Concept Screening & Scoring
The purpose of this lab is to become familiar with techniques for decision making, with a structured method to screen and score design concepts, and perform concept screening and scoring methods with AEV design concepts using the sample AEV as a baseline reference. Include details of what was done here.
Deliverables
Concept Screening Spreadsheet
The concept screening spreadsheet is a quick method to eliminate ideas. A ‘0’ means that the design is equal in comparison to the reference AEV, the ‘+’ means that the design is better than the reference AEV, and the ‘-‘ means that the design is worse in compassion to the reference AEV.
Concept Scoring Spreadsheet
The concept scoring spreadsheet is used to provide a more detailed definition of concepts and help define the final project. It also helps create and or refine the importance of the “selection criteria” within the final design.
Description of each success criteria
Safety(20%): A safe AEV is very important for the people riding the AEV.
Cost(20%): Cost efficiency is important due to the company’s goal to reduce the amount of needed materials and stay well within the given reference capital cost($162,760)
Balance(15%): A balanced AEV is important to help with with AEV safety for the passengers on board. An unbalanced AEV could cause the passengers and or the AEV itself fall off the track.
Weight/Energy Efficiency(15%): A lighter AEV will require less energy to move it across the track therefore making it more energy efficient.
Durability(10%): A durable AEV design is import concerning the safety of the passengers on board and helping the stability of the AEV when making stops on the track.
Design/ Aerodynamics(15%): An aerodynamic design will help the AEV move across the track requiring less energy.
Creativity(5%): A creative and well designed AEV will help bring costumers to ride it therefore making the company money.
Pros and Cons of Each Design
*each one was not tested so this is based off of looks and theory, they will be tested next lab and updated*
Jesse’s Design-
Jesse’s design scored a 3.3 out of 5 on the concept scoring spreadsheet which is .3 better than the reference design which scored a 3 (shown above in concept scoring spreadsheet). The areas in which her design was better than the reference AEV was in safety, by one point, durability, by one point, design/aerodynamics, by one point, and creativity, by one point. Her safety and durability is ranked better than the sample AEV because her design seemed to be more compact and had a better space of where the passengers could sit on the 2.5″x7.5″ rectangle by moving the location of the arduino. Her design also gained points within design/aerodynamics and creativity by adding a curved piece to the front of the AEV in order to cut the wind better than the sample AEV. Her design however did worse in cost, by one point, and tied in the categories of balance, weight/energy efficiency. Her design was ranked worse in cost due to the added curved piece of the front of the AEV causing the cost to rise. Since we did not get to test it, it may not make that much of a difference therefore inefficiently using money. Her AEV tied in balance and weight/energy efficiency because her design was closely related to the sample AEV which had poor balance and efficiency ranking a 2 out of 5.
Malik’s Design-
Mailik’s design scored 3.15 out 5 on the concept scoring spreadsheet which is .15 better than the reference design which scored a 3(shown above in the concept scoring spreadsheet). The areas in which his design is better than the reference AEV was in balance, by one point, durability, by one point, and creativity by 2 points. His balance and durability was ranked better than the sample AEV because his design seemed to have more weight on the other side of the arduino in relation to the wheels on the track in order to balance out the arduino giving the passengers more safety and durability. His design also had more points in the creativity section because he used a unique shape for the body structure. His design however did worst than the reference design in cost,by one point, due to his switch to the x-shape arm for the body structure boosting the cost. His AEV tied in the categories of safety, weight/energy efficiency, and design/aerodynamics. This is because his design has the same amount of room for the passengers as the reference AEV, has generally the same weight, and his design is also not very aerodynamic causing him to receive the same score as the reference AEV in these categories.
Group Design-
The group design scored a 3.5 out of 5 on the concept scoring spreadsheet which is .5 better than the reference deign which scored a 3(shown above in the concept scoring spreadsheet). The areas in which the group design is better than the reference AEV was in the categories of safety, by one point, balance, by one point, weight/energy efficiency, by one point, design/aerodynamics, by one point, and creativity, by one point. The groups AEV was ranked better in safety due to moving the arduino making more room for the passengers increasing safety, balance due to the rearrangement of pieces making the AEV not lean as much to the right such as the reference AEV, weight/energy efficiency and design/aerodynamics due to the rearrangement of the pieces making the AEV move more easily on the track increasing the energy efficiency. The group design however did worse in the category of cost than the reference AEV because the addition of extra screws on the group design causes the price of the to increase. The group AEV tied with the reference AEV in the category of durability since the group design looks similar to the reference AEV in durability.
AEV Concepts
The two AEV concepts being carried forward in the design cycle are motor quantity and energy analysis. The engineers want to focus on these areas in order to make sure that they can get the AEV to move down the track efficiently and with enough power. When testing the sample AEV in lab 4 the AEV did not move very much and this will be a problem when adding the passengers which could lead to failure of the AEV moving across the track.
Updated Concept Screening and Scoring sheet with Final AEV Design 2/28/18
Concept Scoring Spreadsheet
Concept Screening Spreadsheet
The final design scored a 4.35 out of 5 on the concept scoring spreadsheet which is 1.35 better than the reference design which scored a 3(shown above in concept scoring spreadsheet). The final design exceeded the reference design in the design categories including, safety, by two points, balance, by three points, weight/energy efficiency, by one point, durability, by one point, design/aerodynamics, by one point, and creativity, by one point. The final design tied the reference design in cost and did not do worse than the reference design in any category. The final design AEV ranked better in safety due to the increased balance of the new design by moving the battery to the left, weight/energy efficiency due to the balancing of the AEV leading to more efficient power output of the motors, durability due to the AEV’s decrease in swaying on the track, design/aerodynamics due to the switch of the rectangular base to the x-base and the placement of the right trapezoids on the wings to increase lift, and creativity due to the unique look of the AEV. The final AEV design tied in score with the initial group design because the only switch the group made in terms of pieces used on the AEV was the rectangular base to the x-base which both cost $2.00. Due to the final design scoring so much better than the reference design, group design, and Jesse’s design, moving forward the group decided to continue with the final AEV design as the design to complete all the performance tests, and the final task.