Concept Screening and Scoring

AEV Concept Screening & Scoring Group D

The criteria used in both tables were stability, capacity to carry, durability, safety, and speed/aerodynamics. Stability represents the balance of an AEV. Will it stand upright on the track or not? It is the core property of the AEV, and without a smooth, even balance, the AEV will be slowed down by unwanted friction due to excess tilting, or even worse it may fall off the track entirely. Capacity to carry is what it sounds like. Can the design hold and support weight or not? Durability is the design’s capability to endure. Will the design be able to make the entire route or not? Safety is represents how safe the design can hold weight. Is there adequate space on the design for weight storage? Lastly, speed/aerodynamics is how fast they AEV design can go. Are the turbines faced in a position that will improve the speed of the vehicle? And are there certain characteristics such as wing blades that may increase the speed as well? All of these criteria were taken into account, with all of those questions being asked for each design during the design process.

 

After thoroughly grading each design, many insights were gained. Design 1’s sleek vertical body and same-facing turbines provides for faster transportation and good stability,  although it does not have much room to carry weight. These attributes can be seen in the graded tables above. Design 2 features a similar stable vertical design, yet it has turbines facing opposite directions, and also does not have much room to support weight. Design 3 has much more room to hold and support weight, however this bulkier design is more likely to be slower. Design 4 is also a more bulky, horizontal design that can support weight, yet there is a high likelihood of low stability due to too much weight needing to be balanced. All in all, the results of the screening  scoring sheets are clear. There were two designs that stood out in the initial screening, and those same two designs scored highest in the second round of grading as well. They were design 1 and design 3. The team will move forward focusing on these two designs.