Performance Testing: Phase 2

The second session of performance tests required the team to have the AEV successfully proceed through the gate, to the loading zone, connect with the load, and exit the loading zone. Proper procedures and placements were utilized to ensure safety of the engineers, the prototype, and the surrounding environment. The data and information regarding the second performance test can be found in the figures and text below.

Successful Test Code

reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,35);
goToRelativePosition(243);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1);
brake(4);
reverse(4);motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(8);

motorSpeed(4,30);
goToRelativePosition(148);
. . . . .

 motorSpeed(4,0);
goToRelativePosition(141);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,27);
goFor(1);
brake(4);motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(6);

celerate(4,0,50,2);
motorSpeed(4,50);
goToRelativePosition(-190);
reverse(4);
. . . . .

 motorSpeed(4,65);
goFor(1);
brake(4);reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(8);

celerate(4,0,25,2);
goToRelativePosition(150);
motorSpeed(4,0);
goToRelativePosition(141);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,45);
goFor(1);
brake(4);

Successful Test Data



The second test proved successful with minor changes to the previous test code and an extension to implement braking at the gate again. The test run required approximately 184.782 Joules of energy to complete, traveling a total distance of just over 11 meters. This test implemented the use of coasting — the valleys of zero power — to cut down on energy consumption while still reaching the end goal.

This testing phase also required the team to reconsider programming methods, calling for comparisons between two working codes. The engineering team decided to interchange the use of motorSpeed() and celerate() functions to see which was more efficient for AEV travel. The data figures below show comparative runs between the two commands, but also show consecutive test runs utilizing the celerate() command.

By comparison, the motorSpeed() function performed much better by using less energy and completing the task in a faster time. When comparing the two consecutive celerate() test runs, there are notable inconsistencies in power when accelerating. The power appears to irregularly spike from time to time, hurting the credibility of the function.

For information regarding the prior performance testing phase, visit:
Performance Testing: Phase 1

For information regarding the following performance testing phase, visit:
Final Performance Test