Photos Of Construction

Newly Delivered PVC tubing (20ft)

Example of 1.5' pieces for the length of the ROV

Me Measuring and Marking the length i need to cut

Me cutting PVC tubing with a handsaw

Supply List, Material List, and Part List

Supply List:

• PVC glue
• Drill
• Saw
• Clamps
• Hose Clamps

Material List:

• PVC piping  (1 inch) 
• PVC glue
• PVC 3-way elbow (1 inch)
• PVC  t-shaped connector (1 inch)
• PVC 4-way tee (1 inch)
• PVC 4-way cross (1 inch)

Parts List:

• 2213N 800Kv Brushless Motor
• 65 mm Propeller

Tool List:

• Circular Saw
• PVC cutter

Plan of Procedures

Plan of Procedures

1. Research parts, materials, and supplies
2. Inquire about those items
3. Order items from desired companies
4. Make sure all parts were delivered
5. Make adjustments to parts (cut down to size)

 

1. Proceed with building individual parts of the project
2. Test hull by placing it in water

1. Make adjustments if needed
2. Commence final testing
3. Prepare for challenge at the Neptune Aquatic
4. Arrive at testing facility (Neptune pool)
5. Make sure joints are completely sealed and connected to each other
6. Make sure that appendages are securely connected to main body of the ROV
7. Make sure that there are no loose pieces or parts before placing in the water
8. Redo the buoyancy calculations to check if buoyancy of the system is correct
9. Place the ROV into the water
10. See how the ROV sits in the water (too buoyant, not buoyant enough, neutral)

STEMM Report (preliminary)

Science Concepts and Formulas involved in the ROV project (STEM)

            While working on our senior capstone design projects, we have to take into account many factors other than technical ones. These include scientific concepts. Each project and each part of the projects all have to take into account different scientific concepts and formulas that can either make or break them. For my ROV project, or t least my part of it, I need to take into account concepts such as water physics and most importantly, buoyancy. Water physics is important because of the fact that the ROV has to travel through water. If it is not properly hydrodynamic, it might not run well in the testing pool or even run well at all. The ROV needs to be capable of moving through water horizontally in both directions and vertically as well. If the ROV is not able to do this, the project would be a bust. This has formulas in it that involve forces and also the weight and density of objects in water.

            The other science concept that I must take into account is buoyancy. Buoyancy is always a factor when you are putting something in water. The ROV we are creating needs to have just the right buoyancy. It needs to be close to neutrally buoyant but it should be a little more positive to account for the weight of the block we will be picking up with the ROV. This is required because if the ROV is too buoyant, it will not submerge and if it is not buoyant enough, it will not be able to surface. With this concept, the buoyancy formula is the main one here along with weights in water and how much volume can offset that weight.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Systems Engineering II: SeaPerch ROV Challenge

Diving into the SeaPerch ROV

SANDY HOOK, NJ DECEMBER 10, 2014-An ROV team from the Marine Academy of Science and Technology will be testing their prototype ROV that they have build in their Systems Engineering II class their senior year. They will have to use their ROV to dive down into a pool and collect 3 different sized blocks using a claw attached to the main hull. The ROV will be controlled with a Playstation controller and wired to perform all of the tasks it needs to navigate the Neptune Community pool.

The Student in question is Guido Monteleone. He is a senior at the Marine Academy of Science and Technology and he currently lives in Long Branch, NJ. For the ROV project, he is the structural or mechanical engineer. He is responsible for the design, the purchase of parts, and construction of the main body or hull for the ROV. He is also responsible for attaching all of the components needed to run the ROV.  He has a very important part of the ROV it turns out. He is responsible for the unit as a whole. The unit is dependent on his part. Guido and his two partners Andrew Schussler and Noah Grant are building the project for their systems engineering class. Andrew is responsible for the electronics while Noah is responsible for the claw used to grab the objects. The project will be tested at the Neptune Community pool in Neptune, NJ. The presentation for the project will be given on January 21, 2014 at 12:40 PM.

(picture was here, did not download properly)

Problem Being Solved

The group has found a very interesting problem for them to solve. For years when a ship or airplane crashed or sank into the ocean, they needed to send a human salvage diver to hopefully gain access to the wreck and retrieve items if possible. This was a dangerous task for several reasons. For starters, you are putting a human life at risk. They might get caught in the wreck if they can even get into it at all. It is also a very high-risk low reward situation. You might not even find what you are looking for and have to go down again. This is where ROVs come in. They pose no threat to the people using them and they can serve a number of purposes. They can be used for research, salvage diving, and even in military situations. The ROV can be used to safely navigate the wreck or area that is inaccessible to human divers with no risk except losing the ROV, which is a lot better than losing a life. That is what they intend to accomplish with this solution of theirs. They intend to end the need for human salvage divers to lower the risk of loss of life.

To sum up, this is the SeaPerch ROV challenge. These three students: Guido Monteleone, Andrew Schussler, and Noah Grant are building an Remotely Operated Vehicle or ROV to replace the need for salvage divers and reduce the risk of losing a life or lives. Guido will be designing and producing the structural body or chassis of the ROV that everything will be attached to or built onto. They will be testing this project at the Neptune Community pool sometime in late March or April. This project ultimately has good intentions and it will be interesting to sea how well they can accomplish what they intend to.

For more details about the SeaPerch ROV project in Sandy Hook, NJ, contact gmonteleone@ctemc.org or visit The Marine Academy of Science and Technology at rovmechanicalengineer.blogspot.com.

About the Marine Academy of Science and Technology

The Marine Academy of Science and Technology (MAST) is a co-ed four-year high school, grades 9-12; one of five career academies administered by the Monmouth County Vocational School District. The Marine Academy is fully accredited by the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges and offers small classes with close personal attention. The Marine Academy was founded in 1981 as a part-time program, which has since grown to become a full-time diploma-granting program. The school's curriculum focuses on marine sciences and marine technology/engineering. The MAST program requires each student to participate in the Naval Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (NJROTC) in lieu of Physical Education.
MAST is located in the Fort Hancock Historic Area at the tip of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The school campus is located adjacent to the Sandy Hook Lighthouse, the oldest working lighthouse in the country, in thirteen newly renovated buildings, within walking distance of several beaches. The "Blue Sea" is a 65-foot research vessel owned and operated by the Marine Academy and berthed at the U.S. Coast Guard Station, Sandy Hook. The vessel is used in all facets of the program.

-###-

For additional information:

Marine Academy of Science and Technology

732-749-3360

Guido Monteleone: gmonteleone@ctemc.org
John Cuttrell, V: 732-291-0995 

Model of the Final Solution (3D)

Developmental Work (cont.)

Buoyancy Calculations

Part Masses:

Total Weight (ROV and Components)-13.366 lbs (6,062 g)

Preliminary ROV Testing Procedures

Testing Procedures

1. Meet With Team and Mrs. Green to discuss project
2. Design problem situation and finalize it
3. Start to design individual parts of project
4. Finish designs and convene with team
5. Finalize drawings and designs
6. Research parts, materials, and supplies
7. Inquire about those items
8. Order items from desired companies
9. Make sure all parts were delivered
10. Proceed with building individual parts of the project
11. Test hull by placing it in water
12. Make adjustments if needed
13. Commence final testing
14. Prepare for challenge at the Neptune Aquatic
15. Arrive at testing facility (Neptune pool)
16. Make sure joints are completely sealed and connected to each other
17. Make sure that appendages are securely connected to main body of the ROV
18. Make sure that there are no loose pieces or parts before placing in the water
19. Redo the buoyancy calculations to check if buoyancy of the system is correct
20. Place the ROV into the water
21. See how the ROV sits in the water (too buoyant, not buoyant enough, neutral)

Developmental Work (cont.)

Motor

Brushless Motors

• work well underwater and even in saltwater
• a little more pricey than a brush motor
• more efficient 

2213N 800Kv Brushless Motor

• Kv-800
• Mass(g)-53
• Max Amps-9.5
• Max volts-11
• Thrust(g)-690
• RPM/min-7250
• Total Length(mm)-48

can be found for around $10.25

Developmental Work

ROV Propulsion Parts

Propeller:

Graupner 2308.65 propeller (cannot be used because it is economically unfeasible)

• very efficient
• good thrust 
• 3 blades

Thrust(g)-1100

Diameter(mm)-65

Blades-3

Pitch(mm)-34

3D Printed Version of Propeller

• 2 blades
• in shroud
• 3D printer inventor file can be produced at Camp Evans or any 3D printer

Model of Final Solution (Orthographic)

2D Drawing of the Solution

2D Orthographic View of Final Solution (AutoCAD)

Controlled Convergences

Structural Design

Categories	Triangular Prism	Cylinder	Cube	Rectangular Prism
Cost Effective	3	4	5	5
Easy Assembly	2	4	5	5
Durable	5	3	4	4
Sturdy	4	4	5	5
Mounting Ability	2	3	4	5
Total	16	18	23	24
Move Forward?	No	No	No	Yes

Building Materials

Categories	PVC	Metal Tubing	Wood	CPVC
Cost Effective	5	3	4	3
Easy Assembly	5	3	2	5
Durable	5	5	3	5
Waterproof	5	5	3	4
Easily Workable	4	3	4	3
Total	24	19	16	20
Move Forward?	Yes	No	No	No

Scale: 1-5 Five being the best and one being the worst

Rational Report

Rationale Report for ROV Alternate Solutions

            During my research that I conducted on my portion of the ROV design and building process, I came up with several alternate solutions. These alternate solutions are the ideas and designs that I am choosing from to design my ROV after. They are a triangular prism shape, a cylindrical shape, a cube shape, and a rectangular prism shape. These solutions are the result of lots of research and contact with my mentors. The next step is to choose the best solution to move forward with and why.

           The first solution is the triangular prism shape. ROVs come in all shapes and sizes and triangular is no exception. The triangular shape has some advantages. It could possibly aid in the water physics behind propulsion because the point on the triangle could aid in being hydrodynamic. This allows for easier movement in the water. This design also has some cons to it. Because of the unusual degree measures of the angles for the triangle, it would be hard to find pieces already made. This would mean that they would have to be specially ordered or made with a 3D printer or other means of creating or molding plastics. This solution while very hydrodynamic would be costly and hard to manufacture and build if done incorrectly. Some of these problems are fixed with the next alternate solution.

            The next alternate solution is the shape of a cylinder. Cylindrical shaped ROVs have been used several times before, even by the US Navy to aid in the destruction and combat of mines. This shape has the unique property of providing the least drag out of all of the solutions. The rounded sides allow the vehicle to move through the water with the least resistance. This allows it to move easily in the water using the motors to propel it. It also has parts that are easily obtainable which cuts down on cost. This shape comes with its own set of disadvantages as well. The cylindrical shape poses the problem of finding a place to attach the instruments and motors onto. But if done correctly, this is a minimal problem. The real problem is that of buoyancy. The round shape makes it hard to get the ROV to sit correctly in the water. The next ROV does not have this problem with buoyancy or of motor attachment.

               The next ROV that I designed was the cube shaped design. The cube is a 1’x1’x1’ design and is made out of PVC piping. This design is a very simplistic one but is easy to make and produce. The parts are easy to find and buy and are not that expensive. This cuts down on the cost and the struggle of trying to find parts. It also has plenty of space to attach motors and the claw appendage. However, even with all of these advantages, it does have some bad qualities. First of all, it is not as hydrodynamic as the other two solutions before this. A square is obviously not as dynamic as a cylinder or a triangle because it just has the same six faces on all sides and not curves or pointed edges. It is also a smaller design than the others. The cylinder is a little elongated and the triangle is as well. This could be a hindrance or an advantage depending on how you look at it. I believe that the next solution offers the best of all of the solutions in one package.

           The next solution is similar to the last one in that it keeps the basic cube shape; it is just elongated by a half foot. I would call it a rectangular prism shape. The design is a 1-foot tall, 1-foot wide, and 1.5 feet long. This provides the shape needed to attach the motors and the elongation needed to stabilize the structure. This shape also does not have most of the disadvantages that the others do such as the rolling problem with the cylinder or the part problem of the triangular. This cuts down on cost and adds to this solutions viability. This shape design, while it provides many advantages over the others, it isn’t without its fair share of flaws. It is still not as hydrodynamic as the cylinder or the triangular shaped design. This could cause me to have to use better motors to propel it through the water.

            Out of the four shapes discussed in this document, there is one I am moving forward with. This design is that of the rectangular prism. This design allows for motors, propellers, the mechanical claw, and anything else like the electronics to be attached easily and with plenty of room so nothing is tight together. The design does not cost as much as some of the others would. The parts are also pretty easy to find and put together. Not many adjustments would be needed to fit them together and putting holes in the PVC to attach parts would also be very easy. My mentor was the one who recommended this shape to me because he built an ROV in this shape and he told me it worked very well for him. That is why I am moving forward with this design and am now going to do research on building this part and the parts I need such as PVC piping.