EE5351UMDSPRING, 2016

HW6/Project: 40% of Grade??

Implement ONE of the following control schemes on your robotic platform and write up the results in a formal engineering report:

  1. Implement, test and fine tune the open loop “parking algorithm” described in lecture on your robotic platform. Start from an Ei vector of [-3,-2,-pi/6] (meters, rad/sec) and demonstrate the ability to navigate to [0,0,0] with an error of less than +/-10 centimeters, +/- 10 degrees. Simulate your robot movement in math software. Write up your results.
  2. Implement, test and fine tune a closed loop line following algorithm with PD or PID feedback control using 2 or 3 IR sensors (white tape is available for making a line course). Simulate your robot movement in math software. Write up your results.
  3. Implement, test and fine tune a closed loop wall following algorithm with PD or PID feedback control using one ultrasonic sensor (either in a fixed position on the robot or mounted on a servo with +/- 20 degrees of movement). Simulate your robot movement in math software. Write up your results.

ASSESSMENT ON NEXT PAGE

S.R.Norr

ECE 5351Spring 2016FinalProject Grading Matrix

Attribute
(5 pts each) / 0 to 1.5– Unacceptable / 1.5 to 3.5– Below Expectations / 3.5 to 5– Meets or ExceedsExpectations / Points Awarded
Report
Organization,
Grammar, Punctuation &
Spelling / Inappropriate content in most sections of report, tables and figures cannot be read/understood, fonts difficult to read, format errors so as to make the report useless. Excessive spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors / Some portions are sloppy, difficult to read, contain some format errors or are attached at the end of the report. Organization occasionally detracts from readability and clarity. Some spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. / Content appropriate in all sections of report, text and tables.Organization enhances readability and clarity. Figures are readable and understandable. Few (if any) spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors.
Content / No background information. Lack of underlying physical concepts. No design goals, no design calculations. No test results. No electrical schematics. No flowchart or state diagrams.Sources NOT CITED. / Little background information. Poor attempt to explain underlying physical concepts. Design goals lack focus, design calculations incomplete or hard to follow. Test results unclear or indicate malfunction. Electrical schematics incomplete. Flowchart or state diagrams poorly conceived. Sources inconsistently cited. / Excellent background information. Clearly explains underlying physical concepts. Design goalssharply defined, design calculations complete andeasy to follow. Test results clear and indicate proper function. Electrical schematics correct. Flowchart or state diagrams clear.Comparisons made between simulation and physical results.All sources properly cited.
Physical Robot
Design / Does not employ a coherent approach to meeting design objectives. No control scheme is implemented. Programming is incomplete or unreliable and not commented. / Meets most of the design objectives. Control algorithm not scaled appropriately for performance. Programming is inefficient and comments are unclear. / Elegantly meets all design objectives. Control algorithm is linear and scaled for optimal performance. Programming is compact, efficient and clearly commented.
Construction / Form does not follow from design goals. Sensor placement inhibits proper use. Battery power not properly routed for efficient use. Platform does not run reliably, wiring is a rats nest. Robot does not meet performance objectives.
Or UNSAFE. / Form has some discontinuity from design goals. Sensor placement not optimized. Battery use has minor inefficiencies. Platform has minor reliability issues, wiring not color-coded for clarity. Robot meets some but not all performance objectives. / Form supports all design goals. Sensor placement is optimized. Battery use excellent. Platform is entirely reliable, wiring organized and color-coded. Robot meets all performance objectives.
Simulation
Organization / Programming is incomplete or unreliable and not commented. Time-step not appropriate for the time constants of algorithms. Algorithms incorrect or extremely inefficient. / Programming is generally complete and usually stable. Comments lack clarity. Time-step somewhat appropriate for the time constants of algorithms. Algorithms mostly correct and reasonably efficient. / Programming is fully complete, reliable and clearly commented. Time-step appropriate for all time constants of algorithms. Algorithms correct and extremely efficient.
Content / Ignores or improperly models the physical constants of the robot. Makes no effort to implement or simulate the actual function of robot’s motors. Control algorithm not implemented. No plots of results. / Modeling the physical constants of the robot is overly simple. Motor models not correct. Control algorithm not consistent with physical robot. Incomplete plots of results with poor labeling. / Excellent modeling of physical constants. Motor models correct. Control algorithm consistent with physical robot. Complete plots of results with proper labeling.
Names: / Total Pts (30 pts)