Performance Test 1 spans over 3 lab days. In these labs, we worked on various tasks involving the AEV, including running tests, recording data, and finalizing the Arduino code. Specifically, we worked on testing the first prototype, which we designated as Prototype 1 Testing this prototype leads us to determine what our final AEV model will look like, as well as finding a code that will be the most efficient.
A short video of one of our tests can be viewed here.
Performance Test 1
We obtained some of our 3-D printed parts created from SolidWorks, a program that allows users to design objects and parts. We divided our work evenly between updating the AEV Project Portfolio, building the AEV, typing the Arduino code, testing the AEV, and recording the AEV data for each test run. Specifically, we tested Prototype 1 for this day. The data for our test run can be found below.
Figure 1: Propulsion Efficiency & Power Input vs. Distance for Prototype 1
According to this graph, the AEV almost reached 16% efficiency at the first break in speed on the track and then leveling out throughout most of the track right around 12.25%. Gaps in the figure represent moments in the track in which the AEV was expected to pause for 7 seconds according to the Jurassic Park scenario.
Figure 2: Propulsion Efficiency & Power Input vs. Time for Prototype 1
According to this graph, it can be seen that time almost exactly corresponds to distance traveled as far as propulsion efficiency and power input are concerned.
The Advance Ratio and the propulsion efficiency for Prototype 1 is shown below, along with the propeller type.
Figure 5: Propulsion Efficiency vs. Advance Ratio for EP 3030 Propeller
Prototype 1 involved an EP 3030 Propeller. According to the graph above, the increasing and then decreasing values of propulsion efficiency correspond to a constant increase in advance ratio. As the curve moves from left to right, the voltage and the RPM both decrease because the AEV is doing less work as the rate of acceleration decreases.
Prototype 1 weighed 0.225 kg.
The Concept Screening and the Concept Scoring for Prototype 1 in comparison with the Sample AEV and the initial AEV drawing models are shown below.
Table 1: Concept Screening
| Concept Screening | Group F | Instr. Annie | 2/6/2015 | ||||
| Success Criteria | Reference | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 | Prototype 1 | |
| Balance | 0 | 0 | + | + | + | + | |
| Cost | 0 | 0 | + | + | – | + | |
| Weight | 0 | – | – | – | – | + | |
| Minimal Blockage | 0 | + | – | + | + | 0 | |
| Maintenance | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Durability | 0 | 0 | + | + | + | + | |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
| Sum -‘s | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |
| Sum 0’s | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Net Score | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Continue | Combine | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Table 2: Concept Scoring
| Concept Scoring | |||||||||||||
| Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 | Prototype 1 | |||||||||
| Success Criteria | Percent Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | ||
| Balance | 0.15 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | ||
| Cost | 0.15 | 2 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.45 | 2 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | ||
| Weight | 0.15 | 4 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.6 | 2 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | ||
| Minimal Blockage | 0.15 | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | 4 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 | ||
| Maintenance | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.9 | 3 | 0.9 | 1 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.6 | ||
| Durability | 0.1 | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.4 | ||
| Total Score | 2.55 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 2.5 | ||||||||
| Continue | |||||||||||||
The detailed Arduino code for Prototype 1 is shown below.
Table 3: Arduino Code for Prototype 1
| Code | Purpose | Supplied Energy | Total Energy |
| celerate(4,0,30,3);motorSpeed(4,35);goFor(2);brake(4);goToAbsolutePosition(337); | Power burst then proceed to glide | 10 Watts | |
| reverse(4);motorSpeed(4,40);goFor(1); | Breaking until it once it reaches 337 marks | 15 Watts | |
| brake(4);goFor(7);reverse(4); | Pause at station | 0 Watts | |
| celerate(4,0,30,3);motorSpeed(4,35);goFor(2);brake(4);goToAbsolutePosition(714); | Goes to second station | 10 Watts | |
| reverse(4);motorSpeed(4,40);goFor(1); | Break | 13 Watts | |
| //stop station 3brake(4);goFor(7); | Pausing at second station | 0 Watts |
The Arduino code for Prototype 1 demonstrates that breaking uses more energy but it does not show that this energy is used for far less time. It seems that using bursts of energy and then letting the AEV glide, thus using zero Watts, is the most efficient.
The cost of Prototype 1 is $186.86.
In conclusion, Performance Test 1 allowed the team to eliminate extraneous and detrimental aspects of the original prototype in order to help formulate a final prototype with 3D printed aspects. The knowledge gained from the AEV prototype testing allows for the analyzation of the positive and negative aspects of each design. The final design will combine the positive aspects in a cohesive and advantageous manner.