The City of Columbus has requested an energy efficient and fully automated vehicle to provide rapid travel between Linden and either Polaris or Easton. The mission was to satisfy this request and provide the city with an energy efficient and cost effective vehicle for the smart Columbus initiative. A single company was divided into three groups to individually produce different prototypes of an Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV). These groups were to work together and share information, while staying under a 500k budget per vehicle. These vehicles were created to foster sustainability and lead Columbus into “a future beyond what anyone has imagined.”
There was an initial provided model AEV that was utilized as a base configuration for the AEV designed by group E. The group was required to devise testing procedures to improve this initial AEV. The group decided to test motor configuration and coasting versus power braking in order to see how different motor setups and stopping scenarios affected overall costs. This was completed by testing each configuration three times at 20, 30, and 40 percent motor power. The first configuration was a Side by Side design and had both motors on the same end, pushing or pulling the AEV in the either direction. The second configuration featured a motor on each end of a rectangular shaped AEV. The group also compared power braking versus using a servo motor. This was done by running the AEV first with power braking and then with a servo and comparing the observational results, energy usage, and in turn cost. This testing was done with the final motor design which was a development of the Side by Side design.
The Side by Side motor configuration did not allow for the AEV to be as streamlined as the Double Ended configuration, however, the motor accelerated faster in the forward direction for the first graded test and braked more easily compared to the Double Ended design. The servo was more efficient in terms of braking and utilized less energy and put the AEV on a more exact path.
Based on the results, it was decided that the group would go with the Side by Side motor configuration with the servo motor attached. The design was oriented so that the AEV was pulled toward the caboose and then once attached, would push away with the caboose. There were some issues with balancing the AEV design and for performance test three, a singular piece was produced for the entire base of the AEV, that enhances balance, symmetry, and was lighter in weight. If there had been more time the group would likely not gone with this exact AEV design because it could have been better. The group recommends that using better securing techniques, instead of duct tape and zip ties, would have made the AEV more reliable. The overall design, however, worked very well for the task at hand.
Below is the final cost table and more specific analysis of testing procedures can be found under the Research and Development Tab.
Final Design
Final Cost Table
| RUN 1 | RUN 2 | RUN 3 | |
| Capital Costs | $153,628 | $153,628 | $153,628 |
| Energy Costs | $252,500 | $240,500 | $234,000 |
| Time Costs | $183,000 | $178,500 | $177,000 |
| Accuracy Penalty | 1.25 | 1.111111111 | 1.176470588 |
| R&D Costs | $ – | $ – | $ – |
| Safety Violations | $ – | $ – | $ – |
| TOTAL COST | $698,003.00 | $619,183.56 | $637,157.41 |