PRE2018 3 Group5

Meaning of used colors

Colors should be removed in the final version. They are to make changes and remarks better visible

• Yellow background: remark what has to be done in section (maybe not directly possible).

Change log week 4

• STOA: more sources
• Function definitions and implementations
• USE analysis
• Gripper concept added

General info

Group members

Name	Student ID
Ruben Haakman	0993994
Stan Latten	1257196
Tom Mulders	1008890
Jasper Stam	1006240
Mathijs Vastenhouw	1269496

Problem

When farmers grow crops, the have to deal with weeds growing on their fields in between their crops. To remove these weeds, pesticides are used. These pesticides can be harmful to insects, animals and humans and might even contaminate (ground)water. Clearly an alternative is needed.

Problem statement

In the current situation, a lot of pesticides are used in farming. These pesticides are used for treating bugs and diseases, but also for weeds. With the trend to be more environmentally friendly, we are looking for alternatives for pesticides and big farm trucks. A possible solution for this problem is a cooperation of small autonomous farming machines, which can control a field together. However, this solution is not new, people have already been working on the navigation of these small machines and on the detection of weeds in fields of crops. [1] That’s why we will try to make a weed picking device to be able to pick weeds without damaging the crops. For these small devices, we see future in the vertical agriculture as well, because they allow for a higher field density.

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6740018

RPCs

Requirements

• The system recharges autonomously
• The system must be able to differentiate crops from weeds
• The system removes weed from the farm field and collects it for disposal
• The system moves itself around the farmfield, following a predefined pattern unique for each farmfield

Preferences

• The system can operate for a long time before having to recharge
• The system should make minimal errors in recognizing weeds
• The system can work with 3D patterns, allowing applications in 'farm flats', reducing land area use

Constraints

• The system has to be more cost-efficient than human workers
• The system has to be intelligent, has to know what to do
• The system does never run out of power, has to return to the recharging station in time
• The system does not use pesticides

Users and other stakeholders

Should be changed to only users. Other stakeholders should be in USE stakeholder analysis. Objectives of users should also be added here.
The last thing can be done after contact with user (or if we don't get contact with user after additional research)

• Farmers
• Consumers
• Governments
• Society

Project setup

Approach

After reviewing the literature, we will determine the requirements for the system. Based on these requirements we will investigate implementations for these requirements and analyse their suitability. We will analyse the costs associated with a solution and compare this to the current costs of using pesticides, the effects on the stakeholders and on the future of farming. Finally we will conclude with a recommendation for or against the automated removal of weeds on farm fields without the use of pesticides and recommend future research topics.

Milestones

• State-of-the-art analysis
• Requirements Document
• Use analysis
• Implementation propositions
• Implementation analysis
• Cost analysis
• Conclusion

Deliverables

• Requirements document
• Implementation document
• Use analysis
• Cost analysis
• Conclusion

Who's doing what

• Ruben: Design(electronics), cost analysis.
• Stan: Design(general), Requirements, Use analysis.
• Tom: Design(general), Requirements, Use analysis.
• Jasper: Design(software), STOA analysis, Requirements, Use analysis.
• Mathijs: Design(general), STOA analysis, cost analysis.

State of the art

The literature study can be found on the page State of the art

Planning

For each week, there are points what we plan to do in that week. Planning can change over the weeks, dependent on the progress in the project. Final versions of the documents will be delivered at the end of the quartile, but concept versions will be delivered earlier.

Week 1

• Introduction to course
• Brainstorming about problem
• Make problem statement
• First idea on plan for project
• Literature study on problem

Week 2

• Updated problem description
• Concrete planning for project
• Make plan more clear with introduction
• Analysis of literature found in week 1
• First idea on requirements
• Start on USE stakeholder analysis

Week 3

• Concrete decisions on prototype
• USE stakeholder analysis
• Make requirements ready to start on design

Week 4-6

• Work on prototype
• Analysis of requirements based on prototype and update if needed
• Analysis of decisions made for prototype and update if needed
• Update other documents if needed

Week 7

• Finalize prototype
• Prepare presentation

Week 8

• Presentation

Function definition and concepts

Function definition and concepts g5

To Do

ToDo group 5

USE Analysis

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Q8HsUYSPQEllv-ZF9OJwBJt-5876pTHUyQT4u5a_HE/edit?usp=sharing

availability

• Tom: maandag middag, dinsdag, donderdag middag
• Jasper: maandag middag, dinsdag ochtend niet 19-2, woensdag ochtend, donderdag middag
• Ruben: Maandag middag, woensdag vanaf 13 maart, donderdag 21 en 28 maart, vrijdag middag
• Mathijs: Maandag middag, dinsdag middag niet 26, woensdag, donderdag.
• stan: Maandag middag, dinsdag middag, woensdag, donderdag.