Latis II Underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle Technical Report

2010 

Latis II Underwater Remotely Operated 

Vehicle Technical Report 

Team Members: 

Michel Bernier 

B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of Maine 

Ryan T. Foley 


Philip Rioux 


Amelia Stech 


Advisor: 

Mohsen Shahinpoor, Ph.D., P.E. 

Richard C. Hill Professor and Department Chair

ABSTRACT 

For the first time, a University of Maine 

Mechanical Engineering Senior Capstone Design 

group designed and built an underwater 

remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and will 

participate in the 2010 MATE International ROV 

Competition. Four senior Mechanical 

Engineering design students have worked on 

preparing a prototype underwater ROV (Latis I) 

and their final underwater ROV (Latis II) for the 

competition. Missions included such tasks as 

sensing and measuring sound waves, accurately 

measuring fluid temperature, navigating 

through an underwater cave and collecting 

crustaceans and other materials from 

underwater and returning them to the surface. 

While Latis I provided much needed practice 

and valuable insight into designing an 

underwater ROV, Latis II was designed to 

complete the missions outlined by MATE for the 

competition. The UMaine ROV Team built two 

identical four-degree-of-freedom (DOF) arms 

with open-and-close grippers. To manipulate 

the arms on the ROV the team also built two 

control arms which provide feed-forward 

control. Latis II has a custom-made upper body 

structure machined from High Molecular 

Weight Polyethylene (HMWPE) and a stainless 

steel lower frame. There are six static thrusters 

providing six DOF control, three cameras and a 

holding net. Onboard control is achieved using a 

Compact Rio (C-Rio) which receives signals from 

a space navigator joystick and an Arduino 

2 

LATIS II 

TECHNICAL REPORT 

micro-controller that translates information 

from the control arms. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abstract ....................................................... 2 

Budget/ Expense ......................................... 3 

ROV Electronics ........................................... 4 

Main Controller ....................................... 4 

Thrusters ................................................. 4 

Servos ...................................................... 4 

Sensors .................................................... 4 

Custom Circuit Boards ............................. 4 

Surface Controls .......................................... 6 

Main Controls .......................................... 6 

Arm Controls ........................................... 6 

Power Supply Box ................................ 6 

Software ...................................................... 7 

Design Rationale ....................................... 11 

Missions ................................................. 11 

TASK #1 – Resurrect HUGO................ 11 

TASK #2 – Collecting Crustaceans ...... 11 

TASK #3 –Sample New Vent Site ....... 12 

TASK #4 – AGAR Sample .................... 12 

ROV Design ........................................... 12 

Frame..................................................... 12 

Arms ...................................................... 13 

Tether .................................................... 14 

Thrusters ............................................... 14 

Cameras ................................................. 14 

Challenges ................................................. 15 

Troubleshooting Techniques .................... 15 

Lesson Learn/ Skills Gained ....................... 16 

Future Improvements ............................... 17 

Loihi Seamount ......................................... 18 

Reflections................................................. 19 

References ................................................ 20 

Acknowledgements ................................... 20

BUDGET/ EXPENSE 

3 



At the beginning of the 2009-2010 academic year The UMaine ROV Team predicted a budget of 

$6,106.00 for the prototype and ‘start-up’ costs. For the competition ROV, the Team estimated a 

budget of $5,337.13 with a travel budget of $6,554.00. In total, the estimated budget for the entire 

project was $17,997.13. At the end of the 2009-2010 Design Year, the UMaine ROV Team spent a total 

of $30,024.05 in preparing, designing, building, testing and competing in the MATE Competition. It is 

predicted approximately 60.8% of the total cost went toward materials useable for next year’s ROV 

Team at the University of Maine. 

ITEM DESCRIPTION DISCOUNT TOTAL 

1 Prototype (Latis I) Materials $0.00 $1,303.35 

2 Competition ROV (Latis II) Materials $0.00 $2,039.36 

3 Cameras $0.00 $497.42 

4 Power Circuit Boards with Components $0.00 $401.54 

5 Sensors (Temperature, Humidity, Sound, Thermistor) $0.00 $346.45 

6 Thrusters and Drivers $3,600.00 $2,689.96 

7 Servo Motors $0.00 $1,051.36 

8 Tether Materials $0.00 $496.34 

9 Outsourced Manufacturing $0.00 $4,967.69 

10 Pilot Controls $0.00 $569.54 

11 Computer and Monitors $0.00 $964.94 

12 Power Converters $0.00 $838.36 

13 Onboard Controller $5,795.70 $6,279.90 

14 LabVIEW Software $4,699.00 $0.00 

15 SolidWorks Software $396.00 $0.00 

16 Travel Cases, T-Shirts and Shipping $0.00 $6,794.40 

17 Water Tank and Tools $0.00 $783.44 

Grand Total $14,490.70 $30,024.05 

Table 1: 2009-2010 UMaine ROV Budget and Expense Sheet

ROV ELECTRONICS 

MAIN CONTROLLER 

At the heart of Latis II is a National Instruments 

Compact RIO controller (cRio). The cRio is most 

commonly used for data acquisition and 

automation control. The cRio on Latis II has 

slots for four drop-in modules, of which three 

are used. The team used two 9401 Digital 

Input/ Output modules, as well as a 9205 

Analog Input module. These modules are used 

to link the cRio processor to its environment 

through sensors and output devices. 

THRUSTERS 

Six BTD-150 Seabotix thrusters are used on Latis 

II for propulsion. Three Sabertooth 2x10 

electronic speed controllers are used to 

regulate thruster power. Each Sabertooth 

controls two thrusters. 

SERVOS 

The motion of each arm joint is provided by a 

small hobby servo. Eight HS-7775MG Hitec 

servos are used for the shoulders, elbows, and 

grippers. Two HS-805BB Hitec servos are used 

for the shoulder rotation joint. All of the servos 

connect back to custom circuit boards in the 

main enclosure for control and power signals. 

SENSORS 

To provide feedback on internal and external 

conditions, Latis II is equipped with a variety of 

sensors. 

4 

� Phidgets Temperature and Humidity 

Sensor Board to measure thermal 

conditions inside the ROV enclosure 

� OMEGA Thermistor for measuring 

external water temperature 

� H1a Aquarian Audio Hydrophone for 

measuring external sound sources 



CUSTOM CIRCUIT BOARDS 

To make it easier to interface to the cRio 

modules, three custom printed circuit boards 

(PCBs) were designed and manufactured. Each 

PCB connects to its cRio module through a 

ribbon cable, and connects to various devices 

through three-conductor cables commonly 

found in radio-control hobby electronics. 

THRUSTER BOARD 

The Thruster Board breaks six digital output 

channels from a 9401 module on the cRio into 

three-pin headers for the Sabertooth units to 

plug into. The remaining two channels are used 

to control the gripper servos. Each servo pulls 

power from the 5V supply through a PCBmounted 

3A fuse. 

Figure 1: Thruster PWM Board 

To work with this PCB, the 9401 module on the 

cRio is configured for pulse-width-modulation 

(PWM) output. Each channel produces a square 

wave with a duty cycle proportional to the 

desired speed. 

A resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit is used to filter 

the pulse with modulation (PWM) signal into an 

analog signal for the Sabertooth. The servos 

require an actual PWM signal, so no filtering 

circuit is used.

SURFACE CONTROLS 

MAIN CONTROLS 

Latis II is capable of six degrees of motion; three 

axes of translation and three axes of rotation. A 

3D Space Navigator was used to help make the 

propulsion control intuitive for the pilot. The 

3D navigator is capable of motion in the same 

six axes that Latis II is, so the pilot simply moves 

the navigator manner that he/ she would like 

Latis II to move. The 3D navigator allows one 

handed control of the ROVs motion. Having 

one hand free, the pilot can use the mouse or 

keyboard to interact with the LabVIEW program 

dashboards on the computer. 

ARM CONTROLS 

Latis II features an intricate pair of arms, each 

one capable of four degrees of freedom. 

Controlling these arms through joysticks or 

sliders on the computer screen would be 

complicated and require a great deal of practice 

for the arm operator. Taking inspiration from 

arm controls seen in the FIRST Robotics 

Competition, Latis II has a set of control arms on 

the control board. These control arms contain 

three potentiometers for the lower joints, as 

well as a mini-joystick for control of the wrist 

and gripper. As these arms are moved to 

various positions, the software adjusts the 

servos on Latis II to match the angles read from 

the sensors on the control arms. 

The sensors are connected to an Arduino Mega 

controller, which sends the values to LabVIEW 

via serial communication. This style of arm 

control is significantly more intuitive for the 

operator, greatly reducing practice time 

required to become skilled at using the system. 

6 



Figure 5: Control Arms 

POWER SUPPLY BOX 

An acrylic box was designed and fabricated to 

hold all of the power converters, video 

convertors, fuses, switches, camera and power 

connectors, and the main 40A breaker while 

supplying continuous air circulation to all the 

components. Three DC-DC converters step the 

supplied 48V down to 24V, 12V, and 5V for the 

ROV. The power supply box also contains all 

the connections for the video lines that allow 

the tether to be plugged in on one side and the 

VGA monitor wires run out the other. With 

their power box design the UMaine Team can 

be set up and ready to compete with their ROV 

in less than a minute. 

Figure 6: Power Supply Box

7 

Figure 7: ROV Pool-Side Electronics 


TECHNICAL REPORT

8 

Figure 8: Onboard ROV Electronics 


TECHNICAL REPORT

SOFTWARE 


The cRio controller on the ROV is programmed 

using National Instruments LabVIEW software. 

LabVIEW is a graphical programming language 

that allows users to create programming code 

through control block diagrams rather than 

traditional line code found in BASIC or C. Since 

most of the team did not have any experience 

with C or other typical controller programming 

languages, the graphical format of LabVIEW 

allowed the team to focus their efforts on the 

actual content of the program, rather than 

learning the syntax. 

MAIN HOST AND DASHBOARD 

The core component of the software is the main 

host program (called a virtual instrument, or 

VI). The main host contained the code for all of 

the inputs and outputs for the ROV, including 

sensors, thrusters, and the arms. The front 

panel of this VI contains displays and indicators 

for many of the ROVs vital functions. 

9 

Figure 9: LabVIEW Dashboard 

VENT MISSION SUB-VI 

To increase the modularity of the system, the 

vent mission code is broken out into a sub-VI. 

When performing this mission, the pilot presses 

a button on the dashboard to load this program 

separately. The program then allows the pilot 



to record the three temperatures, chart the 

data, and show the judge before closing the 

program. Having this code as a sub-VI helps 

free up space on the main dashboard for other 

indicators. This setup also allowed the team to 

create and test the code for this mission before 

any of the code for the actual ROV was created. 

Figure 10: Vent Mission Dashboard

10 

Read 3D 

Navigator 

Convert 3D navigator signals 

to individual thruster values 

Write PWM values 

to thrusters 

Read serial 

string from 

Arduino 


Break serial string into 

individual sensor values 

Convert sensor values to arm 

servo duty cycles 

Update thruster power level 

displays on dashboard Write duty cycles 

to arm servos 

“VENT” 

button 

“Stop” 

button 

END 

Figure 11: Latis II Software Flowchart 



Read sensor 

voltages from ROV 

Convert sensor voltages to 

real-world values 

Update dashboard displays 

for all sensors 

“HUGO” 

button 

VENT Mission 

subroutine 

HUGO Mission 

subroutine

DESIGN RATIONALE 

MISSIONS 

After establishing that the UMaine ROV team 

could successfully build, program and operate 

the prototype, Latis I, the team began the 

design process to create a new ROV specifically 

designed for the MATE ROV Competition. The 

team focused on compactness, efficiency, 

simplicity, and manufacturability in the final 

design. The following is a short description of 

the design rationale followed for each task 

appointed by MATE. 

11 

Figure 12: Prototype ROV, Latis I 

TASK #1 – RESURRECT HUGO 

The first mission requires the ROV to locate an 

area of seismic activity, release the High Rate 

Hyrdophone (HRH) from the elevator, and 

install it at that spot. Next, the ROV must open 

the port on HUGO’s junction box and insert the 

HRH’s cable. To accomplish these tasks, Latis II 

has a hydrophone installed on the front of the 

body which can detect sound waves. The 

LabVIEW dashboard provides a graphical display 

of the sound waves underwater and gives a 

numeric value of the frequency. The ROV also 

has opposing four degree-of-freedom arms 

outfitted with grippers. This will allow the ROV 

to remove both pins from the HRH 

simultaneously and move it to the location 



emitting the sound waves on the pool floor. 

Latis II has three cameras installed to give the 

operators multiple views of the arms and any 

objects the ROV needs to grab or manipulate. 

These multiple viewing angles allow the 

operator to successfully complete this task. The 

grippers were designed specifically to hold the 

elevator and HRH frame so that the ROV is 

stable as it removes the HRH. 

TASK #2 – COLLECTING CRUSTACEANS 

The mission involves entering an 80cm by 80cm 

cave, collecting crustaceans, and returning 

them to the surface. It is with this task in mind 

that the ROV Team designed such dexterous 

arms. The increased flexibility of the arms 

allows them to be particularly useful in this task 

as the ROV will only have to rest on the bottom 

of the pool as the arms do the work. Two LED 

lights installed on the front of the ROV allows 

the operator to clearly see the inside the cave. 

A retractable net affixed to the front of the 

skids makes a handy place for storing 

crustaceans that will be brought to the surface. 

Having the net on the front of the ROV provides 

storage space for the crustaceans so that no 

time has to be wasted returning to the surface 

to retrieve them. The overall size of the ROV 

was decided when designing for this task as it is 

the only one with a size limit. The dimensions of 

the ROV are 43cm wide, 60cm long and 29cm 

tall. This allows the ROV to maneuver freely 

through the cave.

12 

Figure 13: Arms Collecting a Crustacean 

TASK #3 –SAMPLE NEW VENT SITE 

This task requires Latis II to measure the 

temperature of the venting fluid in three 

different locations along the chimney height 

and collect a sample of vent spire to return it to 

the surface. A waterproof thermistor was 

installed on the right gripper to record the 

venting fluid temperature. This task provided 

another reason for the increased dexterity of 

the arms for the gripper needs to clamp on the 

tip of the vent which is at a 45deg angle and 

hold on until the temperature value is displayed 

on the computer screen. By having the 

thermistor situated at the end of the gripper 

and allowing the gripper to hold on to the vent, 

the ROV will be stabilized as the thermistor 

reads the fluid temperature. Furthermore, the 

net attached to the front of the ROV will allow 

room to store the vent sample that needs to be 

returned to the surface. 

TASK #4 – AGAR SAMPLE 

This mission task requires Latis II to collect a 

sample of a bacterial mat and return it to the 

surface. A special AGAR sampling tool was 

designed using PVC pipe and fittings to collect 

the proper amount of bacterial mat. The tool 

relies on suction power and the ability of the 

arms to break the surface tension of the AGAR. 

The depth of the AGAR sample tray was taken 

into account such that the diameter of the PVC 



device was the only adjustable factor in 

collecting the proper volume of AGAR. The 

design allows for the tool to simply be pushed 

straight into the AGAR and then pulled out with 

the AGAR held by suction inside the tool. The 

device and AGAR fit in the net on Latis II to 

prevent the extra trip to the surface. Through 

testing, AGAR was found to hold its shape and 

not disintegrate when collected so the holding 

net could be made of simple window screening 

and no special alterations were required. 

ROV DESIGN 

The ROV was designed with buoyancy, strength, 

size, dexterity, maneuverability and stability in 

mind. The overall idea incorporates six simply 

mounted thrusters, two identical 4 DOF arms 

with open-close grippers, three cameras for 

vision, a hydrophone and a thermistor for 

measuring sound and temperature respectively. 

FRAME 

The ROV frame was one of the most highly 

discussed components for the second semester. 

While the simple design of the prototype with 

its cylindrical water proof enclosure surrounded 

by a metal frame was effective, it wasted 

valuable space for electronics and was difficult 

to mount components to. It was finally agreed 

upon to make the upper structure both 

waterproof and structural so that there was no 

need for both, square for ease of fabrication 

and mounting, and made out of light plastic for 

buoyancy and strength. The bottom plate and 

lower skids were made of stainless steel for 

weight and resistance to corrosion in water. 

Constructing the lower portion of the ROV out 

of heavy stainless steel and the top section out 

of buoyant plastic creates a pendulum effect in 

the water causing the ROV to always tend 

toward an upright attitude and increases its

stability. Since the ROV is bottom heavy, the 

primary thrusters for forward, backward, 

turning, and strafing motion were mounted on 

the underside, allowing Latis II to maneuver 

easier since the thrusters’ force is applied close 

to the center of mass. The skids also protect the 

thrusters from being damaged and provide a 

solid stand for the ROV to sit on the pool floor. 

The ROV was tested in a tow tank and 

coefficient of 

13 

Figure 14: Main Frame Parts 

ARMS 

Many different arm design ideas were 

considered during this part of the design 

process. The team eventually decided on using 

Hitec 7775MG digital hobby servos for the 

majority of the arm linkages, and Hitec 805BB 

analog high toque servos for the heaviest joint- 

the shoulder rotation. Most joints utilized a 

chain and sprocket power transmission design 

not only for its simplicity and effectiveness, but 

also for the ability to use sprocket ratios to 

increase the power at any given connection. 

The range of motion for each link was decided 

and the corresponding sprocket ratio calculated 

to reach that desired range from the 180deg 

range of the servos. Since the range was always 

less than 180deg the torque available at the link 

would always increase proportional to the 

range decrease. The servos were sized for their 

power, size, and weight. To waterproof the 

servos they were dipped in Plastic Dip. A 



greased O-ring was installed between the servo 

case and the servo sprocket to protect the 

opening where the spline enters the case. 

Figure 15: Servo Waterproof Testing 

Lightweight plastics were utilized wherever 

possible for easier manufacturability and their 

high strength-to-weight ratios. HMWPE was 

used for the larger pieces of the arm and the 

connecting pins; a quarter inch thick PVC plate 

was used for the main structure of the links, 

and Teflon (PTFE) was used for bushings 

between the connecting pins and links as a soft 

slippery interface to reduce friction. All 

connections were made using press fit sizing to 

reduce the need for heavy metal fasteners. The 

grippers were designed using a rotation-tolinear 

linkage system and the grippers 

themselves were dipped in Plastic Dip to add 

extra grip. 

Figure 16: Latis II Arms

TETHER 

The tether supplies Latis II with power and 

communication. It is composed of four 10g 

power cables, one 35mm coaxial audio cable, 3 

coaxial camera cables with BNC connectors and 

incorporated power, and a single CAT5e 

Ethernet cable. The team designed the tether to 

be neutrally buoyant for the first 15 feet to 

allow Latis II to maneuver without much tether 

drag. This was extremely important considering 

the ROV needs to travel freely through the 

underwater cave. 

THRUSTERS 

The team decided to use six high quality 

thrusters from Seabotix for their propulsion 

system. The team chose these because of the 

frequency with which MATE ROV Competition 

Teams have used them in the past and Seabotix’ 

discount to MATE Teams. While four thrusters 

were tested on the prototype, six thrusters 

were installed on Latis II to provide extra power 

and maneuverability. The positioning of the 

thrusters provided maximum dexterity for the 

ROV to move in all six dimensions with ease. 

14 

Figure 17: Thruster Arrangement 

Cost, voltage and amperage were the three 

main driving factors for the team’s decision to 

use three Dimension Engineering Sabertooth 

2X10 motor controllers to drive the thrusters. 



CAMERAS 

Vision was a high priority for the team as it 

allows for smoother operation by the pilot and 

arm operator. Two cameras are mounted on 

the top of the ROV and can be infinitely 

adjusted in all directions. The third camera is 

mounted inside the ROV and looks through a 

window directly at any task that the arms may 

be completing and can also see the attitude of 

the retractable net. The two waterproof 

cameras on the outside of the ROV have wideangle 

lenses allowing them to see as much of 

the playing field as possible, while the indoor 

camera has a slightly smaller aperture giving it a 

more defined and detailed view of the 

immediate front of the ROV. 

Figure 18: Control Monitors and power supply box 

Two computer monitors are used to provide 

views from all three cameras by way of a video 

switcher, while a third is dedicated to the 

LabVIEW dashboard.

CHALLENGES 

One of the most difficult challenges faced by 

the UMaine Team was preparing the ROV to 

operate in a submerged environment. Due to 

the extensive electronic systems both inside 

and outside the electronics enclosure, excellent 

waterproofing processes were essential. To 

address this challenge, initial testing was 

conducted on prototype, Latis I. The 

information gained from these tests influenced 

the final ROV design. For example, difficulties 

with small leaks through the waterproof 

connectors led to a final design with a 

permanent wire configuration and only 

installing a single removable part to access the 

sealed enclosure. Furthermore, sealing 

compounds such as potting epoxy were used 

more on Latis II because of the hardening 

capabilities not observed when using silicone or 

polyurethane. 

Another challenge faced by the team was 

dealing with conflicting opinions within the 

group regarding the steps to address a technical 

issue or the particular technical issue itself. It 

became obvious to the team that a process for 

resolving such conflicts would increase the 

productivity while avoiding interpersonal 

aggravations. To solve this problem it was 

agreed upon that testing would be conducted, 

when possible, on each idea to determine its 

viability. The criterion for selection was based 

on design parameters for our project such as 

cost, reliability, ease of implementation, and 

integration into existing systems. This process 

allowed a comparison between the ideas of the 

individual, and the goals of the team, usually 

resulting in one idea that best fit the situation 

at hand. 

15 



Finally, one of the biggest challenges was 

manufacturing the parts for Latis II. After 

spending more time and effort than anticipated 

on Latis I it was decided early on in designing 

Latis II that the team should outsource 

manufacturing responsibilities to a company 

that specializes in the task. This however did 

not work well due to the slow turn-around time 

of the parts and frequent mistakes made by the 

manufacturing company. To solve this problem, 

the team decided to learn how to operate the 

Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) 

machine available in the lab and manufacture 

some of the simpler parts. The team fabricated 

the remainder of the parts needed to finish the 

ROV, control arms and power supply box. 

TROUBLESHOOTING TECHNIQUES 

To gain some knowledge and experience that 

the UMaine ROV Team could later call upon 

when troubleshooting issues on Latis II, the 

team designed and constructed their prototype 

Latis I in the fall of 2009. From this first attempt 

the team gained valuable insight into the things 

that may go wrong in the future. 

WATERPROOFING 

In designing Latis I the team decided to use 

factory-made water proof electrical connectors. 

However, finding such connectors at the 40A 

current rating was problematic. Furthermore, 

the waterproof connectors finally purchased 

ended up being the weakest link in the entire 

electronics enclosure for Latis I. After weeks of 

trying different techniques such as greasing the 

O-rings of the connectors, tightening the 

connectors more than the specified torque, and 

even creating a positive pressure inside the 

electronics compartment, the team was still

attling leaks. Hours of research was conducted 

into finding better waterproof connectors. 

When searching for connectors finally failed to 

produce anything useful and legally sold in the 

US, the team switched tactics and decided to 

run the wires through air fittings which were 

then tapped into the walls of the ROV body. 

When the wire was sealed into this fitting and 

the fitting threaded into the body, a water tight 

seal was made and still allowed for the fitting 

and component to be removed if necessary. 

PROGRAMMING 

By using the NI C-rio early on in the prototype 

process the UMaine ROV Team was able to 

encounter and fix as much of the programming 

bugs as possible before beginning work in the 

more complicated Latis II. Troubleshooting the 

ROV control program involved either consulting 

the team’s resident LabVIEW expert or 

contacting the technical support provided by 

National Instruments. With both of these 

resources, the team was able to effectively 

diagnose and solve significant programming 

problems. 

By far the most commonly used 

troubleshooting technique was teamwork. 

Working as a team allowed the most productive 

use of time and netted the best results. Once 

ideas were considered and then decided upon 

the problem usually was solved by utilizing 

other internal and external resources. 

LESSON LEARN/ SKILLS GAINED 

The problem with manufacturing that the team 

learned is one that is undoubtedly inherent in 

any design project and definitely provides room 

for new skills to be gained. The lesson learned is 

when relying on a company to produce vital 

16 



components, it is critical that the team monitors 

the progress closely to avoid delays. If there are 

problems, the team can decide early on what 

actions need to be taken to resolve the issue. 

As noted before, having learned from the time 

needed to complete the parts for Latis I, the 

team decided to send out Latis II parts to a third 

party. The company, however, was unable to 

deliver the parts as scheduled, or to the 

specifications requested. This left the ROV team 

with less material, money and time with which 

to troubleshoot and complete their design. 

Fortunately, there were good results from this 

situation. The team stepped up to the plate and 

took control of their product. Team members 

worked day and night on the manual milling 

and turning machines as well as the CNC. Parts 

were retrieved from the manufacturer and 

finished in the team’s lab. Team members 

learned how to machine parts and to refabricate 

already manufactured components. 

Time-management became even more of a 

priority as the team had even less time than 

anticipated so they worked to gain lab access 

during the nights and weekends. 

In all, the team learned a valuable lesson in 

taking control of their own design and gained 

skills in machining, quality control, and time 

management. Furthermore, the team gained 

skills in diplomacy and professional 

correspondence in working with the 

manufacturing company to fix the problem. 

Through teamwork and dedication, the UMaine 

ROV Team was able to overcome the problem 

and still produce a quality product in the time 

available for the project.

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 

Throughout the entire design process the ROV 

Team had to continuously change, alter and in 

some cases completely remove or disregard 

design components and ideas. Some of these 

ideas, if they had been followed through, could 

have made great designs. The following are 

some design ideas the team would like to see 

either pursued and integrated or improved 

upon. 

PROPULSION 

Early in the design of the prototype the team 

battled with designing the best propulsion 

system for the ROV. Ideas ranged from belts 

and flippers to hydraulics and pneumatics. One 

idea that continuously surfaced, however, is 

that of dynamic thrusters. With dynamic 

thrusters, the same thrusters from Seabotix 

could be used but instead of being statically 

mounted to the body of the ROV they would be 

mounted to rotatable plates such that they 

could turn up to 360deg. This would allow a 

single thruster to control at least two axis of 

motion instead of just one when statically 

mounted. Servos or any kind of motor 

electrically driven or otherwise could be used to 

rotate the thruster. The team would be able to 

literally double their effectiveness with each 

thruster and therefore cut the number of 

thrusters, and motor drivers in half. The 

downside of this is making the device that 

would have to turn the thruster and then 

integrating the extra control specifications into 

the control program. 

17 



WATERPROOFING 

Being one of the most, if not the most, difficult 

problems plaguing the ROV team; 

waterproofing techniques and design could be 

improved. If the design had taken into account 

more water tight compartments and less thruwall 

connections the waterproofing would have 

been much easier. Furthermore, using less 

electronics would also help in this respect (i.e. 

hydraulic or pneumatic propulsion/power 

system that is already inherently waterproof). 

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS) 

Even with the team’s best efforts to try and 

make the design as simple as possible without 

compromising function, the project still proved 

to be far too complicated to complete in the 

time allotted and with the people and resources 

available. The team would like to see future 

teams drastically cut down on the complexity of 

the manufactured parts and the overall design. 

Although many pre-made parts were 

researched and considered for the ROV design, 

a huge number of components still had to be 

custom fabricated. Taking less time and effort 

to make custom parts would leave more time to 

practice with the ROV and prepare it for 

competition.

LOIHI SEAMOUNT 

The Loihi seamount is Hawaii’s youngest 

underwater volcano located 30 km off the 

southern coast of the Big Island. Rising more 

than 3,000m above the sea floor, it is taller than 

Mt. St. Helens was before its catastrophic 

eruption in 1980. However, with the peak of the 

seamount being a thousand meters below the 

surface, exploration of the area has not been a 

simple process. In 1996, a large earthquake 

swarm at the seamount brought new attention 

to the area. Researchers found evidence that 

Loihi had erupted during the earthquake. This 

was the first ever confirmed historical recording 

of the seamount’s volcanic activity. Scientific 

communities changed their view of Loihi from 

that of a dormant seamount to an active 

undersea volcano. 

18 

Figure 19: Digital Terrain Model of Loihi 

Research of the Loihi seamount has been 

conducted in large part by the University of 

Hawaii’s Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL), 

operated through the School of Ocean and 

Earth Science and Technology (SOEST). The 

Hawaii Undersea Geo-Observatory (HUGO) was 

developed to record seismic activity, sound 

within the water, and pressure changes. As an 

automatic observatory, Hugo’s information is 



sent through a fiber optic cable along the ocean 

floor to a seaside station. Information is sent 

from there to the University Hawaii for analysis. 

Professor Fred Duennebier from Hawaii’s 

School of Ocean and Earth Science and 

Technology was the project leader for the Hugo 

venture. 

Figure 20: HUGO 

When contacted by our team, he offered some 

updated information about Hugo’s current 

status. The cable to HUGO developed a short to 

sea water about 6 months after it was installed. 

The observatory was later recovered by JASON 

in 2004 and has now been reconfigured for reinstallation 

at the ALOHA Cabled Observatory 

north of Oahu. 

Projects like HUGO and the ALOHA observatory 

continue to be vital assets for researching and 

exploring the vast ocean realms.

REFLECTIONS 

MIKE BERNIER 

As team leader/manager I feel that I had some 

of the greatest responsibilities of the team. I 

learned a lot from pushing myself as a leader 

and as an engineer. This was a very timeconsuming 

and resolve-testing project that 

brought out some of the best and worst in me 

as a leader and I applaud my team for taking 

both with acceptance and criticism. I can only 

hope to take what I have learned over these 

past months and apply it to everything I do in 

my professional career to come. I would also 

like to thank all of our supporters, advisors, 

family and friends in their contributions of time 

and resources to our project. 

RYAN FOLEY 

Working on the electronics and programming of 

the ROVs was a rewarding experience. After 

seeing many control styles through other 

robotics competitions, I was thrilled that the 

team was able to implement the feed-forward 

control arms. Not being limited to a certain set 

of allowable parts, as is the case in other 

competitions I have been a part of, was a 

unique experience. Being able to research, 

compare, select, and implement a variety of 

parts and systems was good practice for realworld 

engineering. Working on the ROV was a 

rewarding opportunity to work on a robotics 

project that was out of my comfort zone. 

19 



PHILIP RIOUX 

Learning the process of integrating software 

with electrical components, and hardware, has 

been my greatest professional accomplishment 

of the Latis project. Understanding the entire 

process allows me to design the hardware with 

the software in mind. I am grateful to the MATE 

organization for offering me, through the ROV 

competition, a venue to grow my understanding 

of the design process, as well as develop many 

new technical skills that will serve me well in my 

career for years to come. 

AMELIA STECH 

Establishing the first ROV team from the 

University of Maine has been rewarding and 

challenging. Having no previous experience in 

robotics, machining and programming, working 

on the Latis project expanded my knowledge 

tremendously. I focused on the electrical 

components of the ROV and was able to gain a 

hands-on-experience in what goes on to 

communicate with the main components. 

Documenting everything that was considered 

and done showed to be a helpful task. I am 

proud to be a part of one of the hardest 

working and dedicated capstone teams which 

set a solid foundation for future MATE 

Competitions.

REFERENCES 

School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology: 

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/SOEST_News/News/SOESTinthenews2002.htm) 

Hawaiian Center for Volcanology 

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/loihi.html 

20 



Figure 19 Photo Courtesy of: 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02hawaii/background/plan/media/pearl_hermes_atoll.ht 

ml ) 

Figure 20 Photo Courtesy of: Professor Fred Duennebier 

National Instruments 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The UMaine ROV Team would like to thank everyone who helped us with this project. 

Art Pete 

David Morrison 

Department of Mechanical Engineering 

Justin Poland 

Karen Fogarty 

Mohsen Shahinpoor 

Neal Greenberg 

Patrick Bates 

Professor Fred Duennebier 

Victoria Blanchette 

2011 ROV Team 

Figure 21: 2010 UMaine ROV Team

Latis II Underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle Technical Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?