During this lab, the group presented a status update about the AEV project to other groups and a TA. A slide show was shown with the team members giving an overview and introduction of the project, explain some of the key lessons that the team learned over the past 6 weeks, highlighted what the team wanted to focus on, and what was going to be accomplished in future weeks.
Our team also watched 4 other groups present their findings over the same project. This helped our group see where other groups are finding successes where we were struggling. In observing other approaches to the project, the group gained information that will likely help the upcoming testing phases for the team’s final AEV design. For instance, the group saw that many other groups had designed their AEVs in a way that would allow for easier travel in both the forward and backward directions, and per the MCR the AEV will need to do both in its final test. The group is now looking into tweaking its own design so that its AEV will be able to optimize multi directional travel in a similar way.
One of the things our group focused on in our presentation was making our AEV lighter. One of the biggest things we have been struggling with is making a lighter design. The most recent design that was tested did not have a good weight distribution, causing it to lose balance easily on the track. By decreasing the weight, the AEV will be able to move faster with less power, which means the AEV design will be more efficient. The newest design that will be tested will be a re-imagined design on the previous Alpine Swift design. This design will have curved wings on both sides of the AEV, which allow aerodynamic efficiency moving in both forward and reverse directions.
Below is the concept scoring spreadsheet of the sample reference AEV, the current design and the expected outcome from the two AEV designs that the team will create for the upcoming lab. Below are Lab 05’s sample scoring spreadsheet and scoring matrix as well as the new updated version for the expected sample scoring spreadsheet and scoring matrix for our new (and current) designs.
Table 1: Sample Scoring Spreadsheet for each team member’s individual design (Lab 05)
| 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 |
Table 2: Sample Concept Scoring Matrix for each team member’s individual design (Lab 05)
| 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 |
Table 3: Sample Scoring Spreadsheet for expected results of the two new designs, compared with the current design and the reference AEV
| Success Criteria
|
Reference AEV | Current Design | New Design #1 (lightweight) | New Design #2 (balance) |
| Balance
|
0 | + | + | + |
| Mass
|
0 | – | + | 0 |
| Center of Gravity
|
0 | – | + | + |
| Aesthetics
|
0 | + | – | + |
| Durability
|
0 | + | + | + |
| Environmental
|
0 | – | + | + |
| Cost
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sum +’s
|
0 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Sum 0’s
|
7 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Sum -’s
|
0 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Net Score | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 |
| Continue? | No | No | TBD | TBD |
Table 4: Sample Scoring Matrix for the expected results of the two new designs, compared with the current design and reference AEV
| Reference AEV | Current Design | New Design #1 (lightweight) | New Design #2 (balance) | ||||||
| Criteria
|
Weight | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score | Rating | Score |
| Balance
|
25% | 3 | 0.75 | 5 | 1.25 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1.25 |
| Mass
|
25% | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 5 | 1.25 | 4 | 1 |
| Aesthetics
|
10% | 3 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.5 |
| Durability
|
5% | 3 | 0.15 | 4 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.15 |
| Environmental
|
10% | 2 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.3 |
| Cost
|
5% | 5 | 0.25 | 5 | 0.25 | 5 | 0.25 | 5 | 0.25 |
| Total Score
|
0 | 3.05 | 3.2 | 4.05 | 4.45 | ||||
| Continue? | No | No | TBD | TBD | |||||
Takeaways
- AEV- The group will improve its AEV design so that multi directional travel is more efficient.
- AEV- Improving the code so that the AEV is able to move 19 feet, stop, pick up the Astromech and travel back to the gate, as per the MCR.
- General- The group will continue to implement its current work schedule, completing reports and working on the project portfolio on weekends.
- The group will, for as long as necessary, begin meeting during the week to work on and complete the final design for the AEV.