In this lab, the group worked on determining the success criteria that fits the design of the AEV, and to screen and score the design concepts. The designs created by the group will be tested to see how efficient they were. The group utilized decision methods such as: external decision, product champion, pros and cons, or decision matrices to determine which design to pick, or if the group needed another design due to the current ones being too inefficient. The group became familiar with design decision making techniques, a structured method to screen and score design concepts, and practice these methods with AEV design concepts.
The group tested each individual design as well as the overall design made by the group. Each design was scored based on a variety of things that focused on efficiency, cost, and overall appearance. The highest score during the design screening was the overall design made by a combined group effort. After looking at the results, and comparing and contrasting individual criteria, the group will proceed with the combined group design and will make changes to it to increase the focus criteria.
| Success Criteria | Reference AEV | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 | Overall
Design |
| Balanced turns | 0 | + | + | – | – | + |
| Minimal Blockage | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – |
| Center of Gravity | 0 | 0 | + | + | 0 | + |
| Maintenance | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | + | – |
| Durability | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | 0 |
| Cost | 0 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Environmental | 0 | + | + | + | + | + |
| Sum +’s
Sum 0’s Sum -’s |
0
7 0 |
2
3 2 |
3
1 3 |
2
1 4 |
2
2 3 |
3
1 3 |
| Net Score | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | -1 | 0 |
| Continue? | Combine | Combine | Combine | No | No | Yes |
| Reference AEV | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 | Design 4 | Overall Design | ||||||||
| Criteria | Weight | Rating
|
Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score |
| Balance | 20% | 3 | .6 | 4 | .8 | 4 | .8 | 3 | .6 | 3 | .6 | 4 | .8 |
| Minimal
Blockage |
15% | 4 | .6 | 4 | .6 | 4 | .6 | 2 | .3 | 3 | .45 | 3 | .45 |
| Center of
Gravity Location |
20% | 2 | .4 | 2 | .4 | 3 | .6 | 3 | .6 | 2 | .4 | 4 | .8 |
| Maintenance | 5% | 3 | .15 | 3 | .15 | 2 | .1 | 3 | .15 | 4 | .2 | 2 | .1 |
| Durability | 15% | 3 | .45 | 2 | .3 | 2 | .3 | 2 | .3 | 3 | .45 | 3 | .45 |
| Cost | 10% | 5 | .5 | 1 | .1 | 3 | .3 | 3 | .3 | 2 | .2 | 2 | .2 |
| Environmental | 15% | 2 | .3 | 3 | .45 | 3 | .45 | 4 | .6 | 4 | .6 | 4 | .6 |
| Total Score | 2.55 | 2.8 | 3.15 | 2.85 | 2.9 | 3.4 | |||||||
| Continue? | No | No | No | No | No | Develop | |||||||
The reference AEV that we used ran an average run. The turn was done in a fairly balanced manner, though there could have been a better turn with a better design. The propellers were far apart and undeterred by the other parts of the AEV, allowing to perform fully. One drawback for the reference AEV was the center of gravity. On the track, it was clear that the center of gravity was off because the way the AEV tilted. When it came to running the code, everything went smoothly. All parts of the code were run correctly.
In comparison to the reference AEV, design 1 had better turns and a more environmental design. However the cost of the design and the durability are not as good as the reference. The future of this design is that it will be incorporated into the final design. Design 2 had a better center of gravity and better balance. The maintenance of the AEV, as well as the cost and durability are of lower quality than the reference. Aspects of this design will incorporated into the final design. Design 3 was a more limited design that lacked more than the first 2. The cons of this design are the balance, the blocking of the propellers,it’s lack of durability and the cost of the design. It only has the the center of gravity as a better aspect. Because of the shortcomings of this design, it will not be incorporated into the final design. Design 4 was also subpar when compared to the reference AEV. The main cons that it has is are unbalanced turns, high amounts of blockage for the propellers and a higher cost to create. The pros for it the are center of gravity and environmental. However, due to the setbacks in this design, it will not be taken any further. The overall design is a fairly even design. The pros for this design the environmental aspects of it, it’s good center of gravity, and the balanced turns that it makes. The cons for this design are the blockage it has for the propeller, it’s high maintenance build, and the cost of the parts. This design will be the basis for all the future and final designs.
Below are pictures of the AEV design tested during the lab:
Team Meeting Notes
Meeting 5
Date: 18-Feb-2017
Time: 1:00-3:00 PM
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 324
Members Present: Omar Mahboob, Xander Riggio, Matthew Spishakoff (Eric Fogle online)
Method: Face to Face
Meeting Objectives: Work on Week 5 Progress Report, Assign Roles for Extra Credit Video, Finish PDR Presentation Worksheet, Update Project Portfolio.
Roles for Meeting 5:
O Eric: Week 5 Situation, Week 5 Results and Analysis
o Omar: Forwards Looking Plan, PDR Presentation Worksheet
o Xander: Appendices, Proofreading and Final Submission
o Matthew: Adding Concept Screening and Scoring Spreadsheets, Additional Questions
Tasks Completed in Previous Meeting:
o Eric: Forwards Looking Plan and Project Portfolio
o Omar: Data Graphing, Results and Analysis
o Xander: Arduino Code, Week 4 Reflections, Proofreading and Final Submission
o Matthew: Team Meeting Notes, Week 4 Situation