Concept Screening and Scoring

Upon completing the scenario code in Preliminary Lab 4, we tested the code on the test track. When we tested the AEV, only one propeller moved, thus the AEV did not move along the track at all. The reason only one propeller moved was because one of the wires connecting the propeller to the control board was disconnected and we were unable to reattach it with the time we were provided in lab. When the AEV was on the track, it was not balanced. The bottom of the AEV leaned to the left. This lack of balance was caused by the position of the battery under the AEV. To make the AEV more balanced in the future, we will 3D print weights to add to the AEV.

Concept Screening Spreadsheet

Concept Scoring Spreadsheet

For screening and scoring our AEVs, we chose eight criteria that play an important role in the success of the AEV. The criteria are: stability, minimal blockage, maintenance, durability, safety, weight, aerodynamics, and cost.

  • Stability – How balanced the AEV would be on the track during a test run.
  • Minimal Blockage –  The ability of the AEV to move freely along the track without being blocked by parts of the AEV.
  • Maintenance – How much maintenance/repair is needed in between runs of the AEV.
  • Durability – The overall strength of the AEV and its ability to withstand a possible collision.
  • Safety – How safe the AEV would be for passengers on a larger scale.
  • Weight – How lightweight the AEV is when travelling on the track.
  • Aerodynamics – The speed of the AEV along the track due to minimal drag force.
  • Cost – How inexpensive all parts of the AEV are when put together.

The Concept Screening Spreadsheet gives each design a whole number based on how well it meets each specific criteria. The sample AEV was given a score of zero for every criteria as a baseline.

The Concept Scoring Spreadsheet uses the numbers provided in the screening spreadsheet and multiplies them by the weight that each criteria is given. The higher the percentage weight a criteria is, the more important our group believes it is towards the AEV’s success. The scoring spreadsheet lists the weighted score for each criteria for every design. At the bottom of the spreadsheet, the total weighted score is listed as well as our decision as to whether we will continue forward with the design or not.

 

Pros and Cons

Alec’s Design

Pros Cons
1. This AEV is a more stable design than the sample AEV due to the weight distribution. It’s a smaller, more compact design that allows for it to be sturdy. 1. The battery and arduino are placed on the top of the AEV, while the motors are placed on the bottom, so there is a chance of the wires not connecting or of them getting tangled. But the sample AEV is connected the same way so there was no improvement between the two.
2. This AEV, due to it’s more compact size weighs less than the sample. And using our screening guide it received a 2 versus a 0, which none of the other designs received. 2. Because this AEV and the sample AEV have similar necessary components such as the battery, the arm and the wheels, the motors, etc. The same maintenance is necessary for both this design and the sample.
3. This design is not just compact, it’s also slimmer than the sample. And the way that the front of the AEV is situated, it’s able to cut through the air more efficiently. 3. This AEV as said previously, is using similar components and the way they must connect to each other is also similar. The durability of the AEV is relatively the same.
4. Because this design is smaller and uses only the necessary pieces, it is more cost efficient than the reference AEV. 4. The safety parameters are the most important because this product is holding people on board. With that in mind, this design has no improvements to make the passengers more safe than the sample AEV.

 

Payton’s Design

Pros Cons
1. This AEV is a more stable design than the sample AEV due to the weight distribution. It’s a slightly smaller, but the wingspan is large to allow for the weight to be evenly spread out throughout the AEV. 1. As well as Alec’s, the battery and arduino are placed on the top of the AEV, while the motors are placed on the bottom, so there is a chance of the wires not connecting or of them getting tangled. But the sample AEV is connected the same way so there was no improvement between the two.
2. This AEV only has the necessary components applied to this design and therefore it weighs less than the sample AEV. Weight is a important component because it will dictate how much power needs to be supplied for it to propel forwards. 2. Because this AEV and the sample AEV have similar necessary components such as the battery, the arm and the wheels, the motors, etc. The same maintenance is necessary for both this design and the sample. This setup is also the same for 4 of the individual designs.
3. Similar to Alec’s design, the way that the front of the AEV is situated, it’s able to cut through the air more efficiently. The sample AEV does not have a front piece to shield the other components. The aerodynamics of the vehicle are more sound than the sample. 3. This AEV as said previously, is using similar components and the way they must connect to each other is also similar. The durability of the AEV is relatively the same.
4. Because this design is slightly smaller and uses only the necessary pieces, it is more cost efficient than the reference AEV. Less pieces, less items to cost. 4. The safety parameters are the most important because this product is holding people on board. With that in mind, this design has no improvements to make the passengers more safe than the sample AEV.

 

Billy’s Design

Pros Cons
1. This AEV is more stable than the sample AEV because it is much smaller than the sample. Because of that, all of the components are compact within the vehicle and must be placed strategically and balance is key. 1. As well as Alec’s, the battery and arduino are placed on the top of the AEV, while the motors are placed on the bottom, so there is a chance of the wires not connecting or of them getting tangled. But the sample AEV is connected the same way so there was no improvement between the two.
2. Because of the vehicles small size, the weight compared to the sample is a huge difference. And weight is a key component to allow for optimal functionality. 2. Because this AEV and the sample AEV have similar necessary components such as the battery, the arm and the wheels, the motors, etc. The same maintenance is necessary for both this design and the sample. This setup is also the same for 4 of the individual designs.
3. This design is the most aerodynamic of all of the designs due to the front piece allowing for the AEV to cut through the air very smoothly and the fact that it is lightweight. These two factors make it one of the reason’s it’s a team favorite. 3. This AEV as said previously, is using similar components and the way they must connect to each other is also similar. The durability of the AEV is relatively the same.
4.  Because this design is smaller and uses only the necessary pieces, it is more cost efficient than the reference AEV. There is very little space to add extra pieces that would drive the cost up. 4. The safety parameters are the most important because this product is holding people on board. With that in mind, this design has no improvements to make the passengers more safe than the sample AEV.

 

Mia’s Design

Pros Cons
1. This AEV is a more stable design than the sample AEV due to the weight distribution. It’s a slightly smaller, but the wingspan is large to allow for the weight to be evenly spread out throughout the AEV. Similar to Payton’s design. 1. As well as Alec’s, the battery and arduino are placed on the top of the AEV, while the motors are placed on the bottom, so there is a chance of the wires not connecting or of them getting tangled. But the sample AEV is connected the same way so there was no improvement between the two.
2. The safety parameters are the most important because this product is holding people on board. With that in mind, this design has an encapsulated component that allows for cargo to be held efficiently. It is the only design to do so. 2. Because this AEV and the sample AEV have similar necessary components such as the battery, the arm and the wheels, the motors, etc. The same maintenance is necessary for both this design and the sample. This setup is also the same for 4 of the individual designs.
3. This AEV only has the necessary components applied to this design and therefore it weighs less than the sample AEV. Weight is a important component because it will dictate how much power needs to be supplied for it to propel forwards. 3. This AEV as said previously, is using similar components and the way they must connect to each other is also similar. The durability of the AEV is relatively the same.
4. Because this design is slightly smaller and uses only the necessary pieces, it is more cost efficient than the reference AEV. Less pieces, less items to cost. 4. Due to this design’s encapsulated component, it is less aerodynamic because it is a clunky piece that doesn’t allow for the AEV to really cut through the air. This part of the AEV hinders its performance but allows for the AEV to be more safe for the passengers.

 

Group Design

Pros Cons
1. This AEV is more stable than the sample AEV because it is much smaller than the sample. The choice of the T-shaped base allows for a slimmer, sleeker design. Because of that, all of the components are compact within the vehicle and must be placed strategically and balance is key. 1. Because this AEV and the sample AEV have similar necessary components such as the battery, the arm and the wheels, the motors, etc. The same maintenance is necessary for both this design and the sample. This setup is also the same for 4 of the individual designs.
2. The arduino, the battery and the motors are strategically placed on the bottom so that the wires are placed underneath the AEV so there is less chance of tangling. There are only two wires that travel from the bottom to the top, but in a neat path to the sensors. This allows for minimal blockage of the other components, unlike the sample AEV. 2. The safety parameters are the most important because this product is holding people on board. With that in mind, this design has no improvements to make the passengers more safe than the sample AEV. The team might want to rethink about how to make this design more safe.
3. Because the orientation of each component is strategically placed, this design is more durable than the sample. Each piece has a purpose and is placed on very securely. 3. Due to the x-wings, there is added weight that is not on the other designs for the AEV. Though it helps with the aerodynamics of the AEV, it adds extra cost due to the extra pieces that were not accounted for in the others. There are gives and takes between designs.
4. Due to the slimmer design and the T-shaped arm. The weight of the AEV is much lighter than the sample AEV. And weight is a key component to allow for optimal functionality.
5. Because the front of the AEV is only the L arm that’s holding the sensors, it allows for the AEV to be more aerodynamic than the other designs. The side wings that are the “X-wings” allows for when the AEV is in reverse to also be aerodynamic. Also due to its weight it allows for the AEV to propel forward with less issues.

With all of these pros and cons in mind, the team has decided to move forward with Bill’s design and the group design that was created together. Looking at the concept scoring spreadsheet, it is obvious that safety of the AEV is the most important to the final product. This product needs to be able to safely take passengers between Linden and Polaris. These two designs need improvements in these areas and will be reconsidered moving forward. But, aerodynamics, stability, durability and cost all have equal importance to the team. These two designs both do better in stability and aerodynamics than the sample AEV. But Billy’s design was more cost efficient due to its size. And the group design had a higher rating for durability, which makes basically even in those 4 categories. The idea change that makes the group AEV better than Billy’s is due to the minimal blockage of putting the battery, the control system, and the motors underneath the AEV. Both ideas should be combined together or at least the same ideas should be incorporated in the next design modification.