EGM 320: ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ANALYSIS

Project Proposal:Autonomous Reconnaissance Drone

(ARD)

Prepared For:Professor Robert Taylor

Wilkes University

5/11/2016

Written By:Michael Condrad

Tanner StengelSean MillerRobert Ide

Rebecca Kilkenny

ARD Project Proposal Abstract Written By Michael Condrad Page 2

ABSTRACT:

The Autonomous Reconnaissance Disk (ARD) is an outdoor reconnaissance helicopter designed to give a bird’s eye view of the battlefield. Design of the disk with the aspiration to create something with military applications. The goal was to craft something to scout unknown or unfriendly terrain, quietly, efficiently, and autonomously. Present-day drones accomplish this task, but require human interaction to run their flight path. Also, current reconnaissance drones are expensive, large, and require much maintenance. Our design is relatively inexpensive, costing an estimated $1200, and it is relatively small, only 3ft in diameter, and weighing just over 26 pounds. It separates itself from drones at this time by not only being far less expensive to manufacture, but also by being much more autonomous, and therefore needing much less human interaction. Most require a crew to service them, and a pilot to guide them. The idea behind the ARD design being, the ship would acknowledge its initial GPS location. Then, a user would send a second GPS to the ARD via a text message. Using its own programmed intelligence and sensor mapping system, it would find a way to accomplish the task of getting to the second GPS location, regardless of the physical terrain, or obstacles in its way. Its built in mapping system would give it a general outlook of the intended area, but its mounted sensors would give more of a live look on what’s going on. Once the ARD had reached its new GPS destination, it would notify the user, and await instructions on where to travel next. The ARD is the future in surveillance application drones.

ARD Project Proposal Introduction Written By Michael Condrad Page 3

1.0 Introduction

The Autonomous Reconnaissance Drone Project Proposal was a task undertaken by 5 engineers. 2 electrical engineers, 1 mechanical, and 2 mechanical and electrical engineers were to dive into the economics, and management style decisions of the project they had at hand. However, this project was nothing new for engineers Tanner Stengel and Michael Condrad. They had been thinking and innovating upon this project for almost a year now. In Wilkes University’s ME 333 course, Machine Design I, Stengel and Condrad completed a 50+ page report on the A.R.D.’s mechanical, aerodynamic, and material characteristics, and much more. For details on this work, please reach out to the students for a copy of this work.

For the current project at hand, the project was broken up into 7 major areas, not including the abstract and conclusion. Outlined in the Table of Contents below, the 5 engineers were each given a specific role/roles. Details of their work may be found on the page numbers associated with that section. The author of each section is labeled on the Table of Contents, and at the header of each page.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Abstract…………….………………………………………………………………….…… Page 2

1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………….… Written By Michael Condrad………...... Page 32.0 Project Objective Statement (POS) …………………..… Written By Michael Condrad…….......... Page 43.0 Problem Statement ……………………………………….… Written By Michael Condrad………..... Page 54.0 Scope of Work (SOW) ………………………………....….. Written By Stengel, Ide, & Kilkenny.... Page 6

4.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) …………… Written By Tanner Stengel………........ Page 74.2 Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS) … Written By Tanner Stengel……..…….. Page 84.3 Complete List of Deliverables ………………….. Written By Robert Ide………………. Page 104.4 Project Scheduling ……………………………….…Written by Kilkenny & Ide………..... Page 11

5.0 Project Cost Analyses ……………………………....….…… Written By Sean Miller……….......... Page 146.0 Risk & Opportunity Analyses …………………………..… Written By Sean Miller………........... Page 157.0 References …………………………….........................….…… Written By Michael Condrad…......... Page 16

Conclusions…………………………………………………..…………………………… Page 17

ARD Project Proposal (POS) Written By Michael Condrad Page 4

2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVE STATEMENT (POS):

The objective of the Autonomous Reconnaissance Drone is to provide the customer with a far more independent drone than currently exists on the market. This is meant to be interpreted exactly as it sounds. You, as the user, are to give the drone less attention and let it do the work on its own. In the case of what we are designing here, the work is to be surveillance.

The ARD is to be equipped with a stock full of sensors. Sensors ranging from infrared, to sonar, to camera sensors. The use of these have an endless upside, using infrared for night time sensing, sonar for enclosed environments, and camera type sensors for self-mapping purposes.

The purpose of these sensors is to do as previously stated, take surveillance between 2 specified GPS locations of the user’s choice, but do so all while navigating itself. Meaning, if there is a building in the way of the ships current path to its next GPS location, it will use these sensors and the other tools at its disposal to get to that destination on its own. If the ship were to be in a maze at the time of a new GPS location given, it would know enough to self-navigate its way out. This type of technology is the direction the world is heading to in the world of robotics and Artificial Intelligence. To have Wilkes join in on this race to support the development of the future of surveillance application drones is something a lot of people could get very, very excited about.

ARD Project Proposal Problem Statement Written By Michael Condrad Page 5

3.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT:

Quite A number of problems present the team to make this project a reality. The most pressing of them being able to successfully program the ship to do as we have set out for it to do. At the current abilities of the team members programming abilities, this would be a long shot. Condrad and Ide are the only ones with some experience, but even with that, programming self-guided systems to handle not only various environments, but do so aerodynamically is most definitely a problem the team must address. Condrad and Stengel has started studying in great detail the programming basics that would be necessary, but the team would need to bring in someone who is a gifted programmer.

Another pressing issue is the blade design of the ship. The team lacks knowledge in the study of aerodynamics. With undertaking a project built around the flight of a ship, you might imagine how this would be a problem.

The issue of funding is something the team as a whole is very concerned about. The project “theoretically” had a low estimated budget, but while in the prototyping phase that can be far from the truth. Doing something this adventurous is bound to have un-foreseen risks.

ARD Project Proposal SOW Written By Stengel, Ide, & Kilkenny Page 6

4.0 SCOPE OF WORK:

The Proposed Scope of Work for the project is broken up into 4 major sections. Each of these sections were given a member of the team to act as a lead, overseeing that specific role of the Scope of Work to call their personable responsibility.

The first area of focus for the team was outlining and completing a Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS). This task fell into the hands of Engineer Tanner Stengel. As a manager on the project, he had the best insight to the projects technical needs, and a clearer vision of where the project could go. Along-side the Work Breakdown Schedule, Stengel’s scheduling position continued with the lead position on the OBS as well. The team saw fit for him to handle both breakdown schedules (WBS and OBS).

The second major area of focus the team needed to focus on was having someone in charge of working up a complete list of deliverables. This task fell to engineer Robert Ide. Arguably the most practical individual in the group, Robert’s punctuality for getting things done and getting them done in a timely manner is second to none. The team assigned him as the lead for constructing a complete list of deliverables.

The task of putting together a real, practical schedule was given to the most organized member of the A.R.D. team, Rebecca Kilkenny. Her objective was to create a tentative schedule that the team and project would flow off of. As specified for this project proposal, Kilkenny was to use Microsoft Project to construct the A.R.D.’s version of a Gantt chart.

These 3 engineers worked together to complete the scope successfully and efficiently, but each oversaw their respected areas. They Wrote, did analysis, and concluded analytically their results in their managed fields.

ARD Project Proposal WBS Written By Tanner Stengel Page 7

4.1 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS):The WBS Chart shown below correlates directly to the Gantt scheduling chart in section 4.4. Obtaining a digital copy of the Gantt chart will allow you to

look in on what exact project is being done on a bar graph outlook, detailing how much progress is being done/ has been done. The same is similarly true here, but you are given more of a block diagram illustration on all the work that has to be done, and in what order. Hence, the work breakdown structure.

OBS Written By Tanner Stengel OBS Written By Tanner Stengel Page 8

4.2 ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (OBS):

In Table 1 below, the areas of designing-overseeing the manufacturing-and testing are each correlated to a member of the team for every function of the ARD that needs attention.

Table 1. Overall Breakdown Structure amongst Team Members.ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

Disk Exterior Propellers Tail Propeller AssemblyDesign Manufacture Testing Design Manufacture Testing Design Manufacture Testing Design Manufacture TestingTanner Stengel

SeanMiller

Sean Miller

Sean Miller

Michael Condrad

Tanner Stengel

SeanMiller

Michael Condrad

Tanner Stengel

Tanner Stengel

SeanMiller

Michael Condrad

Internal Circuitry Sensors Camera GPS GuidanceDesign Manufacture Testing Design Manufacture Testing Design Manufacture Testing Design Manufacture TestingMichael Condrad

Bekki Kilkenny

Robert Ide

Robert Ide

Michael Condrad

Bekki Kilkenny

Bekki Kilkenny

Michael Condrad

Tanner Stengel

Bekki Kilkenny

RobertIde

Michael Condrad

On the following page, the areas that need the attention of the team from Table 1 is broken down into an organized flow chart. This flowchart is a physical representation of the projects OBS, and the graphical representation of Table 1’s data.

Autonomous Recon Disk

Project Team

DesigningResearching and Planning

Shape and Propellers

Electronics Layout

ServicesMechanicsElectronics

Executing

Mechanical Design

Assembly

Materials

Air Resistance Calculations

Propeller Calculations

Flight Positioner

Flight Path Sensors

Services Services

Placement of Sensors

Consumer Product

Industrial Product

Operations

Industrial Product

Marketing

Consumer Product

ARD Project Proposal OBS Written By Tanner Stengel Page 9

ARD Project Proposal List of Deliverables By Robert Ide Page 10

4.3 COMPLETE LIST OF DELIVERABLES:

Table 2 shows The Complete List of Deliverables in a chronological order. The deliverable items that are distributed to project management and/or to the client. These deliverables are dated for their expected submission date.

Table 2. List of Deliverables.D.1.2 Client Specifications • • 8-JunD.1.3 Contract •   27-Jun

         D.2.1 Skeleton Design •   26-JulD.2.2 Propeller Design •   24-AugD.2.3 Rutter Design •   2-SepD.2.4 Gyroscope Design •   16-SepD.2.5 Camera Mount Design •   20-Oct

         D.3.1 Electrical System Design •   29-NovD.3.2 Flight Calculations •   4-JanD.3.3 Program Code •   5-Jan

         D.4.1 Prototype •   5-Jan

         D.5.1 Impact Test Results •   6-JanD.5.2 Vibrations Test Results •   9-JanD.5.3 Fatigue Test Results •   10-JanD.5.4 Heat Test Results •   11-JanD.5.5 Environmental Conditions Test Results •   20-JanD.5.6 Flight and Control Test Results •   25-Jan

         D.6.1 Complete Mechatronic Design   • 1-MarD.6.2 Complete Prototype Analyses   • 1-MarD.6.3 Prototype NO. #   • 1-Mar

ARD Project Proposal Project Scheduling By Rebecca Kilkenny Page 11

4.4 PROJECT SCHEDULING:

Table 3. Expanded Table Analysis for Gantt chart.Task Mode Task Name Duratio

n Start Finish Predecessors

Manually Scheduled Autonomous Recon Drone

Manually Scheduled Management Planning

Auto Scheduled Client Meeting 3 days Mon 6/6/16

Wed 6/8/16

Auto Scheduled Contract 14 days Wed 6/8/16

Mon 6/27/16

Manually Scheduled

Research and Development

Manually Scheduled Design

Auto Scheduled Skeleton Design 21 days Tue 6/28/16

Tue 7/26/16

Manually Scheduled

Mechatronic System Design

Manually Scheduled Mechanical Design

Auto Scheduled Propeller Design 21 days Wed 7/27/16

Wed 8/24/16

Auto Scheduled Rutter Design 7 days Thu 8/25/16

Fri 9/2/16 10

Auto Scheduled Gyroscope Design 10 days Mon 9/5/16

Fri 9/16/16 11

Auto Scheduled Camera Mount Design 24 days Mon 9/19/16

Thu 10/20/1

612

Manually Scheduled Electical Design

Auto Scheduled Signal Conditioning 28 days Fri 10/21/16

Tue 11/29/1

6

Manually Scheduled Computational Design

Auto Scheduled Flight Calculations 5 days Wed 11/30/16

Tue 12/6/16

Auto Scheduled Program Code 21 days Wed 12/7/16

Wed 1/4/17

ARD Project Proposal Project Scheduling By Rebecca Kilkenny Page 12

Auto Scheduled Assembly 1 day Thu 1/5/17

Thu 1/5/17

Manually Scheduled Analyses

Manually Scheduled Structural Testing

Auto Scheduled Impact Testing 1 day Fri 1/6/17

Fri 1/6/17

Auto Scheduled Vibration Testing 1 day Mon 1/9/17

Mon 1/9/17

Auto Scheduled Fatigue Testing 1 day Tue 1/10/17

Tue 1/10/17

Auto Scheduled Heat Testing 1 day Wed 1/11/17

Wed 1/11/17

Auto Scheduled Conditions and Environmental Testing 7 days Thu

1/12/17Fri

1/20/17

Manually Scheduled

Operational Systems Testing

Auto Scheduled Aviation Testing 1 day Mon 1/23/17

Mon 1/23/17

Auto Scheduled Control Testing 1 day Tue 1/24/17

Tue 1/24/17

The projects Gantt chart is on the following page. This is the most in depth and expansive portion of the project. A software copy of the chart is available upon asking one of the engineers on the team. Looking at the chart in Microsoft Project will be far more beneficial.

ARD Project Proposal Project Scheduling By Rebecca Kilkenny Page 13

ARD Project Proposal Project Cost Analysis By Sean Miller Page 14

5.0 PROJECT COST ANALYSIS:

When performing a project, the cost is essential in determining the feasibility of the project. The estimates are shown in the tables below.

Table 4. Weight/Cost Estimates for ARD Internal Electronics.

Type of part Name of Part

# of Parts

Weight(g)

Weight(lb.)

Total Weight

(g)

Running Total(g)

Price($_._ _)

Total Price($)

Running Total

($_._ _)Microcontroller Mega 5260 1 37 0.082 37 37 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00

Battery 11.1v Lipo 1 42.5 0.094 42.5 79.5 $22.99 $22.99 $52.99

Battery 5v power supply 1 72 0.159 72 151.5 $3.03 $3.03 $56.02

Battery AA Battery 3 31 0.068 93 244.5 $2.00 $6.00 $62.02

Sensor 5v sonar sensor 6 4.3 0.009 25.8 270.3 $25.95 $155.70 $217.72

Sensor Gyroscope 1 5 0.011 5 275.3 $9.90 $9.90 $227.62

Motor3900kv

Brushless Motor

1 22.7 0.050 22.67 297.97 $24.95 $24.95 $252.57

Motor tail motor 1 8.5 0.019 8.50 306.48 $12.34 $12.34 $264.91TOTAL $1163.84

Table 5. Future Value of Associated Parts from Table 4.Type of part Name of part Running Total ($_._ _) 5 years 10 years 25 years

Microcontroller Mega 5260 $30.00 $33.12 $36.57 $49.22Battery 11.1v Lipo $52.99 $58.51 $64.59 $86.94Battery 5v power supply $56.02 $61.85 $68.29 $91.91Battery AA Battery $62.02 $68.48 $75.60 $101.75Sensor 5v sonar sensor $217.72 $240.38 $265.40 $357.19Sensor Gyroscope $227.62 $251.31 $277.47 $373.43Motor 3900kv Brushless Motor $252.57 $278.86 $307.88 $414.37Motor tail motor $264.91 $292.48 $322.92 $434.61

Table 4 above shows the cost breakdown of each of the required parts for the ARD. The table also shows the weight approximations. The weight for each part is essential to know if the ARD can fly or not based off of the motor specifications. Since the ARD will likely be produced again further down the road, a future cost analysis is necessary. As shown in Table 5, an estimated future cost of the parts was calculated based off of the current inflation rate for 5, 10, and 25 years. A general inflation rate of two percent was used in the calculation. The values are subject to change in the table based on the inflation rate being variable depending on the market at a given time.

ARD Project Proposal Risk/Opportunity Analyses Written By Sean Miller Page 15

6.0 RISK & OPPORTUNITY ANALYSES:

In performing any project there lies an amount of risk in doing so. A risk analysis is necessary to calculate any money or resources that should be set aside in case of the unexpected happening. Given that, there is also possible opportunities to occur during a project. An opportunity may be a product arrives earlier than planned for, which leads to quicker assembly.

For both risk and opportunity, there is a monetary value which can be assigned to each based off of the probability of the event occurring and the estimated amount the event would affect the project. The risk value is seen as a positive value, where opportunity is seen as a negative. The reason for this is money is going to be set aside and a risk has a negative impact on the budget (budget increases), therefore, the money is required to take care of the problem. The table below (Table 6) shows the total amount that should be set aside in the budget as a factored risk.

Table 6. Risk/Opportunity Analysis Chart.

Risk/ Opportunity Impact($)

Probability ($)

Factored Risk (%)

(Calculations)($)

R1 Parts take longer than expected to arrive $500.00 20.00% $100.00

R2 Battery life is less than what was calculated for $118.04 40.00% $47.22

R3 The system loses internet connection in flight $1,200.00 35.00% $420.00

R4 A sensor fails during flight $1,200.00 10.00% $120.00

R5 Drone is struck by debris at any point $1,200.00 15.00% $180.00

R6 Receive damaged materials $500.00 30.00% $150.00O1 Finish ahead of schedule -$500.00 30.00% -$150.00O2 Installment requires less man hours -$350.00 30.00% -$105.00O3 Military asks to use the drone. -$1,200.00 25.00% -$300.00----- TOTAL FACTURED RISK ----- ----- + $462.22

In terms of this project, the factored risk is fairly high since the total cost of the project for parts is $1163.84 and the factored risk is $462.22, more than a third of the total price.

ARD Project Proposal References Written By Michael Condrad Page 16

7.0 REFERENCES:

The team would like to recognize Wilkes University Professors Dr. Edward Bednarz and Dr. Yong Zhu as references to approve the project. Both spoke tremendously high of it, and both asked to be the advisor on it, pending it is approved for senior projects. In ME333, a course taught by Dr. Bednarz, he said that the A.R.D. was the most expensive project / report he had seen as Wilkes thus far. The team urges Professor Taylor and anyone else interested in the department to take a look at the report before making a final decision on approval / denial for the project.

ARD Project Proposal Conclusions Written By Michael Condrad Page 17

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the Autonomous Reconnaissance Drone is not just something a group of students have thought up and thought might be interesting. A group of us have proven originally through calculation, and simulation, its possibilities. And now, through the means of engineering economics and project management techniques. The project could put Wilkes in the field of working with some of the most un-imaginable technologies ever conceived! A drone that could think and navigate on its own? A concept of science fiction, or a future at Wilkes University if this team could get the approval to go forth and do so