In exercise 5 we used Concept Screening and Scoring to analyze our AEV designs. We looked at all 4 group members designs and a group design, and then we compared them to the reference design we were given to determine which designs we should keep evaluating.
Criteria that was measured for the Concept Screening and Scoring-
Stability– How Stable the AEV is. For example does the AEV look like it will be able to balance itself on the track or fall off.
Minimal Blockage– How aerodynamic does the AEV look. Will it be able to move through the air smoothly or produce a lot of drag.
Maintenance– How easy is this AEV able to be built and serviced.
Durability– How strongly is this AEV constructed and will it be able to hold up to stress’s of the challenge.
Safety– How safe is this AEV. For example is it more prone to falling off the track and hitting someone.
| Concept Scoring Matrix | |||||||||
| Reference | Tyler’s Design | Jeff’s Design | Mengxu’s Design | ||||||
| Success Critera | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Stabilty | 20% | 3 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.60 | 3 | 0.60 | 2 | 0.40 |
| Minimal Blockage | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.60 | 4 | 0.60 | 2 | 0.30 |
| Maintenance | 15% | 2 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.30 | 2 | 0.30 |
| Durability | 25% | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1.00 | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 1.00 |
| Safety | 25% | 3 | 0.75 | 4 | 0.75 | 3 | 0.75 | 2 | 0.50 |
| Total Score = | 2.85 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 2.5 | |||||
| Continue? | No | Yes | Yes | No | |||||
| Han’s Design | Team Design | ||||||||
| Success Critera | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | ||||
| Stabilty | 20% | 2 | 0.40 | 3 | 0.60 | ||||
| Minimal Blockage | 15% | 2 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.45 | ||||
| Maintenance | 15% | 2 | 0.30 | 3 | 0.45 | ||||
| Durability | 25% | 2 | 0.50 | 3 | 0.75 | ||||
| Safety | 25% | 2 | 0.50 | 4 | 1.00 | ||||
| Total Score = | 2.0 | 3.25 | |||||||
| Continue? | No | Yes | |||||||
| Concept Screening Matrix | ||||||
| Success Criteria | Reference Design | Tyler’s Design | Jeff’s Design | Mengxu’s Design | Han’s Design | Team Design |
| Stability | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | 0 |
| Minimal Blockage | 0 | + | + | – | – | 0 |
| Maintenance | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | + |
| Durability | 0 | + | 0 | + | – | 0 |
| Safety | 0 | + | 0 | – | – | + |
| —————- | ||||||
| Sum +’s | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Sum 0’s | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Sum -‘s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| —————- | ||||||
| Net Score? | 0 | 4 | 1 | -2 | -4 | 2 |
| Continue? | Combine | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Key For Continue- | ||||||
| X<0 | No | |||||
| X=0 | Combine or Revise | |||||
| X>0 | Yes | |||||
Tyler’s design-
Pros- Easier to maintain, better durability, and safer.
Cons- The stability has not been improved from the reference.
Jeff’s design-
Pros- Is more Aerodynamic.
Cons- Is not really improved from the reference design.
Mengxu’s design-
Pros- Is more durable than the reference.
Cons- Not stable which makes it unsafe to operate. Also this design is not aerodynamic.
Han’s design-
Pros- No real pros to this design.
Cons- Not stable leading it to be unsafe. Not aerodynamic and not very durable.
Group design-
Pros- Is easier to maintain and is safer to operate.
Cons- Was not differentiated from the reference enough so it had similar results
All these pros and cons were found by using the concept scoring and screening matrix’s. By looking at the results we determined that we will be moving forward with Tyler’s, Jeff’s and the Group design for further testing.