Evolution of Design

Research and Development Lab One: 

The purpose of this lab was to familiarize the group with using the motors and propellers on the AEV sample design with sample code. The group noted the following: propellers doesn’t immediately begin to rotate at the start of the program there is a time lag between starting the program and the code being carried out. Additionally, there is resistance in the propellers turning when the motors are at low speed.

Research and Development Lab Two: 

The purpose of the second lab was understanding the use of the AEV’s reflectance sensors and stopping the AEV using specific marks commands.  The coding commands we have to work with put limits on the capabilities of the AEV. For example, you can’t immediately stop (brake) the AEV, but rather can only cut the power to the motors slowing it down for it to eventually stop.

Reflectance Sensors:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The purpose of the reflectance sensors is to give feed back on the distance that the AEV has traveled. It recognizes distances in terms of marks, with one mark equaling 0.4875 inches.

Research and Development Lab Three AEV Concept Designs:

Design 1:

Cost: $200,860

Pros: Benefits of this design include an aerodynamic design, aesthetic appeal and good safety rating. The design is aerodynamic due to the shape of the wings and shape of the base. It is more efficient when moving through the air compared to the design given in class. The body of the AEV comes to a point which allows for it to travel through the air more easily. The body of the AEV closely resembles an airplane and it has a very sleek and clever looking design. The AEV is also well balanced so it is not likely to fall off the track. The different components are also very accessible, making the AEV easy to repair.

Cons: Downfalls of this design include a potentially high cost. It would likely cost more than the base design in class. The amount of material needed to build this design is higher than other designs, in addition, if an extra motor is used, that could result in a large addition to the cost. It could also be expensive to repair the wings of the AEV because they are long and could be hard to craft or fasten.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design 2:

Cost: $159,040

Pros: The design itself is long and skinny which would make it less resistant to wind. The battery and Control system are spread out and have plenty of room. Since the design is slender, it doesn’t take up much space on the track. The design has 2 propellers on the back end to propel it forward quickly.

Cons: The flat ends of the design make the AEV less aerodynamic. Although it is slender the extra length adds more weight which could possibly slow down the AEV. The propellers are only on the back of the AEV, it would’ve been better to have one on the front as well to help out when going backwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design 3:

Cost: $204,210

Pros: This design uses three motors, giving it a power advantage over other the example AEV.  The large, bulky design provides more safety than the given AEV.  The wings do provide some stability to the design.  The weight of the AEV could also provide a stability advantage to this particular design.

Cons:  Because this design is so much larger and bulkier than the example AEV, it will likely be much slower than the example.  The trapezoidal wing shape is not the best design regarding aerodynamics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design 4:

Cost: $173,140

Pros: This design is small in size and uses fewer materials leading to a cheaper price. Additionally, the two motors provide ample power for the AEV and since it is small will allow for quick arrival to desired marks.

Cons: The blunt edges of this design will make it less aerodynamic causing more drag and thus making it less efficient. It is smaller than the base design given and that will result in it being cheaper, and the pointed nose will make it more efficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Team Concept Sketch:

Cost: $183,490

Pros: Combination of everything. Multiple motors, pointed ends to make it aerodynamic, slender in length and width.

Cons: Cluttered on top with battery and control system.

The idea behind this was to mimic a monorail type design with wings and pointed ends to increase aerodynamics. Additionally, a symmetrical design was used to make forward and backward motion more cohesive. Motors will help to distribute power in both direction without taking up too much energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting Design Research for Initial Team Concept Sketch:

The most important aspects of the group’s AEV design are the wings and the nose cones.  The wings have been included in the design to provide stability to the AEV as it moves.  The AEV is small, so extra stability is valuable to the design.  The nose cones were added to reduce drag and provide the AEV with a more aerodynamic design.  Nose cones were included on both ends of the AEV so it can have the same aerodynamic advantage moving in both directions.

Rocket aerodynamics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/392-rocket-aerodynamics

 

 

Research and Development Lab Four (Data Analysis Tool)

Data obtained using Sample AEV Design

Energy vs Time Plot:

 

 

 

 

 

Energy vs Distance Plot:

 

 

 

 

 

Sample code was used to move the AEV and analyze the results of various code. The code used to output the following plots can be seen in the AEV Project Codes tab under Research and Development Lab Four Code. Understanding basic power outputs, how a given command will appear while graphed in power vs. time and power vs. distance plots was all gained from this initial running of the AEV.

Research and Development Lab Five (Concept Screening and Scoring) 

The designs of the AEV were rated in the following matrices ranked by the group. This allowed for the group to move forward and eliminate designs that did not live up to maximizing efficiency and cost. This also allowed for the ranking of the final designs in comparison to the initially brainstormed designs.

Concept Screening Matrix:

 

 

 

Concept Screening Matrix:

 

 

 

 

Final Design One:

 

 

 

 

 

Power vs. Time Output:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design 1 above is the final working design and outperformed the second design. This design was able to successfully complete the first two rounds of performance testing unlike its counterpart below. Despite the power outputs being similar in the two graphs, design two was unable to make it up the incline during final testing. Thus, design two was retired from testing and final runs were complete with the dual motor and vertical base design.

Final Design Two:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power vs. Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final AEV:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Design one was the design used in final performance testing. It was the most energy and cost efficient design the group was able to finalize.

Overall, the capital costs of the final AEV design was $157,080. This was cheaper than any of the initially brainstormed designs by $2,000 dollars.

Final AEV Design Running On Track:

https://gph.is/2K3rot1

Final AEV Design Stopping at Gate:

https://gph.is/2vvJq4b