1 / 31

Design and Testing of an Airborne Jellyfish Model: Breakthroughs and Challenges

This project outlines the development of a remote-controlled airborne jellyfish inspired by Festo's creations. Led by Jacob Chard’s team under Supervisor Dr. Marek Kujath, we aimed to mimic the jellyfish's appearance while achieving controlled flight and effective advertisement capability. Our testing faced challenges such as helium reliability and assembly fragility, but we successfully demonstrated flight for over 30 minutes. The design includes rapid-prototyped components and advanced steering mechanisms, paving the way for future improvements in aerial robotics.

maegan
Download Presentation

Design and Testing of an Airborne Jellyfish Model: Breakthroughs and Challenges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Air Jellyfish Group #1: Jacob Chard Ben Sponagle Chris Theriault Shane Yates Supervisor: Dr. MarekKujath

  2. Outline • Introduction • Inspiration • Objectives • Fall Term Testing and Calculations • The Design • Alterations • Fabrication • Budget • Testing and Evaluation • Conclusions and Recommendations

  3. The Inspiration: FestoAirJelly Source: www.festo.com • Remote-controlled airborne jellyfish • Central electric drive moves tentacles • Horizontal motion controlled by centre-of-mass-shifting pendulum

  4. Objectives • Mimic appearance of a jellyfish • Achieve flight • Create effective advertising medium

  5. Fall Term Testing • Mock up Model • Double Pulley Mechanism vs. Pulley/Spring Mechanism • Flexible Legs vs. Hinged Paddles • Oscillation Frequency • Calculations • Torque Requirement • Drag Forces • Lift

  6. Calculations: Drag Forces Drag Forces were found to be small

  7. Torque Requirement HG312 Geared Motor 312:1 www.robotmarketplace.com Calculated to be 5.82 Nm Motor selected based on torque requirement

  8. Lift 2.1m diameter balloon produces 5kg Lift

  9. The Design • Frame • Vertical Propulsion Mechanism • Balloon • Motor/Crank • Steering Mechanism • Wireless Control • Circuitry

  10. The Frame Rapid-Prototyped Joints Rapid-Prototyped Hinges Carbon Fibre Tubes Rapid-Prototyped Motor Platform Aluminum Tubes

  11. Vertical Propulsion Mechanism • Flexible flappers • -Vinyl Beams • -Foam Board Paddles • Upward thrust throughout stroke

  12. Transmission

  13. Balloon • Weather Balloon • Helium Used for Lift • Net/Ring Support

  14. Steering Mechanism • Dual Propellers • Provide linear horizontal movement and turning capability

  15. Wireless Control • FM transmitter and receiver • Servo motors activate on/off switches • Dedicated power supply

  16. Primary Power Supply • Lithium-Polymer battery pack • 3 cells (3.7 V each) • 2600 mAh capacity • Provideample power for >30 min of operation

  17. Alterations

  18. Fabrication • Joints, hinges, and base of motor platform were rapid-prototyped • Frame assembled with press-fitting • Motor hub machined by Albert • Motor stand made of balsa; attached to base with epoxy • Sewn balloon attachment ring

  19. Budget

  20. Testing • Three tests conducted in Sexton Gym • Number of tests limited by cost of helium (~$100 to fill balloon)

  21. Test 1: March 27 • Insufficient helium to achieve flight • Verified all mechanical systems • Propellers moved device forward and provided turning capability • Crank mechanism drove flappers with appropriate range of motion • Learned lessons concerning device assembly

  22. Test 2: April 1 (It flew!) • Achieved controllable flight • Operated for over 30 minutes • Reached height of 8 m • Controlled from 28 m distance • Lessons learned • Difficult to determine orientation of device from distance • Helium leakage might limit run time

  23. Test 2: April 1 (It flew!)

  24. Test 2: April 1 (It flew!)

  25. Test 3: April 6 • Added advertisements and orientation indicators • Balloon ruptured during assembly

  26. Design Requirements

  27. Design Requirements

  28. Conclusions Positives • Overall success • Most requirements met Negatives • Reliability issues • Fragility of balloon • Time and effort for assembly • Cost of helium

  29. Recommendations • Balloon reliability enhancement • Use a more rigid balloon • Contain balloon in protective envelope • More advanced control system • Height and obstacle detection • Motor speed controllers • Organic steering mechanism

  30. Acknowledgements Sponsors • Shell Canada • Welaptega Marine • Air Liquide Individuals • Dr. MarekKujath • Albert et al. • Dr. Julio Militzer • Peter Jones • Craig Arthur

  31. Questions?

More Related