The Ohio State University: College of Engineering

Group O

Group O began the AEV design process with everybody in the group coming up with their own AEV drawings.  From this, group O made screening and scoring matrices to which they were able to narrow it down to two designs.  This can be found in the preliminary R and D link.

Derek’s AEV

Screening Matrix

Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4
Maintenance 0 0
Balance + 0 0
Weight + +
Safety 0 0 0 0
Aerodynamics + + + +

Scoring Matrix

% Sample Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4
Maintenance 15 3 .45 3 .45 2 .3 3 .45 2 .3
Balance 25 3 .75 4 1 3 .75 3 .75 2 .5
Weight 25 3 .75 4 1 2 .5 2 .5 4 1
Safety 10 3 .2 3 .3 3 .3 3 .3 3 .3
Aerodynamics 25 2 .5 3 .75 3 .75 3 .75 3 .75
Totals 2.75 3.5 2.6 2.75 2.85
Develope? No Yes No No Yes

 

After the drawing part of the lab, Group O decided to test motor configuration and propellor configuration.  After consulting and reviewing the test, Group O determined thatchy would use 3030 propellors in a pulling orientation.

 

The team also decided to implement a servo motor on the AEV.  This would help in consistency with runs in performance and final test.  Also, this will decrease energy needed by not needing to power break to get the AEV to stop, instead just moving the servo motor up ninety degrees.

After running more performance tests, the team decided to throw away the idea of the wings on the AEV.  The claim behind this was to decrease  the weight and also the cost of materials.  With two wings, that would add two more materials rather than going with the T-base bottom.  As well as cost, it is easier for maintenance by not having to put the wings on every time.

After the first final run, we decided to switch the motor configuration to see whether or not it would matter.  After switching orientation, group O modified the code and completed the track in a faster time and lower joules.

Final Performance Test

Group O completed the final test in 39 seconds and used on 204 Joules.

Final AEV Design