Backward Summary:
Situation:
Group A has moved onto performance testing of created designs from R&D labs. The first thing the team did was decide on the design that that should perform the best based off the findings from the aR&D labs. Previously the team concluded that having one motor pushing was the most efficient and using MDF material as the body was most efficient. The team did not implement the MDF body material as its thickness caused the team to be unable to attach all necessary parts because not enough screws were long enough to go through and tighten securely on the other side. Regarding the motors the team needed to come up with a solution to keeping the AEV from having to pull with its motors on the way back due to its inefficiency. The group decided to implement two motors on each side of the AEV facing opposite directions hanging down that would run one at a time. This design was chosen because in the motor testing in aR&D the two motors attached on wings to the side had balancing issues. By hanging the motors down the AEV balances much better. The second motor was included to make sure a motor was always pushing the design which is more efficient. It was also believed the extra weight of the second motor might act like the MDF materials weight, but it is unsure whether this is true.
To confirm the team’s conclusions the team spent the first day of performance testing, testing three different designs on the same code on the straight track to see which would use the least energy. The current design was determined to be the most efficient (Appendix A, Figure 4). The next day the team spent running the design on the official track to develop a code that could complete the first performance test by moving forward and stopping at the gate, waiting seven seconds, then passing through the gate. On the third day after some refinement and ensuring the runs were consistent the team completed performance test one. The next week the team started developing code for performance test two. The team had troubles with inconsistencies between test runs on the second day and was unable to make any progress. On the third day the inconsistencies stopped, and the team is unsure what could have been causing issues. On this day the team also completed performance test two.
Results and Analysis:
For the design decision testing the team tested three different designs to decide what design the team should go forward with. The team tested a one motor design, a two motor design on side wings, and a two motor design with wings hanging down. The two motor hanging down design was the most efficient using 63.330 J while the other designs used more (Appendix A, Figure 3).
Figure 3: AEV motor configuration energy consumption
From the performance test 1, the AEV only needed to stop for 7 second right before the gate and cross the gate before picking up the caboose. Based on the graph shown (Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2), the AEV consumes a ton of energy from the first stop right before the gate, it takes around 30 Joule from starting to stop at the first gate. Afterwards, the power was increased to 70% and the energy started to spike even more. Even though, the team had taken advantage of the slope right before on the way picking up the caboose, there are still a lot of energy was consumed during the process.
Figure 1. Performance Test 1 Data
Meanwhile in the performance test 2, the code program had been altered due to the different track that was being used during the data was recorded. The AEV started with 50% percent on the first motor and then stop right before the gate and stops for 7.5 seconds. Afterwards, the energy spikes more than the original energy even though the power was only increased by 2% margin. Next, after it moved to position that had already been set, the AEV would stop again for another 8 seconds before the power increased to 65%. In this position, the energy was consumed in much higher rate (Appendix A, Figure 1).
Figure 2. Performance Test 2 Data
Based on the result, the team concluded that every time the AEV stopped for any situations, it would need much more energy for the AEV to consume to start the motor, hence increase the energy total. As a result, the more power used, the more energy necessary for the AEV to move. Also, the two motor hanging down was the most efficient configuration for the AEV.
Takeaways:
Team A was able to implement the results they got from previous aR&D labs to perform the performance test 1 and 2. The team learned that two different codes, one for upstairs and downstairs are crucial for code development as the tracks are surprisingly different and caused large variations of where the AEV would stop. The team decided to create two programs that would be effective in both rooms which would reduce time developing code since it wouldn’t have to be retested and changed each lab. After numerous trial and error on the track, the team had also found another factor that could affect the AEV’s performance. Based off from the human eye and the implementation of the same code, when the battery was low on charge the AEV’s motor(s) had a slower push rate which caused error in the run on the tracks. After further tweaking and adjustments the team traded out another battery. With the same code that had error with the low battery, the new battery was a success of completing the track the way the team wanted it.
Forward Summary:
Situation:
Moving forward the team is finishing up the project and doing performance test 3. The team would like a few things to be completed before the group will be confident and satisfied the AEV before testing. First the team will need to complete the code that will run the AEV for performance test 3 through testing to complete the mission. After the code is completed the group wants to see if any minor AEV design changes will improve energy efficiency. A few things the team will test are battery placement and support arm placement on the body by shifting it up or down so the AEV height from track to bottom is shorter. The energy data collected from runs will help the team determine what is more efficient compared to the current design. After any design changes are made the team will refine the code in attempts to make it more efficient. The team wants to test how varying the power the motor runs at while reducing the distance it runs will affect energy consumption. Another way the team wants to minimize energy consumptions by maximizing coasting distance before breaking. The team wants test varying powers and distance run for to see if a certain power percentage is more efficient or if the time the motors run outweighs the rates of energy consumption. By maximizing coasting distance before braking the power break can run at lower power for less time to stop the AEV hence reducing energy consumption. By comparing collected energy data, the team will be able to choose the most efficient code and utilize the new code. After the team has completed these steps the team will do performance test 3. After performance test 3 the team will work on compiling all data and results into a full report and presentation to present the evolution and process of the teams AEV design to the class.
Upcoming Goals:
The final goal is to perfect everything for the final run and testing. After the team gets everything thing situated on the program to run the whole track and meet the requirements, they will start adjusting any part of the AEV to lower the energy consumption as much as possible. Those adjustments can range from the code or the design of the AEV. Once the team find if those adjustments made any improvements, the next step is to do the final test and work on the oral presentation of the AEV design. However, the team is deciding on whether to do the presentation or join the poster competition for representing the AEV.
Upcoming Schedule:
| Task | Start | Finish | Due Date | Est Time | Chris | Will | Sean | Hadi |
| Complete final performance test | 03/30/18 | 04/13/18 | 04/13/18 | 20 hrs | 5 hrs | 5 hrs | 5 hrs | 5 hrs |
| Develop complete code | 03/30/18 | 04/13/18 | 04/13/18 | 5 hrs | 1.25 hrs | 1.25 hrs | 1.25 hrs | 1.25 hrs |
| Refine completed code | 03/30/18 | 04/13/18 | 04/13/18 | 10 hrs | 2.5 hrs | 2.5 hrs | 2.5 hrs | 2.5 hrs |
| Decide, test, and implement design changes | 03/30/18 | 04/13/18 | 04/13/18 | 5 hrs | 1.25 hrs | 1.25 hrs | 1.25 hrs | 1.25 hrs |
| Final Oral Presentation | 03/30/18 | 04/17/18 | 04/17/18 | 9 hrs | 2.25 hrs | 2.25 hrs | 2.25 hrs | 2.25 hrs |
| Final oral presentation draft | 03/30/18 | 04/09/18 | 04/09/18 | 6 hrs | 1.5 hrs | 1.5 hrs | 1.5 hrs | 1.5 hrs |
| Revise final oral presentation draft | 04/09/18 | 04/17/18 | 04/17/18 | 3 hrs | 0.75 hrs | 0.75 hrs | 0.75 hrs | 0.75 hrs |
| Finish Final CDR | 03/30/18 | 04/20/18 | 04/20/18 | 8 hrs | 2 hrs | 2 hrs | 2 hrs | 2 hrs |
| Finalize Website | 03/30/18 | 04/20/18 | 04/20/18 | 14 hrs | ||||
| Update codes, meeting minutes, and documents | 03/30/18 | 04/20/18 | 04/20/18 | 4 hrs | 1 hr | 1 hr | 1 hr | 1 hr |
| Develop AEV sales pitch section | 03/30/18 | 04/20/18 | 04/20/18 | 4 hrs | 1 hr | 1 hr | 1 hr | 1 hr |
| Develop evolution of design section | 03/30/18 | 04/20/18 | 04/20/18 | 6 hrs | 1.5 hrs | 1.5 hrs | 1.5 hrs | 1.5 hrs |
Appendix A:
Figures and Graphs:
Figure 1. Performance Test 1 Data
Figure 2. Performance Test 2 Data
Figure 3: AEV motor configuration energy consumption
Figure 4: Current AEV Design
Appendix B:
Arduino Code:
Performance Test 1
//reverse motor 1
reverse(1);
//set the motor speed at 50% power
motorSpeed(1,50);
// set the position of markers to 194
goToAbsolutePosition(194);
//shut off power to motor 1
brake(1);
//reverse motor 2 at marker 318 at 50% for 0.5 secs
reverse(2);
goToAbsolutePosition(318);
motorSpeed(2,50);
goFor(0.5);
//stop power to all motors
brake(4);
//stops at gate for 7.5 secs
goFor(7.5);
//set motor speed at 70%
motorSpeed(1,70);
//go for 3 sec
goFor(3);
Performance Test 2&3
//reverse motor 1
reverse(1);
//set the motor speed at 50% power
motorSpeed(1,50);
// set the position of markers to 194
goToAbsolutePosition(194);
//shut off power to motor 1
brake(1);
//reverse motor 2 at marker 318 at 50% for 0.5 secs
reverse(2);
//set position to 310
goToAbsolutePosition(310);
//motor speed at 60%
motorSpeed(2,60);
goFor(0.5);
//stop power to all motors
brake(4);
//stops at gate for 7.5 secs
goFor(7.5);
//set motor speed at 52%
motorSpeed(1,52);
//set the motor to 385 markers
goToAbsolutePosition(385);
//stop power to all motors
brake(4);
//shuts power to all motors at marker 580
goToAbsolutePosition(580);
//go for 8 secs
goFor(8);
//going back to gate
// motor 2 at 65%
motorSpeed(2,65);
// set marker to 430
goToAbsolutePosition(430);
brake(2);
goToAbsolutePosition(375);
// motor 1 at 70%
motorSpeed(1,70);
goFor(0.75);
brake(4);
goFor(7);
//going back to start
motorSpeed(2,75);
goToAbsolutePosition(280);
brake(4);
goToAbsolutePosition(75);
motorSpeed(1,70);
goFor(0.75);
brake(4);
Going to Gate room 324
//reverse motor
reverse(1);
//set motor 1 power at 50%
motorSpeed(1,50);
//Set it to go to position marker 187
goToAbsolutePosition(194);
//stop motor 1
brake(1);
//reverse motor 2
reverse(2);
//Set position marker 317
goToAbsolutePosition(310);
//set motor speed at 40%
motorSpeed(2,60);
// continue the 40% for 0.5 seconds
goFor(0.5);
//stop all motors
brake(4);
//stop all motors for 7.5 sec
goFor(7.5);
//set motor 1 for 25 % power
motorSpeed(1,52);
goToAbsolutePosition(385);
brake(4);
goToAbsolutePosition(580);
goFor(8);
//going back to gate
motorSpeed(2,65);
goToAbsolutePosition(430);
brake(2);
goToAbsolutePosition(375);
motorSpeed(1,70);
goFor(0.75);
brake(4);
goFor(8);
Going back to Start room 324
//reverse motor
reverse(1);
//set motor 1 power at 50%
motorSpeed(1,50);
//Set it to go to position marker 187
goToAbsolutePosition(194);
//stop motor 1
brake(1);
//reverse motor 2
reverse(2);
//Set position marker 317
goToAbsolutePosition(310);
//set motor speed at 40%
motorSpeed(2,60);
// continue the 40% for 0.5 seconds
goFor(0.5);
//stop all motors
brake(4);
//stop all motors for 7.5 sec
goFor(7.5);
//set motor 1 for 25 % power
motorSpeed(1,52);
goToAbsolutePosition(385);
brake(4);
goToAbsolutePosition(580);
goFor(8);
//going back to gate
motorSpeed(2,65);
goToAbsolutePosition(430);
brake(2);
goToAbsolutePosition(375);
motorSpeed(1,70);
goFor(0.75);
brake(4);
goFor(7);
//going back to start
motorSpeed(2,75);
goToAbsolutePosition(280);
brake(4);
goToAbsolutePosition(75);
motorSpeed(1,70);
goFor(0.75);
brake(4);
Appendix C:
Meeting notes:
Meeting #1
Date: 27-Jan-2018
Time: 5:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Post Lab 1
Objectives:
The main focus of the meeting was to get a good understanding of what was required for the AEV project. The group wanted to just touch base with each other in person and get to know everyone for the project. As discussed during the meeting, the website will be set up and tasks will be given out to whomever who wants to complete a task.
To do/Action Items:
-Work on website design
-Find who will complete each section
Decisions:
-The group decided that, Will would create the skeleton of the website, Chris and Hadi will work on the Executive Summary, and Sean will work on the MCR summary.
Reflections:
The group needed to get more familiar with how the website functions and is set up. Group A will continue with construction in between labs.
Meeting #2
Date: 03-Feb-2018
Time: 12:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Post Lab 2
Objectives:
To get an understanding of the Arduino Code, assemble the AEV prototype, and figure out what needs to be updated for the website.
To do/Action Items:
-Run through functions for Arduino Code
-Assemble prototype AEV
-Update Website
Decisions:
-Chris and Hadi will assemble AEV
-Sean will work with William on Arduino Code
-Whole team with collaborate on the website
Reflections:
At first it was a little difficult to get the Arduino running since we first tried to download the software with a mac. After switching computers, it went a lot smoother. The AEV was assembled as much as the group could during class, but majority was done outside out class. Now the group must start brainstorming on what our teams unique AEV design will be.
Meeting #3
Date: 06-Feb-2018
Time: 3:30 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Post Lab 3&5
Objectives:
The focus of today is to get all the concept drawings finalized and formatted properly. In order to finish lab 5, the group needed to complete the concept screening. In order to know what exactly needs to go into the progress report, the group assigned tasks to each one of the team members. Also adding any additional information to the website.
To do/Action Items:
-Finish Sketches
-Perform Concept Screening
-Update website
-Assign tasks to finish Progress report
Decisions:
-Hadi will work on section 5 for the progress report, and create the template in Excel
-Chris will work on submitting all the documentation of our sketches and progress photos
-William will work on the Arduino Code part of the report
-Sean will complete section 2 for the progress report and cover note taking.
Reflections:
While confused on what to do for the progress report, the group had the drawings done and finalized. As a group we will keep better records of each step of the AEV construction process, which will cause it to be much easier in creating future reports.
Meeting #4
Date: 14-Feb-2018
Time: 8:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Committee meeting
Objectives:
The main focus of this meeting was to get everything we have worked on together and ready to discuss and present. The team also covered some concept ideas and discussed possible future work for the project.
To do/Action Items:
-Gain compete understanding of what we will discuss at the Committee Meeting
Decisions:
-Chris and Will: these team members will be representing R&D
-Sean: he is representing HR
-Hadi: he is representing PR
Reflections:
The team has a great handle on the project and everyone knows and is executing their assigned tasks. Some that was more of a side note to the meeting, but still important to the overall project, was Chris’s design of the Servo motor mounding piece, the whole team agrees it will be a great addition to the final design.
Meeting #5
Date: 25-Feb-2018
Time: 8:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean McLaughlin
Topic: Presentation, motor configuration, and material choice
Objectives:
The main focus of this meeting was to get an idea of how the team wanted to address the presentation for the next lab. This also included deciding which base material and which motor configuration the group would continue with.
To do/Action Items:
-Gain compete understanding of what we will discuss at the Presentation
-Who will cover which topics
-Make final decision on what the materials and motor set up will be
Decisions:
-Chris and Will: Covering the motor configuration tests ran in the Advanced R&D
-Sean and Hadi: Covering the material testing ran in the Advanced R&D
-The team has reviewed the data collected from the analysis tool in MATLAB, and the combination of the MDF body and two motors will produce the most efficient AEV, and is the design the group will be moving forward with
Reflections:
The team meeting was very productive. An almost complete design has been decided on and each member is satisfied with the results. The main problem, which has been a running issue, is finding more time to be able to perform test runs. The next step is discovering how to get the AEV to travel accurate distances and stop when needed. This will be address at the next lab.
Meeting #6
Date: 05-March-2018
Time: 6:30 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Covering second progress report. Discuss next step in development. Make final decision on motor configuration.
Objectives:
Today the team will determine what still needs to be completed for the progress report and dividing tasks. A final decision on the motor configuration needs to be reached, one motor or two. Figure out what will be attempted in next lab, so the team can arrive prepared.
To do/Action items:
-Finish project report two
-Start to address getting the AEV to stop in an effective manner
-Deciding on a final motor configuration (addressing the data collected)
-Decide code that will be run during lab, so testing can begin upon arrival
Decisions:
The team will move forward with the two-motor design discussed in previous reports, because while the two-motor does use more energy per meter, it will better suit the added weight of the passengers, plus one motor will be turned around to give the AEV adequate power on the travel back from destination. William is going to write the code for the AEV before next lab period. The team will submit the drawing for the servo mount tomorrow, so it can be 3D printed. Minor adjustments need to be made for progress report (e.g. tables and figures), Chris will add these in before Thursday of this week.
Reflections:
Team A has made good progress on the AEV, moving one step closer to a finished product. The extra lab time in the upcoming weeks will be a big benefit, because the design ideas can be tested, and therefore finalized, much quicker. Once the servo mount is printed and the vehicle can be stopped reliably, the last step will be creating a fully functioning code.
Meeting #7
Date: 09-March-2018
Time: 6:30 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Preparation for the performance test 1 and braking system
Objectives:
The team will determine how to approach the task of stopping at an exact location. Decide whether to continue using the propellers to stop the vehicle, or spend the extra time and money figuring out how to use the servo motor to create a brake. Decisions should be made on these topic before the next lab time in order to maximize testing time.
To do/Action items:
-Finalize breaking method.
-Address spending limits and time management.
-Have an at least an outline of a performance code.
Decisions:
Team A will proceed with using the propellers to stop the AEV. This was discussed in depth, however, after looking at the time required to get the need braking arm constructed and the cost to the company, the added benefit didn’t outweigh the draw backs. The first performance test is coming up soon and the company cannot afford to wait that long for something that might not work. Also, the current process of braking the AEV has been working well and energy usage is low, so the new brake isn’t priority. A rough calculation of the distance to the first gate was determined, and a code has been outlined to get there. Fine tuning the code, to maximize energy used, will have to be performed in lab.
Reflection:
Progress has been good, the team is working at a proper pace, and is slightly ahead of schedule. As each lab period passes, the team is getting more comfortable with the code, allowing for more tests to be run. This is great considering there is a limited amount of time allowed under the current budget. Everyone is happy with the base design and moving forward the focus can be on trying to get the energy consumption as low as possible.
Meeting #8
Date: 15-March-2018
Time: 8:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Performance Test One, CDR Draft
Objectives:
Touch base on what will be accomplished in the next lab. Discuss possible sources of error in the performance of the AEV. Work out any flaws in the code, and make sure the code for the upstairs lab is separate from the code run on the downstairs track. Look over the data collected from previous runs, to discuss improvement. Discuss CDR draft and work out a time line to start and complete.
To do/Action items:
–Assign tasks for each team member to complete for the CDR draft
-Refine code to complete performance test 1
-Figure out all up coming due dates and deadlines
Decisions:
The team has decided to run a code that provides a high energy boost to the AEV initially and allow the AEV to coast as long as possible. From the analysis tool, it seems on average this method consumes the least amount of power. It was also decided to go with the code that is consistent and will complete the first test, and worry about streamlining the code until after the AEV had pass its test. Two separate files have been created to hold different codes for the two lab rooms. Using the same code on both tracks doesn’t work, the results are not consistent, and therefore it was necessary to do. Finally, the group will divide the CDR into two sections, having two team members assigned to each half.
Reflection:
While the team has been getting better at forming code to execute different objectives, materials themselves seem to varying performances. The team doesn’t know if it is the motor, battery, or Arduino that is causing inconsistent results. Some labs the same code will work perfectly for half time period, then will suddenly start missing its marks and not travel at the right speeds. This will be something to look into when time allows.
Meeting #9
Date: 25-March-2018
Time: 7:00 pm (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Chris Wagner, Hadi Saputra, Will Nguyen, and Sean Mclaughlin
Topic: Performance Test 2
Objectives:
The team has successfully created a code that will get the AEV to and through the first gate. The next step is to get the AEV to travel down the first loading port and connect with the caboose that will be holding the passengers. The team needs to figure out how to get to this location and connect with the caboose smoothly, entering the loading dock too fast will cause damage to both objects and possibly not form a connection. Once the AEV and caboose are secured, there is a minimum loading time that has to be met. The step after that is handled in another performance test.
To do/Action items:
-Determine time after leaving gate one that the motor should be shut off.
-Decide whether to power brake before reaching the caboose or try and allow the AEV to just coast till the connection.
-Figure out if the speed leaving the loading station should be gradual or if it is better to run the motors similar to the initial start.
Decisions:
The distance to shut of the motors after passing through the gate, was determined to be somewhere around 300 marks. This will allow the AEV to reach the slope and use momentum to travel the rest of the distance to the loading dock. Using a power brake consumes a lot of energy, the team will attempt allowing the AEV to coast all the way to the point where it connects with the caboose. This method has worked well so far and is saving the company a lot of money. Finally, the consensus is to supply a short high energy burst to the motors when leaving the loading station, and power it long enough to reach the gate. In past trails, slowly increasing power has proven to consume more energy.
Reflection:
The team is well prepared for the performance test 2. Sometime will be taken at the beginning of lab to implement the adjustments made, but after that the AEV will be ready for testing. Moving forward the team will need to develop the code to complete the whole track, however this shouldn’t be too difficult since most of the distances and code has been developed already. Hopefully there will be time before the final performance test to make further adjustments to the code. While the code currently being used is working well, Team A is striving to produce the most efficient AEV in the company. Any extra time allowed will be used to focus on that, however the main priority is developing a code that successfully runs the whole track, and any further changes will be extra.