University Rover Challenge

Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

November 17, 2022
Team Impassability

Logan Pascoe Dylan Tabalan

Lpascoe@calpoly.edu dtabalan@calpoly.edu

Daniel Xu Jake Stone

dxu07@calpoly.edu jstone21@calpoly.edu

Sponsor:
Mechanical Engineering Department, California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo
Abstract
Our team has determined the direction of design for the chassis, communications, and suspension
components of a URC Mars Rover. Focusing on chassis maneuverability, modularity, and construction of
the rover, we aim to aid future Cal Poly teams competing in URC events and competitions. After
analyzing various detailed design analyses, videos, and prototypes of previous rover models, we
concluded on the following design elements: a rocker-bogie suspension with six individually driven
wheels, a rectangular chassis design, modularity for future mission-oriented attachments, and radio
connectivity. By designing and creating concept prototypes our team gained valuable insight into factors
of the final design. We constructed a rocker-bogie suspension assembly using PVC and were able to
prove that our radio communications would be feasible for their intended purposes. Moving forward we
aim to further specify key aspects of our design such as material, build cost, and modularity.

ii
Table of Contents
































iii
iv
1. Introduction
Since the submission of our Scope of Work, we have ideated several design concepts and have chosen a
design direction that we wanted to move forward with. We plan to continue working with the scope that
we have outlined. This makes the project focus on rover design, implementing wireless communications,
and autonomous navigation. With that in mind, we needed to focus on figuring ou t how we will
accomplish these tasks. This includes brainstorming different suspension mechanisms, chassis designs,
communication methods, sensor interfacing, and controls. Once we finished ideating, we were able to go
through a rigorous selection process to determine the best design for our project. Additionally, we moved
on to designing and creating concept prototypes to demonstrate the suspension mechanism and sensor
interactions.
In this report, we will be discussing our selected design and explanations of how we made this decision.
This will be done through the following sections: Concept Development, Concept Design, and Concept
Justification. In the Concept Development section, we will be demonstrating our ideation methods and the
selection process. This will include explanations on how we came up with our ideas and how we were
able to narrow those ideas down. This section will also include brief descriptions of our final designs and
the different matrices we used to help us. In the Concept Design section, we will be going into more detail
about our chosen design. This will include additional explanations on how our design will function, rough
CAD drawings, pictures of our concept prototypes, and discussion of its geometry and materials. In the
Concept Justification section, we will be providing evidence showing that our chosen design will meet
our design specifications. This will include preliminary calculations and details on component
specifications. Additionally, we will be discussing the remaining work for the rest of the project in the
Future Work section.

1
2. Concept Development
After we created a clear problem definition and stakeholder requirements as summarized in our Scope of
Work Report, we had a well-defined goal for what we would need to achieve with our design. The next
step was to create as many ideas as possible to achieve our goal.
To begin this process, we developed the function decomposition diagram that is shown in Appendix A.
This was intended to break up our design into specific functions and requirements. Developing this
diagram led us to separate our design into 4 specific functions. These functions encompassed the chassis,
suspension, communication systems, and drivetrain. As a result, we knew how to focus our design ideas
to accomplish each specific function. Although communication is a crucial function, we decided to ideate
on wheel selection. This is because based on the competition guidelines, there is not a large selection of
communication system choices whereas we have more design freedom for wheels.
Thus, our team began creating lists of possible component designs. We ideated various suspension
systems, wheel designs, drivetrain, and chassis constructions. It was important for us to accept all
imaginable possibilities in this process as it allows for the conceptualization of unique solutions. We also
looked at component designs from similar robotic vehicles to take inspiration from. An example of our
ideation list for the suspension system is provided in Appendix B.
Once we developed a large list of ideas, we needed to evaluate our ideas and collect the feasible solution
to guide our design direction. We first created Pugh Matrices for our top five solutions for suspension,
wheel, drivetrain, and chassis. A Pugh matrix is a unweighted analysis of several solutions for a specific
function to determine the best design for that function. Our Pugh Matrices are provided in Appendix C.
The results guided our direction on how specific component designs compare to each other based on our
design criteria. It also highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of each design. From the Pugh Matrices,
we then developed a morphological matrix which represented our top four design ideas for each
component. This morphological matrix is presented in Appendix D. These component ideas were then
combined to create four complete rover designs for our weighted decision matrix. This is presented in
Appendix E. The weighted decision matrix was used to evaluate our conceptual designs based on our
defined engineering specifications. We ranked each design for various specifications on a scale of 1-10
and this lets us determine which design meets our specifications the best.

Our first concept design, shown in figure 1, is intended to resemble the real Mars Curiosity Rover. Its
suspension and drivetrain layout will act identically to the Curiosity Rover. Every wheel will be driven by
an individual motor. This keeps the cost down as only 6 motors will be required for the rover. Steering
will be accomplished similarly to how a skid loader or tank steers. Where power to the left and right-side
wheels are varied to create a rotation speed difference, effectively turning the vehicle in one direction.
The rocker bogie suspension will be comprised of the same linkage design on the real rover and feature an
identical scaled geometry. The material choice for the chassis, suspension, and wheels will be 3D
printable ABS filament. The chassis will be a box structure to house all necessary electronic controls and
communications. The design direction for this concept is to keep things simple and work with designs that
have been proven to work and focus more on streamlining the manufacturing and assembly process to
benefit future teams. Therefore, we chose to incorporate 3D printing for most of the design as it makes
future iterations and changes easy.

2
 Figure 1. Concept Design 1: Fully 3D printed Rover featuring rocker-bogie suspension with 6
independently controlled wheels.

Our second concept design, as shown in figure 2, is meant to involve a higher design technicality with
rugged machined wheels and adjustable height suspension. The wheels are machined to provide a high
strength at a low weight. This will provide excellent durability to rough terrain and sharp rocks. Every
wheel will be driven by two independent motors. One motor to rotate the wheel axially, and an additional
motor to control the wheel’s direction. Having an additional 6 motors will increase cost and weight at the
benefit of better mobility. The independent steering wheels allow the rover to instantly change direction
even when not moving. It also allows for programmable control possibilities such crabwalk which allows
for diagonal steering directions. The pneumatic suspension gives us complete programable control
override height and chassis leveling over uneven terrain. The air suspension will also smooth terrain
roughness and produce less vibration for the internal components.

Figure 2. Concept Design 2: Composite chassis with 6 independent steering machined aluminum wheels
featuring adjustable pneumatic suspension

Our third concept design, as shown in figure 3, was created to achieve a simplified manufacturing and
modification strategy. The chassis is comprised of an aluminum t-slot extrusion structure. This greatly
reduces build time as the extrusions will simply be purchased and cut to proper length. The channel rails

3
provide quick and simple components and chassis changes. Additionally, future teams will be able to add
onto the chassis without an entire redesign. The wheel choice was 4 large contact beach sand tires. This
allows the rover to not sink into loose, sandy terrain and the tires can easily deform to contours of rocks.
It also allows for full adjustment of tire pressure to provide optimal obstacle climbing grip. Because of the
larger, more expensive wheels, we chose independent suspension to provide better wheel clearance. We
chose to use 4 wheels to accommodate the additional weight and expense of the use of a larger wheel.

Figure 3. Concept Design 3: Aluminum T-slot Extrusion chassis with 4 large contact sand wheels and
independent double wishbone suspension

Our final concept design, as shown in figure 4, was built prioritizing modularity and maneuverability.Six
independently controllable wheels paired with a rocker-bogie suspension meant that the rover would be
able to remain stable while traversing rocky terrain. This also means that we could utilize differential
steering and cut out additional motors and degrees of freedom required to steer individual wheels. The
aluminum T-slot extrusion chassis would allow future teams to easily adjust the dimensions and spacings
to fit their design direction. This design ended up being the best performing in our decision matrix in
Appendix E and the design that we chose to move forward with. It was the perfect compromise of all
criteria. It provided an excellent amount of adjustability while maintaining an acceptable level of
maneuverability, weight and cost. The design also maintains a great balance between ease of
manufacturing and assembly from the use of channeled aluminum extrusions.

4
Figure 4. Concept Design 4: Aluminum T-slot Extrusion chassis with composite rocker-bogie suspension
featuring 6 independently controllable wheels

3. Concept Design

3.1 Description of Design

The design we selected includes a chassis that is a rectangular frame composed of T-slot aluminum
extrusions that will be joined with self-aligning nuts, as shown in Figure 5. Various other structural
components such as the electronic box, wheels, and suspension will be manufactured using prepreg
carbon fiber composite and 3D printed PLA material. There will be a separate, removable electronics box
that will house the electrical hardware to power and control the rover.

Figure 5. Labeled Isometric View of Concept CAD

5
The drivetrain of the design include 6–10” wheels, each controlled by a separate brushless DC motor for
6 brushless DC motors in total. Each motor will be paired with an electronic speed controller. The wheels
will be 10” tiller tires with a wider profile for support on sandy environments. The suspension of the
design will be a rocker-bogie design which has been proven to work for traversing difficult terrain [1].
The wireless functionality will be split into two parts: a ground station part and a rover part. The rover
part will consist of 4 ESP32 MCU’s (microcontroller units), an IMU (inertial measurement unit), a
camera, a Raspberry Pi 4, a GPS antenna, and possibly LiDAR. Most of the rover parts will be within the
electronics box except for the camera and the antennas. The ground station will consist of a 6 foot tall
aluminum pole with a directional antenna at the top. There will likely be a motor to rotate the pole with
the directional antenna to always point towards the rover.
The electric power to the rover will be provided by 3-5500mAh Lithium-Ion Polymer (LiPo) batteries.
The batteries will be housed in the electronics box and are rechargeable. These batteries will be charged
with a 400W charger.

3.2 Explanation of Design

The T-slot aluminum extrusions shouldgivechassis modularity that will allow future team(s) to add the
necessary components of a robotic arm unit and science unit to competitively participate in the
University Rover Challenge. Joining the extrusions with a self-aligning nut makwa the configuration
modifiable and section can be completely removed or added. This means that the overall dimensions can
also be adjusted if needed . The T-slot extrusions should also be able to endure the stress and forces seen
by the rover throughout operation along with consideration for future additions; however, the joining of
the extrusions using nuts is not ideal for structure, but it is ideal for modularity and future work on the
design. The separate electronics box will be sealed so it can prevent dust and water entry and the
electronics inside will still be accessible through a latching door on the electronics box. This covers all
the ‘Protect Hardware’ functions in the Function Decomposition in Appendix A.
The rocker-bogie suspension will be our main tool in clearing obstacles. The rocker-bogie allows for the
wheels to have flexibility to maintain contact with the ground to move through uneven terrain. Studies
show that a rocker-bogie mechanism can safely traverse 20 cm heights and 50° tilts [2].

Figure 6. Rocker-bogie Mechanism [2]

The wheels will be each be driven by an individual brushless DC motor paired with an electronic speed
controller. The electronic speed controller sends DC current to the motor windings and produces
magnetic fields which rotate in space and cause the permanent magnet motor to follow. The speed
controller changes the phase and amplitude of the DC current pulses to control the speed and torque of the

6
motor. The design will only use 6 motors to control 6 different wheels. This means that we will not
include any motors that control the steering of any individual wheels. The steering of the rover will be
done by differential steering instead, which steers by applying more drive torque to one side of the rover
than the other. We completed a full-scale concept prototype with articulating suspension to verify that it
fits within the competition constraints in Figure 7. This covers all the ‘Move Rover’ functions in the
Functional Decomposition in Appendix A.

Figure 7. Display of full-size scale concept prototype with articulating suspension

The IMU will document orientation and acceleration of the rover. Position and velocity can theoretically
be derived from the acceleration if we integrate with respect to time but there are many intricacies and
cases that will return false position and velocity data. One bad data point can cascade into multiple
magnitudes of error in position and velocity, so we will get position with GPS and velocity through the
tracking of our adjustments to the electronic motor controller for each wheel. The MCU’s will control the
motors and take on actions such as closed loop velocity control for the wheels to maintain accurate
velocity. The LiDAR will assess the surroundings of the rover by using light detection and ranging to
locate terrain around the rover. The camera will act as eyes for the remote operator and look for the
targets of the autonomous navigation part of the competition. The Raspberry Pi 4 will be loaded with code
that will obtain data from the IMU, GPS, LiDAR, the camera, and MCU’s to traverse a designated area
and find the targets as per the Autonomous Navigation Mission of the University Rover Challenge [3 ]. In
remote operation, the Raspberry Pi will also decode inputs received via the rover antenna that were sent
via the ground station directional antenna. Likewise, the Raspberry Pi must also send all data to the
ground station so that the operator can see what the rover is seeing as well as its operational data. This
covers all the ‘Function Remotely’ functions in the Functional Decomposition in Appendix A.

7
Figure 8. of IMU breadboard setup and directional validation with phone magnetic heading
direction. Picture

Lastly, 3 LiPo batteries will power all the electrical hardware. As stated, the batteries can all be recharged
and will be in the electronics box. As electric components are powered, there is an opportunity for
components or the batteries to overheat; however, we have not fully defined yet how we will be managing
heat. There are options for fans, liquid cooling, no cooling, heat sinks. The problem is that we do not
know how many components, if any, will need heat management so we are unable to decide right now on
heat management of electronic components.

3.3 Materials and Manufacturing Processes

Since our design prioritizes modularity, the materials and manufacturing process are straightforward to
allow for future groups to add or subtract as needed. The major chassis of the rover will be mainly
aluminum T-slot extrusions joined by self-aligning nuts and purchased brackets, so there is no
manufacturing needed there besides some cutting down of the extrusions to size. The only manufacturing
would be with prepreg carbon fiber and 3D printing PLA. 3D printing would be done either internally by
one of our group members with a 3D printer or externally through innovation Sandbox or the Cal Poly
machine shops. Prepreg carbon fiber is simplest lay-up wise, requiring only for us to stack layers of fiber
in a pattern that best suits its use case. The carbon fiber will wrap around a control surface for the shape
we need (likely a hollow cylinder). We would need an autoclave oven which the Mechanical Engineering
department has in Engineering IV. We can obtain access through Professor Eltahry Elghandour who
manages the lab space with the oven. Details of the rocker-bogie system manufacturing are yet to be
determined.

8
4. Concept Justification
In our concept development phase, we were mainly concerned with the geometric design of the rover, due
to the complexities of the vehicle design. Many of our engineering specifications involved controls and
electrical design, which meant that it was more of a matter of selecting viable components rather than
mechanical design. We conceptualized our design with the goal of meeting as many of the key
specifications as possible, which we have outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Engineering Specifications

However,
based off our research and concept prototypes, our design will meet the design specifications of size, run
time, location accuracy, motor power, object detection, weight, and remote operation and data
transmission.

4.1 Size
The size requirement of the rover, as specified by the rules, is that the rover must be able to fit into a 1.2m
x 1.2m x 1.2m box. The bulk of the rover design is dictated by the rocker-bogie suspension mechanism,
which involves different linkages of different lengths. To verify that our design Is viable, we modeled the
rocker-bogie system in SolidWorks to ensure that it would meet the size specifications. The sizes were
determined by the volume constraints set by the rules of the University Rover Challenge. Additionally,
we modeled our concept prototype to ensure that the design size of the suspension would be viable. We
tested the rocker-bogie concept prototype to verify that it can offer stability when traversing obstacles.

9
 Figure 9. Preliminary Analysis for Rocker-Bogie Dimensions

Figure 10. Screenshot of articulating half suspension stability step test.

4.2 Run Time

Several challenges require the rover to perform a series of tasks within a certain time. This means that the
rover must be able to operate for at least 30 minutes in order to accomplish the task. In order to ensure
that our design will be able to meet this specification we estimated power consumption of all the electrical
components. Then by dividing the power output rate of the batteries by the total power consumption, we
determined that the rover will be able to run for approximately 55 minutes, as shown in Appendix I.

10
4.3 Location Accuracy
The autonomous navigation challenge needs the rover to be able to navigate to certain locations within
3m accuracy. To accomplish this, our design utilizes a high accuracy GPS, which uses Real Time
Kinematics (RTK). This will allow for our rover to have locational accuracy of 1.5m accuracy, and with
additional correctional data, the location accuracy could be as low as 10cm [4], which is well within our
engineering specifications. Additionally, we tested the functionality of our IMU to verify that we can read
accurate orientation data.

Figure 11. Magnetometer sensor readout from IMU during heading test

The data from the magnetometer sensor, shown in Figure 11, indicates the Earth's magnetic field. This
enables the sensor to act as a compass and determine the device's orientation in relation to the Earth.
The readings confirm that the magnetic headings have an accuracy of ±2°. This level of accuracy is
considered to be high for magnetometer sensors, which typically have an accuracy range of ±5° to ±15°.
When combined with GPS readings, this level of accuracy will provide the rover with sufficient
information to navigate to specific locations with precision and ensure that it stays on course even in
areas with weak or disturbed magnetic fields. Additionally, using both magnetometer and GPS readings
can also improve the overall navigation performance by providing redundancy and reducing the
dependence on a single sensor.

4.4 Motor Power

Motors need to be powerful enough to able to move the rover in all terrains and conditions. We estimate
that each motor must have a motor torque of 7 N-m. This is simply a matter of selecting motors that can
output this much torque. These torque measurements are based on the motor specifications for electric
skateboard motors. Since electric skateboard motors can move an 80 kg person, then they will be more
than capable of moving a 50kg vehicle. Skateboards are more about speed than torque, but there are more
robust motors capable of producing both the torque and the speed we need though it may cost
significantly more. It is cheaper to gear up the skateboard motors to meet the necessary torque
requirements than it is to buy a motor capable of direct drive.

4.5 Object Detection

The vehicle needs to be able to detect objects within 3m of it so it can decide how to navigate
autonomously. Our design utilizes a camera which will allow us to use existing object detection libraries
to assist with navigation. Additionally, our design utilizes LiDAR sensors which will allow for distance
detection for up to 12m, giving the rover sufficient time and distance to make necessary adjustments in its
navigation path.

11
4.6 Remote Operation and Data Transmission
Data transmission and remote operation instructions need to be able to be transmitted and received by the
base station and the rover. Our design utilizes a 900 MHz radio on both the base station and the rover ,
which will allow for long-distance teleoperation and telemetry. 900 MHz is optimal since it can still be
viable when there are environmental obstacles, ensuring that we will have a strong connection throughout
the entire course of the competition.

4.7 Weight
Weight requirement of the rover is specified by the rules, and the total weight of the deployed rover with
attachments must be less than 50kg. The components and materials used in our design are lightweight and
will fall under the weight limit of 50kg.

4.8 Production Cost

Production cost is the primary specification that we have listed that we are currently concerned with.
Currently, we have a budget of $1000 that is allocated by the Senior Project Design Funds. However,
based off our Preliminary Budget Sheet in Appendix F, we estimate that it will cost around $4100 to
successfully complete the project. We are currently applying for additional funding in order to make this
project possible. If we do not receive funding, we will be re-evaluating the scope of the project.

4.9 Design Hazards

Based off the Design Hazard Checklist shown in Appendix H, our primary concern is that we will be
having a large battery as part of our design. As per the University Rover Competition rules, we will be
implementing an emergency stop button as well as several software checks to determine if the battery is
functioning properly while the rover is operating.

12
5. Future Work
After having completed the Preliminary Design Review, Ideation model, and Scope of Work, our group
must now move onto further specification and analysis of our design.
To assist with this step and the costly required components that were defined by our scope of work and
design concept, we have chosen to apply to the Baker-Koop Endowment to provide additional funds. We
created a preliminary Bill of Materials that was defined by our selection of electronic
control/communication components and estimate of required mechanical components. This Bill of
Materials demonstrated that we would require an additional $3,085.17 to meet our intended project design
scope. (See Appendix F for full Preliminary Bill of Materials). If not approved, we would have to revise
our project scope and aim for a short-range communication and control system instead of the more
expensive long-range system. We will revise our Scope of Work document to meet the Baker-Koob
Request for Proposals which is due November 15.
Table 2: Table of Key Milestones
KEY MILESTONES DATE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW 11/17/2022
INTERIM DESIGN REVIEW 01/24/2023
CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW 02/16/2023
MANUFACTURING & TEST REVIEW 03/16/2023
PROJECT EXPO 06/02/2023
FINAL DESIGN REVIEW 06/09/2023

Our next major milestone in Table 2 that we are preparing for is the Critical Design Review. This will
occur during our Winter Term in ME429, and it will involve our final detailed design, manufacturing
plan, and design verification plan. To get to that point we will further analyze our conceptual prototype
and determine if our current rover dimensions fit or desired dimensions for maneuverability, portability,
and component packaging. Additionally, we will work towards defining more aspects of our rocker-bogie
system. Finally, we have to start defining different design directions for if we get the supplemental
funding required for a full-scale mockup. If we do not get the funding, we need for the full-scale product
then we will have to scale down our design accordingly. Our updated Gantt chart detailing the specific
timeline can be found in Appendix G.

13
6. Conclusions
Our team has a clear direction in which to move the URC Mars Rover build forward. Focusing on the
communications, chassis, and suspension components of the rover, we aim to aid future Cal Poly teams
competing in URC events and competitions. Constructed from lightweight composites and metals, the
rover will feature a rocker-bogie suspension design, radio communication capabilities, and a modular
system for future teams to design mission specific components for. Creating concept prototypes, and full-
scale prototypes has allowed us to gain valuable information and insight into how important decisions are
going to factor into the final design. After constructing a rocker-bogie assembly, we decided that our
initial angle and length choice could be modified for a more stable, compact design. Moving forward we
aim to further specify key aspects of our design such as material, build cost, and modularity. As we
prepare for our critical design review, we aim to determine rover dimensions, component packaging, and
controller aspects of the design. We have been analyzing previous rover designs, CAD models, and
detailed design analyses to gather information that we will use to determine these aspects of the final
design.

14
References
[1] Kucherenko, Vladimir, et al. “Chassis Concepts for the ExoMars Rover” European Space Agency,
2004, http://robotics.estec.esa.int/ASTRA/Astra2004/Papers/astra2004_D-05.pdf.
[2] R.E. Moore, Interval analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966). (8)
[3] “Requirements & Guidelines.” University Rover Challenge, Mars Society,
https://urc.marssociety.org/home/requirements-guidelines
[4] https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/what-is-gps-rtk/all

15
Appendices
A – Function Decomposition

16
B – Ideation List Example – Suspension System Design

17
C – Pugh Matrix – Individual Features

18
19
D – Morphological Matrix – Individual Features

20
E – Weighted Decision Matrix – Combined Features / System Level

21
F – Preliminary Bill of Materials for Baker-Koob Endowment

22
G – Updated Gantt Chart

23
H – Design Hazard Checklist

24
25
I – Run Time Calculations

26