Group C – Teressa Pell, Madeline Shaffer, Joe Spinazze, Danny Tomaszewski Progress Report Lab 5
Instructor: Dr. Kecskemety, GTA: Isabel Fernandez 2/24/2017
Lab 5
Situation:
In lab 5, the group became familiar with techniques used to aid in the design decision making process. The group also became familiar with the structured method of using concept scoring matrix. In the beginning of the lab, the AEV was assembled according to the sketches the group agreed upon. The AEV should not include the external sensors, such as the wheel count sensor. The group then wrote and executed code through the arduino. The code then sent the AEV down the straight track. This was be done multiple times with the different designs of the AEV. Each design was then rated. The group used concept screening and the matrix scoring methods to differentiate the benefits of each design, using the sample AEV design as a baseline.
Results and Analysis:
The AEV ran exceptionally on the straight track. In past labs, there were troubles with the speed being too slow, but this was not the case. There was slight lean due to where the wheel stand is attached, and this may be corrected in the future with a different platform piece. There were no troubles with the coding aspect, making the run a success all around.
Table 1: Concept Scoring Matrix
| Reference | Design 1 | Design 2 | |||||||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | ||||
| Balanced | 15% | 2 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | ||||
| Minimal Blockage | 5% | 4 | 0.2 | 5 | 0.25 | 5 | 0.25 | ||||
| Center-of- gravity | 5% | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 | ||||
| Maintenance | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 | ||||
| Durability | 20% | 4 | 0.8 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | ||||
| Cost | 20% | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.8 | ||||
| Environmental | 15% | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | ||||
| Creativity | 5% | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.15 | 2 | 0.1 | ||||
| Total Score | n/a | 3.35 | n/a | 3.4 | n/a | 3.4 | |||||
| Continue? | no | yes | no | ||||||||
| *Note: wings and propellers not attached yet | |||||||||||
Based on the concept scoring matrix, both of the designs coincidentally scored the same total points of 3.4, which the reference AEV had a score of 3.35 points. Although both new designs were similar in their ratings, they differed from the reference AEV in balance, cost and creativity. The reference AEV was unbalanced compared to the new designs that place the Arduino and battery more in the center and have a spread out platform. When the new models were created, there was an understanding that they would be lighter and therefore not as bulky and durable as the reference AEV. Taking liberties with a lightweight design got the designs away from the original reference look, advancing the creativity criteria with it. Since the designs are both tied, more test runs and labs will have to be performed before a clear choice is presented. The concept scoring matrix provided a very clear way in comparing and deciding between the aspects of different designs, and it is a technique that this team plans on using for future decision making for the AEV.
Takeaways:
- Techniques such as a concept scoring matrix and a concept scoring sheet are well understood as helpful tools in making decisions about the AEV and comparing the pros and cons of different designs.
- The team can now program the AEV to perform certain tasks that will allow for specific observations and comparable results when testing different designs and scoring them on the concept matrix or scoring sheet.
Lab 6
Situation:
This week the group will catch up on anything that has not been completed from the previous labs. The team will ask questions and decide what they will do moving forward in designing the AEV. For Lab 7 the team will be giving an oral presentation. They will present on their preliminary design review status by answering the questions from the PDR Presentation Worksheet. They will describe what they learned in labs 00 through 06 and lay out a plan for the performance tests in labs 08 through 11. Starting in lab 8, the team will be comparing designs, testing them, and deciding on a final design for the AEV.
Weekly Goals:
- Make PowerPoint for Oral Presentations
- Finish anything that has not been completed in Labs 00 through 06
- Make plan for upcoming labs
- Decide on two designs to test for Lab 08
Weekly Schedule:
| Task | Teammates | Start Date | Due Date | Time Needed |
| Team Meeting | All | 2/28/2017 | 2/28/2017 | 30 min |
| Update Project Portfolio | Danny | 2/23/2017 | 2/24/2017 | 30 min |
| Complete Labs 00-06 | All | 2/24/2017 | 2/24/2017 | 1 hr |
| Second Team Meeting | All | 3/2/2017 | 3/2/2017 | 1 hr |
| Oral Presentation | All | 3/3/2017 | 3/3/2017 | 5 min |
Appendix A
// 1. Accelerate all motors from start to 25% in 3 seconds.
celerate(4,0,30,3);
// 2. Run all motors at a constant speed (25% power) for 1 second.
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(1);
// 3. Run all motors at 20% power for 2 seconds.
motorSpeed(4,25);
goFor(2);
// 4. Reverse all motors.
reverse(4);
// 5. Run all motors at a constant speed (25% power) for 2 second.
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(2);
// 6. Brake all motors.
brake(4);
Appendix B
Date: 2/21/17
Time: 9:30 pm
Members Present: Teressa Pell, Madeline Shaffer, Joe Spinazze
Topics Discussed: Jobs
Objective:
The purpose of this meeting was to organize our thoughts about lab 5 and talk about who is going to complete what in the progress report.
Tasks Completed:
- Everyone picked a responsibility for this progress report
- We agreed to complete it and the worksheet on Thursday at 4 pm
Tasks To Do:
- Meet to finish the progress report on Thursday
- Complete the presentation worksheet for lab 6 about the oral presentation
Timeline:
- 2/17/17 – Lab 5 Completed
- 2/21/17 – First meeting to determine jobs
- 2/23/17 – Second meeting to work on progress report
- 2/24/17 – Lab 6
Decisions:
We decided Teressa will do appendix B and the takeaways, Danny will complete the results and analysis, Joe will do the backwards looking situation, and Maddie will do the situation, weekly goals, and weekly schedule for the forwards looking section.
Reflections:
The group only needs to meet twice on weeks with a very long progress report with a lot of data.
Date: 2/23/17
Time: 4:00 pm
Members Present: Teressa Pell, Madeline Shaffer, Joe Spinazze
Topics Discussed: Progress Report
Objective:
The purpose of this meeting is to complete the progress report and the worksheet due for lab 6.
Tasks Completed:
- Progress report completed except for Danny’s portion
- Oral presentation worksheet
Tasks To Do:
- Complete Danny’s portion
- Update project portfolio
Timeline:
- 2/23/17 – Second meeting to work on progress report
- 2/24/17 – Lab 6
Decisions:
The progress report will be turned in when all portions are completed.
Reflections:
All members should attend meetings and let the group know at least a day in advance if they can’t make it.