⚙ Progress Report #2 ⚙
Backwards Looking Plan
Situation:
Group N of Baker International decided to do the Coasting vs. Power Braking guided experiment to begin advanced research and development. This decision was based on the team’s interest in using the Servo as an alternate braking option. In order to decide whether or not to continue with Servo research, the engineers needed to compare the braking results of the coasting function call and the brake function call. The coasting option calls on the brake command, and power braking calls the reverse command and changes the polarity of the motors. The engineers began by constructing code to test coasting as a braking method. This code can be found in the appendix under AEVCoast. The engineers had to run the code through multiple times to find a good acceleration power and time to test the braking and called this stage of research pre-testing. They determined the average voltage required to coast was around 546 EEPROM counts. Following the coasting testing, the engineers programmed the power braking code, found in the appendix under AEVPowerBraking. Since the engineers were familiar with how to best code braking, the pre-test process went quickly and they were able to create an effective code and test power braking in one work period. The engineers were dissatisfied with braking results from both labs and planned to explore using the Servo as an alternate braking method. However, the opportunity for a grant arose and the engineers identified another solution to poor AEV braking and proposed the idea to a committee. This proposed idea was a motorized wheel that rested in the groove of the track wheels. The engineers received the grant and sent the wheel design in for 3D printing. They also assembled an arm to hold the motor in place on the AEV. Since the wheel had to be created, the engineers needed a way to run tests on the propellor system powered AEV that would still be applicable to the wheel powered AEV. Keeping this in mind, they proceeded with testing by doing the Energy Analysis Lab. In the Energy Analysis testing, the engineers used a sample code, listed in the Arduino Code section of the appendix under EnergyAnalysis. This testing was guided using an Excel spreadsheet that calculated the propellor force and friction force upon input of traveled marks and the AEV weight. They then checked that the wheel sensor system was working correctly, and produced graphs of distance vs. time and speed vs. time of the AEV test runs using Matlab. The engineers collected this data so they could run these tests again using the motorized wheel and compare the friction force, the wheel force, and the distance and speed graphs. This will allow the engineers to decide if the wheel is efficient enough to move forward with. If not, they will return to using the propellor system for propulsion.
Results and Analysis:
The engineers gained valuable information from testing braking methods. For the first successful run of coasting, the AEV traveled from inch 200 to 81, and the motors cut off at inch 139. The mean of standard deviation for the coasting trials was 59.33 inches. Running with power braking, the engineers adapted the original code and reversed the polarity of the motors, instead of allowing coasting. This test started at inch 200 and ran to 107, with the reverse command switching the motor direction at inch 136. The mean of standard deviation for the power braking trials was 30.16 inches. To review data from all 3 runs of each type of braking, refer to the appendix section titled Power Braking vs. Coasting Tables. CASEY PUT POWER INFO HERE Although the power braking method clearly worked better, improving the coasting distance by roughly 30 inches, it was still not stopping the AEV fast enough. The engineers determined that neither braking method was efficient enough to use alone for the AEV. The vehicle was still traveling too far after the motors cut off and after the reverse command was implemented. Following the braking lab, the team proposed the idea for the motorized wheel and began identifying the potential problems they would encounter. This is addressed in the next section of the report, since no results have been collected yet. After deciding to use a motorized wheel, the team continued with propellor testing, using the Energy Analysis Lab as a way of collecting data to perform alternative propulsion testing. The engineers will compare this data to data collected using the wheel instead of the class set of data. During this lab, the engineers confirmed that the wheel count system was working correctly, collecting marks errors of 2, 1, and 2 marks for trial 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The friction force of the AEV was on average 169.6 gmf and the propellor force was on average 173.1 gmf. These results will be compared to the results of the wheel trials of the Energy Analysis lab when the engineers are able to test the wheel.
Takeaways:
- The engineers will need to perform the Energy Analysis Lab on the wheel-propulsion AEV, compare this data with the propellor-powered AEV, and choose a design to continue with.
- One problem the engineers may encounter with the wheel is the diameter of the spindle is only 1mm, and the 3D printer cannot create a feature smaller than ⅛ of an inch. To combat this, the engineers created the hole in the wheel to be ¼ of an inch and plan to fill it in with something similar to hot glue to fit the motor.
- Another possible problem the engineers could encounter with the wheel is poor traction of the plastic-on-plastic wheels. To combat this, this engineers plan to use hot glue dots on the wheel or a rubber band around the wheel for better grip.
- Another possible problem the engineers may encounter with the wheel is the RPM of the motor. It is very high because it is generally used for propellers. The engineers may need to find a new motor or just use the lowest power setting.
- The engineers will use power braking if the wheel does not work and return to the original propellor configuration.
- The engineers should do more pre-testing preparation in order to use lab time efficiently.
Forwards Looking Plan
Situation:
Looking forward, the team plans to conduct performance tests of the AEV in a real world setting. Several challenges that the engineers will face are being able to load the AEV with the caboose properly, move the AEV across an elevation change safely, and effectively brake for and pass through a gate on the railway. At the end of the performance testing phase, the engineers intend to have a strong understanding of how to program the AEV to accomplish the variety of tasks they will be challenged with during the final AEV run. This knowledge combined with an efficient and well-constructed AEV should yield to a better method of transportation for the city of Columbus.
For Performance Test 1, the team of engineers will focus on the overall design of the AEV. This will be done by comparing and contrasting possible AEV designs. For Group N of Baker International, they will be finalizing their design by choosing whether or not to use the motorized wheel or the propellor system. In Performance Test 2, the team will focus on the Arduino code for the chosen AEV design. The team will do this by analyzing two sets of code and selecting which code would be best for meeting the project objectives. They have already decided to use power braking, so they intend to test how effectively the reverse command is being used by their AEV and refine the code. In Performance Test 3, the team of engineers will focus on energy optimization of the chosen AEV design with the chosen Arduino code. This will be done by testing small variations to optimize energy efficiency. The team should have a good understanding of this by referencing the data collected from Energy Analysis Lab in AR&D. Finally, in Lab 11, the team will perform Performance Test 4. This performance test will be the final testing of the AEV design, code, and energy optimization. The goal of this performance test is to provide a fully functional AEV that meets all criteria in the MCR.
Smart Goals:
- By the end of March 9th, the engineers need to establish the system of propulsion for the AEV system. After testing the 3D printed wheel via energy analysis and comparing it to the energy use of the propellor-powered system, this shall be determined.
- By the end of March 19th, an arduino code needs to be established for the chosen AEV design, as determined by the previous lab.
- By March 28th, the team shall know how to optimize the system’s energy efficiency, and lead towards finalizing the combination of the AEV’s setup that does this best.
- By April 4th, the team shall finalize the AEV design, code, and the system’s energy optimization and prepare for final testing.
Weekly Schedule:
| Task | Teammates | Start Date | Due Date | Time Needed |
| Lab 09a | All | 3/9/2018 | 3/9/2018 | 40 min. |
| CDR Draft | All | 3/9/2018 | 3/23/2018 | 3 hrs. |
| Progress Report 3 | All | 3/9/2018 | 4/4/2018 | 8 hrs. |
| Lab 09b | All | 3/19/2018 | 3/19/2018 | 40 min. |
| Lab 09c | All | 3/21/2018 | 3/21/2018 | 40 min. |
| Lab 10a | All | 3/23/2018 | 3/23/2018 | 60 min. |
| Lab 10b | All | 3/26/2018 | 3/26/2018 | 40 min. |
| Lab 10c | All | 3/28/2018 | 3/28/2018 | 40 min. |
| Lab 11a and Committee Meeting 2 | All | 3/29/2018 | 3/29/2018 | 50 min. |
| Lab 11b | All | 3/30/2018 | 3/30/2018 | 40 min. |
| Lab 11c | All | 4/4/2018 | 4/4/2018 | 40 min. |
Appendix
Team Meeting Minutes
Date: 2/9/18
Time: 8:00 am
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Casey Komar, Alex Bowie
Topics Discussed:
- How to place the arduino on the arm
- How to construct a nose for the AEV that increases stability and aerodynamics
- The difference in coding between coasting and power braking
- How to make use of the Servo for braking
- Whether to power brake in terms of time or distance
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
In order to decide whether or not to continue with Servo research, the engineers needed to compare the braking results of the coasting function call and the brake function call. The coasting option calls on the brake command, and power braking calls the reverse command and changes the polarity of the motors.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Construct a nose for the AEV the engineers began building
- Code a program for the Arduino using the “brake” function call to test coasting as a braking method
- Code a program for the Arduino using the “reverse” command to test power braking as a braking method
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- Test code using distance commands rather than time next lab period
- Balance the weight of the AEV before putting it on the track again
- Begin Grant proposal on Monday
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- The motors need to run at a high power but for a short amount of time to test braking
- The engineers need to add weight to the left side of the AEV to balance it out and improve stability
Date: 2/14/18
Time: 8:00 am
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Casey Komar, Alex Bowie
Topics Discussed:
- Motorized wheel
- How to construct an alternate braking method
- The difference in converting marks to distance for our smaller wheel
- Grant proposal
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
The engineers needed to decide what to present for the grant proposal on Friday.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Come up with an idea for the grant proposal
- Suggest an alternate braking method
- Make our design fully defined and dimensioned on solidworks
- Make a list of pros/cons for the design we will propose
- Build an arm for the motor and wheel
- Make a powerpoint for proposal
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- Grant proposal: A MOTORIZED WHEEL
- Instead of placing the wheel on the track, press it against one of the track wheels
- Try to make the wheel out of rubber
- Divide the speaking for the grant proposal between all 4 engineers
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- The engineers need to add weight to the left side of the AEV to balance it out and improve stability
- The wheel will need to fit snugly in the indentation of the track wheel, but not so much as to cause resistance
- The motor arm must have good track clearance and not be a safety hazard
Date: 2/16/18
Time: 8:00 am
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Casey Komar, Alex Bowie
Topics Discussed:
- Motorized wheel
- How to construct an alternate braking method
- The difference in converting marks to distance for our smaller wheel
- How to make use of the Servo for braking if we do not get Grant
- Grant proposal
- Committee meeting: problems we have faced
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
The engineers felt torn between needing to continue testing with more aR&D labs and waiting to move forward until the results of the grant proposal were received. It would drastically change the process of experimentation moving forward.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Finish building the motor arm
- Finish the power braking versus coasting lab
- Begin battery test
- Balance the weight of the AEV
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- Test battery and other part of the AEV project that are not dependent on the propulsion or braking method
- Balance the weight of the AEV before putting it on the track again
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- The engineers need to add weight to the left side of the AEV to balance it out and improve stability
- We need better communication with group A and group C (Baker International)
Date: 2/22/18
Time: 4:00PM
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Casey Komar, Alex Bowie
Topics Discussed:
- Future plans for AR&D
- Process of 3D printing the wheel part using the grant money
- Issues that could arise when using the wheel driven AEV
- Commands that will be needed to test the wheel driven AEV once the wheel is 3D printed
- Oral presentation
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Develop a plan of action for the last AR&D lab period to be as productive as possible.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Discuss the braking lab of AR&D to prepare for lab
- Assemble the AEV in the propeller configuration preparation for class
- Gather a list of unforeseen issues that could arise by using the improved wheel driven AEV rather than the propeller driven AEV and figure out ways to solve those issues
- Develop a rough draft of the code that we will use to test the wheel driven AEV
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- The team will proceed with AR&D as if propellers were being used to propel the AEV. This is due to both the fact that the team will need to have a functional backup plan in case the wheel system fails and the wheel system has not been 3D printed.
- The team will proceed to finish the power braking and the track variance labs.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- The team is much more prepared for the upcoming lab period.
- The team decided that we need to be prepared for all situations when it comes to the AEV. We will need to be able to produce a functioning AEV in the event of a wheel design failure.
- The team needs to ask the staff if it is possible to come into the lab for testing outside of class.
Date: 2/23/18
Time: 8:00AM
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Casey Komar, Alex Bowie
Topics Discussed:
- How to proceed with AR&D final testing opportunity without the wheel
- Issues that could arise when using the wheel driven AEV
- Empirical data we could gather on propellers to later test with the wheel
- How to adapt Energy Analysis Lab to fit our Alternative Propulsion open-ended lab
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Finish 2 AR&D labs and have collected data in excel from Matlab for both using the data analysis tool
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Run the last three power braking trials and record using data analysis tool
- Pick our wheel up if 3D printing is finished
- Gather a list of unforeseen issues that could arise by using the improved wheel driven AEV rather than the propeller driven AEV and figure out ways to solve those issues
- Run energy analysis lab to gather information on the propellor propulsion system to later compare to the wheel as a propulsion system
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- The team will proceed with AR&D propellers to power the AEV movement, but still plan to proceed using the wheel. This is due to both the fact that the team will need to have a functional backup plan in case the wheel system fails and the wheel system has not been 3D printed.
- The team will proceed to finish the power braking lab and then complete the energy analysis lab
- The team will use the energy analysis lab as a platform for the alternative propulsion lab
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- After putting in a lot of time to the power braking vs. coasting lab, the last few trials went smoothly and the team was able to come to a conclusion on which technique they would use for braking (power braking)
- The team reiterated that we need to be prepared for all situations when it comes to the AEV. We will need to be able to produce a functioning AEV in the event of a wheel design failure, which was our reasoning for continuing testing with the propellor system
- The team needs to analyze data collected from both labs and compare it with data collected when the wheel is tested
Date: 2/27/18
Time: 5:20 PM (Extra Lab)
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Alex Bowie
Topics Discussed:
- How to proceed with AR&D final testing opportunity without the wheel
- Issues that could arise when using the wheel driven AEV
- Empirical data we could gather on propellers to later test with the wheel
- How to adapt Energy Analysis Lab to fit our Alternative Propulsion open-ended lab
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Finish 2 AR&D labs and have collected data in excel from Matlab for both using the data analysis tool
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Run the last three power braking trials and record using data analysis tool
- Pick our wheel up if 3D printing is finished
- Gather a list of unforeseen issues that could arise by using the improved wheel driven AEV rather than the propeller driven AEV and figure out ways to solve those issues
- Run energy analysis lab to gather information on the propellor propulsion system to later compare to the wheel as a propulsion system
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- The team will proceed with AR&D propellers to power the AEV movement, but still plan to proceed using the wheel. This is due to both the fact that the team will need to have a functional backup plan in case the wheel system fails and the wheel system has not been 3D printed.
- The team will proceed to finish the power braking lab and then complete the energy analysis lab
- The team will use the energy analysis lab as a platform for the alternative propulsion lab
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- After putting in a lot of time to the power braking vs. coasting lab, the last few trials went smoothly and the team was able to come to a conclusion on which technique they would use for braking (power braking)
- The team reiterated that we need to be prepared for all situations when it comes to the AEV. We will need to be able to produce a functioning AEV in the event of a wheel design failure, which was our reasoning for continuing testing with the propellor system
- The team needs to analyze data collected from both labs and compare it with data collected when the wheel is tested
Date: 3/2/18
Time: 8:00AM
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Alex Bowie, Casey Komar
Topics Discussed:
- Oral presentation and its contents– aR&D research and findings, lab data from Power vs. Coasting and Energy Analysis lab, performance testing plans
- 3D-Wheel implementation for future testing
- Structure of the current AEV design
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Present our findings and research from aR&D to other teams tackling the AEV project, and inform them on our progress in doing so. We also need to be able to answer questions from our peers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- After organizing data from the Power Braking vs. Coasting lab as well as the Energy Analysis lab, discuss data with committee members and five other teams from varying companies working on the AEV
- Preview the plan for performance testing in the future and how current development of the AEV will have a role in that — specifically how the 3D-printed wheel will be implemented in testing
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- The Energy Analysis lab was to be used as a comparison for how the team believes the 3D wheel would have performed (hypothetically, since testing wasn’t able to be done)
- The motor currently being used to power our AEV might have too great of a RPM for the 3D-printed wheel
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- From oral presentation: Project coordinators recommended using an alternate motor source to power the wheel — the current propellor motor has a lot of power behind it and the wheel may rotate too fast.
- A potential new motor could come from one with slower rotation and power (such as the motor from a small, remote control car).
- With performance testing coming up, we should be meeting before every lab period to prepare code and design so we do not waste testing time in lab pulling together details
Date: 3/8/18
Time: 4:00PM
Members Present: Flo Piotrkowski, Joseph Blust, Alex Bowie, Casey Komar
Topics Discussed:
- Progress Report 2
- Future lab plans
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Objective:
Reflect on the aR&D oral presentation, and further establish plans for performance testing. Complete and submit the second progress report.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To do/Action items:
- Complete Progress Report 2
- Complete forward and backward looking plans
- Update team meeting minutes and arduino code
- Answer progress report questions for each of the labs
- Upload corresponding graphs from aR&D labs
- Plan for and read material for the performance testing lab
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Decisions:
- Construct the AEV as much as possible before lab on 3/9/18, specifically the arm of the AEV
- Research and brainstorming needs to be done on other potential motors for the AEV
_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
- Updating the Progress Report along the way is significantly more efficient than trying to complete it all at once
- Testing of the wheel on the AEV should be done as soon as possible, allowing time to find another motor if need be
Arduino Code:
AEVCoast
//Reverse motor polarity
reverse(4);
//accelerate motors from 0% to 20% over two seconds
celerate(4,0,50,2);
//run at 50% for approximately 5 feet
motorSpeed(4,50);
goToRelativePosition(123.08);
//brake all motors
brake(4);
AEVPowerBraking
//Reverse motor polarity
reverse(4);
//accelerate motors from 0% to 20% over two seconds
celerate(4,0,50,2);
//run at 50% for approximately 5 feet
motorSpeed(4,50);
goToRelativePostition(123.08);
//reverse all motors
reverse(4);
//Backwards thrust
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(1);
//brake all motors
brake(4);
EnergyAnalysis
//run all motors at 30% for 4 seconds
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(4);
//run all motors at 0% for 10 seconds
motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(10);
Power Braking vs. Coasting Tables:
Coasting:
| Starting Mark | Motor Cut-Off Mark | Stop Mark | Coasting Distance
(MCO Mark – Stop Mark) |
| 200 | 139 | 81 | 58 |
| 200 | 141 | 81 | 60 |
| 200 | 145 | 85 | 60 |
Power Braking:
| Starting Mark | Motor Reverse Mark | Stop Mark | Coasting Distance
(Reverse Mark – Stop Mark) |
| 200 | 136 | 107 | 29 |
| 200 | 139.5 | 110 | 29.5 |
| 200 | 140 | 108 | 32 |
Power Braking vs. Coasting EEPROM graphs
Graph 01: Power vs. Time
Graph 02: Current vs. Time
Note: The first graph was created using MatLab, whereas the second graph was created in excel. This was a result of an error in the technology that prevented the coasting data from being downloaded as MatLab-friendly file, and instead downloaded the data into excel.
Table 01: Energy Analysis Lab Forces Data
| ENERGY ANALYSIS FORCES | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | Trial 3 |
| Marks Error | 2 marks | 1 mark | 2 marks |
| Friction Force | 175.7 gmf | 169.5 gmf | 163.6 gmf |
| Propeller Force | 179.2 gmf | 173.0 gmf | 167.0 gmf |
Energy Analysis Graph Data:
Graph 03: Trial 1 Distance vs. Time
Graph 04: Trial 1 Speed vs. Time
Graph 05: Trial 2 Distance vs. Time
Graph 06: Trial 2 Speed vs. Time
Trial 3: Distance vs. Time
Trial 3: Speed vs. Time