Design began with the four concept sketches that can be found in Preliminary R&D deliverable’s lab 3.
During lab 5 they were narrowed to two final contestants; Rylee’s and Tyler’s. These two were chosen because;
- Rylee’s / Design 1
- Pros: Most inexpensive design, created lots of space for changing and adapting design, and it was simplistic which allowed for low maintenance
- Tyler’s / Design 2
- Pros: Less resistance, lightest weight, and was lower in cost then the other AEV’s
After Lab 5 Screening and Scoring Matrices were completed data was collected for the different designs. This was completed by using simple code that went forward for 3 seconds then reversed for 3 seconds. This code was ran 5 times for each design and ANOVA was used to compare all of the data, it can be found in the website page specially designated for code. The graph below shows the results of the tests. Rylee’s design being design 1 and Tyler’s design being design 2.
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | ||
| Energy | 2 | 5 | 54.71096 | 0.4582036 | 0.2049149 |
| 1 | 5 | 53.48802 | 0.1961663 | 0.0877282 | |
| Total | 10 | 54.09949 | 0.7251577 | 0.229315 | |
| Distance | 2 | 5 | 3.49682 | 0.0468434 | 0.020949 |
| 1 | 5 | 3.83848 | 0.317371 | 0.1419326 | |
| Total | 10 | 3.66765 | 0.2795837 | 0.0884121 | |
| Time | 2 | 5 | 10.0214 | 0.0005477 | 0.0002449 |
| 1 | 5 | 10.0216 | 0.0008944 | 0.0004 | |
| Total | 10 | 10.0215 | 0.0007071 | 0.0002236 |
Design 1 displayed lower energy values for longer distance traveled, and the same average time as design 2. This experiment led us to the decision to use Design 1, or Rylee’s design as our final design to be used for testing. However, this design was altered and improved upon through Advanced R&D experimental results. Group O, completed propeller configuration research and their results lead to the altercation of our AEV design.
The propellor configuration had 2 main results; the 2510 propellers should not be used as they were essentially incapable of moving the AEV and a pull design is more effective than a push. In both orientations the 2510 propellers did not cause the AEV to move, and they only saved about 10% power compared to the 3030 propellers. Also, the push design was more effective and propelled the AEV a farther distance going forward versus the pull design however, when in reverse the pull was more effective and propelled the AEV farther than the push. Because the AEV would be pulling more weight we decided the best design would be to use a pull so it was stronger in the reverse direction when towing the caboose. These can be illustrated by the graphs below; provided by Group O.
Top Left: 2510 Propeller Push Top Right: 2510 Propeller Pull Bottom Left: 3030 Propeller Push Bottom Right: 3030 Propeller Pull
After all of this data was accounted for the final AEV design used the large 3030 Propellers and the design was changed from a push to a pull and after these changes were made the final design is the design depicted below. The design process lead to many changes to the AEV design and as research progressed and new data was discovered the AEV was chosen and adapted.
Final AEV Design