Team K Design Process & Results

Progress Report # 1:

So far, Group K has learned about the task- including constraints, deliverables, and available parts- as well as began programming and designing the AEV. When design for the AEV began, each group member came up with a set of orthographic sketches, and then decided on the best design using concept screening. During the concept screening, it was found that a combination of multiple designs would be ideal. The scoring board showed each design as having the same net value but lacking in their own respective categories. Creating a scoring chart allowed group K to acknowledge the thought process that went into every individual AEV design, and that the team’s final product would be a combination of each.

The next task to be completed is to submit a grant proposal towards in order to help cover the cost of custom parts. This will be completed by describing the parts and providing a visual of them. This grant proposal is being completed because it will help aid the group in the prototype development. The goals for the grant proposal are to describe the parts’ form and function in detail and how the group’s part will improve the AEV. For the presentation, the goals are to have good time management, make eye contact, speak at an appropriate volume, keep good posture and have overall professionalism. For future labs, Adam Shand will continue to facilitate the group and divide up the workload, Gavin Kimbrough will manage all programming requirements, Bianca DeSimone will continue to assure tasks are on schedule and Brynn Miller will manage deadlines and team meetings .

 

Lab 2:

Team K’s evolution of design began with the creating a copy of an already existing AEV design given one lab #2.

Copying an existing design gave us a baseline idea of what the finished AEV could look like.

Lab 3:

Given the already prepared materials, Adam, Bianca and Brynn assembled the AEV while Gavin wrote the Arduino code. recreated this sample AEV and used this model to practice compiling and running the Arduino program. Using a data extraction tool, the results of the test were able to be accurately recorded.

Code:

This first code is the code used in lab 2, when working with the external sensors. The code is used to help us understand how the “marks” measurement system works and how to effectively use the sensors to set distances. The second code was used in lab 3 to run the AEV and record data. The record data is show in the graph below using the data extraction tool shown to us.

 

Graph:

The graph below measures the power vs time data recorded when running the code above in lab 3.

Lab 4:

Team K will be drafting and discussing possible AEV designs, using the drafted ideas to form a collective opinion toward a final design so a prototype can be created.

 

Lab 5:

Team K presented their part for the grant proposal. We did not a grant for a prototype custom made AEV monorail head

 

Advanced R&D

Lab 6:

The committee meeting was a success and each team member now has new information given by the committee staff on how to progress through the rest of the AEV project

Labs 7-10:

The methodology testing began. Two methodologies were chosen: the relation between number of runs vs. voltage drop, and the relation between propeller size and orientation and distance traveled. For the first methodology, the Arduino code was modified to make the vehicle travel halfway along the track and by the use of the MATLAB analysis tool, the difference in voltage vs. each run could be recorded. For the second methodology, a set of small and large propellers were tested with varying orientation for their respective tests to find out how the size and orientation of the propellers would affect the distance traveled.

 

Code:

The first code is used in the lab 7, testing the number of runs vs. voltage drop. This code was kept unchanged throughout the entire lab to control this variable and keep results consistent. For the propeller test, the code is very similar to the battery test, however the time the motor ran was shortened to allow the AEV to stop on its own, giving us more reliable data.

 

Lab 11-15:

In order to test the capabilities of the AEV, three performances tests were conducted.

 

Performance Test 1:

The requirements of this test need the AEV to be able to travel along a monorail track, stop for seven seconds in front of a gate and then continue through the gate. In order to complete this test, the vehicle used a go for time function in its program which through trouble shooting, allowed the AEV to complete the test. It was found during testing that using the go for time gave wildly inconsistent results. The vehicle would stop either before or after its previous starting position and could never stop acculturate. Because of this, for the next test a more consistent method of moving the AEV had to be used.

Code:

The first performance test code does not use position functions nor the servo, meaning that the AEV had to coast into the gate. The brake lasts for 12 seconds instead of 7 to account for the time in between braking and the AEV actually being at the gate.

Performance Test 2:

In light of the previous performance test, the go to absolute position function was used instead of the go for time when moving the AEV. This yielded very consistent results as the vehicle could now stop with precision. Using the absolute potion function would now become a standard for the methodology testing and performance tests to come.

Code:

Final Performance Test:

After the two previous performance tests, a final test was given to the AEV, requiring it to travel up a track, stop in range of gate for seven seconds then continue to hook up with a caboose in the loading zone and bring it back to the other side of the gate. After waiting another seven seconds, It then had to bring the car back to the starting dock without causing damage. During this test, developing a braking system was experimented with and the group utilized a servo motor to stop the vehicle. This servo motor allowed the craft to reliably stop instead of coasting stop the go to absolute position functions could be even more accurate. Using this motor allowed this final performance test to be much easier than it would be if we let the craft coast.

 

 

Code:

For the final performance test, the code changed drastically. This is mainly due to the addition to the servo, meaning the position function in performance test 2 had to be modified along with adding functions to rotate the servo. Lastly, because the time between the AEV braking and reaching the gate had decrease, tweaking the numbers for how long the motors braked was also necessary.

After three trials, the time elapsed and energy spent was recorded by the MATLAB data analysis tool. These values were later used in calculated the total cost of our AEV project which can be seen in our deliverables section.