Figure 1: The course for AEV testing
Performance Test 1:
Methodology:
The team of engineers used the research and development to complete the first performance test. As seen in the course in Figure 2, the AEV was required to travel to the gate which was 14 feet with an incline from 6 feet to 10 feet from the starting dock. The AEV was required to stop for seven seconds then proceeded. All safety protocols were to be followed.
Results:
Performance Test 1 was able to be completed by two designs that can be seen below, one with a caboose and one without. The approach to completing the performance test was trial and error. The code used for both of these designs was due to the change in weight was slightly heavier with the extension. This change in weight did not warrant our group adding additional power in order for the battery to reach the trigger to open the gate. This allowed for both designs to have the same power. The AEV without the extension was in the middle of the sensor to open the gate, whereas, with the extension, the AEV was more towards the starting dock. Both AEV stopped for seven seconds and was able to proceed through the gate. The team used the AEV coasting to a stop which was inconsistent in testing.
Analysis:
For both of the designs ran for performance test 1, the AEV had the propellers facing the back in order to create a push along the track. Using the company’s research and design, the team of engineers placed the motors in the push position in order to improve performance and conserve the AEV’s battery. The main difference in the team’s designs was the addition of the magnet on the back. This stems from the team’s concept scoring and screening matrices. These can be seen “AEV Design Evolution” section. The refinements of the design were due to the fact that Arduino needed a way of being able to attach a caboose, which was accounted for in Kenneth’s design. This adjustment changed the position of the Arduino and battery in order to satisfy the constraint of having the magnet two inches away from the Arduino.
Performance Test 2:
Methodology:
For performance test 2, the AEV needed to move 14 feet to the gate and move up the 2-inch incline from 6 to 10 feet. The AEV needs to stop at the gate for 7 seconds then proceed. Next, the AEV will need to travel an additional 14 feet in order to connect to the caboose. When the AEV connects to the caboose, it cannot recoil and hit the backing. The AEV needs to exit the loading dock with the caboose still attached. The team had to follow safety protocols.
Results:
Performance Test 2 was completed by Figure 2 in Appendix B. The team used the guess and check method because the AEV was coasting to a stop. The AEV was able to reach the gate due to the fact the AEV completed the same task in performance test 1, which was successful. The team then need to create an algorithm to reach the bottom of the caboose which can be seen in Appendix C under Performance Test 2. They found only needing a 20% because the AEV could coast through the drop. The AEV had to experience a 1-inch drop when going down to reach the caboose in order to use momentum in order to reach the stop in a controlled fashion. This allowed the AEV to not experience recoil when reaching the caboose. The team was able to successfully complete performance test 2.
Analysis:
Performance Test 2 was the point in the project where the team’s AEV was struggling in order to complete tasks. The strategy of coasting a stop was increasingly problematic due to the fact the code could not ensure the AEV would be in a precise location. The AEV would either go too far or too short and neither was consistent. The team was able to complete performance test 2. The design in Appendix B Figure 2 worked well for this test because the caboose connected easily with the magnet on the back. The decision to continue with the extension design due to how well it worked during the performance test. The length of performance test 2 was double that of performance test 1. The length of the course made the AEV’s limitations apparent. The AEV would not stop at the gate twice in a row which hindered our ability to complete the test. Improving the braking functionality will be a must for Advanced Research and Development #3. Potential errors for performance test 2 were batteries being inconsistent as the AEV will travel a significant distance whereas not traveling as far on the other runs. The team changed batteries multiple times during testing in order to get a fresh battery full of power.
Final Performance Test:
Methodology:
For the final performance test, the AEV needed to travel 14 feet and go up a two-inch incline from 6 to 10 feet in order to reach the gate. In order to proceed through the gate, the AEV needed to pause for 7 seconds. The AEV then traveled an additional 14 feet with an inch decline, and connect to a caboose without recoiling off the back wall. The AEV will then go in the other direction 14 feet to the gate and stop for seven seconds. The AEV needs to proceed through the gate, make sure the caboose stays connect through the drop, and finish the run within the starting dock. Safety protocols for the AEV needed to be followed.
Results:
For the final performance test, the team had to complete two successful runs while completing the full course. The design seen in Appendix B Figure 3 was used for the final testing. The design included a servo motor which improved the consistency of the AEV’s performance. The code seen in Appendix C was different than the previous iterations from performance test 1 and 2 because the servo allowed for braking at a more precise location. The team recalculated the number of marks needed to reach all the locations on the course to an exact location because the AEV was not coasting to a stop anymore. The AEV needed to use more power in order to go up the one-inch incline with the caboose attached. For the first test, the AEV complete all tasks in 57.542 seconds and used a total of 210.901 J of energy. The second test was also a successful run, the AEV completed all tasks in 57.422 seconds and used 205.665 J of energy.
Analysis:
The Final Performance Test was a milestone of the project in which the AEV was fully developed and worked much more efficiently than it had in the previous tests. Compared to Performance Test 1 and 2, the AEV was much better at stopping at the checkpoint rather than not even reaching it at all. This was achieved since the team began using the servo, and allowed the AEV to go any amount of time up the slopes of the track to get to the checkpoint. This change allowed for a slight decrease in time as well as energy spent by the AEV. The AEV was also able to carry the caboose up the track and stop at the checkpoint because the servo was able to be reused throughout the entire process. The only change in the code that had to be made was when the caboose was attached to the AEV, in which the amount of power fed to the motors had to be slightly increased to make up for the additional weight of the caboose. Overall, the Final Performance Test went smoothly since the AEV was updated to maximum efficiency by the addition of the servo and the coding of the AEV was on point.