Transcript BIRDIE: Biologically-Inspired low Reynolds number Dynamic

BIRDIE:
Biologically-Inspired low Reynolds number
Dynamic Imagery Experiment
Preliminary Design Review
Jeff Baxter
Jeff Silverthorn
Matt Snelling
Courtney Terrell
Blake Vanier
7/16/2015
Keith Wayman
Briefing Overview and Content
 Objectives and Requirements Overview
 Development and Assessment of System
Design Alternatives
 System Design-To Specifications
 Development and Assessment of Subsystem
Design Alternatives
 Subsystem Feasibility
 Risk Assessment
 Project Management Plan
7/16/2015
Objectives Overview
 To create an experimental
apparatus that can trace
out a given wing motion
similar to a hummingbird in
hovering flight
 Design a system to capture
the aerodynamic structures
created by this wing motion
http://www.ae.utexas.edu/design/humm_mav/
7/16/2015
Motivation
 Study low Reynolds number unsteady
flow of hovering flight
 Application for highly maneuverable
MAVs
 Single system for thrust and maneuver
7/16/2015
Requirements
 Wing Range of Motion:
 ±80° in the horizontal plane
 ±60° in the vertical plane
 ±110° about the length of the wing (pitch)
±60° ±110°
±80°
7/16/2015
Requirements
 Wing tip motion must follow a given path
 Within 20%, of the maximum amplitude, spatially
 Within 20%, of the period, temporally
 Pitch motion must follow a given rotational mode
 Within 20%, of the maximum angle, rotationally
 Within 20%, of the period of rotation, temporally
 Frequency
 0-10 Hz with a resolution of 1 Hz
 Wing Variation
 Simple interchange of wings 5-10 cm in length, within 30 minutes
 Visualization of Aerodynamic Flow
 View Area: >30 cm2
 Minimum Resolution: 96 x 96 pixels
 Minimum Frame Rate: >200 frames per second (fps)
7/16/2015
Goals
 Create three different wings with varying
stiffness for testing
 Synchronize visualization with collected
three-axis dynamic loading data
 Precision: less than 0.0015 N
 Range: ± 5 N
7/16/2015
PDD Addendum
Max Tip Velocity
Velocity (m/s)
40
 Frequency adjustment
Current: 0-10 Hz,
Goal: 20 Hz
Original: 0-55 Hz
0
7/16/2015
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
60
Acceleration (g's)
Frames per sec
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
Frequency (Hz)
40
Reqired
FPSforforVarying
Varying Field
View
Required
FPS
Fieldofof
View
2000
1000
0
20
ixles)
Current:
Original: Unspecified
0
Max Tip Acceleration
 Camera Requirements
Field of View: >30 cm2
Minimum resolution:
96 x 96 pixels
Frame Rate: >200 fps
20
40
30
40
50
60
70
Number
of Times
Number
of TimesSeen
Seen
Blur Rate
80
90
100
General Experimental Setup
7/16/2015
System Architecture
Customer
Requirements,
Functional
Experiment
(BIRDIE)
Mechanism
Location
Experimental
Medium
Visualization
Capturing Options
System Design-To
Specifications
Wing
Mechanism
7/16/2015
Test Bed
Visualization
Wing Motion
Verification
Wing Mechanism Location
 Containment chamber
 Able to hold 1-3 shed vortices
 Must be at least 4-6 times the
wing motion range in dimension
to negate wall effects
 Magnitude of size of vortex is
approximately the size of the
wing motion
 Mechanism must be in center
7/16/2015
Experimental Medium
Air
Water
 Pros
 Pros
Few necessary
experimental modifications
Variety of feasible
subsystem options
 Cons
Higher wing beat
frequency, f = 10 Hz
7/16/2015
Lower wing beat
frequency, f = 0.66 Hz
 Cons
Waterproofing of
interfaces, electronics,
actuators, joint lubricants,
adhesives
Stronger containment
necessary
Limits subsystem options
Increases complexity
Increases difficulty to
change wings
Visualization Capturing Options
 Suspended Particulate Imagery (SPI)
 Allows frame-by-frame visualization of
the created flow using a high speed
camera
 Several options for medium and
illumination source
http://www.nd.edu/~mav/research.htm
 Medium: kerosene smoke,
phosphorescent particles
 Illumination: laser sheets, industrial
lighting
 Image collection is possible through
camera software
7/16/2015
www.ae.gatech.edu
Visualization Capturing Options
 Digital Particle Image Velocimetry
(DPIV)
 Creates a vector field superimposed
on the formation of the flow
 Greatly increases complexity
 Similar to Computational Fluid
Dynamic (CFD) software
 Synchronization of software, laser,
and camera(s)
 Very specific constraints from
software for laser, medium, and
camera(s)
 Mechanical Engineering has a similar
setup, with very limited access
7/16/2015
Ref. 6
System Design-To Specifications
Customer
Requirements,
Functional
Experiment
(BIRDIE)
Mechanism
Location
Experimental
Medium
Visualization
Capturing Options
Center
Air
SPI
System Design-To
Specifications
Wing
Mechanism
7/16/2015
Test Bed
Visualization
Wing Motion
Verification
Wing Mechanism
 Subsystem Design Alternatives
 Influence and Sub-Subsystems
 Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
 Design-To Specifications
7/16/2015
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Wing Mechanism
Variable (1)
Design
Variable (1)
Rotary (2)
Moving (3)
7/16/2015
Rotary (2)
Pros
Low moving mass
Variable range of motion
One motor at a constant speed
Variable range of motion
Easily machineable
Moving (3)
Cons
Complex software
Mechanically complex
Fixed motion
Entire platform moves vertically
Does not simulate vertical motion
Complex software
Influence and Sub-Subsystems
Wing Mechanism
Wing
Mechanism
Test Bed
Wing Motion
Verification
Visualization
Design Choice
Joint/
Pivot
Sensors
Wing
Design
Software
Actuators
Purchased
Sensor
Ball Joint
C++
Radial
Spars
Rotary
Custom
Sensor
Gimbal
MatLab
Leading
Edge
Ribs
Linear
LabView
7/16/2015
Servo
Design specific
Goals
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Wing Mechanism
 Moving design (3) inertial force in the z
direction increase by 11.3 N
Moving Mass
7/16/2015
Complexity
Motion Change
Design
Moving
Mass (g)
Weight
Score
Weight
Score
Weight
Score
Total
Variable
(1)
1.68
40%
1
25%
.25
35%
1
.8125
Rotary (2)
2.02
40%
1
25%
.5
35%
0
.525
Moving
(3)
145
.5
35%
1
.475
40%
0
25%
Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
Wing Mechanism
7/16/2015
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity of Control Arm in z
0
0.05
0.1
0
-100
0
0.05
Time (s)
Tip Motion
0.1
5
0
-5
-10
-5
0
5
Y Position (cm)
10
Acceleration (m/s 2)
-1
1
0
-1
0
0.05
0.1
Acceleration of Control Arm in z
100
0
-100
Z Position (cm)
0
Acceleration of Control Arm in y
100
Z Position (cm)
Acceleration (m/s 2)
Velocity (m/s)
Velocity of Control Arm in y
1
0
0.05
Time (s)
Contol Point Motion
0.1
-5
0
5
Y Position (cm)
10
5
0
-5
-10
Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
Wing Mechanism
Force on Control Arm in y
Power on Control Arm in y
0.2
Power (W)
Force (N)
4
2
0
-2
-4
0
0.05
0
-0.2
0.1
0
Force on Control Arm in z
Power (W)
Force (N)
0.5
0
0
0.05
0
-0.5
0.1
0
Force at the Control Point
0.1
0.4
Power (W)
Force (N)
7/16/2015
0.05
Power at the Control Point
4
2
0
0.1
Power on Control Arm in z
2
-2
0.05
0
0.05
Time (s)
0.1
0.2
0
0
0.05
Time (s)
0.1
Design-To Specifications
Wing Mechanism
Equations to determine the inertial loads

1
1
2
2
Farm  m  c  b   c  b  
b 12
2

Drive system must be able to provide a minimum of:
7/16/2015
Drive System
Angular
Velocity
(rad/s)
Angular
Acceleration
(rad/s2)
Torque
(N-m)
Power
(W)
Y Direction
61.8
3888
0.00637
0.0314
Z Direction
61.8
7776
0.0127
0.211
Rotational
120.6
7579
2.1*10-5
0.00127
Test Bed
 Subsystem Design Alternatives
 Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives
 Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
7/16/2015
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Test Bed
Containment
Chamber
Wing
Mechanism
Support
Top (2)
Bottom (1)
Side (3)
Mount
Pros
Cons
Bottom (1)
No camera obstruction from
above and the side
Flow disruption below wing
Top (2)
No flow disruption
Upper camera obstruction
Side (3)
7/16/2015
No flow disruption
No camera obstruction
Lower camera obstruction
Possible deflection due to lift
Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives
Test Bed
Side Mount
Support
Beam
Outer Casing
Glass
Static
Acrylic
Dynamic
Plastic
7/16/2015
Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
Test Bed
Required Angle
Maximum deflection
2 10  sin( 80)  .01  .197 [cm]
Required Wing Length
vmax 
x
( wSupport  wwing _ mech ) L3
Static
12 EI
-6
6
1% of total error
Dynamic
Required Stiffness
Static Deflection
x 10
120
100
Stiffness (N/m)
Deflection (m)
5
4
3
2
1
7/16/2015
0
F /k
 2m
1
k
80
60
40
20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Length of Support (m)
0.8
1
0
0
10
20
30
Frequency (Hz)
40
50
Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
Test Bed
-7
1
Dynamic Beam Deflection
x 10
Position (m)
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
7/16/2015
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
4
5
Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
Test Bed
 Resonant frequencies can create failure in
beams with loads far below their yield strength
-4
18
Resonant Frequency
x 10
16
14
F /k
x
 2m
1
k
Deflection (m)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
7/16/2015
-2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000 5000 6000 7000
Forcing Frequency (Hz)
8000
9000 10000
Visualization
 Subsystem Design Alternatives
 Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives
 Design-To Specifications
7/16/2015
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Visualization
Smoke Jet (1)
Design Option
Suspended Particles (2)
Pros
Cons
Unwanted forces: for 5m/s flow
added ~1N
Smoke Jet (1)
No added modifications
Poor visualization
Only streamlines
Low TRL
No added modifications
Suspended Particles (2)
Easy setup
Higher TRL
Illumination Costs
Heat Rejection
7/16/2015
TRL: Technology Readiness Level
Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives
Visualization
Suspended
Particle Imagery
Suspended
Particles
Camera
7/16/2015
Image
Collection
Illumination
Frame Rate
Type
Source
Software
Field of
View
Housing
Targeted
Area
Storage
Color /
Black and
White
Power
Design-To Specifications
Visualization
 Camera resolution maximum of
800 x 600 pixels
 Illumination source
 Able to target specific flow areas
 Be safely and easily moved
7/16/2015
Wing Motion Verification
 Subsystem Design Alternatives
 Subsystem Feasibility
 Design-To Specifications
7/16/2015
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Wing Tip Motion Tracking
Method
Pros
Accelerometer
(1)
Independent of
visualization method
LED
(2)
Phosphorescent
Paint
(3)
7/16/2015
Cons
Heaviest solution
Highest cost/unit
Requires power to be supplied to wing tip
May require bulk purchase
Low cost/unit
Requires high speed camera
Requires power to be supplied to wing tip
Inexpensive (~$12/oz.)
Requires no power
Requires high speed camera
Requires excitation source
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Wing Pitch Angle Tracking
Method
Rotary Encoder
(1)
Second Tip Marker
(2)
7/16/2015
Pros
Cons
Independent of
visualization method
Higher cost ($85.00)
Real-time tracking
No new requirements or
needs
Requires post processing of images
Accuracy limited by camera resolution
Subsystem Design Alternatives
Wing Motion Verification
Wing Motion
Verification
Wing Tip Tracking
Accelerometer
Rotary
Encoder
LED
Second
Tip
Marker
Phosphorescent
Paint
7/16/2015
Pitch Angle Tracking
Subsystem Feasibility
Wing Motion Verification
Selected Examples
Method
Manufacturer
Model
Size (mm)
Mass
Inertial
Force
(N)
Accelerometer
PCB Piezotronics
356A13
6.4x6.4x9.6
1g
0.078
Marktech
MTSM9100LB
-UO
0.8x0.8x1.6
(estimated)
SHANNON
LUMINOUS
MATERIALS,INC.
S-2820SP
N/A
TR Electronic
Incremental
Encoder - 58
58.0
(diameter)
x42.0
LED
Phosphorescent
Paint
Rotary Encoder
7/16/2015
Optoelectronics
0.75 g
0.1 g
(estimated)
0.3 kg
0.0057
8.2*10-4
N/A
Design–To Specifications
Wing Motion Verification
 Position must be measured to within 2% of the
maximum amplitude
 Horizontal direction: 4 mm accuracy
 Vertical direction: 3.5 mm accuracy
 Pitch angle must be measured to within 2% of
the maximum angle
 Angle: 2.2 degree accuracy
 Time must be measured to within 2% of the
period
 Time: 0.002 second minimum step
7/16/2015
Project Risk Analysis
Consequence
5
Support failure
Eye damage
from
illumination
4
Data storage
Linkage breaks
Poor motor
and software
interaction
Cannot find
small
actuators
Too many
particles in
chamber
Illumination
source too
expensive
Flow is outside
FOV
3
2
Required
illumination
undetermined
Lack of
intensity
Motion blur
1
1
2
3
Likelihood
7/16/2015
4
5
Project Risk Mitigation
 Use larger actuators that are stored
outside of the chamber
 Make multiple parts in case of failure to
reduce down time
 Use proper safety protocol when
operating dangerous lasers
7/16/2015
Project Risk Mitigation
Visualization Experiment
 Purpose:
 Determine the minimum illumination power
necessary
 Compare illumination sources
 Compare suspended particles
 Determine particle density
 Setup: Using a clear chamber, capture the
illuminated plane with a digital camera and
compare the different variables
7/16/2015
System Architecture
Customer
Requirements,
Functional
Experiment
(BIRDIE)
Mechanism Location
Experimental
Medium
Visualization
Capturing Options
Center
Air
SPI
System Design-To
Specifications
7/16/2015
System Architecture
System Design-To
Specifications
Wing
Mechanism
Test Bed
Wing Motion
Verification
Visualization
Wing
Rotation
Tracking
Wing Tip
Tracking
Variable
Bottom
Smoke
Jets
Accelerometer
Rotary
Top
Suspended
Particles
LED
Moving
Side
Phosphorescent
Paint
7/16/2015
Rotary
Encoder
Second
Tip
Marker
Project Management Plan
 Organizational Responsibilities
 Work Breakdown Structure
 Schedule
 Cost Estimates
 Specialized Facilities and Resources
7/16/2015
Organizational Responsibilities
Project Manager
Courtney Terrell
Fabrication Engineer
Jeff Silverthorn
Assistant Project Manager
and Saftey Engineer
Keith Wayman
Webmaster
Jeff Baxter
System Engineer
Blake Vanier
Chief Financial Officer
Matt Snelling
Wing Mechanism Lead
Blake Vanier
Test Bed Lead
Jeff Baxter
Visualization Lead
Keith Wayman
Wing Motion
Verification Lead
Jeff Silverthorn
Jeff Silverthorn
Matt Snelling
Courtney Terrell
Blake Vanier
Blake Vanier
Jeff Silverthorn
7/16/2015
Work Breakdown Structure
BIRDIE
Project
Management
Systems
Engineering
Wing
Mechanism
Test Bed
Visualization
Wing Motion
Verification
Testing and
Verification
Schedule
Design
Specifications
Mechanism
Design
Containment
Design
Camera
Wing Tip
Tracking
Safety
Procedures
Budget
Systems
Integration
Leading Edge
Design
Mount Design
Suspended
Particles
Pitch Angle
Tracking
Preliminary
Testing
Task
Management
Subsystems
Integration
Wing Design
Materials
Selection
Illumination
Image Collection
Testing
Procedures
Materials
Selection
Manufacturing
Image Collection
Team
Management
Sensors
Actuators
Software
7/16/2015
Manufacturing
Data Reduction
and Analysis
Schedule
 Subsystem schedule breakdown
7/16/2015
Schedule
 Preliminary spring schedule
7/16/2015
Cost Estimates
SUBSYSTEM
ITEMS
Options
Test Bed
Outer Casing
Plexiglass
The Mounting Structure
2' long, 1.5" width/height square bar
Actuators
2 linear actuators
Strain Gauges
15 semi-conductor strain gauges
2-axis gimbal
Four
$40.00
wing material
Carbon Fiber Spar (2)
$40.00
Camera
High-Speed (borrowed)
Laser
Green laser
$700.00
Media Storage
160 GB Hard Drive
$140.00
Suspended Particles
5lbs Dry ice
$4.00
Paint
1 oz. bottle
$12.00
Wing Mechanism
Visualization
Wing Motion Verification
Cost
40 ft2
$76.00
$1,400.00
$115.95
$0.00
Shipping
$50.00
SUB-TOTAL
$2,632.95
Uncertainty
1.5
TOTAL
7/16/2015
$55.00
$3,949.43
Specialized Facilities and
Resources
 Camera: Olympus I-Speed High-Speed
Camera (Max rate - 33,000 fps)
 Workstations
 LabVIEW
 IDL/ENVI
7/16/2015
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
7/16/2015
http://homepages.which.net/~paul.hills/Materials/MaterialsBody.html
http://web2.automationdirect.com/adc/Shopping/Catalog/Sensors_-z_Encoders/Encoders/Light_Duty_Standard_Shaft_(TRD-S_Series)
Altshuler, Douglas L., Dudley, Robert, and Ellington, Charles P. (December, 2004). Aerodynamic forces of
revolving hummingbird wings and wing models [Electronic Version]. Journal of Zoology: Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 264, 327-332.
David L. Raney, Eric C. Slominski. “Mechanization and Control Concepts for Biologically Inspired Micro Aerial
Vehicles.” 11 - 14 August 2003, Austin, Texas
Opto Diode Corporation. OD-6FS Data Sheet. Sept 28, 2006, from http://optodiode.com/pdf/OD6FS.pdf
Opto Diode Corporation. OD-880F Data Sheet. Sept 28, 2006, from http://optodiode.com/pdf/OD880F.pdf
Toshiba. Toshiba TLxE1008A SMT LEDs. Sept 28, 2006, from
http://www.marktechopto.com/pdfs/Toshiba/ToshibaTLxE1008ASMTLEDs0201.pdf
FGR Sensors & Instrumentation. FA3106 Series Tri-axial Accelerometer. Sept 28, 2006, from
http://www.fgpsensors.com/pdf/FA3106_us.pdf
FGR Sensors & Instrumentation. XA1000 Series Ulta-Miniature Accelerometer. Sept 28, 2006, from
http://www.fgpsensors.com/pdf/XA1000_us.pdf
PCB Piezotronics. Model 356A01 Spec Sheet. Sept 28, 2006, from
http://www.pcb.com/CommonIncludes/Pdfs/356A01_C.pdf
PCB Piezotronics. Model 356A13 Spec Sheet. Sept 28, 2006, from
http://www.pcb.com/CommonIncludes/Pdfs/356A13_B.pdf
Warrick, Douglas R., Tobalske, Bret W., and Powers, Donald R. “Aerodynamics of the hovering hummingbird”
2005, Nature, Volume 435, pages 1094-1097
Wells, Dominic. “Muscle Performance in Hovering Hummingbirds”. The Company of Biologists Limited. 1993
Questions?
7/16/2015
Supplemental Information
7/16/2015
Development and Assessment of Subsystem Design
Alternatives- Wing Mechanism Point System
 Mass:
 m<1g: 1; 1g<m<10g: .5; 10g<m: 0
 Complexity:




1 motor: .25
No pivot point: .25
Comparatively large parts: .25
No restrictions on motor placement: .25
 Motion Change:
 Yes: 1; No:0
7/16/2015
Wing Mechanism Feasibility –
Previous Experiments
 Design used linear Actuators with a
wing length of 75 mm at 25 Hz.
Ref. 4
Ref. 4
7/16/2015
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Analysis
1
2
2
I P  mL  mr
12
Equations to determine the
inertial loads
I P  Tp

atip
c

TP  bFarm
1
1
2
2
Farm  m  c  b   c  b  
b 12
2

7/16/2015
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Analysis
Determining size and mass of
the leading edge
 max
P
Px 2
3L  x 

6 EI
matip
2
d2
m  
L
4
7/16/2015
I
d 4
64
d
112atipL3
81E max
Wing Mechanism - Rotational
Feasibility Analysis
-5
Angle of Wing Pitch
Torque (N-m)
Angle ()
200
0
-200
0
0.05
0.1
x 10
5
0
-5
0
 of Wing Pitch
1
0.05
4
2
 (rad/s )
1
 of Wing Pitch
0
-1
7/16/2015
x 10
0.1
Power (W)
0
 (rad/s)
1.5
0
0.05
-3
200
-200
Torque
x 10
0.1
Power
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0
0.05
Time (s)
0.1
-1.5
0
0.05
Time (s)
0.1
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Analysis
Linear Actuators
Supplier
Designation
Acceleration
(g)
Velocity
(m/s)
Continuous
Force (N)
Cost ($)
Baldor
LMCF-Series
10
5
5.3
649
Trilogy Systems
Trilogy I FORCE Linear
Motor -- 110-1w/
drives
20
10
24.5
2250
Copley Controls
Corp.
Servo Tube – STA 2506
With feedback
24.1
5.3
70
1100
7/16/2015
Wing Mechanism Risk Assessment
5
Actuators
extend too far
Consequence
4
3
Linkage breaks
Poor motor
and software
interaction
Cannot find
small
actuators
2
3
4
Power
overload
2
1
1
Likelihood
7/16/2015
5
Test Bed Feasibility Analysis - Failure
Mc
  SF 
I
 With no safety factor, (SF=1), the yield
strength of the support beam must be 1 kPa
 Using aluminum (70 GPa), the safety factor is
73,000
7/16/2015
Test Bed Risk Assessment
Consequence
5
Support failure
4
Outer casing
shattering
3
Large support
deflection
Outer casing
cracking
Small support
deflection
2
3
2
1
1
Likelihood
7/16/2015
4
5
B R
BPixels  
P N
7/16/2015
1000
0
20
Pixel Size (mm)
B V *E
1
E
F
X
P
R
Reqired FPS for Varying Field of View
2000
Blur Rate (Pixles)
V *N
F
X
Frames per sec
Camera Blur and Field of View
30
40
30
300
50
60
70
Number of Times Seen
Blur Rate
80
90
100
40
50
60
70
80
Number of Times seen
Pixel Size of field of view 0-1000fps
90
100
400
500
600
700
800
Square Field of View Dimension (mm)
900
1000
Xpix
Ypix
40
20
0
20
2
1
0
200
Visualization Subsystem Design
Alternatives
 Types of Particles
 Smoke
 Can be generated from kerosene or dry ice
 Easily available
 Low cost<$50
 Phosphorescent Particles
 Provides more light for better visualization
7/16/2015
Visualization Subsystem Design
Alternatives
 Types of illumination
 Laser
 High intensity light can be focused in a sheet
 Precise placement to illuminate specific field of
view
 Proven heritage
 High cost $200-$3000
 Dangerous if used improperly
 Industrial Lighting





7/16/2015
Moderate intensity good for lighting large areas
Not easily focused
Cost $50-$200
Large heat buildup
Unproven
Visualization Risk Assessment
Eye Damage
from
Consequence
5
Camera breaks
4
Data storage
3
Particle
selection
2
Necessary
frame rate
change
1
Housing failure
1
Eye damage
from
illumination
Illumination
required
cannot be
determined
Software
interface not
compatible
Too many
particles in
chamber
Illumination
source too
expensive
Flow is outside
FOV
2
3
4
Likelihood
7/16/2015
Required
illumination
undetermined
5
Wing Motion Tracking Risk
Assessment
5
Consequence
4
3
2
Lack of
intensity
Motion blur
1
1
2
3
Likelihood
7/16/2015
4
5
Project Software
Requirements




Command wing actuators
Record strain gauge measurements
Synchronize force measurements with visualization
Verify wing tip location
LabVIEW
 Designed to interact with sensors
 Allows real time execution of programs
IDL/ENVI
 Image manipulation software
 Capable of batch processing
 Ideal for computing location of wing tip marker
7/16/2015