Attached is the final CDR report:
Month: April 2016
Performance Test One – Design
The purpose of this performance test was to determine which of two AEV designs in consideration were the most efficiency and would best fulfill the goals laid out in the Mission Concept Review. After analyzing each design and how it performed, the team was better able to alter the current design and improve efficiency. Overall, this section of the performance test was specifically used to scrutinize the design and understand how different parts would affect the AEV’s final run.
Final results showed that the team’s current design (no added parts) tested best on the track. The second design the team utilized was essentially the same design, but with an added part on the head of the AEV. This design decreased efficiency because it added weight, throwing off the center of balance as well as requiring the AEV to use more power.
View both AEV designs here:
AEV with added part
Final AEV design
Major takeaways from this lab are a more informed approach to perfecting the design of the AEV and the knowledge that our code deviated greatly from its intended use when different parts were added, i.e. the part used in the second half of this test.
View the full executive summary here:
Code Progression
Attached is a document containing all of the codes Group K utilized throughout the lab, as well as comments for those not familiar with the syntax.
Final Presentation
Attached is Group K’s final presentation:
Performance Design Review (PDR)
Attached is the Performance Design Review (PDR), which is a memo describing the performance and design of our AEV.
Performance Test Two – Code
The purpose of this performance test was to analyze two different codes and decide which optimizes AEV efficiency. In this lab, the team constructed two separate codes, performed two runs (each with the same design), extracted the data and converted it in into numbers which correspond to each codes efficiency. With these numbers, the team could further pursue a code and achieve a more optimal efficiency.
Final results from this performance test show that the initial code used consistently outperformed the secondary code. This is due mainly in part to the fact that the initial code used was a perfected final code. Another reason that the initial code reliably performed better is because it utilized the ‘motorSpeed’ command in contrast to the ‘celerate’ command, which was used in the second code. This is because the code with the ‘motorSpeed’ command used less energy than the other despite an overall similarity.
Major takeaways from this lab are empirical data regarding energy consumption and efficiency in reference to the code used and the ability to better design and reach the final code.
View the full lab memo here:Memo 2
AEV Concept Design – Final Design
This is the final AEV design for Group K. Major differences from the previous edit are a new, longer arm, and utilization of the “t-shaped” body rather than the “cross-shaped body”.
AEV Concept Design – Edit 1
This is the first alteration made to the original “Y-Wing” concept design. There is no longer a 3-D printed part or tubes on the side.
Performance Test Three – Energy
The purpose of this performance test was to complete the entire scenario described in the Mission Concept Review and ultimately through testing decide which combined AEV code and design will perform most efficiently overall. The group compiled all previously tested designs and codes and tested them together, ultimately reaching the best possible design and code combination.
Major takeaways from this performance test are the final design and code for the AEV, data representing the preliminary final run, and an overall completion of the Mission Concept Review.
View the full memo here:PT3
Lab 7 – Design Analysis Tool
The purpose of this lab was to become familiar with the MATLAB design analysis tool, a tool which helps to conduct a performance analysis of the AEV. Immediately following a run, data from the arduino was extracted on to the computer. Next, the data was translated into EEPROM analysis calculations and was uploaded to the design analysis tool in MATLAB, which plotted graphs of Power v. Distance and Power v. Time. Due to malfunction in the arduino board and a lengthy diagnosis period, the team was not able to complete Lab 7. However, the team still gained the knowledge required to continue perfecting the AEV through analysis of another team’s data and translation of that to fit their AEV*.
Major takeaways from this lab are the are the ability to further address issues in power consumption, improve design and code in order to achieve desired efficiency/power consumption, and concrete data for each AEV code and configuration — something which helped to narrow down options and reach a final design.
View the full executive summary here: ES 7
Note: Data in executive summary is not Group K’s, but executive summary is original.
*= instruction to do so was given by Lab TA’s.