Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- report:dvp [2026/06/18 15:26] – [7.4.3 Structure] team4
+++ report:dvp [2026/06/22 19:10] (current) – [7.6.3 Software] team4
@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 </WRAP>
-To protect the smartlogger we designed a protecting roof so algea won't be growing on the smartlogger that much. In Figure {{ref>fig:roof}} you see the roof attached to the Smartlogger.
+To protect the smartlogger a roof is designed, this reduces the accumulation of debris on top of the smartlogger. In Figure {{ref>fig:roof}} you see the roof attached to the Smartlogger.
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:roof>
-{{:report:01312cb0-669c-4600-b130-48574042503b.jpg?600|}}
+{{ :report:01312cb0-669c-4600-b130-48574042503b.jpg?600 |}}
 <caption>Roof</caption>
 </figure>
@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 **Stress test concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 1>
+<figure fig:simulation1>
-{{:report:afbeelding1.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding1.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block stress test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The simulation (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 1}})indicates that the basalt fabric reinforced concrete structure can withstand the applied underwater load case. With an external water pressure of approximately 300,128 N/m² on all sides and gravity included, the maximum von Mises stress is about 0.801 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed yield strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated factor of safety of approximately 7.5, meaning the structure remains well within the safe range. The highest stresses occur near the connection between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, which is expected because these areas act as stress concentrations. However, the stresses remain below the material limit, so the design appears structurally safe for this simplified underwater pressure load case. Keep in mind that for concrete-based materials, it is also useful to check the maximum principal tensile stress, because cracking usually starts due to tensile stresses rather than yielding.
+The simulation (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation1}})indicates that the basalt fabric reinforced concrete structure can withstand the applied underwater load case. With an external water pressure of approximately 300,128 N/m² on all sides and gravity included, the maximum von Mises stress is about 0.801 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed yield strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated factor of safety of approximately 7.5, meaning the structure remains well within the safe range. The highest stresses occur near the connection between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, which is expected because these areas act as stress concentrations. However, the stresses remain below the material limit, so the design appears structurally safe for this simplified underwater pressure load case. Keep in mind that for concrete-based materials, it is also useful to check the maximum principal tensile stress, because cracking usually starts due to tensile stresses rather than yielding.
 **Displacement test concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 2>
+<figure fig:simulation2>
-{{:report:afbeelding2.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding2.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block displacement test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The displacement result shows (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 2}}) that the structure deforms only very slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum resultant displacement is approximately 2.706 × 10⁻³ mm, which is only 0.0027 mm. This is extremely small, meaning the structure remains very stiff under the simulated load case. The largest displacement occurs near the upper edges of the cone-shaped supports, especially around the openings, while the lower areas show almost no displacement. This deformation pattern is expected because the upper parts are less constrained and can move slightly more than the base regions. Overall, the displacement result confirms that the structure experiences negligible deformation at a depth of approximately 30 meters, so from a stiffness point of view the design appears safe for this simplified underwater loading condition.
+The displacement result shows (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation2}}) that the structure deforms only very slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum resultant displacement is approximately 2.706 × 10⁻³ mm, which is only 0.0027 mm. This is extremely small, meaning the structure remains very stiff under the simulated load case. The largest displacement occurs near the upper edges of the cone-shaped supports, especially around the openings, while the lower areas show almost no displacement. This deformation pattern is expected because the upper parts are less constrained and can move slightly more than the base regions. Overall, the displacement result confirms that the structure experiences negligible deformation at a depth of approximately 30 meters, so from a stiffness point of view the design appears safe for this simplified underwater loading condition.
 **Strain test concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 3>
+<figure fig:simulation3>
-{{:report:afbeelding3.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding3.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block strain test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The strain result (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 3}}) shows that the structure experiences very low deformation under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum strain is approximately 1.419 × 10⁻⁵, which is very small and indicates that the material is only slightly stretched or compressed. The highest strain occurs around the transition zones between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, especially near the lower connection areas. This matches the stress result, where the same regions also showed the highest stress concentrations. However, the strain values remain low, meaning the structure is not deforming significantly and the material is behaving safely within the assumed load case. Overall, this strain plot supports the conclusion that the design is structurally stable under the simplified 30-meter underwater pressure condition.
+The strain result (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation3}}) shows that the structure experiences very low deformation under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum strain is approximately 1.419 × 10⁻⁵, which is very small and indicates that the material is only slightly stretched or compressed. The highest strain occurs around the transition zones between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, especially near the lower connection areas. This matches the stress result, where the same regions also showed the highest stress concentrations. However, the strain values remain low, meaning the structure is not deforming significantly and the material is behaving safely within the assumed load case. Overall, this strain plot supports the conclusion that the design is structurally stable under the simplified 30-meter underwater pressure condition.
 **Factor of safety concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 4>
+<figure fig:simulation4>
-{{:report:afbeelding4.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding4.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block factor of safety.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The factor of safety (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 4}}) plot confirms that the structure remains safe under the applied underwater pressure and gravity load case. The minimum factor of safety is approximately 7.49, which is well above the usual minimum requirement of 1.5–2.0 for many static structural checks. This means that the maximum stress in the structure is still far below the assumed material strength. Although most of the model appears red, this does not mean failure; it only means these areas have the lowest safety factor within the selected color scale. Since the minimum value is still around 7.5, the structure has a large safety margin. The most critical region is again located near the connection between the cone-shaped support and the central beam, which matches the stress and strain results. Overall, the design appears structurally safe for this simplified 30-meter underwater loading condition.
+The factor of safety (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation4}}) plot confirms that the structure remains safe under the applied underwater pressure and gravity load case. The minimum factor of safety is approximately 7.49, which is well above the usual minimum requirement of 1.5–2.0 for many static structural checks. This means that the maximum stress in the structure is still far below the assumed material strength. Although most of the model appears red, this does not mean failure; it only means these areas have the lowest safety factor within the selected color scale. Since the minimum value is still around 7.5, the structure has a large safety margin. The most critical region is again located near the connection between the cone-shaped support and the central beam, which matches the stress and strain results. Overall, the design appears structurally safe for this simplified 30-meter underwater loading condition.
 **Strength test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 5>
+<figure fig:simulation5>
-{{:report:afbeelding5.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding5.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure strength test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The von Mises stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 5}}) locally exceeds the assumed yield strength, but since the material is concrete-based, von Mises stress and yield strength are not the most appropriate failure criteria. This result should therefore not be interpreted directly as failure. Instead, the maximum principal tensile stress should be checked, because cracking in concrete usually starts due to tensile stress. In addition, the compressive strength should also be evaluated to verify whether the material remains safe under compression. The high von Mises value mainly indicates a local stress concentration, most likely near a connection or constrained area. If the maximum principal tensile stress stays below the tensile strength and the compressive stress stays below the compressive strength of the material, the structure can still be considered acceptable for this simplified load case.
+The von Mises stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation5}}) locally exceeds the assumed yield strength, but since the material is concrete-based, von Mises stress and yield strength are not the most appropriate failure criteria. This result should therefore not be interpreted directly as failure. Instead, the maximum principal tensile stress should be checked, because cracking in concrete usually starts due to tensile stress. In addition, the compressive strength should also be evaluated to verify whether the material remains safe under compression. The high von Mises value mainly indicates a local stress concentration, most likely near a connection or constrained area. If the maximum principal tensile stress stays below the tensile strength and the compressive stress stays below the compressive strength of the material, the structure can still be considered acceptable for this simplified load case.
 **Tensile strength test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 6>
+<figure fig:simulation6>
-{{:report:afbeelding6.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding6.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure tensile strength test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The maximum principal tensile stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 6}}) is approximately 2.998 MPa, which is lower than the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 2.0 against tensile cracking. Since concrete-based materials are more likely to fail by cracking than by yielding, this result is more relevant than the von Mises stress. The result indicates that the structure remains acceptable in tension for this simplified load case. However, the compressive stress should also be checked separately by evaluating the third principal stress or compressive stress result.
+The maximum principal tensile stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation6}}) is approximately 2.998 MPa, which is lower than the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 2.0 against tensile cracking. Since concrete-based materials are more likely to fail by cracking than by yielding, this result is more relevant than the von Mises stress. The result indicates that the structure remains acceptable in tension for this simplified load case. However, the compressive stress should also be checked separately by evaluating the third principal stress or compressive stress result.
 **Compressive strength test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 7>
+<figure fig:simulation7>
-{{:report:afbeelding7.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding7.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure compressive strength test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The third principal stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 7}}) was evaluated to check the compressive behavior of the concrete-based material. The maximum compressive stress is approximately 6.404 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 8.6 against compressive failure. Therefore, the structure appears safe under compression for this simplified load case. Combined with the first principal stress result, which remains below the tensile strength, the structure can be considered acceptable from both a tensile cracking and compressive strength point of view.
+The third principal stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation7}}) was evaluated to check the compressive behavior of the concrete-based material. The maximum compressive stress is approximately 6.404 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 8.6 against compressive failure. Therefore, the structure appears safe under compression for this simplified load case. Combined with the first principal stress result, which remains below the tensile strength, the structure can be considered acceptable from both a tensile cracking and compressive strength point of view.
 **Displacement test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 8>
+<figure fig:simulation8>
-{{:report:afbeelding8.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding8.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure displacement test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The displacement plot shows (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 8}}) that the maximum resultant displacement is approximately 5.141 × 10⁻² mm, or 0.0514 mm. This is a very small deformation, so the structure remains quite stiff under the applied load case. The largest displacement occurs locally near one of the upper support/connection areas, while most of the structure stays in the lower displacement range. This is expected because the connected structure can deform slightly more at the upper and less constrained regions, while the fixed lower supports remain almost stationary. Overall, the displacement result is acceptable and confirms that the structure does not experience significant deformation under the simulated underwater pressure and gravity loading.
+The displacement plot shows (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation8}}) that the maximum resultant displacement is approximately 5.141 × 10⁻² mm, or 0.0514 mm. This is a very small deformation, so the structure remains quite stiff under the applied load case. The largest displacement occurs locally near one of the upper support/connection areas, while most of the structure stays in the lower displacement range. This is expected because the connected structure can deform slightly more at the upper and less constrained regions, while the fixed lower supports remain almost stationary. Overall, the displacement result is acceptable and confirms that the structure does not experience significant deformation under the simulated underwater pressure and gravity loading.
 **Strain test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 9>
+<figure fig:simulation9>
-{{:report:afbeelding9.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding9.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure strain test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The strain plot (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 9}}) shows a maximum strain of approximately 6.962 × 10⁻⁵. This is still a very small strain value, meaning the structure only deforms slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity loading. The highest strain occurs locally near one of the beam-to-support connection zones, which is consistent with the previous stress and displacement results. Most of the structure remains in the blue region, indicating low strain levels overall. Together with the principal stress results, this suggests that the structure behaves in a stable way and does not experience excessive deformation in this simplified load case.
+The strain plot (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation9}}) shows a maximum strain of approximately 6.962 × 10⁻⁵. This is still a very small strain value, meaning the structure only deforms slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity loading. The highest strain occurs locally near one of the beam-to-support connection zones, which is consistent with the previous stress and displacement results. Most of the structure remains in the blue region, indicating low strain levels overall. Together with the principal stress results, this suggests that the structure behaves in a stable way and does not experience excessive deformation in this simplified load case.
 **Factor of safety test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 10>
+<figure fig:simulation10>
-{{:report:afbeelding10.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding10.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure factor of safety test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-This FOS plot (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation 10}}) gives a minimum factor of safety of approximately 0.78, which means that according to the standard SolidWorks FOS calculation, the local stress is higher than the assumed allowable/yield value. However, because this material is concrete-based, this result should not be interpreted in the same way as for a metal. The FOS plot is based on the selected strength criterion, often related to von Mises/yield strength, which is not the most suitable failure criterion for concrete. For this structure, the principal stress results are more relevant: the maximum principal tensile stress was about 2.998 MPa, which is below the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa, and the maximum compressive stress was about 6.404 MPa, which is far below the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. Therefore, even though the standard FOS plot shows a local value below 1, the concrete-specific checks suggest that the structure remains acceptable for this simplified load case. The low FOS mainly indicates a local stress concentration and should be used as a warning point, especially near the beam-support connections, rather than as direct proof of failure.
+This FOS plot (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation10}}) gives a minimum factor of safety of approximately 0.78, which means that according to the standard SolidWorks FOS calculation, the local stress is higher than the assumed allowable/yield value. However, because this material is concrete-based, this result should not be interpreted in the same way as for a metal. The FOS plot is based on the selected strength criterion, often related to von Mises/yield strength, which is not the most suitable failure criterion for concrete. For this structure, the principal stress results are more relevant: the maximum principal tensile stress was about 2.998 MPa, which is below the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa, and the maximum compressive stress was about 6.404 MPa, which is far below the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. Therefore, even though the standard FOS plot shows a local value below 1, the concrete-specific checks suggest that the structure remains acceptable for this simplified load case. The low FOS mainly indicates a local stress concentration and should be used as a warning point, especially near the beam-support connections, rather than as direct proof of failure.
 **General conclusion**
@@ Line 378: / Line 378: @@
 The entire system is powered by a LiFePO4 battery. Environmental data is collected via sensors that measure pressure (depth), temperature, pH, and conductivity. All collected data is stored locally on a Secure Digital memory card (SD card); real-time transmission is not possible. Battery replacement and data retrieval are carried out through a scheduled maintenance procedure involving a diver. The estimated battery lifetime of the system is approximately 340 days, which limits the frequency of required maintenance operations to roughly once per 11 months.
-When battery replacement is necessary, a diver descends to the installation site and retrieves the Smartbox from the seabed. The enclosure must be brought to the surface in order to be opened safely. Battery replacement and cleaning of the sensors and electricalbox of corganic growth is performed aboard a boat, where the SD card is also replaced simultaneously to ensure secure and continuous data storage.
+When battery replacement is necessary, a diver descends to the installation site and retrieves the Smartbox from the seabed. The enclosure must be brought to the surface in order to be opened safely. Battery replacement, sensor cleaning, and removal of organic growth from the electrical box are carried out aboard the vessel. The SD card is replaced at the same time to ensure secure and continuous data storage.
 After completion of the maintenance procedure, the Smartbox is redeployed and repositioned at its original location on the seabed. This integrated maintenance strategy allows both power supply and data storage components to be serviced during a single operation. After retrieval, the data is transferred to a research facility for analysis and evaluation, ultimately contributing to environmental monitoring and reporting.
@@ Line 401: / Line 401: @@
 This capability makes the ESP32 particularly suitable for applications that spend most of their time in a low-power state and only wake periodically to perform measurements or other tasks. By minimizing the active time and remaining in deep sleep for the majority of the operating cycle, the overall energy consumption of the system can be significantly reduced, resulting in longer battery life.
-Compared to the other evaluated alternatives, presented in {{ref>tab:McComparions}} the ESP32 was the only platform that combined deep sleep support with an integrated RTC and extremely low sleep current. These characteristics made it the most suitable choice for an energy-efficient embedded system.
+Compared to the other evaluated alternatives, presented in Table {{ref>tab:McComparions}} the ESP32 was the only platform that combined deep sleep support with an integrated RTC and extremely low sleep current. These characteristics made it the most suitable choice for an energy-efficient embedded system.
 <WRAP>
@@ Line 432: / Line 432: @@
 Selecting sensors was quite challenging, as most sensors such as pH and conductivity probes are designed for temporary measurements and not for long term submersion. Additionally, the sensors must withstand the high pressure at the seabed, and many are not suitable for seawater. This resulted in expensive sensors, mainly sourced from suppliers in the United States.
-The BarXT sensor [(BarXT)] measures both pressure and temperature. The pressure measurements can be used to calculate depth. Unlike systems based on 5 V microcontrollers, the ESP32 operates with 3.3 V logic levels, which are compatible with the sensor's I<sup>2</sup>C (Inter-Integrated Circuit) interface. Therefore, no I<sup>2</sup>C level converter is required, simplifying the hardware design and reducing power consumption.
+The BarXT sensor [(BarXT)] measures both pressure and temperature. The pressure measurements can be used to calculate depth. Unlike systems based on 5 V microcontrollers, the ESP32 operates with 3.3 V logic levels, which are compatible with the sensor's Inter-Integrated Circuit (I<sup>2</sup>C) interface. Therefore, no I<sup>2</sup>C level converter is required, simplifying the hardware design and reducing power consumption.
 The pH sensor [(PhProbe)] is sourced from Atlas Scientific. It is used together with a pH module [(PhModule)], which converts the signal into an analog signal that can be directly read by the microcontroller's analog inputs.
@@ Line 561: / Line 561: @@
 ==== 7.6 Prototype ====
-The prototype is designed to measure similar parameters to a CTD (Conductivity, temperature and Depth) system, but instead of using a conductivity sensor to estimate salinity, it uses a TDS sensor. This is a significantly cheaper alternative and is sufficient for early-stage testing, where the main goal is to validate the system concept rather than achieve final measurement accuracy. The pH sensor is also excluded from the prototype in order to reduce cost, since it is not essential for testing the basic functionality of the system. Apart from the sensor selection and reduced measurement precision, the prototype follows the same general system design as the final product. For the enclosure, a simple airtight plastic container (e.g. from IKEA) is used as a temporary solution. This significantly reduces costs compared to waterproof enclosures and is sufficient for controlled testing environments. To ensure watertight cable penetrations in the prototype, a silicone‑based sealant will be used. The same sealant may also be applied around the enclosure lid if leakage is detected during testing.
+The prototype is designed to measure similar parameters to a Conductivity, temperature and Depth (CTD)  system, but instead of using a conductivity sensor to estimate salinity, it uses a TDS sensor. This is a significantly cheaper alternative and is sufficient for early-stage testing, where the main goal is to validate the system concept rather than achieve final measurement accuracy. The pH sensor is also excluded from the prototype in order to reduce cost, since it is not essential for testing the basic functionality of the system. Apart from the sensor selection and reduced measurement precision, the prototype follows the same general system design as the final product. For the enclosure, a simple airtight plastic container (e.g. from IKEA) is used as a temporary solution. This significantly reduces costs compared to waterproof enclosures and is sufficient for controlled testing environments. To ensure watertight cable penetrations in the prototype, a silicone‑based sealant will be used. The same sealant may also be applied around the enclosure lid if leakage is detected during testing.
@@ Line 578: / Line 578: @@
 These changes are made to simplify prototype construction and enable early testing of the system concept before developing the final full-scale solution.
+== 7.6.1.1 Reef block ==
+For the prototype of the reefblock we wanted to make it out of concrete. This meant we first had to design a mold (see Figure {{ref>fig:Mold}}) and afterwords put the concrete in the mold. The entire mould exists out of 4 different pieces, a right part, a left par, a top cone and a bottom cone.
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Mold>
+{{ :report:mal.png?600 |}}
+<caption>Mold</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+**How to Make the Prototype**
+__Step 1:__
+First, the cement mixture is prepared. This mixture consists of 2 kg of cement and 250 ml of water. It is important to mix it thoroughly until a smooth and consistent paste is formed (see Figure {{ref>fig:Mixture}}).
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Mixture>
+{{ :report:making_pastry.jpeg?600 |}}
+<caption>Making of the cement mixture.</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+__Step 2:__
+After preparing the cement mixture, the mold has to be prepared. First, a plastic film is placed on top of the mold. Then, another plastic sheet is applied on top of the film and covered with oil. This makes it easier to remove the prototype from the mold afterwards (see Figure {{ref>fig:Film}}).
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Film>
+{{ :report:film_oil.jpeg?600 |}}
+<caption>Applying film.</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+__Step 3:__
+Next, the cement mixture is placed into the mold, as shown in Figure {{ref>fig:Input}}. During this process, it is important not to add too much mixture at once, because the inserts still need to fit properly. After placing the inserts, the entire mold can be tapped gently on the table a few times to make sure the mixture is evenly distributed.
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Input>
+|{{:report:pastry_input.jpeg?600|}}|{{:report:mold_with_inserts.jpeg?600|}}|
+<caption>Filling the mold with the cement mixture.</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+At this point, one half of the prototype is finished. Repeat the same process to create the second half. Once both halves are ready, they can be glued together.
+After completing these steps, the prototype should be left to cure for at least 3 to 4 days. Since the prototype is scaled down, the middle section is very thin and can break easily, but this can be fixed with the same glue that is uses to glue to two halves together.
 === 7.6.2 Hardware ===
@@ Line 664: / Line 714: @@
 The final prototype may not utilize the exact components and materials specified in this study; however, functionally equivalent or closely comparable alternatives are expected to be used.
-The electrical schematics for the prototype is presented in figure {{ref>fig:schematic3}}.
+The electrical schematics for the prototype is presented in Figure {{ref>fig:schematic3}}.
 <WRAP centeralign>
@@ Line 677: / Line 727: @@
-The system is an automatic water quality logger built on an Arduino Uno. It continuously reads data from several sensors and writes the measurements to a CSV file on an SD card every 10 seconds. The system is controlled by a switch that pauses and resumes logging without requiring a restart.
+The system is an automatic water quality logger built on an Arduino Uno. It continuously reads data from several sensors and writes the measurements to a Comma-separated values (CSV) file on an SD card every 10 seconds. The system is controlled by a switch that pauses and resumes logging without requiring a restart.
 **Libraries**
@@ Line 762: / Line 812: @@
 When the logging interval has passed, the software retrieves the current time from the RTC module and writes the timestamped sensor data to the SD card. After the data is saved, the program returns to the switch check and repeats the process continuously. This flow ensures that the prototype automatically collects and stores environmental data in a structured way. Figure {{ref>fig:flowchart}} shows the software flowchart of the Maris Habitats prototype.
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:flowchart>
-{{ :report:maris_habitats_flowchart.png?nolink|}}
+{{ :0:flowchart_prototype.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Software flow chart</caption>
 </figure>
@@ Line 789: / Line 841: @@
 | Each data entry follows the expected format, including sensor name, sensor value, and time or measurement number | Pass  |
 | The battery or power supply can run the prototype during the full test period | Pass  |
-| The physical structure remains stable during handling and surface-level demonstration | Pass / Fail |
+| The physical structure remains stable during handling and surface-level demonstration | Pass |
-| The prototype demonstrates the basic concept of a removable monitoring unit combined with a habitat structure | Pass / Fail |
+| The prototype demonstrates the basic concept of a removable monitoring unit combined with a habitat structure | Pass |
 These tests are intended to validate the proof-of-concept prototype only. They do not verify long-term underwater durability, waterproofing, marine pressure resistance, or biological performance. These aspects must be tested in future development using a marine-grade final product.
@@ Line 806: / Line 858: @@
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:StoredData>
-{{ :0:skaermbild_2026-06-11_194629.png?1000 }}
+{{ :0:skaermbild_2026-06-11_194629.png?800 }}
 <caption>Stored data in Excel</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-== 7.6.4.3 Reef block ==
-For the prototype of the reefblock we wanted to make it out of concrete. This meant we first had to design a mold (see Figure {{ref>fig:Mold}} and afterwords put the concrete in the mold. The entire mould exists out of 4 different pieces, a right part, a left par, a top cone and a bottom cone.
-<WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:Mold>
-{{:report:mal.png?600|}}
-<caption>Mold</caption>
-</figure>
-</WRAP>
 ==== 7.7 Summary ====