Individual Team Sketches and Concept Screening/Scoring Tables
Concept Screening/Scoring Tables:
Descriptions of Criteria Used:
The five criteria that the team decided were most important to address in the design of the AEV in order to complete the MCR were Aerodynamics, Weight, Safety, Energy Efficiency, and Speed. The team decided that safety and energy efficiency were the two most important, with Aerodynamics and weight coming in as the next two important criteria. Speed is a consideration in our design, but it is the least important criteria of the five. Below are some descriptions of what each criterion will be based around.
Aerodynamics –This section is focused on creating an AEV with the least drag possible. The more effective the AEV is a cutting through the air without wasting energy, the better.
Weight – This section is focused on efficient material use on the building the AEV, such as only materials needed, and using lightweight materials. The lighter the overall AEV design, the better. Cost could also be grouped here since the less materials used, the cheaper the AEV will be.
Safety – This section is focused on the overall design of the AEV and how balanced it is. The more balanced and well designed the AEV is, the better.
Energy Efficient – This section is a mainly a combination of the weight and aerodynamics criteria since the performance in each of these areas are crucial for energy efficiency. Overall, this section will be focused on how much energy the battery uses while the AEV is performing its task; the less energy used, the better.
Speed – This section is pretty straight forward, the faster the AEV can complete its task without being unsafe, the better.
Preliminary Designs:
1. Preliminary AEV Design – Zach Smith
The priority of this design was an efficient aerodynamic design, combined with light materials and three fans. This type of design attempts to solve many of the problems in the MCR, and aims to transport the people of Linden in the fastest and most energy efficient way possible, while also focusing on the safety of the vehicle for its occupants and others around the vehicle. It does this by using three fans to propel a light weight and slick body through the air.
Concept Screening/Scoring of design 1:
The goal of Zach’s design was speed and aerodynamics. Overall, it was better than the reference design in aerodynamics, energy efficiency, and speed, similar in safety, and worse in the weight category. It has an overall score of 3.2 and is going to be carried forward in the design cycle.
2. Preliminary AEV Design – Deepak Warrier
The design was based on a couple of factors: simplicity, ease of access to internal controls, and direct control over motion. The design is simple, and is based on modern subway designs. It is reversible and can move in either direction without change in aesthetics nor aerodynamics. The design currently features parts easily accessible through the sides of the AEV. Since maintenance will need to be performed on the AEV from time to time, it is helpful to make the internal parts easily accessible to technicians. The important aspect of this design is the one DC motor mounted on the top of the AEV, in between the monorail wheels. With fans, it is hard to manage stop and start times, as it depends on initial speeds and the amount of power left in the battery. However, with a motor directly controlling a wheel, it is possible to significantly decrease the stop and start times as the motor has direct contact with the monorail while in motion.
Concept Screening/Scoring of design 2:
Deepak’s design was focused on aerodynamics, energy efficiency, and safety. Overall, it was better than the reference design in aerodynamics, energy efficiency, and safety, similar in speed, and worse in the weight category. It has an overall score of 3.7 and is going to be carried forward in the design cycle as well.
3. Preliminary AEV Design – Nathan Porochonski
This is a simple design for the AEV consisting of two motors on the back and an aerodynamic nose on the front. Not much was added to the basic design in order to minimize the AEV’s total weight. The less it weighs, the less energy it will use to move. This design also allows for easy access to the motors, battery, and Arduino chip for quick troubleshooting and testing. Finally, the layout of the AEV in this design takes weight distribution into account. The motors, battery, and Arduino chip are oriented so the weight distribution between them is even. This ensures that the AEV will not fall off the track.
Concept Screening/Scoring of design 3:
The last two designs, Johns and Nathans, are fairly similar to each other and focus on being well rounded and aerodynamic. Both designs are better than the reference design in aerodynamics, but are similar in every other category. Both designs are not being continued in the design process.
4. Preliminary AEV Design – John Heyniger
This initial design has little deviation from a standard layout due to minimal exposure to research at this phase in the project timeline. It features two motors and blades, with a curved, aerodynamic nose. The batter and board were centered to keep the center of mass evenly distributed, along with ease of access. Changes to this design will occur as research testing is performed, and may include: altering battery position, wing design, weight, power, and general cost reduction/addition.
Concept Screening/Scoring of design 4:
The last two designs, Johns and Nathans, are fairly similar to each other and focus on being well rounded and aerodynamic. Both designs are better than the reference design in aerodynamics, but are similar in every other category. Both designs are not being continued in the design process.