Concept Design Review

Submitted to:

Instructor: Richard Busick

Graduate Teaching Assistant:Amena Shermadou

Created by:

Team F

Jack Wagner

Ryan Stuckey

Bob Olson

Michael Seidle

Engineering 1182

The Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

Spring Semester 2018

Abstract

The purpose of this project is to research, design, build, and test a working Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV) to provide a new and efficient method transportation for the city of Columbus from a grant they received. Watts Scientific was given this project and commissioned group F to work on this project to develop a ground-breaking transportation system for the city. The team wishes to develop a safe and efficient transportation system through the city for its everyday people.

This system operates by moving back and forth on a monorail track that is occupied by a vehicle that moves by wind propulsion. This vehicle is the AEV which team is tasked to develop. The first step in the development process were a series of preliminary research and design labs to get a feel for the operation of the AEV. In this first set of labs the team learned how to work with the micro controller system which is called Arduino. This is how the team would program and control the vehicles motors and braking system. The team also worked with the materials that would be used in building the AEV and how they can be assembled to alter size and stability. Next, they worked with sensor which could track distance traveled by the AEV so that the AEV could stop and go at need locations more precisely. After working with the vanilla design, the team members individually created designs that were hashed out by screening and scoring methods. These series of labs helped guide the team’s focus for the next phase of advanced research and design with the AEV.

The Advanced Research and Design labs the team choose focused on Energy efficiency and Power Braking Research and Development. These labs helped the team focus on areas they felt would be beneficial in the design and operation of their AEV. The Energy lab took data from test runs preformed in lab with the AEV to analyze data to maximize energy efficiency during operation. The Power Braking and Research and Development lab was one the team developed itself in creating a custom brake arm using CAD design that would help stop the AEV more precisely at desired location. To perform these tests the team used computer software called SolidWorks, MATLAB, and Arduino to collect and analyze data. Next, the team was ready testing it designs.

In the team’s performance testing phase, the team took its designs and put them through a series of tests that simulated its actual operation. The team tested using two designs including one with a brake arm and the other without a brake arm using power braking and coasting. The team developed programs and performed multiple test runs. From these tests the team analyzed the designs performances and choose a design they felt most confident in to proceed in development with for the project’s final stages.

Throughout the duration of this project the Watts Scientific group has successful researched, designed, and tested a working AEV that they feel is ready for full operation. It was found that with the brake arm a higher level of consistency can be applied to multiple runs and will be applied to our final design. The AEV meets the team’s goals in maximizing safety, efficiency, and stability. The city of Columbus now has access to a great asset and president for future transportation systems and design.

Introduction

In 2016, the city of Columbus was awarded a $50 million grant from the United States Department of Transportation and from Vulcan Incorporated. With this grant, Columbus aims to improve the logistics and transportation of both people and goods in Linden, an area of Columbus that has isolated by Interstate 71. People residing in Linden do not have access to employment as well as basic goods and services. Watts Scientific was given the task of developing a transportation that pushed the limits of technology. The development of this new transportation method, or Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV), was split between three divisions, F, L, and J, within Watts Scientific who would independently research and develop a vehicle.

The final Advanced Energy Vehicle will run without human control, be powered by electricity, and move from stop to stop on a monorail. Alongside fulfilling these requirements, the AEV must be leading the way in safety, efficiency, and reliability. In order to lead the way in safety, the AEV will include sensors and backup plans for if something were to fail. This ensured that there were multiple “nets” in place to ensure that any malfunctions could be caught and would not cause damage to the vehicle or injury to its passengers or bystanders. The AEV also aims to lead the way in efficiency in several ways. The first way it does this is by running on electricity, meaning it produces no emissions and runs off of a renewable energy source. The second way it is efficient is by traveling on the monorail. The monorail provides a low friction surface, meaning the AEV will lose less energy to friction. Finally, the AEV is reliable because it will be tweaked and refined based on several phases of research and development and it will be built with the highest quality parts. By ensuring that the final AEV is safe, efficient, and reliable, Columbus will be leading the way in public transportation.

Several stages of research and development will test each individual design aspect of the AEV. Five preliminary labs were carried out in order to become familiar with the basic components that would be utilized to construct the AEV and the operation of these components. After this, two labs were carried out to research individual aspects of the AEV. All of the findings in the research and development would then contribute to some characteristic of the final AEV.

Experimental Methodology

There were two main stages of research and development. The first stage consisted of five labs that familiarized the team with the components that would be used to build the AEV. The first lab, Programming Basics, introduced the team to programming the Arduino Nano, the microcontroller that would automate the movement of the AEV. Here, the programming interface was setup; the Arduino Integrated Development Editor consist of libraries of pre-defined functions. When the team is programming the AEV, it is done using simple, easy to understand function calls, meaning little to no prior experience in computer programming is required (See Table 1below). In the lab, the team tested the motors and experiment with various functions to see how the motors would react to different functions (See Program 1in Appendix A). The two motors were placed in a Y-shaped motor stand (See Figure 1below). This was a necessity to learn as it is what allows the AEV to run and, without this knowledge, the goals of the project could not be reached.

Function Call	Description
motorSpeed(m,p);	Will set the motors, m, to percent power, p; m is either the motor number or 4 for all motors
celerate(m, p1, p2,t);	Will change speed of motors, m, from percent power, p1,to percent power, p2, over time of t seconds
goFor(t);	Will keep the program at the previously initialized state for time, t seconds
brake(m);	Will stop selected motors, m, from spinning
reverse(m);	Will reverse the spin direction of the selected motors, m
goToAbsolutePosition(n);	Will keep the program at the previously initialized state until it has moved a selected number of marks, n, from where it started at the beginning of the program
goToRelativePosition(n);	Will keep the program at the previously initialized stated until it has moved a selected number of marks, n, from where it was previously at

Table 1:A list of the predefined functions used to control the AEV

Figure 1:The motor stand used to test the functionality of each motor and experiment with various program functions

The second lab, External Sensors, involved testing the reflectance sensors and setting them up to be used to measure the distance that the AEV traveled. The reflective sensors allow the AEV to detect where it’s at on the track, meaning it can use this to control the flow of the program. In order to test the reflectance sensors, the team built a base AEV from a provided design (See Figure 2 below and Figure 3 in Appendix A). A program was then written that ran the motors until the AEV had traveled a certain distance (See Program 2 in Appendix A). With this project, the team gained insight as to how to use the reflectance sensors in the final AEV program.

Figure 2: The reflective sensors attached to the AEV so they can be used to sense distance and location

The third lab, Creative Design Thinking, involved each team member creating an AEV design that would meet the specifications and goals set forth by the Smart City Grant Staff. Each team member designed an AEV concept design (See Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 in Appendix A). After the designs were created, they were evaluated using concept screening and scoring, which was done in the fifth lab.

In the fourth lab, Design Analysis Tool, the team downloaded and installed the Design Analysis Tool, a MATLAB add-in application that can be used to gather data from programs executed with the AEV. This data includes measurements such as energy and distance. This was an important part of research and develop, as it allowed the team to collect raw data and turn it into visual data that could then be used to determine how to refine the AEV design and program. In order to get acquainted with the Design Analysis Tool, the team created a program (See Program 2 in Appendix A) from which they would collect data. The data was then presented in a Power vs. Time chart (See Figure 8 below) and a Power vs. Distance chart (See Figure 9 below).

Figure 8: The Power vs. Time graph collected in lab 4 when using the Design Analysis Tool

Figure 9: The Power vs. Distance graph collected in lab 4 when using the Design Analysis Tool

In the final lab, Concept Screening and Scoring, of preliminary research and development, the team carried out the process of concept screening and scoring on each AEV design created in lab three. Each process used a scoring matrix to rate the design and compare them against each other. These processes were used to determine which AEV designs to continue research and developing. Each method rated several categories of the AEV; these categories were chosen by the team based on what they thought was important in reaching the final goal. The five categories chosen were efficiency, weight, cost, stability, and design. The process of Design Screening (See Table 2 in Appendix A) involves comparing several chosen characteristics the proposed design against a base design (See Figure 3 in Appendix A). The other scoring method, Design Scoring (See Table 3 in Appendix A), involves assigning a weight to each category based on how important that category is; each category is then given a score and the scores are then added up. The AEV design with the highest score is then, in theory, the design that has the maximum potential.

After preliminary research and development was completed, the team continued on with two stages of advanced research and development. The goal of advanced research and development was to collect data that was pertinent to the goals and specifications of the AEV design choices. The first stage involved evaluating the energy used by the AEV in motion. This was done with the Design Analysis Tool; the data collected included run time, distance travelled, and energy used. This data was then used to calculate various forces involved in the operation of the AEV, including propeller forces and frictional forces. The team could then use this collected data to make refinements to the AEV and determine how various factors will affect the performance and energy used by the AEV. Before beginning, the team had to test that the reflectance sensors were reading distance correctly using the function reflectanceSensorTest(). After this, a program was created (See Program 3 in Appendix A) that would be used to analyze the energy used by the AEV. After several calculations via an Excel spreadsheet, the team was able to determine frictional force and propeller force (See Table 4, Figure 10, Figure 11 in Appendix A).

The second stage of advanced research and development was researching the possibility of using the servo motor to make a power brake. Currently, in order to stop, the AEV has to coast or reverse the propellers. Neither method of stopping is extremely precise, and in order to provide the safest, most reliable method of transportation, the operation of the AEV had to precise and deliberative. By adding on the power brake, the AEV could now move and do its job with precision. The brake was created in SolidWorks and then added to a SolidWorks assembly of the AEV to determine where and how it would be placed. Many versions were created, with each one improving on efficiency, reliability, and functionality. The first version of the brake arm was attached to the servo, which was mounted on the side of the support arm (See Figure 12). However, this added unnecessary weight to the AEV. This led to the creation of a new support arm (See Figure 13 in Appendix A), which now had a slot cut in it to mount the servo motor. Because the location of the servo motor changed, the brake arm also needed to be redesigned (See Figure 14 below). The final design for the brake arm and support arm were completed and sent in to be produced (See Figure15 in Appendix A). After the parts are produced and assembled to the AEV, they will be tested in order determine how to control the brake arm and whether or not it met the goal of power braking.

Figure 12:The original support arm was attached to the servo motor which was mounted on the side of the support arm

Figure 14: The final version of the brake arm, modified from the original to increase efficiency and functionality

After the various stages of research and development were completed, the team began carrying out various performance tests. The ultimate goal of the performance test was to complete the goals outlined in the Mission Concept Review. In order to achieve the final goal efficiently, the testing was split into three different tests, with each one building on the previous test. The first test, Performance Test I, required that the AEV reached the center gate. The center gate would open after the AEV sat there for seven seconds. After the gate opened, the AEV had to go through to complete the performance test. As long as the AEV did this accurately and safely, it would receive the best score possible. One of the biggest problems the team faced when completing this test was getting the AEV to consistently stop in the same spot. Because the brake arm and its necessary components were not produced yet, the AEV relied on propeller braking to stop (See Figure 16 and Program 4 in Appendix A). This could cause variations in the stopping place as battery charge level and other factors changed. Eventually, though, the performance test was completed with a perfect score. After the brake arm and its components were installed on the AEV, Performance Test I was done with the second design (See Figure 17 in Appendix A). In each run with the two different designs, the energy consumption from the AEV was compared (See Figure 18 and Figure 19 in Appendix A). While the first design consumed less energy than the second design, it was not quite as accurate and precise from run to run as the second design was.

Adding on to Performance Test I was Performance Test II. In Performance Test II, the AEV, to achieve a perfect score, had to move to the end of the track and hook up to the caboose. After waiting there for five seconds, it then had to pull out and progress back towards its starting position. Instead of testing two separate designs, the team instead tested two different programs. The first program focused on completing the test accurately and consistently (See Program 5 in Appendix A). The second program focused on completing the test using minimal energy (See Program 6 in Appendix A). The data recorded during each run was then loaded into the MATLAB Data Analysis Tool; the two separate runs were then compared in terms of whether they completed the goal and how much energy they consumed (See Figure 20 and Figure 21 in Appendix A). Unexpectedly, the second program was both more energy efficient and consistent than the first program. This would ultimately be the program that was built upon to complete the final performance test.

In the Final Performance Test, the AEV had to complete Performance Tests I and II and then return back to its starting location with the caboose still attached. The Final Performance Test would be scored based on how accurately and safely the AEV completes the test, how much energy is used, and how long the AEV takes to complete the test. By evaluating the data gathered from the various designs in Performance Test I and from the various programs used in Performance Test II, the team created a final design and program that maximized efficiency, safety, and reliability. The final program used can be seen in Program 7 in Appendix A.

Results

The two designs drafted by Division F of Watt Scientific were carefully drafted to out preform and to become more energy efficient than the designs of other teams. After many trials, screening and scoring tests, the designs came to fruition. Differing only by the way they utilize braking mechanics: design one using coasting and power breaking methods, and design two making use of a 3D printed brake arm to stop itself using friction. Both designs are constructed with a base that is aerodynamically sound, two triangular wings extending below the AEV to house each motor, and an L-shaped support arm that hangs the AEV from the monorail, for design two this is where the servo is attached and the arm extends to the rail from. Both designs are shown below.

Figure 16: The first design used in performance testing. This design relied on braking by reversing the direction of the propellers.

Figure 17: The second design of the AEV tested in Performance Test I. This design relied on braking via the 3D printed brake arm.

Out of the PR&D labs and screening and scoring labs two designs came out on top from the rest of the initial concepts. However, since the team won the grant proposal, the idea of using the money for researching and engineering a brake arm for one of the designs with the intention of making it extremely versatile and over preforming was more tempting than developing two lack luster designs. So, one of the winning designs was scrapped in favor of advancing with two similar designs having different braking mechanics, so that the team would be able to find the most optimal method. Below are both the screening and scoring tables.

Table 2: The results generated when analyzing each design via a screening matrix

The way screening matrices work allowed for two designs to tie and overall was not a very effective method for finding the best design, since it did not include what qualities deemed more important in a perfect AEV model.

Table 3: The results generated when analyzing each design via a scoring matrix

The flaw that the screening matrix had was resolved with a scoring matrix. It allowed the team to weigh certain elements greater than others to give more distinctive and descriptive results, leading the team to choose a design with that scored well in the most important areas.

The results of performance test one was not to the caliber that the team had hoped for. Only design one was able to be tested, since the 3D printed brake arm had not been manufactured during the time of testing and neither was the laser cut support arm to house the servo for design two. The team plans to get testing done on design two, so that the team can get full results and the best design can move forward, after comparing the two. Design one did pass performance test one on a single attempt, however it took multiple practice runs to find the correct code to use with the power braking design. And in every run, the AEV seemed to vary within a couple of inches of where it would stop before the gate. On the performance test run, the AEV barely tripped the first sensor, stopping almost too soon.

After the brake arm was printed, it could be implemented onto the AEV and be used in Performance Testing. After the program was modified to utilize the brake arm, the AEV performed runs more consistently and stopped in the same place almost every time. After comparing the data and the performance of each design in Performance Test I, the team moved to go forward with the design using the break arm. The brake arm came to play a key role in the AEV’s completion of the final goal.

The initial costs of each AEV design are very similar only differing with the addition of design two’s 3D printed brake arm. Design one is expected to cost $166,350 in capital alone and design two’s capital cost will be $6,131.44 more for a grand total of $172,481.44. So, if the benefits outweigh the costs of the brake arm, the team might choose to move forward with design two over design one even though it may be cheaper.

After completing the Final Performance Test, the total cost of the entire project was calculated. It was split into five different categories: energy costs, time costs, capital costs, research and development (R&D) costs, and safety violations. The energy costs was based off of the amount of energy used in the final run; there was a baseline fee of $125,000 and then each additional Joule of energy used costs $500. The AEV used 196.2 Joules of energy, resulting in a cost of $223,076.50. The time cost had a baseline fee of $90,000 and a cost of $1,500 per each second of run time. The AEV completed the test in 50.06 seconds, resulting in a final cost of $165,090. If the AEV ran the test inaccurately and did not land in the correct spots, there was an accuracy penalty applied to the sum of the energy and time costs. However, the AEV accurately ran the test and did not receive an accuracy penalty. The R&D cost was $0, as the team did not need any extra time for gathering data. The capital costs were the costs of all the material used. This category came to a total of $165, 492. Finally, the team had one safety violation when the AEV fell off the track, resulting in a $15,000 fee. The entire project came to a grand total of $568,658.86, which was 13.7% over the budget of $500,000 (See Figure 22 in Appendix A).

Discussion

Throughout the Performance Testing the team has experienced many different sources of error; some that are controllable and some not. The first case of error is in the actual program development itself and tweaking commands and number to get the right operation. The next is error during testing such a dust build up on the AEV and inconsistent placement on the monorail each test run. The team would try its best to stay in the same spot but was not perfect each time and would keep the wheels clean as much as possible to prevent slippage but at times it was out of the teams control. Another factor the team had to manage as best as possible was battery voltage and motor over usage that would alter the performance of the AEV over time. The team did its best and felt they had minimal error during their testing that did not hinder over all testing too much.

After several examinations of the AEV concept designs, the team chose two designs to continue testing and developing. In Performance Test I, the two designs were compared (See Figure 16 and Figure 17 in Appendix A) by evaluating the energy used by each design (See Figure 18 and Figure 19 in Appendix A) and the qualitative performance of each design. The team decided to stop developing the first design because it ran inconsistently and used more energy than the second design that used servo arm braking. The advantages of the second design also aligned directly with the team’s approach to completing the Mission Concept Review (MCR).

Throughout the entire design process, the team made several different concept designs that would satisfy the goals outlined in the MCR. From the team’s energy testing with energy we found the AEV to be well within the ideal Joule usage. With this knowledge, the use of the fabricated brake arm was an additional measure of consistency well worth the minimal energy expenditure. After all PR&D labs were completed with power braking and the first two performance tests, the addition of the brake arm proved to be an obvious advantage especially with consistent testing. Most runs performed with power braking had a large margin for error whereas the runs with the brake arm had a significantly less margin of error with an estimated two to three inches of increased precision.

Conclusion & Recommendations

To develop a safe and efficient transportation system through the city for its everyday people, Team F has concluded on an optimal design and operations. Following many weeks of PR&D that yielded concrete familiarization with the appropriate infrastructure, such as programming Arduino code and several trials of designs. The team moved on to several AR&D trials that optimized the AEV concepts of servo operations and minimizing energy usage. With this knowledge, Team F is moving forward with a finished design to include the customized lever arm. This customized lever arm will be used for braking and will ensure long term consistency with an automated system as well as maximum efficiency while continuing to ferry passengers. Team F is confident that the future previous errors will not be an issue. As discussed, minor tweaks needed with the Arduino program to work as intended have been mastered and overcome. Additionally, wheel cleanliness caused inconsistencies in AEV trials and has been attributed to several failed/inaccurate runs possibly due to the reduction in friction of the wheels while contacting the rail, which is something that will have to be noted for future maintenance when the AEV is up and running. The last major error that was encountered was further inconsistencies with battery voltage; this is an easy fix now that it has been identified. The given batteries are only consistent for around 10 runs of the AEV which is alleviated further by the group’s installed lever arm braking system that will curtail any battery issues.

Moving forward, results have shown that further testing with the manufactured lever arm will be successful. With this addition to the AEV, programming the Arduino for continual success long term will be much easier than the alternative of power braking or even coasting to the destination, and the team believes it will instill confidence of reliability from the public, whereas slowly coasting to a stop would do the opposite. Team F is looking forward to the upcoming weeks of hammering out final trials and to prove the team’s design can complete the MCR in accordance with the goals and standards put forth. With the team’s major shortcomings being from slow manufacturing of the team’s manufactured parts, the future looks bright in Columbus as it awaits the team’s efficient design for its new public transportation.

References

The Ohio State University. (n.d.). PRELIMINARY RESEARCH AND DESIGN. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from https://osu.app.box.com/s/ter1ysxfl88vej3wezqleed30cymth1p.

The Ohio State University. (n.d.). ADVANCED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE TESTS. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from https://osu.app.box.com/s/ter1ysxfl88vej3wezqleed30cymth1p.

The Ohio State University. (n.d.). Mission Concept Review and Deliverables. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from https://osu.app.box.com/s/3mal1rsekfbvd5oflbhmbuahawq9oc8p.

Models created on SolidWorks, a product of Dassault Systems

Design Analysis Tool run through MATLAB, a product of MathWorks

Arduino Nano Programmed via the Arduino IDE.

Appendix A: Figures, Tables, and Programs

Function Call	Description
motorSpeed(m,p);	Will set the motors, m, to percent power, p; m is either the motor number or 4 for all motors
celerate(m, p1, p2,t);	Will change speed of motors, m, from percent power, p1,to percent power, p2, over time of t seconds
goFor(t);	Will keep the program at the previously initialized state for time, t seconds
brake(m);	Will stop selected motors, m, from spinning
reverse(m);	Will reverse the spin direction of the selected motors, m
goToAbsolutePosition(n);	Will keep the program at the previously initialized state until it has moved a selected number of marks, n, from where it started at the beginning of the program
goToRelativePosition(n);	Will keep the program at the previously initialized stated until it has moved a selected number of marks, n, from where it was previously at

Table 1:A list of the predefined functions used to control the AEV

// accelerate motor 1, 0 to 15% power in 2.5 seconds

celerate(1,0,15,2.5);

// set motor 1 speed to 15%

motorSpeed(1,15);

// run motor one for 1 sec at 15%

goFor(1);

// brake motor 1

brake(1);

//accelerate motor 2 from 0% to 27% in 4 seconds

celerate(2,0,27,4);

// run motor 2 at 27% for 2 seconds

goFor(2);

// decelerate motor 2 from 27% to 15% in 1 second

celerate(2,27,15,1);

// brake motor 2

brake(2);

// reverse motor 2

reverse(2);

// accelerate all motors from 0% to 31% in 2 seconds

celerate(4,0,31,2);

// set all motors speed to 35%

motorSpeed(4,35);

// run all motors at 35% for 1 second

goFor(1);

// brake motor 2

brake(2);

// set motor 1 to 35%

motorSpeed(1,35);

// run motor 1 at 35% for 3 seconds

goFor(3);

// brake all motors

brake(4);

//brake all motors for 1 second

goFor(1);

//reverse motor 1

reverse(1);

// accelerate motor 1 from 0% to 19% in 2 seconds

celerate(1,0,19,2);

// set motor 2 speed to 35%

motorSpeed(2,35);

// set motor 1 speed to 19%

motorSpeed(1,19);

// run motor 2 at 35% and motor 1 at 19% for 2 seconds

goFor(2);

// set all motor speeds to 19%

motorSpeed(19);

// run all motors at 19% for 2 seconds

goFor(2);

// decelerate all motors from 19% to 0% in 3 seconds

celerate(4,19,0,3);

//brake all motors

brake(4);

Program 1:The program used with the motor stand to experiment with the various functions used in programming the AEV

Figure 1:The motor stand used to test the functionality of each motor and experiment with various program functions

Figure 2:The reflective sensors attached to the AEV so they can be used to sense distance and location

Figure 3:The sample AEV model, constructed to test the reflectance sensors

Figure 4:AEV Design I

Figure 5:AEV Design II

Figure 6:AEV Design III

Figure 7:AEV Design IV

// accelerate all motors from 0% to 25% power over 3 seconds 

celerate(4,25,3);

// set all motors speed to 25%

motorSpeed(4,25);

//run all motors at 25% for 1 second

goFor(1);

// set all motors to 20%

motorSpeed(4,20);

// run all motors at 20% for 2 seconds

goFor(2);

// reverse all motors

reverse(4);

// set all motors speed to 25%

motorSpeed(4,35);

// run all motors at 25% for 2 seconds in the opposite direction goFor(2);

//brake all motors

brake(4);

Program 2:Data was collected from this program in order to test the Design Analysis Tool

Figure 8:The Power vs. Time graph collected in lab 4 when using the Design Analysis Tool

Figure 9:The Power vs. Distance graph collected in lab 4 when using the Design Analysis Tool

Table 2:The results generated when analyzing each design via a screening matrix

Table 3:The results generated when analyzing each design via a scoring matrix

motorSpeed(4,30);

goFor(4);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(10);

Program 3:The program that the data used in the Energy Analysis Lab was retrieved

Table 4:The calculated frictional force and propeller force of the AEV

Figure 10:The Power vs. Time graph collected from the Energy Analysis lab

Figure 11:The Power vs. Distance graph collected from the Energy Analysis Lab

Figure 12:The original support arm was attached to the servo motor which was mounted on the side of the support arm

Figure 13:The new support arm with the slot in it that would hold the servo motor

Figure 14:The final version of the brake arm, modified from the original to increase efficiency and functionality

Figure 15:The final assembled model of the AEV with the brake arm in SolidWorks

Figure 16:The first design used in performance testing. This design relied on braking by reversing the direction of the propellers.

Figure 17:The second design of the AEV tested in Performance Test I. This design relied on braking via the 3D printed brake arm.

Figure 18:The energy consumption (vs. distance travelled) by the first design of the AEV in Performance Test I. In this test the AEV used 70.4 Joules of energy.

Figure 19:The energy consumption (vs. distance travelled) of design two of the AEV in Performance Test I. While the energy here is higher than the energy used by the first design (87.4 J vs. 70.4 J), this design completed the test more accurately and precisely.

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,30);         // start moving forward

goFor(8);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(2);

reverse(4);               // reverse motors to brake

motorSpeed(4,30);

goFor(.50);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(7);                 // wait for gate to open

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,30);

goFor(4);

Program 4:The program used in Performance Test I.

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(201);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(302);

rotateServo(40);

goFor(1);

rotateServo(0);

goFor(7);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(400);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(590);

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goFor(1.10);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(6);

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(2.75);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(370);

motorSpeed(4,0);

rotateServo(40);

goFor(1);

rotateServo(0);

goFor(7.5);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(195);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(30);

rotateServo(40);

goFor(3);

rotateServo(0);

Program 5:The first program used in Performance Test II, which focused on completing the test accurately and consistently.

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(203);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(2.1);

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goFor(.5);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(7);

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goFor(2.75);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(3);

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,50);

goFor(.5);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(7);

motorSpeed(4,50);

goFor(3.5);

Program 6:The second program used in Performance Test II, which focused on completing the test using as little energy as possible.

Figure 20:The power (vs. time) consumed by the AEV when running the first program in Performance Test II. This program focused more on completing the program using as little energy as possible.

Figure 21:The power (vs. time) consumed by the AEV when running Performance Test II with the second program. This program focused more on completing the test accurately and precisely. However, the AEV did end up using about 10 Joules less than the first program.

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(201);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(302);

rotateServo(40);

goFor(1);

rotateServo(0);

goFor(7);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(400);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(590);

reverse(4);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goFor(1.10);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goFor(6);

motorSpeed(4,60);

goFor(2.75);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(370);

motorSpeed(4,0);

rotateServo(40);

goFor(1);

rotateServo(0);

goFor(7.5);

motorSpeed(4,40);

goToAbsolutePosition(195);

motorSpeed(4,0);

goToAbsolutePosition(30);

rotateServo(40);

goFor(3);

rotateServo(0);

Program 7:The program used in the Final Performance Test of the AEV. The program had to complete the test with accuracy and precision in order to receive full marks.

Figure 22:The table adding up the final costs of the project by totaling up the individual costs in five different categories.

Figure 23:The energy used in four different runs of the Final Performance Test

Appendix B: Team Weekly Schedule

Date	Updates on assigned tasks	Plan	Prepare for next meeting	Finish by
2/9/18 Lab 5	Completed progress report	Start advanced R&D; decide task of servo motor	Prepare grant presentation; prepare for committee meetings	2/16/18
2/16/18 Lab 6	Completed grant proposal presentation; committees prepared for meetings	Hold committee meetings; present grant proposal	Complete R&D stage 1- Servo motor function	2/23/18
2/23/18 Lab 7	Complete research from R&D stage 1; ways to improve AEV and presentation of findings from research	Begin R&D Stage 2- gathering data from motors and propellers in the wind tunnel	Prepare for oral presentation of research and development findings; upload on 2/28	2/28/18
			Prepare website update 3	3/2/18
3/2/18 Lab 8	Oral R&D presentations should be uploaded to Carmen;	Present R&D findings	Complete Progress Report 2	3/9/18
3/9/18 Lab 9A	Progress Report 2 should be uploaded to Carmen	Design concept comparison; begin performance test 1; Begin CDR Draft	Continue work on Performance Test 1	3/21/18
			Continue work on CDR Draft	3/23/18
3/19/18 Lab 9B	Performance Test 1 and CDR Draft should be started	Continue work on Performance Test 1 and CDR Draft	Finish Performance Test 1	3/21/18
			Continue CDR Draft	3/23/18
3/21/18 Lab 9C	Performance Test 1 is finished and submitted; CDR Draft nearing completion	Continue Design Concept Comparison; finish CDR Draft	Complete CDR Draft	3/23/18

3/23/18 Lab 10A	CDR Draft should be uploaded to Carmen	Begin Operational Objectives; Begin performance test 2; prepare for Committee meeting 2	Performance Test 2	3/28/18
			Committee Meeting 2	3/30/18
3/26/18 Lab 10B	Progress made on Performance Test 2 and preparation for Committee Meeting 2	Continue work on Operational Objectives, Performance Test 2, and preparation for Committee Meeting 2	Finish Performance Test 2	3/28/18
			Continue preparing for Committee Meeting 2	3/30/18
3/28/18 Lab 10C	Performance Test 2 should be finished and submitted; continue preparing for Committee Meeting 2	Continue work on Operational Objectives, wrap up Performance Test 2, and continue preparing for Committee Meeting 2	Finish preparing for Committee Meeting 2	3/30/18
3/30/18 Lab 11A	All preparations have been made for Committee Meeting 2	Begin Final R&D Stage 3- Energy Optimization; Hold Committee Meeting 2; begin Progress Report 3 and Final Oral Presentation Draft	Continue work on Progress Report 3	4/4/18
			Continue work on Final Oral Presentation Draft	4/9/18
4/2/18 Lab 11B	Progress has been made on Progress Report 3 and Final Oral Presentation Draft	Continue Final R&D Stage 3- Energy Optimization, Progress Report 3, and Final Oral Presentation Draft	Finish Progress Report 3	4/4/18
			Continue work on Final Oral Presentation Draft	4/9/18
4/4/18 Lab 11C	Progress Report 3 should be finished and submitted	Continue Final R&D Stage 3- Energy Optimization; finish Final Oral Presentation Draft	Finish Final Oral Presentation Draft	4/9/18
4/9/18 Lab 12A	Final Oral Presentation Draft should be finished and submitted	Final Testing begins	Continue Final Testing (three rounds total)	4/13/18
4/11/18 Lab 12B	Continue Final Testing; make necessary improvements to AEV	Final Testing Continued	Finish Final Testing in next lab	4/13/18

4/13/18 Lab 12C	Finish Final Testing in lab	Final Testing needs to be finished	Continue work on Final Oral Presentation	4/17/18
			Continue work on CDR	4/20/18
			Continue work on Final Website	4/20/18
4/16/18 Lab 13A	Progress should be made on Final Oral Presentation, CDR, and Website	Work on Final Oral Presentations, CDR, and Final Website	Finish Final Oral Presentation	4/17/18
			Continue work on CDR	4/20/18
			Continue work on Final Website	4/20/18
4/18/18 Lab 13B	Final Oral Presentation should be finished and submitted; continue working on CDR and Final Website	Begin Final Oral Presentations; continue work on CDR and Final Website	Finish CDR	4/20/18
			Finish Final Website	4/20/18
4/20/18 Lab 13C	Both CDR and Final Website should be finished and submitted	Final Oral Presentations	–	–

Appendix C: SolidWorks AEV Assemblies

Figure 24:AEV Design 1 and Bill of Materials

Figure 25:Triple View Orthographical Drawing of AEV design 1

Figure 26:AEV design 2 & Bill of Materials

Figure 27:Triple View Orthographic Drawing of AEV design 2