Progress Report III

Group F- Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner, Robert Olson

Progress Report Weeks 10-11

Instructor – Dr. Busick

GTA- Amena Shermadou

2 March 2018

Situation

Since the second progress report, Watts Scientific has been working through the performance tests and building the final Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV) design. The tests were tasks to be performed on the monorail by the AEV. These tests build on one another, meaning the previous tests had to be completed before the next could be started.

Addressing the custom part situation there were a few issues. The team had to work without the full design up until March 25. The delay in the production of the part has delayed the collection of data. The custom parts are the new single base, a brake arm support with custom cut for servo motor, and the brake arm. Since receiving the parts, they have proved to be effective in performance and data collection since the team began using them. However, not all data has been collected yet for both designs in Performance Test 1 and for both programs in Performance Test 2. While data collection is still in progress, both tests were successfully completed by both AEV designs.

In Performance Test 1, the AEV had to start at the beginning and make it to the gate in the middle. At the gate, it would have to stop for seven seconds. After those seven seconds, the gate would open and the AEV would continue through. As long as the AEV did this in a safe, efficient manner, it would be given a perfect score. However, if the AEV, for example, hit the gate, this would result in safety violation fees and a failed test. Completing the performance test with a perfect score is extremely important, as the final AEV is expected to be both safe and reliable. Performance Test 1 was also utilized to refine and choose a final design for the AEV. Two AEV designs with different characteristics were to be test; the data from these tests would then be analyzed to determine which AEV was more efficient and dependable. The first design would combine propeller braking with a power brake arm (See Figure 1 in Appendix A). The second design would brake only by the reversing the propeller direction (See Figure 2 in Appendix A). While the first design was more efficient at braking, it could not be fully tested, as the parts had to be printed and cut before being used on the AEV. This process delayed the collection of data; however, in order to be ready to test as soon as the parts were completed, the team discussed how to use the brake arm and created the program for the second design. This meant that testing and data collection could begin as soon as the new parts were implemented into the AEV design.

After the 3D printed parts and the laser cut parts were produced, design one was tested in Performance Test 1. After the test, it was plugged into the computer to import the data into the MATLAB Design Analysis Tool (See Figure 3 and Figure 4 in Appendix A). Eventually, Design Two will also be analyzed when running Performance Test 2. This AEV design has successfully ran and passed Performance Test 1, but data was not yet recorded. After data is obtained, it will be analyzed to choose a final design for the AEV .

In Performance Test 2, the AEV had to continue on from where it stopped in Performance Test 1. From here, the AEV had to go down to the end and hook up to the coach in the loading zone without recoiling when hitting it. It would then wait five seconds and then move out of the loading zone. As long as all criteria were fulfilled, the AEV would pass the performance test. For Performance Test 2, two different programs needed to be tested. Each run by the different programs would then be analyzed to determine which program conserved the most energy while also running with precision. These findings would then be utilized in the final design and program of the AEV.

Data was only gathered from the run of Program One (See Program 1 in Appendix B) in Performance Test 2 (See Figure 5 and Figure 6 in Appendix B). Eventually, more data will be collected with a different second program; this run will then be analyzed to determine which program yields the best results that complete the goals of the entire AEV project.

After all the necessary data has been gather, it will be compiled and analyzed. From these findings, the team will discuss and work together to improve both the program and the design of the AEV. By doing this, the team hopes to produce an AEV that is consistent, safe, and efficient.

Results and Analysis

Because the team had insufficient time to collect data from two AEV designs and from two programs, it is difficult to compare different methods of completing the goals. However, from the little data collected so far and the analysis and testing of various programs, a few conclusions can be made. It was found overall that the AEV’s movement is more consistent when it runs based off of distance instead of time. Because the slope of the track varies, the AEV may move faster or slower depending on the track; this mean it will take more or less time to complete its tasks. The 3D printed brake arm was also adapted to better grip the monorail by lining the inner curved part with electrical tape to increase the friction between the brake arm and monorail.

After the data has been collected from several programs and designs, the AEV and its program will be improved to create and accurate and reliable method of transportation.

Takeaways

  • Custom Parts- These custom parts have served to be very effective in testing and worth the wait, just the team would have preferred to have had them sooner
  • Performance Test 1- This difficulty of this task for the team was not major but need to collect data for another design with issues getting the part. The team found that reverse propulsion braking served to be an alternate form of braking, but the custom brake arm is more effective when stopping at the gate.
  • Performance Test 2- This test took the team a bit longer to complete and the team also needs to develop a second program. From this test the team found that when approaching the caboose reverse propulsion braking served more effective that our custom brake arm.
  • Final Performance Test- The team needs to complete this final performance test but has begun the process. The team has found that when coming back with the caboose more power is needed and the brake arm serves to be effective at the gate coming back. The team still needs to complete the full test and collect data from this final test.
  • General- Ensure time is being as efficiently as possible in lab in order to gather sufficient data that can be analyzed.
  • AEV- Continue analyzing data using the MATLAB Design Analysis Tool to determine what the best design and program is for the AEV.

Forward Looking Situation

Looking forward the team need to go back and collect data. The team has to collect data for a second design for performance test 1. The team also has to collect data with a different program for performance test 2. This data is energy data that has to be collected using the MATLAB application to analyze energy usage and see if there is anything that can be changed to improve the team’s program or design. The team also need to successfully complete performance test 3. The team wants to successfully work with the brake arm and maximize time and energy usage efficiency in its final test.

Weekly Goals

  • Week of 4/9

    o Collect energy data for a second design in Performance Test 1

    o Collect energy data for a second program for Performance Test 2 and Successfully complete Final Performance Test

    o CompletetheFinalOralPresentationDraft

  • Week of 4/16

    o Finish website updates and Complete final Concept Design Review (CDR) and Upload all content to website and finalize format Team Assignments

  • Robert Olson- Collect AEV missing data and analyze it and give feed back to the team as well as update this data onto the website and final CDR
  • Michael Seidle- Successfully compile all programs used into the website as well as finishing the program and testing for Performance Test 3
  • Ryan Stuckey- Work on AEV brake usage and helping in final testing for AEV and working with final brake analysis on website and CDR
  • Jack Wagner- Work on final website formatting and loose ends as well as helping with AEV testing for safety and program development

Weekly Schedule

Task

 page4image5033712

Teammate(s)

 page4image5827072

Start Date

Due Date

 page4image5042112page4image5035392

Time Needed

Performance Test 3

Michael- programming; Jack and Bob- analyzing data to improve AEV;

04/03/2018

4/18/02018

2 HRS

Team meetings

 page4image5038192

Ryan- meeting minutes;

page4image5031808

 page4image5834976

ONGOING

page4image5835600

4/18/02018

 page4image5035056page4image5836640

—

page4image5044576page4image5837680

Final Website Update

All- upload content, progress reports, CDR, final presentation

ONGOING

4/18/02018

4HRS

Final CDR

 page4image5036848

All- add new data found and content

page4image5038640

 page4image5842048

04/09/2018

page4image5842672

4/18/02018

 page4image5036736page4image5843712

4HRS

page4image5035280page4image5844752

Final Oral Presentation

 page4image5031696

All- create PowerPoint; put most relevant data in; explain how final design came to be

 page4image5036400

4/06/18

04/17/2018

 page4image5045136page4image5045248

2.5 HRS

Appendix A: Performance Test 1

Figure 1: Design One of the AEV. This design had the power braking arm, which was controlled by the servo motor.

Figure 2: Design Two of the AEV. The second design stopped by coasting or reversing the direction of its propellers.

Figure 3: A power vs. distance graph obtained from the AEV after running Performance Test 1. This is from Design One, which uses a servo-operated braking arm to slow down the AEV.

Figure 4: A power vs. distance graph for Design One in Performance Test 1.

Appendix B: Performance Test 2

Program 1: The first program used in Performance Test 2. Another program will be created that changes variables such as power or time.

//initially reverse motors
reverse(4);
//set motor speed to 40% and go to 203 marks motorSpeed(4,40);
goToAbsolutePosition(203);
// Set motor speed to 0 to coast for 2.1 seconds motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(2.1);
// reverse all motors
reverse(4);
// run motors at 40% for .5 seconds to brake motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(.5);
// set motors speed to 0 to wait 7 seconds motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(7);
// reverse all motors
reverse(4);
// set all motors to 40% power and go for 2.75 seconds motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(2.75);
// set motors to 0 and coast for 3 seconds motorSpeed(4,0);
goFor(3);
// reverse all motors
reverse(4);
// wait 7 seconds while picking up caboose goFor(7);
// set motors speed to 50% for 3.5 seconds to move caboose out of loading zone
motorSpeed(4,50);
goFor(3.5);

page8image3833344

Figure 5: A power vs. distance graph for Design One in Performance Test 2.

 

page8image3834688

Figure 6: A power vs. time graph for the run of Design Two in Performance Test 2. When examined, one is able to relate the current power directly to the actions of the AEV at the specific time.

 

Appendix C: Meeting Notes

Date: 3/9/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224
Attendees: Robert Olson, Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Worked on Performance Test I
    • Created a program to run AEV to gate
    • AEV must wait for gate to open
  • Tested with a single design as the power brake was not printed yet
  • Tested the design without a power brake
  • Next meeting
    • Continue on with Performance Test 1
    • Date: 3/19/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room224

Date: 3/19/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224
Attendees: Robert Olson, Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Worked on Performance Test I
    • Created a program to run AEV to gate
    • AEV must wait for gate to open before proceeding
    • Successfully stopped at gate by running motors for 7 seconds
  • Tested with a single design as the power brake was not printed yet
  • Tested the design without a power brake
  • Next meeting
    • Continue on with Performance Test 1
    • Date: 3/21/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224

Date: 3/21/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 308
Attendees: Robert Olson, Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Finished Performance Test 1
    • AEV went up to gait, waited for it to open, and continued through the gate after it opened
  • Discovered 3D printed brake arm was too complex to be printed
    • Discussed how to solve the problem and get the 3D arm printed
  • Worked on testing second AEV design to discuss in CDR
    • Second design was created by flipping the side wings over to point upwards
    • Ran into problems initially when the propeller hit the Arduino Nano
  • Next meeting
    • Finish CDR and begin Performance Test 2
    • Date:3/23/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224

Date: 3/23/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224
Attendees: Robert Olson, Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Meeting Minutes
  • Received 3D printed brake arm
    • However, did not receive the new support arm or AEV base
    • Without these parts, testing of the brake could not be done
  • Switched to running based off of distance travelled
    • Detected using the reflectance sensors
    • Originally ran based off of time using goFor() function
    • Now uses goToAbsolutePosition() and goToRelativePosition()
    • AEV starting position be the same everytime; wheel must always start at the same spot in order to travel to the right spot and trigger the sensor
  • Finished CDR Draft
  • Next meeting
    • Finish Performance Test 2 with brake arm
    • Date: 3/26/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 308

Date: 3/28/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224
Attendees: Robert Olson, Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Worked towards finishing performance test 2
    • Had problems with getting the AEV to run consistently
    • One propeller was loose on the motor, so a new propeller had to be installed
    • The new propeller caused variations in a previously working program
    • Had to reprogram parts of the program to work with the new propeller
  • Laser cut parts were still not available, which were necessary in order to use the brake arm
  • Updated website with meeting minutes and photos
  • Next meeting
    • Finish performance test 2 and hopefully install brake arm
    • Date:4/2/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 224

Date: 4/2/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 308
Attendees: Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Began programming and testing the AEV with its fully assembled brake arm and servo motor
  • After calibrating the servo motor and choosing what functions to use, the AEV successfully ran performance test 1
  • Began testing the program that would complete performance test 2 with the brake arm
  • Next meeting
    • Finish performance test 1 with second design and create second program for performance test 2
    • Date:4/4/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room224

Date: 4/4/18
Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room 308
Attendees: Robert Olson, Michael Seidle, Ryan Stuckey, Jack Wagner

  • Performance Test 1
    • Ran performance test 1 with design 1
    • Completed performance test 1 with design 1 and gathered energy data using MATLAB Design Analysis Tool
    • Planned to run performance test 1 with design
    • Best of the two designs would be chosen to continue on with performance test 2
  • Performance Test 2
  • Ran performance test 2 with program 1 and chosen design
    • Initially, the AEV was undesirably inconsistent when coming up on the middle gate
    • Next, ran into problems with the servo arm not going back down all the way and hitting monorail hangers
    • Finally, the team was able to successfully hook the coach up at the end of the run
    • Ran performance test 2 with program 2 and chosen design
  • Next meeting
    • Complete performance test 1 with design 2 and performance test 2 with program 2
    • Date:4/9/18
    • Location: Hitchcock Hall, Room30