close of the fall semester, the fall milestones discussed below are key tasks the team

accomplished during the semester.

2.3.1.1 Form the Team

The first step in the senior design project was finalizing the teams. Monica, Heather, and Kaitlyn

developed their team based on similar work ethics and personalities, as well as mutual desires for an

interesting, multi-discipline project.

2.3.1.2 Select the Project and Receive Approval

Team 11 chose a project based on group interest and perceived feasibility. The team was fascinated by

robotics and the implementation of electronics into a mechanical system. An amphibious robot was

chosen for its unique challenge and level of interest.

2.3.1.3 Create a Work Breakdown Schedule

The team created a schedule of work based on deliverable due dates, expected difficulty of each task, and

additional considerations such as school breaks and test schedules.

6

2.3.1.4 Meet with Industrial Consultant

Team 11 was assigned an industrial consultant who would act as a guide and mentor in helping determine

key tasks, points of research, and feasibility. During the meeting with industrial consultant, Eric Walstra

of Gentex Corporation, the team was able to form a more narrowed scope with a specific set of

requirements, as well as develop a timeline and research needs.

2.3.1.5 Provide Weekly Status Reports to Faculty Consultant

Mark Michmerhuizen of the Electrical and Computer concentration served as faculty consultant and

guided the team through the senior design project as a class. In order to better help judge team progress

and provide advice and recommendations, Professor Michmerhuizen requested weekly status reports

summarizing completed tasks, goals for the following week, and any struggles perceived.

2.3.1.6 Meet with Mentor

Professor Renard Tubergen of the Mechanical concentration at Calvin College was recommended to

Team 11 due to his knowledge of underwater operations as a hobbyist diver. In meeting with Professor

Tubergen, the team was able to narrow the scope of its project even further, allowing for a project with a

feasible scope for senior design.

2.3.1.7 Continuous Research

Research for Team 11 is an unending task. However, the predominant research was completed during the

fall semester to determine specific design decisions and feasibility of aspects of the project.

2.3.1.8 Complete Presentations and Posters for Senior Design

Because the senior design project is a capstone class at Calvin College, certain requirements like team

presentations and team posters had to be fulfilled. The team incorporated these deadlines into its work

breakdown schedule, and made sure to complete them in time.

2.3.1.9 Create and Continue to Update Team Website

Each senior design team is responsible for creating and maintaining a team website. Heather, as team

webmaster, spent time in the fall creating a website that introduced the team and the project. This website

will be maintained throughout the project.

2.3.1.10 Complete the Project Proposal and Feasibility Study

The PPFS was the major milestone of the fall semester. A draft of the PPFS was submitted for approval

from the faculty advisor in November. The final PPFS marks the end of the fall semester, and is due at the

end of classes in December.

2.3.1.11 Acquire Parts and Begin Testing

With the time remaining in the fall semester, the team began the process of acquiring parts and

performing preliminary testing on those parts. The team purchased its Raspberry Pi, GPS, webcam, and

humidity and temperature sensor, and acquired tread from the campus fitness center's treadmill. Heather

and Monica were able to program the Raspberry Pi to run the webcam, and then to view the webcam feed

on another computer via the wireless network. They also began the process of implementing the GPS with

the Raspberry Pi.

7

2.3.2 Spring Semester Planned Milestones

The spring semester of senior design is when the research and project planning must culminate in a

working prototype of the project. The team has determined planned milestones for the spring that will

allow for on-time completion of the Amphibot prototype. Table 3 below shows the milestones with

desired deadlines. The milestones are detailed in the following sections.

Table 3: Spring Semester Milestones

Completion Date Milestone

December 31, 2014 Test Motors

January 20, 2015 Set up Router and Wi-Fi

January 31, 2015 Create Tracks

Test GPS

Obtain Metal Detector

February 28, 2015 Create Frame and Mount Treads

Test Humidity Sensor and Sonar

Create GUI Framework

March 15, 2015 Develop Movement and Motor Controls

March 31, 2015 Finalize Buoyancy

Finalize and Test Metal Detector

Combine and Test Sensors

April 15, 2015 Interface with GUI

Mount Electronics into Robot Body

April 30, 2015 Create Android App

Build Cover and Complete Robot Assembly

May 5, 2015 Test Robot and Make Final Alterations

May, 9 2015 Prepare Senior Design Night Presentation

To Be Determined Complete All Senior Design Deliverables

2.3.2.1 Test Motors

Two motors will be driving the robot and it is essential that they perform to the requirements. The motors

will be tested in order to make sure they work in forward and reverse. A load will then be applied and the

maximum speed they are capable of and amount of torque they can provide will be measured. They also

will be run for a long period of time in order to measure battery life.

2.3.2.2 Set up Router and Wi-Fi

The router and Wi-Fi will be the means of communication between the user and Amphibot. A secure

WLAN network will be set up to allow for communication to be possible. The router will be on-board

Amphibot and exchange data to the laptop and Raspberry Pi via Wi-Fi.

2.3.2.3 Create Tracks

The tracks are what propel the robot on land and in the water. They must go through an iterative process

in order to determine the optimal sizes and positions of the treads. The materials must be obtained and the

tracks constructed which will be a lengthy process given the number of materials needed and the

manufacturing required. They will be attached to a motor separate from the body to test functionality.

8

2.3.2.4 Test GPS

The GPS will be the tool for letting the user know where Amphibot is and where the object detected are

for future retrieval. The GPS will be able to easily interface with the Raspberry Pi which will convert the

data to GPS coordinates for the GUI. Testing will be done to ensure accuracy of the GPS locations.

2.3.2.5 Obtain Metal Detector

The metal detector is one of the more critical aspects of the senior design project, as without it, the robot

is unable to accomplish its task. Additionally, the robot frame size is dependent on the size of the

electronic components, and the metal detector is likely to be the largest of these. Thus, it is important that

the physical metal detector is chosen and obtained early in the semester to allow for the body to be

designed around its size.

2.3.2.6 Create Frame and Mount Treads

A frame to mount the treads to and hold the motors and electronics must be constructed. The design will

be simple and fabrication easy, so this should not take a long time to complete. The size of the frame will

be determined by the need for a router and the size of the metal detector. The metal detector may also

affect the form of the frame. In order to complete this step, the size and shape of the metal detector must

be known.

2.3.2.7 Test Humidity Sensor and Sonar

The humidity and temperature sensor and the pinger sonar should both be fairly simple sensors to

implement in the robot design. Therefore, testing them and making sure they work according to design

specification should be completed early to move on to more complex aspects of the electronic sensor

system.

2.3.2.8 Create GUI Framework

The GUI will mux all the sensors into an aesthetically pleasing view and control system for the user. The

framework for this needs to be completed to allow for seamless incorporation of the sensors once

complete.

2.3.2.9 Develop Movement and Motor Controls

Once the tracks and motors have been mounted to the frame, the control system will be implemented and

the movement of the robot will be tested. The robot should be able to go forward, backward, and be able

to turn on point. The control system will be tested to ensure that all of these motions are possible and that

the interface is logical and easy to control the robot with. Its ability to overcome minor obstacles will be

tested by driving it over rough ground and small objects.

2.3.2.10 Finalize Buoyancy

The buoyancy of the robot will be tested by removing the motors from the frame, adding weights that will

be equivalent to the weight of the motors and electronics, and attaching the sled form to the bottom and

filling it with foam. It will then be placed in the water and the buoyancy will be adjusted to ensure that it

floats and that the water hits the treads at an ideal location for paddling. Once the robot is buoyant, the

motors will be reattached and its ability to propel and maneuver itself on water will be tested.

9

2.3.2.11 Finalize and Test Metal Detector

Once the metal detector has been acquired, it will have to be configured with the Raspberry Pi to ensure

compatibility with the computer. Once this has been connected, a great deal of tuning and testing will be

required to ensure the metal detector has sufficient range and sensitivity for the depths Amphibot will be

searching.

2.3.2.12 Combine and Test Sensors

Once each sensor has been acquired and tested separately, it will be important to ensure that they are all

compatible with one another and can run simultaneously on the Raspberry Pi. This stage involves making

sure that all the sensors in the electrical system work as expected in real time without straining the

Raspberry Pi system and work over the Wi-Fi network.

2.3.2.13 Interface with GUI

Once the sensors have been proven to be able to work independently, they need to be able to

communicate with the GUI to give the user a friendly environment to work in. This is critical in the final

presentation of the design. In order for this to work, the Raspberry Pi needs to transmit the necessary data

to the GUI application over the Wi-Fi network for the user to see.

2.3.2.14 Mount Electronics into Robot Body

The hardware and sensor for the body of the robot will be waterproofed and mounted in the robot. The

functionality of the sensors in different environments will be tested by putting the robot in a pool that has

metallic objects placed in the bottom and determining whether it can sense them. The hardware will be

tested by pinging the coordinates of the robot and maneuvering it on the water and on land. In order for

this milestone to be completed, the electronics must be ready to be placed in the robot and the software

must be completed. These components will still be accessible to make alterations.

2.3.2.15 Create an Android App

In order to make Amphibot more ideal for the user, an Android application will be developed to allow the

user to control Amphibot from an Android phone. This is not necessary as Amphibot will be able to be

controlled from the Windows application using a laptop as well. However, this is ideal for testing

purposes and fulfilling the design norm of delightful harmony as people are more likely to carry a phone

than laptop when outdoors.

2.3.2.16 Build Cover and Complete Robot Assembly

The plastic cover will be constructed for the robot and it will be attached to the body. Its ability to keep

out water will be tested by slowly increasing the amount of water splashed onto it and using the humidity

sensor to read if any water has breached the waterproof box. The cover will also be opened to visually

determine if any water has entered the main body of the robot. If any water has gotten in, the leak will be

found and fixed.

2.3.2.17 Test Robot and Make Final Alterations

The robot will go through its final testing phase where the team will determine if the requirements have

been met. It will be driven on a track to determine the distance it can travel. It will be placed in a pool to

determine its maneuverability and whether it can sense objects. It will be driven into a pond to see if it

can make the transition between land and water. It will be driven through tall grass and mud to test its

ability to traverse multiple terrains. Through all of this it will be controlled through the designed interface

10

and its location will be pinged with GPS. If any of the requirements are not met, alterations will be made

and the robot will be tested again.

2.3.2.18 Prepare Senior Design Night Presentation

Calvin College hosts a Senior Design Night in May to display each senior design team and their

accomplishments. At this event, Team 11 will be demonstrating the Amphibot prototype as well as giving

a presentation summarizing their work and accomplishments for the project in the previous several

months.

2.3.2.19 Complete All Senior Design Deliverables

The Senior Design capstone includes a number of deliverables, such as a Final Design Report, team

notebooks, and in-class presentations. The team will be including these deliverables into its work

breakdown schedule once the official due dates are known.

11

3 Project Clarification In order to better design the Amphibot vehicle, Team 11 had to clarify the scope and requirements of the

project. The team developed a problem specification and target customer that helped to narrow the design

of the robot. Once the design was determined, the team could set requirements for form, function, and

use.

3.1 Problem Specification

People who spend a lot of time around water are bound to lose something expensive or important in that

water at some point. Especially in water like swamps, marshes, ponds, and other dark, shallow, muddy

water, these items could be easily retrieved if only they could be easily located. But for most people,

wading or swimming in dirty water for a pair of dropped sunglasses is not worth the effort. Amphibot is

designed to alleviate some of the hardship of losing things to the water. It can find metal objects in

shallow water, letting its user know exactly where the lost item is for quick and easy retrieval by hand or

net. This relieves the stress and difficulty of finding lost items.

3.2 Customer The robot, Amphibot, was designed to be applicable primarily for hobbyists, fishermen, and amateur

boaters. Outdoorsmen and women who spend time on the water know that nothing is as frustrating as

losing a pair of expensive sunglasses, a beloved piece of jewelry, or the car keys. Sometimes these items

can be found, but often it is impossible to find the items once they have gone beneath the water into the

mud. Such customers will find Amphibot makes their lives easier, allowing them to easily scoop up lost

items without sifting through mud, wading through dirty water, or dealing with any local wildlife.

Amphibot is useful for the same reasons to local sheriffs who need to find discarded weapons like guns or

knives, or find the location of a wrecked car in a pond.

3.3 Requirements Team 11 has developed a list of requirements that will allow Amphibot to perform its specified function

in a way that is easy, useful, and helpful to its end user. These requirements are divided into categories of

performance, physicality, electronics, interface, and cost.

3.3.1 Performance Requirements

Amphibot’s performance requirements determine how well it will function. Amphibot’s functionality is

designed to balance being useful to a user by having adequate performance with being low cost, simple,

and easy to replicate.

3.3.1.1 Driving Requirements

REQ3.3.1.1.a The robot will be able to traverse 0.25 miles on a single battery charge.

REQ3.3.1.1.b The robot will be able to travel on dry surfaces, wet, marshy surfaces, and on the surface of

still water.

3.3.1.2 Sensing Depth Requirements

REQ3.3.1.2 The robot will be equipped with sensors which produce valid data to a depth of at least 3 feet.

12

3.3.2 Physical Requirements

Physical requirements for Amphibot are based primarily on what the end user would be likely to want in a

personal sized robot in terms of size and maneuverability. In general, size limitations represent

maximums, as the robot’s size is to be as small as the components will allow.

3.3.2.1 Size Requirements

REQ3.3.2.1 The robot will be constrained to fit within a 3 feet sphere in order to allow for ease of

transport and to provide the most flexibility to the user.

3.3.2.2 Weight Requirements

REQ3.3.2.2 The robot will weigh no more than 50 pounds. This is a manageable weight for a human to

transport for short durations.

3.3.2.3 Speed Requirements

REQ3.3.2.3 The robot must be able to travel at least 2 mph. This is a pace that is reasonable for travel

while being slow enough for sensors to work and the user to steer.

3.3.2.4 Maneuverability Requirements

REQ3.3.2.4 The robot must be able to go in forward and reverse directions. It must be able to turn within

a 3 foot radius in order to be able to maneuver through the tight spaces that it will encounter.

3.3.3 Electronic Requirements

Amphibot’s electrical systems need to be robust enough to stand up to motion, transport, and wet

environments without breaking or needing replacement. The system needs to be able to properly interface

with the mechanical system via motor servos and to interface with the user via the wireless area network.

Each sensor must behave according to specifications determined by how Amphibot is designed to be

used. A block diagram of the electrical system, which displays all input and outputs as well as how they

are connected to one another, is shown in Figure 2 below.

13

Figure 2: Electronic Block Diagram

3.3.3.1 Sensor Requirements

REQ3.3.3.1.a The robot will provide metal detection that is accurate to identify metallic objects as small

as a quarter up to 3 feet away.

REQ3.3.3.1.b The robot will utilize sonar to provide the user with water depth accurate between the

ranges of 6 inches and 3 feet.

REQ3.3.3.1.c The robot will be able to communicate its GPS coordinates to a user when it has identified

an object.

REQ3.3.3.1.d The robot will provide live video feed to allow for steering without direct line of sight.

3.3.3.2 Communication Requirements

REQ3.3.3.2 The robot will communicate over a local area network provided by a router installed on the

robot. The network will connect to the user via Wi-Fi, and will operate within a range of a quarter mile.

14

3.3.4 Interface Requirements

Once the robot is connected to a user’s phone or laptop, the user interface will be intuitive to use, made

with a clean design, and easy to understand.

3.3.4.1 Control Requirements

REQ3.3.4.1.a The interface will allow for moving in the X and Y plane, control speed, and provide the

user with sensor data.

REQ3.3.4.1.b The data provided by the sensors will provide simple information to the user without

requiring tuning or calculations.

3.3.4.2 Graphics Requirements

REQ3.3.4.2 The Graphical User Interface must be clean and easily understandable for a lay-person to use.

3.3.5 Cost Requirements

In determining cost, a consideration of the customer’s demographic and resources determined the upper

limit of what could be charged for the end product. In determining prototype costs, parts could cost no

more than allowed by the senior design budget.

3.3.5.1 End User Cost

REQ3.3.5.1 The completed Amphibot must be cheap enough for an amateur hobbyist’s budget. It must

cost an end user no more than $1000.

3.3.5.2 Prototype Cost

REQ3.3.5.2 The Amphibot prototype will cost no more than $500.

3.4 Deliverables Because the senior design project represents a capstone class in the Calvin College Engineering

department, there are a number of project deliverables that are due to the faculty advisors for grading.

These are outlined below.

3.4.1 Fall Semester Deliverables

The following deliverables represent the critical graded tasks of the senior design project during the fall

semester.

3.4.1.1 PPFS

Team Amphibot will submit a Project Proposal and Feasibility Study describing the proposed project and

determining the feasibility of it at the end of the fall semester of 2014.

3.4.1.2 Team Website

Team Amphibot created and published a team website during the fall semester of 2014 describing the

team, project, and important documents. This website will be updated throughout the span of the project.

3.4.1.3 Team Poster

Team Amphibot created a preliminary poster in the fall semester of 2014 and will complete a final poster

to be displayed in the spring semester of 2015.

15

3.4.2 Spring Semester Deliverables

The following deliverables represent the critical tasks due to the senior design class for the spring

semester.

3.4.2.1 Final Report

Team Amphibot will submit a final report specifying the final design specifications at the end of the

spring semester of 2015.

3.4.2.2 Working Prototype

Team Amphibot will present a working prototype at Senior Design Night on May 9, 2015.

3.4.2.3 Design Notebooks

Team Amphibot will submit individual design notebooks specifying each member’s contributions to the

project at the end of the spring semester of 2015.

3.4.2.4 Final Presentation

Team Amphibot will present the results of their project on Senior Design Night on May 9, 2015.

16

4 Design With a specific problem to solve and a list of requirements, Team 11 researched necessary components

and their specifications in order to settle on a final design for Amphibot. This design was made by a

careful consideration of the problem, the customer, and feasibility based on research, as well as on a list

of important criteria and the team’s design norms. In the sections following, the team spells out driving

design criteria, explains the three design norms most relevant to the design, and summarizes its research

and chosen design.

4.1 Design Criteria The design decisions were made based on key criteria that were deemed important to the team as the

designer and important to the customer as the end user. These criteria are explained here.

4.1.1 Critical Considerations

Critical considerations are the variety of factors that the team needed to take into consideration when

determining its final design choices. These factors were based on user operation, operating conditions,

and design limitations.

4.1.1.1 Weight

In order to maintain battery life and buoyancy, the materials and components used must be as light as

possible. As the weight of Amphibot increases more power must be utilized to propel it forward.

Additionally, a heavier product would be less desirable to an end user for transportation purposes.

4.1.1.2 Durability

The robot will be travelling through harsh conditions. In order to maintain the life span of Amphibot, the

components must be able to withstand jarring impacts, moisture, and dirt. Electronics should be

waterproof where needed and water resistant where possible.

4.1.1.3 Simplicity

In order to prevent breakage and make Amphibot easier to fix and customize, the systems must be as

simple as possible while still performing required functions.

4.1.1.4 Transportability

Since Amphibot will be used in boats, it should be small enough to fit in an average small boat without

trouble. It should also be compact and light enough that it can be carried by a single person to transport it

between a boat and a vehicle, dock, or garage.

4.1.1.5 Reliability

Amphibot will be travelling in hard-to-reach areas with only wireless control. This runs the risk of losing

the robot in difficult areas to navigate. This risk should be minimized, so each component must be as

reliable as possible. Electronic components need to be able to function quickly and well regardless of

situation and location. Mechanical components must not break when performing intended functions.

4.1.1.6 Maneuverability

Amphibot must be easy to maneuver. This is important because the user will be steering by control

buttons based on video feed and will not be able to physically make corrections to the robot’s path. It will

also need to be capable of travelling through tight spaces and go around large obstacles.

17

4.1.1.7 Versatility

Amphibot will be required to traverse a broad range of environments from land to water, including rocky

and marshy areas. The robot’s propulsion system must be able to travel through each of these. Amphibot

must also be versatile with regard to the customer’s needs from sensors and other performance related

requirements.

4.1.2 Design Norms

The three design norms that will be emphasized in our project are delightful harmony, trust, and caring.

4.1.2.1 Delightful Harmony

People who fish and boat for a hobby regularly do so to relax, relieve stress, and enjoy themselves.

Losing something valuable is an easy way to lose the positive benefit provided by these enjoyable

pastimes. Amphibot is designed to lighten that stress and provide other sources of enjoyment. Therefore,

Amphibot will be aesthetically pleasing and easy to use.

4.1.2.2 Caring

Amphibot is designed to minimize or eliminate otherwise unpleasant human tasks. Wading through

swamps can be cold, wet, and muddy, and especially in areas in the south, can be home to wild alligators

and dangerous animals. Amphibot makes the task of searching for lost items easy and harmless.

4.1.2.3 Trust

People using Amphibot need to be able to trust that the system will work properly every time. Users

should be able to trust the product and be able to have faith in its reliability. Additionally, they need to

trust the team as designers. The end user is considered in every aspect of the design process. This will be

visible in the durability and usefulness of the final prototype.

4.2 Propulsion System Various methods of propulsion were considered for Amphibot. The challenges of propulsion came from

Amphibot’s amphibious nature, which required a method of propulsion for both land movement and

movement along the surface of the water. Additionally, the land around the waterways that Amphibot is

likely to be traversing would be both muddy and full of debris like rocks, marsh grass, leaves, sticks, and

other plant life.

4.2.1 Alternatives and Research

In determining the final design, many different propulsion methods were considered. These included

integrated systems where one system would power Amphibot along both mediums and separate systems

which utilize a different propulsion method for land and water traversal.

4.2.1.1 Integrated Systems

Integrated systems are propulsion systems that are capable of moving across both land and the surface of

the water using the same mechanical component.

4.2.1.1.1 Screw-Propulsion

In this system the robot would be propelled by two large power screws located on either side of the body.

If the interiors are hollow, it would provide the buoyancy needed to float on water and stay on top of mud.

This system would allow the robot to travel through marshy environments. Screw-propulsion is a more

18

recent development that is not commonly used. It is hard to maneuver and has problems with slippage.1

The parts needed are also more expensive and harder to obtain. An example of screw-propulsion is shown

in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Screw Propulsion2

4.2.1.1.2 Tracks

Tracks are an ideal way to travel across rough terrain. Modifications must be made in order to make them

suitable to drive on water. Small paddles are mounted on the treads. These can be in the form of paddles

that fold down when on land and open when in water, shown in Figure 4, rubber paddles that are small

enough to allow land travel but large enough to have significant traction when in the water, or foam

paddles that provide buoyancy and propel the robot forward, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Foldable Paddles3

19

Figure 5: Foam Treads4

Having paddles that fold down would provide a way to travel more efficiently on land and on water. The

drawbacks to this system are that it would require the switching of two levers - one for each track - and

the joints for the paddles could easily become jammed with mud. If the paddles are jammed, it would

throw the robot off balance and possibly cause the paddle to break. The rubber paddles would not be as

efficient as the foldable paddles but would still provide suitable motion for land and water. The rubber

would be durable and able to grip, while the deep tread would be well suited for muddy areas and

paddling through water. The foam paddles would allow travel on land and solve the problem of buoyancy

in the water, but they would not be very durable or provide much traction on land or in the water because

of the thickness required to make them sturdy. The foam is also light and could result in the robot being

top heavy.

4.2.1.1.3 Paddled Wheels

A final option for an integrated propulsion system would be to use paddled wheels, as demonstrated in

Figure 6. The paddles would be similar to the rubber paddles mentioned in the section above. The benefits

to this would be easy maneuverability. The negative is that the wheels are more likely to get stuck in the

mud or not be able to overcome obstacles.

Figure 6: Paddled Wheels5

20

4.2.1.2 Separate Systems

Propelling Amphibot by separate systems means finding a system that works well for land, a system that

works well for water, and combining the two systems into a single design.

4.2.1.2.1 Propeller

Each of these systems uses a propeller and some other method of travelling on land. Using a propeller like

the one in Figure 7 is the most efficient way to propel the robot through water. A single propeller could be

mounted on the back of the robot. A rudder would then be used to steer. Having a propeller would require

another motor, adding weight, and another control system, adding complexity. Transitioning between land

and water would also be more problematic.

Figure 7: Propeller6

4.2.1.2.2 Crawler and Propeller

A crawling system, would make use of legs. There are many possibilities for leg structures and

positioning. All are driven by rotational motion. In one system multiple sets of legs are moved by rocker

arm mechanisms. In another, designed by NASA and shown in Figure 8, two beams are connected, one

long and one short, using a gearing mechanism so that as the first leg rotates, the second, shorter leg helps

to propel the robot forward.7 The motion resulting from this is complicated and jarring. The benefit of

legs is that in mud, they will not spin out. Drawbacks are that this system is unstable and maneuvering is

complicated.

21

Figure 8: NASA Crawler8

4.2.1.2.3 Wheels and Propeller

In a wheel and propeller system, the wheels would provide high maneuverability and allow higher speeds,

especially when there are no paddles attached. They still have the problem of being easily stuck in mud

and having a more difficult time in overcoming obstacles. The Duck Boat, shown in Figure 9, is an

example of such a system.

Figure 9: Duck Boat9

4.2.1.2.4 Tracks and Propeller

The tracks would allow for decent speeds on land and do well in overcoming obstacles. This in

combination with the propeller would provide reliable and efficient motion both on land and in the water.

Figure 10 shows an example of this system. One negative is that the tracks would create strong drag when

being pushed through the water and hinder maneuverability.

22

Figure 10: Tracks10

4.2.2 Decision

The robot will be propelled by tracks on land and on the water. They will be constructed using treadmill

belt material with rubber grips attached. The grips will be long enough and spaced far enough apart that

they will produce sufficient motion both when in the water and on land. The front and back of the tracks

will be angled upward in order to better overcome obstacles on land whether going forward or backward.

This configuration also gives more flexibility when considering the buoyancy of the robot. The water

level must not be higher than the top of the tracks, but the body of the robot must still be high enough to

clear obstacles when travelling on land. The tracks will be propelled using an electric motor that drives a

pressure wheel that will turn the tracks. This will allow the belt to be taken off easily and prevent

slippage. The length of the tracks is 1.6 times the width of the body in order to optimize traction and

maneuverability. See Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Amphibot Treads

There will be two electric motors located on each side of the robot to drive the tracks. Each will be

reversible and controlled separately. This will allow the robot’s position to be easily controlled by

determining the speed and direction of each of the tracks separately. These motors must be able to provide

23

a minimum of 25 Watts in order to be able to propel the robot at reasonable speeds and power it over

obstacles.

4.3 Materials An important decision was the materials that would be used for the different components of the robot.


Each material option was evaluated for cost, weight, and strength. The application it would be used for

was also considered in order to make a decision on which materials to use.

4.3.1.1 Aluminum

Aluminum as a structural material would be ideal because it is light-weight. A drawback is that it is not as

strong as steel. It would, however, be strong enough to withstand the forces the robot will be

experiencing.

4.3.1.2 Steel

Steel is stronger than aluminum and is also denser. As a structural material it would add significant

weight while adding strength that isn’t required.

4.3.1.3 Plastic

Plastic is a light-weight, easily molded material that is ideal for the robot casing. It can absorb shock and

keep out particles. As a structural material, it would be light, but would require more volume to meet the

required strength.

4.3.1.4 PVC

PVC piping as a structural component would add buoyancy. It would, however, be bulky and harder to

attach components to. It also would not allow much flexibility when adjusting the height the robot sits at

in the water.

4.3.1.5 Foam

Foam to make the robot float is light-weight and easy to apply. Liquid foam, like that shown in Figure 12,

is easily moldable and can fit into crevices. Foam sheets can easily be cut into geometric forms and

removed from the robot. Both types come in a variety of densities. The foam could easily be scraped off

or added to in order to adjust buoyancy. A negative is that foam may chip off during use of the robot.

Figure 12: Liquid Foam11

24

4.3.1.6 Rubber

Rubber is a heavy material, but ideal for the tracks because it is flexible and has strong gripping

capabilities. This is important on land because there will not be as much contacting surface area because

of the elongated treads. Recycling tires is difficult and rubber needed by the team can be cheaply obtained

by collecting used tires, see Figure 12, and reusing them. This would be helpful to the environment by

reducing waste.

Figure 13: Used Tires12

4.3.2 Decision

Aluminum will be used for the structure because it is low density and sufficiently strong to withstand the

forces that Amphibot will experience. Plastic will be used for the casing because it is light and easily

moldable. It will also be able to withstand moderate impacts that Amphibot may experience. Foam will be

used for buoyancy in the bottom of the body of the robot. If water seeps into the body of the robot, it will

not be able to penetrate the foam and the robot will continue to float. Rubber will be used for the treads

because of its traction and ability to bend, so that it will not break. Recycled tires will be used as an act of

stewardship.

4.4 Body The body of the robot will contain all of the electronics and motors. It must be durable and water resistant

in order to protect the components and prolong the life of the robot.

4.4.1 Structure

The main structure will be composed of 1 in by 1/8 inch aluminum bars. These bars will be bolted

together to allow easy alterations. The components will also be bolted to the structure so that they can be

removed if the need arises. The structure will be a basic box with a cross structure in the bottom. The

tracks will be mounted to the sides of the box and the motors will be mounted inside of the box. The bars

will be bent at 90 degrees to increase the strength in torsion and provide surfaces to mount components to.

The structural design can be seen in Figure 14.

25

Figure 14: Preliminary Frame Design

4.4.2 Casing

The entire body will be surrounded by a plastic casing in order to prevent foreign objects from jamming

inside of the robot. The greatest concern is mud during the transition periods between land and water. The

casing will have a clear window to allow the camera to view the environment in front of the robot. It will

be easy to remove so that the batteries can be easily replaced. The bottom of the robot will be protected

by a plastic layer that will act as a sled to allow the treads to easily drag the robot through thick mud and

weeds without foreign matter getting jammed into the robot’s body. This sled will also protect the foam

layer and help with buoyancy. The tracks will also have a plastic, exterior barrier mounted on them to

prevent objects from jamming in the wheels and hindering movement.

4.4.3 Dry Box

A dry box such as in Figure 15 will be used to hold the electrical components. This box is small, light,

and designed specifically to protect items from moisture. There is a set of latches that allow access to it,

which will be ideal for prototyping and maintenance. This will also allow access to the batteries, which

will need periodic charging. Holes will have to be drilled into the side of the box in order to connect wires

to the motors, webcam, sonar, and metal detector. These holes will be caulked shut in order to maintain

the waterproof qualities of the box.

26

Figure 15: Dry Box13

4.4.4 Layout

The central body of the robot will be a combination of waterproof and non-waterproof electrical

components. The non-waterproof components will be placed in a waterproof box. The waterproof

components will be placed on the frame of the robot in a manner that equally distributes the weight so

that the robot will remain level when on water. The buoyancy of the robot will be obtained by lining the

bottom on the body with foam. A liquid foam of 4lb will be used because it is flexible and easy to form

while providing enough upward force in the water to maintain the robot at desired levels. The conceptual

layout can be seen in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Amphibot Preliminary Layout

27

4.4.5 Size

The estimated weight of the robot is 30 lbs. The length of the tracks is 1 ½ ft. and the width is 4 in. The

width of the body is 1 ft. This will allow it to be transportable while being large enough to carry its

required load and easily overcome small obstacles.

4.5 Onboard Computer In order to run the sensors, control the motors, and interact with the end user, Amphibot needs an onboard

computer to serve as its processing unit and manage these interactions. Because of size limitations, a

single-board computer is the perfect embedded system for Amphibot.


There are many single-board computers on the market, most of them small and relatively inexpensive for

use in small projects with mild processing requirements. In order to select the best option for Amphibot,

Team 11 researched some of the more popular single-board computers on the market.

4.5.1.1 Raspberry Pi

The Raspberry Pi single-board computer is the most popular on the market. It has one of the cheapest

prices for single-board computers with adequate memory and processing power. In addition to its low

price, Raspberry Pi has the largest support forum of any single-board computer on the market due to its

open-source coding and wide fan base in the do-it-yourself market. This contributes to a great deal of

support to troubleshooting and coding. The Raspberry Pi comes in 4 models: A, A+, B, and B+, pictured

in Figure 17 below. All use a 700MHz ARM11 family CPU and a 250MHz Broadcom VideoCore IV

GPU. A models have 256MB of SDRAM memory while the B models have 512MB. The plus models

have a greater number of GPIO ports. All models have between 1 and 4 USB drives. They range in price

from 20 to 35 dollars.14

Figure 17: The Raspberry Pi B+15

4.5.1.2 Arduino Mega

Arduino is a family of microcontrollers that come in many, many varieties for a number of uses. The

Arduino Mega2560 and the Arduino Uno are two of the more popular boards. Arduino makes

microprocessors, which differ from single-board computers by their lack of GPUs and graphical user

28

interfaces. They also tend to be weaker in general functionality, as they specialize in performing specific

tasks. The Arduino Mega2560 has a 16MHz processor, 256 GPIO pins, and sells for 43 dollars.16

4.5.1.3 BeagleBone

The BeagleBoard single-board computer is produced by Texas Instruments. BeagleBoard has some of the

best functionality for open-source, low power, single-board computers, but it is also one of the more

expensive. The BeagleBone and the BeagleBone Black, pictured in Figure 18, are two recently launched

BeagleBoard computers. They have a 720MHz processor and 256 and 512MB RAM, respectively. It is

priced at 55 dollars.17

Figure 18: The BeagleBone Black18

4.5.2 Decision

The Raspberry Pi B+, was chosen for use in Amphibot. This decision was made for its price, size and

community. It was cheap and small which are some of our constraint concerns. The Raspberry Pi was

easy to acquire on short notice and start working with immediately due to the number of Raspberry Pis

owned by Calvin College. Additionally, as beginners in embedded systems, the vast amount of online

forums and assistance played a large role in the ultimate decision.

4.6 Remote Communication

In order to communicate with Amphibot, the user will need to use remote communication. The

communication needs to be able to allow the user to control Amphibot from a distance. Some challenges

for communication were allowing for a large enough range and having a reliable connection.


A range of communication protocols were researched for use with Amphibot.

4.6.1.1 Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi, see Figure 19, is the most commonly used local area wireless technology.19 It allows for data

transmission via an electronic device such as a router or switch. It is usually used within a home to

connect and allow portable devices to connect to the Internet. Out of all the wireless communications

protocols, it has the largest range, able to connect up to 20 meters indoors and further outdoors.

29

Figure 19: Wifi20

4.6.1.2 Ethernet

Ethernet would be ideal for Amphibot because it is the most secure and reliable. Since it is a wired LAN

connection, there is no question whether the data is being transmitted. The wired connection, however,

poses problems for Amphibot and its proximity to water. The range of motion for Amphibot would be

limited by the length of the Ethernet cable. The Raspberry Pi has Ethernet readily available making it

more ideal for use.

4.6.1.3 Bluetooth

Bluetooth, see Figure 20, is another common form of wireless communication. It follows certain

standards set by IEEE and devices must meet these in order to be certified Bluetooth capable. Bluetooth

has low power consumption but can only connect in short distances, approximately 10 m.21 Because it is

radio communication, it does not require line-of-sight to exchange data. This would be ideal if there are

obstacles between the user and Amphibot.

Figure 20: Bluetooth22

4.6.1.4 Zigbee

Zigbee, see Figure 21, is similar to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth in that it is a wireless personal area network. It is

the only wireless protocol to be open, global and provide the Internet of Things.23 Like Bluetooth, it has

low-power consumption and a shorter range. It is designed for applications requiring security and long

battery life. Like Bluetooth, Zigbee only has a range of 10m to 100m with line-of-slight. However, it is

simpler and cheaper than Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

Figure 21: Zigbee24

4.6.2 Decision

It was decided for Amphibot that Wi-Fi would be used as the mode of data exchange. It will be

implemented using a router to create a WLAN (wireless local area network) between the Raspberry Pi

and Wi-Fi Dongle in the Raspberry Pi USB port and user. Wi-Fi will allow Amphibot to meet the

30

required range of motion of a quarter mile. It is also widely used, making it easy to implement and

reliable. Wi-Fi will allow us to secure the network and prevent unwanted hacking of Amphibot.

4.7 Sensors Amphibot will take data from the world around it primarily by use of sensors in the drop-down sensor

box. These sensors will be controlled using the onboard computer.

4.7.1 Global Positioning System (GPS)

A GPS will be used on Amphibot to relay back to the user the position of any discovered items. It will

also help the user know where Amphibot is as the GPS coordinates will be relayed back to the user

continuously.

4.7.1.1 Alternatives and Research

The main implementations for GPS in Amphibot researched were a handheld GPS Unit, a USB GPS

Receiver, and a GPS receiver circuit. All of these were researched before a final decision was made.

4.7.1.1.1 Handheld GPS Unit

A handheld GSP Unit would be a portable device that would attach to Amphibot and then report the

results back to the user via an application. These devices, being built for a user to hold, are equipped with

features, like an LCD screen, that are of no use in Amphibot. These devices use satellite and would have

high accuracy.25 Most devices cost a few hundred dollars.

4.7.1.1.2 USB GPS Receiver

A USB GPS Receiver would be able to connect directly to a USB port on the Raspberry Pi.26 Since these

devices are mainly an antenna, it reduces the cost drastically to be in the range of 10 to 30 dollars. The

receiver would not be able to function with the Raspberry Pi, so conversion of raw data to coordinates

would need to be taken care of by the user device.

4.7.1.1.3 GPS Receiver Circuit

Adafruit sells a circuit board able to connect with single-board computers and micro controllers like

Arduino and Raspberry Pi. The Adafruit Ultimate GPS, pictured in Figure 22, has battery power

capability and an output for an antenna extension.27 Adafruit provides easy-to-use setup instructions and

tutorials for basic usage. It sells for a moderate price of 40 dollars for the circuitry and 13 dollars for the

external antenna.

31

Figure 22: Adafruit Ultimate GPS28

4.7.1.2 Decision

The Adafruit Ultimate GPS with antenna extension was determined to be the best GPS unit for Amphibot.

It was chosen mainly for its ability to be supported by the Raspberry Pi. Rather than have the data

conversion be handled by the user’s device, all conversions should be handled by the Raspberry Pi so as

to make the process not dependent on user device.

4.7.2 Onboard Camera

Amphibot will use an onboard camera mounted on the front of the bot to give the user a proper field of

vision for steering Amphibot remotely. Implementing such a camera gives the user the freedom to drive

Amphibot around corners or into areas the user cannot see directly.


There are a variety of cameras on the market that are compatible with most single-board computers. In

order to determine which would be the best option to use on Amphibot, compatibility, size, and price

were predominate factors considered during research.

4.7.2.1.1 Webcam

The market is full of various types, sizes, and quality of webcams. Typically, webcams connect to a

computer via USB and are used to stream live video over a network. The benefit of a webcam for use in

Amphibot is its small size, cheap price, and variability available in resolution, lens angle, and frame rate.

Webcams can be used on almost any computer platform, so there were very few compatibility issues.

However, a webcam is not usually waterproof, as their primary function is for video chatting and web

conferencing. Therefore, some method of sealing or waterproofing would have to be utilized in case of

submersion or splashing.29

The webcam determined to be the best option for Amphibot was the Creative Live! Cam Sync HD,

pictured in Figure 23. This is a good balance of good image quality, good lens angle, small size, and

32

affordable price. It was also determined to be well-compatible with Raspberry Pi and other single-board

computers.30

Figure 23: Creative Webcam31

4.7.2.1.2 Security System Camera

Many people choose to incorporate their own home monitoring systems, whether for security, for

personal interest, or for keeping an eye on elderly or special needs family members living alone. There is

a sizeable market of high-quality security system cameras, many of which are water resistant for use out-

of-doors. These cameras are also often equipped with infrared LEDs to allow for night monitoring as

well. The downside of implementing a security system camera on Amphibot is its relatively large size, as

well as its fairly expensive cost. Additionally, there was concern with easy compatibility with the on-

board computer.32

4.7.2.1.3 GoPro

GoPro cameras have become a sensation because of their extreme waterproofing, high quality images,

and durability. They are often used in extreme sports as point-of-view cameras, and are often installed on

robots due to their small size, easy use, and difficulty to break. A GoPro camera would be the ideal

camera for our use as well. However, the cameras are expensive, costing over one hundred dollars for the

cheapest version, pictured in Figure 24.33

33

Figure 24: GoPro Hero34

4.7.2.2 Decision

A USB webcam was determined to be the best option for use on Amphibot. It is easy to implement and

simple to use, and costs and weighs little. In order to waterproof the webcam, the team will be cutting a

small window in the waterproof electronic box and caulking a piece of clear plastic or glass in its place.

This will give the webcam a peephole to the outside, and allow the team to implement its functionality

without worrying about water damage.

4.7.3 Humidity and Temperature Sensor

In order to monitor the electronics remotely, the humidity and temperature inside the electronics box will

be monitored to ensure neither value goes into unsafe ranges for electronics.


The alternatives for temperature and humidity sensors mostly consisted of the decision of whether to

utilize an all-in-one sensor that would be able to take data in both fields or to use two separate sensors

which are designed to do one set of data collection very well.

4.7.3.1.1 Combined Temperature and Humidity Sensor

The DHT22, pictured in Figure 25, is a small digital temperature and humidity sensor. It is approximately

the size of a quarter, and weighs very little. It is able to sense all humidity levels with a 2-5% accuracy

and can read temperatures between 0 and 80 degrees Celsius. It is able to sample only once per 2

seconds.35

34

Figure 25: DHT22 Sensor36

4.7.3.1.2 Separate Temperature and Humidity Sensors

When components are combined, they have the potential to lose functionality. In order to increase

accuracy, it would be possible to implement separate humidity and temperature sensors. The HH10D can

detect humidity levels with only a 3% error, marginally better than the combined system,37 and the

TMP36 can detect temperatures in the range of -40 to 125 degrees Celsius with only 2 degrees of error.38

4.7.3.2 Decision

The DHT22 was chosen because of its small size, its price, and ease of use. It was determined that the

error was acceptable, and that implementing two systems was not worth the marginal gain in accuracy.

4.7.4 Sonar

Sonar will be used on Amphibot to aid the user in knowing the depth of the water at a given spot. This

will allow the user to better determine the best method of retrieval.


Various methods of sonar and depth sensing technology were researched for implementation in

Amphibot. The two main design potentials were side-scan sonars and ultrasonic pingers.

4.7.4.1.1 Side-Scan Sonar

Side-scan sonar is used to create images of the sea floor, as in Figure 26. It is largely used to aid in

finding shipwrecks. It uses cone shaped pulses aimed at the see floor to detect changes in the reflection

off objects. It would be hard to implement in Amphibot. Good quality sonars are not waterproof and

would require addition home-waterproofing techniques before being able to be functional in Amphibot.

35

Figure 26: Side Scan Sonar39

4.7.4.1.2 Ultrasonic Pinger

An ultrasonic pinger sends out sound waves to determine the depth based on the echo of the sound. It is

ideal for Amphibot in that it is an easy way to determine the depth of the body of water at a specific

location.

4.7.4.2 Decision

For Amphibot, it was decided that an ultrasonic pinger would be sufficient to cover the necessary feature

needed from sonar. In the case that metal detection is not feasible, side-scan sonar will be implemented as

the main tool to find objects.

4.7.5 Metal Detection

The metal detector represents the key sensor on Amphibot. It is what ultimately is used to solve the

problem statement of finding lost items in black-water. Therefore, it is very important that the metal

detector function well.


There are two main types of metal detectors that work in water. These are Pulse Induction (PI) metal

detectors and Very Low Frequency (VLF) metal detectors.40

4.7.5.1.1 Pulse Induction Metal Detectors

Pulse induction metal detectors use a single coil of wire for transmitting and receiving signal. The

transmit frequency of a PI is around 100 pulses per second, with lower frequencies achieving greater

depth and experiencing greater sensitivities to silver and higher frequencies achieving more sensitivity to

gold and nickel alloys. PI is not capable of great discrimination. That is, PI metal detectors cannot easily

be programmed to not respond to specific metals. However, they are good for detecting metal through

deeper salt water, and for searching mineralized ground.41

36

4.7.5.1.2 Very Low Frequency Metal Detectors

Very Low Frequency is the most common metal detector technology at present. It uses two coils, a

transmitter coil and a receiver coil, to detect metal based on interference with the electric fields generated

and received. VLF can be adapted to discriminate between different types of metals, like silver and

aluminum, which is useful for treasure hunters seeking precious metal from areas with metallic debris in

the area. When combined with a microprocessor, VLF can be easily programmed to search for certain

types of metal, like silver, iron, or steel.42

4.7.5.2 Decision

The difficulty of implementing a metal detector begins with the difficulty of implementing the required

range. Small, 10-12 inch depth sensitive metal detectors are simple to implement,43 but finding a way to

balance the sensitivity and the depth will be difficult to accomplish while still balancing our size, cost,

and power requirements.

Because of its ability to ignore ferrous sand, earth, and mud, as well as salt water, without losing its

sensitivity to metallic objects, a PI detector is a better choice to attempt to implement in Amphibot. The

team will be putting a great deal of testing and research into the PI metal detector in the January interim

term as well as the first month of the spring semester to ensure the final product will have the best

implementation of a metal detector that is within our budget. The Surf PI 1.2 pulse induction metal

detector, Figure 27, or the Tiny Pulse Induction Metal Detector, Figure 28, are the likely contenders for

implementation.

Figure 27: Surf PI 1.2 Metal Detector44

37

Figure 28: Tiny PI Metal Detector45

4.8 User Interface The user interface determines what functionality the user will have and what the user will see visually.

4.8.1 Graphical User Interface (GUI)

A Graphical User Interface will determine what functionality is available to the user and what the design

of information will be. The software used to design the GUI was decided to be Visual Studio, Figure 29.

Figure 29: Visual Studio46


There were many factors in deciding how the GUI would look. The design is based on what the user

needs to be able to do and what the user needs to be able see. Various alternatives in design were allowing

the user to log data for later use versus only seeing data as it is collected. Visual Studio also supports a

number of languages and choosing one is a matter of preference.

4.8.1.2. Decision

It was decided that the GUI would be designed in Visual Studio47 using a Windows Application in C#.

This was chosen since Heather has some experience with programming in C# on Visual Studio from the

class CS212, Data Algorithms and Structures and Visual Studio, a Windows supported application. WPF

Applications provide an easy method of designing GUI visually. Visual Studio is powerful and easy to

work with. It also is a commonly used tool and has an extensive supply of tutorials and support. For the

design of the GUI it was decided that the only data logging would be the logging of hits of metallic

objects. All other sensors will be shown on the GUI for the user’s information and will update

continuously. The user will be able to see metal detector hits and corresponding sonar depths, the GPS

location of Amphibot, a steering control panel, webcam feed, and humidity and temperature sensor

results. The humidity and temperature sensor results will display green or red based on safe range for

38

operation. An additional feature that will be created if time allows is to check if Amphibot is about to go

out of range and alert the user.

4.8.2 Mobile Application

A mobile application, Figure 30, will be developed to allow Amphibot to be controlled from a portable

device.

Figure 30: Application Platforms48


Different applications available were researched to determine what platform would be best for Amphibot.

4.8.2.1.1 Android

Android Applications are ideal since they can be created in Visual Studio. Android applications are open

source and have few limitations to getting an application published. Windows device are able to run

Android applications making it available to a wide range of users.

4.8.2.1.2 Apple

Apple applications are closed source and difficult to get published to the store based on strict

requirements from Apple. Apple applications would be beneficial due to the large amount of people who

have iPhones and iPads and would not be able to run Android applications.

4.8.2.1.3 Windows

Windows applications are easy to create thanks to Windows Dev Center which provides step-by-step

instructions to developing and getting applications to the store.49 Windows provides free tools and sample

code that make it easy to create applications. Like Android, Windows is open source.

4.8.2.2 Decision

An Android application was chosen as a platform for a mobile application. This was chosen due to the

large number of people using Android phones and open source nature of Android applications.

4.8.3 Motor Control

The motor controls will be how the user will be able to control the movement of Amphibot. It will need to

interface with the motors and allow for seamless connectivity.


The decision of motor control was carefully considered based on what would be ideal and natural for a

user to drive a robot with. The major modes of control were determined to be joystick, keyboard, and

touchscreen commands.

4.8.3.1.1 Joystick

A joystick, see Figure 31, is ideal for Amphibot in that it does not limit the range of movement available

to the user. They are cheap and widely used in driving and gaming purposes. A joystick with buttons

39

would allow the implementation of additional features for the user. The user would be able to manually

mark areas of interest.

Figure 31: Joystick50

4.8.3.1.2 Keyboard

The keyboard control would be a more simple way for users to control the motors. Arrow buttons would

be used to direct the desired movement of Amphibot. The user would be able to use a variety of button

combinations to move Amphibot in the required direction.

4.8.3.1.3 Touchscreen

The touchscreen will be necessary in the cases of mobile devices. The touchscreen will be a graphical

representation of arrow controls.

4.8.3.2 Decision

The final decision was decided to be keyboard arrows for the laptop application and touchscreen with

graphical arrows similar to a keyboard for the Android mobile application. This decision was made based

on limiting the necessary components to drive Amphibot.

40

5 Business Plan The team developed a business plan for their Amphibot product. This plan focused on marketing the robot

to the specified customer base and on determining appropriate prices for that product based on cost of

parts and labor.

5.1 Marketing

Team 11 is focusing its marketing efforts on the areas where the customer, outdoor hobbyists, are most

likely to shop. Outdoor sporting goods stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop will sell and market

products from other companies for a commission. This is what the team plans to use to market and

distribute Amphibot.

5.1.1 Competition

In the realm of amphibious robots, most products on the market that serve the same remote controlled

function as a small vehicle with a land and over-water driving are either products in research in colleges

and universities or small toys like remote controlled cars and boats. Products like Aquapod,51 from the

University of Minnesota, make up the bulk of the amphibious robotic industry. Most of these research

robots are designed to explore different modes of transportation. Aquapod moves by tumbling; ACM-R5

moves like a snake in water.52

In the realm of metal detectors, alternatively, competition is mostly from handheld units that require the

user to walk along with the product in order to use it. Some of the more common units of PI metal

detection include the $700 Tesoro Sand Shark,53 the $900 Surfmaster PI Pro,54 and the $2000 Lorenz

LPX2.55

5.1.2 Differentiation

Amphibot will be a versatile robot that can be easily purchased. It will be small and simple to meet

functional needs. It will be low enough in cost to be accessible to a dedicated hobbyist and functional

enough to be of interest to a wide range of amateurs and professionals. It is user-friendly and can be

operated without training by adults and children alike.

5.1.3 Distribution

Because the customer base for Amphibot has as its unifying factor people who enjoy outdoor pastimes

and hobbies and because our company is small and focused, the team chose to distribute its product

through larger outdoors sporting goods stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop. These larger companies,

with a firm customer base and an established marketing and sales team, would market and sell Amphibot

on a commission and eliminate Amphibot’s need to market itself or hire a sales team of its own.56

5.2 Final Product Cost Estimate The cost of parts per unit in the final implementation of Amphibot is projected to be $265.5, based on the

breakdown in Table 4.

41

Table 4: Parts' Cost Estimate

Item Cost [$]

Aluminum 15

Plastic 4

Rubber 1

Treadmill Belt Material 5

Nuts and Bolts 0.50

Wheels 40

Motors 30

Sonar 20

Dry Box 10

Raspberry Pi 35

Webcam 30

Metal Detector 60

Batteries 15

GPS 30

Total 295.5

These cost values were determined by slightly reducing the costs of buying these products individually

under the assumption that they would be bought in bulk for a cheaper cost. The final price of the product

was determined to be $750. This value was determined by considering cost of parts, labor, and other fixed

costs and performing a break-even calculation. This analysis was performed as part of the Engineering

Business class. The break-even analysis is reproduced in Table 5.

42

Table 5: Break Even Analysis

Amphibot

Break - Even Analysis

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Sales revenue 7,500,000 9,000,000 10,800,000

Less: Variable Costs:

Variable Cost of Goods Sold 4,000,000 4,160,000 4,326,400

Variable Operating Costs 585,000 672,750 773,663

Total Variable Costs 4,585,000 4,832,750 5,100,063

Contribution Margin 2,915,000 4,167,250 5,699,938

Less: Fixed Costs

Fixed Cost of Goods Sold 670,000 737,000 810,700

Fixed Operating Costs 95,000 95,000 95,000

Depreciation 214,350 375,924 288,476

Interest Expense 262,500 492,606 427,818

Total Fixed Costs 1,241,850 1,700,530 1,621,994

Income Before Tax 1,673,150 2,466,720 4,077,944


Total Fixed Costs 1,241,850 1,700,530 1,621,994

Contribution Margin % 39% 46% 53%

Break Even Sales Volume 3,195,154 3,672,631 3,073,285

Equipment Depreciation

Purchases Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Equipment Purchases Year 1 1,500,000 214,350 367,350 262,350

Equipment Purchases Year 2 60,000 8,574 14,694

Equipment Purchases Year 3 80,000 11,432

214,350 375,924 288,476

MACRS Rates (7-year recovery period) 0.1429 0.2449 0.1749

Interest Expense:

Annual interest rate on debt 7%


Average debt balance 3,750,000 7,037,229 6,111,686

Interest expense 262,500 492,606 427,818

43

6 Feasibility With the project defined and the design specified, the team was able to assess ultimate feasibility of

Amphibot as a senior design project. In this section, the team will discuss the feasibility of the project in

terms of team member time, technology and implementation, and will discuss major risks the team is

concerned with.

6.1 Risks

There are a number of steps required for next semester that the team recognizes as potential risks.

Whether because they have a potential to not work at all or to not work together with the other

components, there are still aspects of the project that could cause trouble. Movement, wireless

communication, floatation, and metal detection represent the major risk that, if they fail, will render the

product useless.

6.1.1 Movement

A robot designed to search an area must be able to move. Therefore, making sure that all the components

regarding motion are in place and working properly is an important step in building the prototype.

Because of the many factors that contribute to motion, as well as the complexities involved driving

amphibiously, motion is one area that the team views as a major risk in the future.

6.1.2 Wireless Communication

Being able to move is important, but communicating to the robot to move is necessary if that motion is to

be useful. Making sure that our local area network is working with the Raspberry Pi and with the user,

whether computer-based or smartphone-based, and that the range is wide enough for our requirements is

the next big risk category we envision for the future.

6.1.3 Floatation

The key concern with floatation is ensuring that the robot stays at a level in the water where the treads are

able to propel the robot forward when floating. If the robot sinks, it could be lost and the electrical

components could be ruined. As with other major risks, floatation is a critical component of Amphibot,

without which we would not be able to accomplish our goal.

6.1.4 Metal Detector

The metal detector is by far the riskiest component of Amphibot. Because metal detectors tend towards

either expensive, professional grade, fully constructed devices or small, cheap, inefficient do-it-yourself

kits, finding a metal detector style that can be implemented in the size and cost constraints of Amphibot is

difficult. It needs the sensitivity to pick up small, everyday objects like keys and jewelry and the depth

range to be able to seek more than several inches into the water. The next few weeks for Monica are

going to be dedicated primarily to finding the best options for metal detectors within the price range and

functionality scope requirements. Once an option has been selected, a great deal of testing will go into

making the detector work successfully in the Amphibot system.

In the event that metal detection proves to be unfeasible, side scan sonar is a secondary option to

implement in Amphibot for searching black-water. Side scan sonar is not without its own difficulties, but

the team is confident that between the two technologies they will be able to implement a method of

identifying lost items underwater without the use of visibility.

44

6.2 Time Constraints The estimated amount of time the team envisions spending next semester in order to satisfy the project

goals by Senior Design Night on May 9 is 675 total labor hours. This time, when broken evenly between

the 3 team members, averages to 17 hours per person per week. This number is feasible, as it represents

the average time expected for a part-time job. The team will have to take care over the course of the

semester that other commitments the team has do not come in the way of the schedule.

45

7 Conclusion Team Amphibot expects to be able to design and prototype the robot within the financial and physical

constraints. The distance requirement will not be able to be verified until the prototype is made and can be

tested fully assembled. This will depend heavily on the type of batteries used and the quality of the

construction. Other concerns include keeping moisture out of the electronics, foreign objects from

jamming in the body of Amphibot, syncing all of the electrical and mechanical components, and

effectively designing a metal detector with enough sensitivity to be useful but low-powered enough to be

compatible with the other components of the system. The metal detector presents the largest challenge to

the requirements of the design, and as such, it will be a key priority in the coming semester. Future work

involves acquiring, assembling, and testing the electrical and mechanical system, assembling the

prototype, and testing the prototype as an assembled whole.

46

8 Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who have contributed to our project. These people include Professor

Mark Michmerhuizen who has taken the role of the team’s primary faculty advisor, Professor Renard

Tubergen who gave the team guidance when it came to interacting with watery environments, Professor

Ned Nielsen who helped the team find an appropriate project that was feasible and challenging, Professor

David Wunder and Professor Jeremy VanAntwerp who are instructors in our senior design class, Ross

Tenney and Tyler DeVries who helped form our business plan, and, finally, Eric Walstra who served as

our industrial consultant. Additional thanks is given to the members of the Calvin Engineering

Department who have all shaped our engineering education.

We would also like to thank those who have supported us throughout our endeavors. The support and

guidance of our families and friends has been invaluable.

47

References

48

1 Scitec Publications, Summarization of Terramechanics Research on Screw-Propelled Vehicle, 2014 2 http://gsl.erdc.usace.army.mil/gl-history/Chap8.htm 3 http://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8277267_B1#PhotoSwipe1417908032496 4 http://www.asmejmd.org/featured-articles/ambot-a-bio-inspired-amphibious-robot-for-monitoring-the-swan-

canning-estuary-system 5 http://www.designbuzz.com/amphi-amphibious-vehicle-dubais-world-island-fully-2030-ready/ 6 http://www.nauticexpo.com/prod/craftsman-marine-db-innovation/boat-propellers-bronze-3-blade-32849-

243253.html 7 "Mobile Robot for Exploring Cold Liquid/Solid Environments." NASA Tech Briefs 30.8 (2006): 44-5. ProQuest.

Web. 6 Dec. 2014 8 "Mobile Robot for Exploring Cold Liquid/Solid Environments." NASA Tech Briefs 30.8 (2006): 44-5. ProQuest.

Web. 6 Dec. 2014 9 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duck_Tour_boat_beaching.JPG 10 http://www.richardsrelics.com/parts_tracks.shtml 11 http://www.uscomposites.com/foam.html 12 http://swm.maricopa.gov/waste-tire.htm 13 MTM Survivor Dry Box with O-Ring Seal by MTM 14 http://www.raspberrypi.org/help/faqs/ 15 http://www.adafruit.com/product/1914 16 http://arduino.cc/en/Main/Products 17 http://beagleboard.org/BLACK 18 https://www.adafruit.com/products/1876 19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth 23 http://zigbee.org/ 24 http://zigbee.org/ 25 http://bad-elf.com/ 26 http://www.amazon.com/GlobalSat-BU-353-USB-GPS-Receiver/dp/B000PKX2KA/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_i/177-

1260728-7728439 27 https://www.adafruit.com/products/746 28 https://www.adafruit.com/products/746 29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcam 30 http://elinux.org/RPi_USB_Webcams 31 http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Live-Sync-720P-Webcam/dp/B0092QJRPC 32 http://www.loftek.us/products/product_info/9 33 http://shop.gopro.com/cameras 34 http://shop.gopro.com/cameras/hero/CHDHA-301.html 35 http://www.adafruit.com/product/385 36 http://www.adafruit.com/product/385 37 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10988 38 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10239 39 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-scan_sonar 40 http://www.metaldetector.com/learn/buying-guide-articles/beach-water-hunting/reviewing-the-best-underwater-

metal-detectors 41 http://www.whiteselectronics.com/the-hobby/knowledge-base/field-reports/how-metal-detectors-work 42 http://www.whiteselectronics.com/the-hobby/knowledge-base/field-reports/how-metal-detectors-work 43 http://www.adrianandgenese.com/blogger/2012/07/13/how-to-build-a-surf-pi-1-2-pulse-induction-metal-detector-

from-a-diy-kit/ 44 http://www.silverdog.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&path=36&product_id=76 45 http://www.miymd.com/index.php/projects/ 46 http://www.visualstudio.com/ 47 http://www.visualstudio.com/ 48 http://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/visual-studio-community-vs

49

49 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/dn275875.aspx 50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joystick 51 http://distrob.cs.umn.edu/aquapod.php 52 http://www.hibot.co.jp/en/products/robots_1/acm-r5h_33 53 http://www.tesoro.com/product/detectors/sandshark/ 54 http://www.whiteselectronics.com/surf-pi-dual-field 55 http://www.metaldetectors.de/uk/products_lpx2.htm 56 http://www.cabelas.com/content.jsp?pageName=NewProductDivision

Documents

Project Proposal and Feasibility Study