Performance Testing

Sensor Activated Gate Opening Used in all Performance Tests:

Animated GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Performance Test One:

The objective of performance test one was to successfully transport the AEV to activate a sensor. Once the sensor was activated, the AEV paused for seven seconds before a  the sensor-activated gate opened and the AEV proceeded through it. Additionally, choosing between the final two AEV designs was completed here as the second design was unable to make it up the incline.

Power vs. Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Test Two:

The second performance test was an addition to the first one.  The AEV, after passing through the gate, had to travel to the other end of the track and connect with a caboose in the “loading zone.”  The AEV then had to pause for five seconds before leaving the loading zone.  However, the first performance test the division completed using time to transport the AEV. This performance test was complete using marks (distance commands) to transport the AEV. This increased accuracy tremendously allowing it to stop at more exact positions every time. In addition to increasing accuracy, this lowered energy usage while connecting to the caboose. Fixing the reflectance sensors on the AEV allowed for a power vs distance plot to be created in addition to the power vs time plot which was the only type generated from the first performance test.

Power vs. Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power vs. Distance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final Performance Test:

The Final Performance Test was a further continuation of the first two performance tests.  After connecting with the caboose and pausing for five seconds in the loading zone, the AEV had to travel back to the gate.  It had to stop between the gate sensors, pause for seven seconds, pass through the gate, and travel back to the starting dock with the caboose.  The AEV had to stop in the starting dock without hitting the end of the track.

This final test combined all of the knowledge gained through preliminary and advanced research and development. The final design seen in the evolution of design tab was used consisting of two motors, a vertical base, the pull configuration while the caboose is attached recommended by our fellow divisions, in addition to the lightest weight possible to maximize energy efficiency while minimizing cost. The final energy consumption, capital costs, and time can be seen below and the power vs. time and power vs. distance plots for the final runs can be seen below.

Final Cost Anlysis

 

 

 

 

The decrease in the accuracy score during the first run shown above resulted in the accuracy penalty change shown below. As a result, the first run was more expensive. However, this was not factored into the average as the average was taken from the two best runs (two and three). Overall, the AEV came in at a reasonable price of $591,945 dollars maximizing energy efficiency and minimizing costs given the time constraints for further designing.

 

 

 

 

 

Power vs. Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power vs. Distance