Critical Design Review Debrief Spring 2016 UFO

/in , /by

Posted by: Luis Valdivia (Project Manager)
Written by: Anthony Becerril (Mission, Systems, and Test Engineer)

 

This blogpost will cover the debrief to our group after presenting out Critical Design Review. Next to every topic is the grade received along with feedback from our instructor and division managers. Click here to access our Critical Design Review.

Table of contents:
-Title
-Exec. Summary
-System Design
-Experimental Results
-Interface Definition
-Connection Wiring Diagram
-Custom PCB
-Hardware Design
-Software Design
-Verification and Validation
-Project Update
-Demonstration

 

  • Title: 10
    • Well put together

 

 

  • Exec. Summary: 9.13
    • MultiWii versus Arduino when testing?
    • Was the MultiWii going to control servos?
      • Code of MultiWii can be modified to control servos via servo driver
      • Tricky to mess with code, but if confident you can change without problems then go ahead
      • Minimal impact on CPU to avoid problems with MultiWii
      • Concern: no capability indicated on CDR about servo driver being implemented

 

 

  • System Design: 8.4
    • System Block Diagram
      • PCB wasn’t as detailed; could have gotten more details on how PCB is connected with everything

 

 

  • Experimental Results: 8.5
    • Overview slide gave list of tests but with no results; was later presented but a bit unaligned in presenting
    • Current test was done nicely; curve fit was well done
    • Torque test data well presented
    • Curve fitting is an art; don’t let excel do it for you rather find an equation; explain more as to why the curve equation is what it is
    • Intuitively it seems a straight line works; maybe curve fit with 1/x (find evidence behind equation)

 

 

  • Interface Definition: 7.44
    • Missing LED in list of pins

 

 

  • Connection Wiring Diagram:  
    • Missing wire lengths

 

 

  • Custom PCB: 8.81
    • Design should have prototype with servo driver
    • Solid, clean design
    • Need to be able to test ITC

 

 

  • Hardware Design: 7.06
    • Missing calculation regarding cancelling/countering yaw rotation; data was presented but no evidence on what will counter

 

 

  • Software Design: 5.38
    • Missing; no linkage; could have used it during servos
    • Big chunk that wasn’t there
    • Block diagram was not accurate and not overlooked compared to original draft
    • Presentation confusion regarding block diagram
    • Software testing was done via arduino not MultiWii

 

 

  • Verification and Validation: 7.5
    • Having aesthetically friendly shell was a “favorite” (not quantitative)
    • wasn’t sure if there was requirement for lightshow
    • Verification was passed but no data with completed tests
    • Validation looked similar to verification; more into detail on customer want
    • Looks like it might be missing requirements; not sure if it could all be met
    • Some test seemed as if they could have been completed already but wasn’t sure??
    • These matrices will be used for day of final to check off pass or fail; SUBJECT TO CHANGE FOR FINAL
      • Go through matrix, go over each requirement; consider adding these as a column:
        • Functional ~50%
          • Should mainly consists of flight
          • Create functional requirements
        • Nonfunctional ~50%
          • Rather static tests, qualitative
          •  Scrap the light show! He doesn’t care!
          • Requirements overall good

 

  • Project Update: 8.85
    • Looked good! Actually acknowledge being behind schedule
    • Resource Reports
      • Uncertainty 100%?? (resource reports)
      • Power report could use more info on the battery; otherwise fine

 

 

  • Demonstration: 7.39
    • Various videos provided regarding progress
    • Curve fitting wasn’t strong due to excel use

 

 

  • Overall:
    • Degree of difficulty: 1
    • CDR: 7.95

Project Update/Review:

  • As mentioned in CDR, weight is an issue -> tests done to see what weight that can be lifted
    • Videos provided
    • Weight classes:
      • No attachments
      • Legs
      • Legs and servo holds
      • Legs, servo holds, servos
  • Solutions:
    • No attachments and new fans aren’t approved
    • 5th Fan & smaller battery
      • Will 5th fan thrust match yaw rotation?
      • Smaller battery how?
      • Add tail rotor
  • Notes:
    • Weight with no attachments: 1287
    • Calculated possibility: 1300
    • PCB now what? With servos ditched and light show not cared for, no need for PCB
    • Save mass on:
      • PCB
      • Shell
  • DO:
    • Test old fans VS new fans
    • Tail rotor
    • Smaller battery
    • GET IT TO FLY! THAT’S IT! STABLE FLIGHT AND THAT’S IT
      • Credit only comes from flight. That is it.