Progress Report 2

Busick MWF 8:00 am

Group D

Members:

William Klotnia
Joel Goodwin
Sean Koch
Connor Lenartowicz

March 9, 2018

Backward Looking Summary

Each of the advanced research and development performance tests were completed to gain information and experience about specific AEV functions. The team completed two tests: Coasting vs. Power Braking and Propellor Configuration. These tests helped to gain insight on valuable techniques that will help create the most efficient AEV.

The first test conducted was Coasting vs. Power Braking. This test aimed to seek out which method of braking is most accurate and efficient. Coasting occurs by using the ‘Brake’ command in programming. This command cuts off power to the motors and allows the vehicle to coast to a stop through lack of power and wheel friction. The other method of braking, titled “Power Braking,” is the act of reversing the motors and running them in the opposite direction. This attempts to cancel out the forward velocity of the vehicle and bring the AEV to a halt. Braking is a very important factor in the success of the AEV, thus it is vital to utilize good braking practices.

In order to test these two methods of braking, the team developed code that accelerates both AEV motors from 0% power to 35% power over the course of 5 seconds. The vehicle would then run for 2 seconds at 35% power before the method of braking being tested was applied. The total distance that the AEV traveled was recorded and compared during data analysis to determine which method of braking was able to stop the AEV faster and more accurately. A total of five trials of each method were completed.

Table 1: Coasting Vs. Power Braking

The data supports the idea that power braking is more efficient and effective then coasting. Not only did the power braking method bring the AEV to a stop every single time before the coasting method did, but the data for the power braking also has a lower range than that of coasting. On average, power braking stopped the AEV 9.6 inches shorter than coasting did, thus proving it’s efficiency.

The second test performed was Propeller Configuration. The goal of this test was to optimize the locations and types of propellers to increase speed and decrease power consumption. The team tested four different propeller configurations with various speeds as stated below:

Run 1: Two propellers in same direction (40 motor speed)

Run 2: Two propellers in same direction with smaller propellers (40 motor speed)

Run 3: One propeller in each direction working together (40 motor speed)

Run 4: One propeller running by itself at full speed (65 motor speed)

The test consisted of recording the difference in time taken to travel a full distance of 50 marks in the forward direction, immediately followed by traveling 50 marks backwards to the original starting location. Power consumption was also recorded through the Arduino, this data helped to determine which configuration is most power-efficient.

Figure 1: Power Vs. Time of Various AEV Propeller Configurations

Figure 2: Power Vs. Distance of Various AEV Propeller Configurations

Figures 1 and 2 allow for many conclusions to be drawn. Within the first 0.67 meters, the power consumption varies noticeably. This shows that the trial in which one propellor was in each direction used the most energy, while two propellers in the same direction used the second most energy, and the one propeller running by itself used the least amount of energy. One propeller running by itself proved to be the most energy efficient. From 0.67 meters and on, more data differences are shown. In terms of power, two propellers in the same direction and one propeller in each direction show similar power consumptions, while one propeller by itself consumed the least energy again. In terms of distance, two propellers in the same direction traveled the farthest, followed by one propeller running by itself, and finally one propeller in each direction traveled the shortest distance. By looking at Figure 1, two propellers facing the same direction completed its run the slowest, while the remaining two configurations finished faster and at about the same time. With all these results taken into account, the group has chosen that the configuration to be used is one propellor facing each direction because it completed its trial in the fastest amount of time while using a similar amount of power to the configuration with two propellers facing the same direction. The overall effect of this design provides the most benefit, and thus it is what will be used for the final AEV design.

After exploring both tests and analyzing data, many takeaways were gathered. The first test, Coasting Vs. Power Braking, gave valuable insight on which braking methods are most practical for use in the AEV. After looking at data, it was determined that power braking was more superior than coasting in terms of accuracy and efficiency, due to its low spread of data and consistent stopping of the AEV before that of the coasting method. The second test also gave valuable insight, this time on the topic of propellor configuration. Results show that the most power-efficient method was running one motor at 1.5x the base speed, and the fastest method was when there was one motor pulling and one motor pushing.

These tests also provided the team with experience working with the engineering design process. Specifically, it is notable that when the team attempted to write code for a test, it did not always work correctly the first time. When this occured, the team would then rewrite the code making changes accordingly to what they observed during the first run. This is a direct example of how the team used the engineering design process of trial and error cycles to correct a problem. The insight gained from this data will help the team move forward in the engineering design process of the AEV.

Forward Looking Summary

Looking ahead to Performance Test 1, the group will take all of the findings from Advanced R&D labs one and two into consideration to make the test a success. Performance Test 1 requires the AEV to move to the gate sensor area, stop for 7 seconds and then proceed through the gate.

To make this first performance test go smoothly, work on the AEV’s design will have to be finalized and completed prior to the testing. This includes use of the servo motor as a potential power brake and any of the materials needed along with it, including a mount and brake pad.

Additionally the final design configuration for the AEV as a whole needs to be put together. This design includes a horizontal base with minimal extra parts to save on power consumption from carrying unnecessary weight. The propeller configuration of one propeller in each direction, which was found to be most time efficient, will be attached to the AEV’s body.

Finally, the actual coding of the run for Performance Test 1 has to be created. Any sort of functionality to keep track of distance and time will be of the utmost importance for full credit to be received.

List of upcoming goals and tasks:

Build AEV to correct specifications based on completed group design

Address any issues with balancing
Attach propellers in desired inverted setup

Attach Servo to AEV for power braking

Create Servo mount for a consistent braking function

Research propeller configuration

Test variables such as number of propeller as well as direction of propeller.

Write Code for Performance Test 1

Address all points of notice from Performance Test 1 Rubric on MCR & Deliverables document

In the pursuit of completion of all of these tasks as described above, a team schedule has been issued to keep all necessary deadlines on schedule. Class time becoming additional labs will allow the group more time to work on the AEV in class. This extra time will allow the use of the AEV track in a way that time didn’t allow before. Testing prior to Performance Test 1 will be executed to address any issues or problems that may arise. Additional meeting time out of class will be required of the group members with project deadlines fast approaching. Team members will have to perform tasks outside of their originally issued jobs, however their main responsibility will still lie within those job descriptions. Sean will continue handling the Website Updates, Connor will move to a role focused mainly on the coding of the AEV, and Will and Joel will fabricate any required parts for the AEV including the servo mount and final AEV design.

Appendix

Team Meeting 1: 2/7/18

Location: Hitchcock Hall – 8:00am

Attendees:

Sean Koch
Connor Lenartowicz
Will Klotnia
Joel Goodwin

Objective: Brainstorm final AEV design

Tasks:

Compare individual designs
Explain reasoning behind designs
Discuss which aspects of each design could be carried over
Which aspects will make the AEV more efficient?
Which AEV will be most capable of carrying a load?

Team Meeting 2: 2/26/18

Location: Hitchcock Hall – 5:00pm

Attendees:

Sean Koch
Connor Lenartowicz
Will Klotnia
Joel Goodwin

Objective: Complete AR&D 2: Propeller Configuration

Tasks:

Design four different propeller configuration possibilities
Write code for each of the different possibilities
Implement and test each possibility on AEV track
Plot each different configuration with Data analysis tool
Analyze each configuration to decide the best propeller configuration

Team Meeting 3: 2/28/18

Location: Hitchcock Hall – 4:00pm

Attendees:

Sean Koch
Connor Lenartowicz
Will Klotnia
Joel Goodwin

Objective: R&D Oral Presentation

Tasks:

Organize slide show presentation
What important data must be shared?
Who is the most knowledgeable on each topic?

Team Meeting 4: 3/5/18

Location: Hitchcock Hall – 5:30pm

Attendees:

Sean Koch
Connor Lenartowicz
Will Klotnia
Joel Goodwin

Objective: Fix Progress Report 1

Tasks:

What errors were made? Fix
What is missing?

Team Meeting 5: 3/8/18

Location: Hitchcock Hall – 4:00pm

Attendees:

Sean Koch
Connor Lenartowicz
Will Klotnia
Joel Goodwin

Objective: Progress Report 2

Tasks:

Analyze previously gathered data
Establish a plan for upcoming week
Discuss how the performance test will be approached

Schedule

Lab 9a: 3/9/18

- - Location: Hitchcock Hall – 8am – 9:20am
  - Objective: Complete AEV design build

Tasks:

- - - Finalize AEV design
    - Discuss the potential use of servo motor as brake
    - Take necessary measurements from test track
    - Finish base code for performance test

Lab 9b: 3/19/18

- - Location: Hitchcock Hall – 8am – 8:55am
  - Objective: Run initial trials prior to Performance Test

Tasks:

- - - Perform test runs
    - Evaluate and address any problems with AEV performance

Team Meeting 6: 3/19/18

- - Location: Hitchcock Hall – 5:30pm

Objective: Final Evaluation Before Performance Test

Tasks:

- - Discuss any remaining problems, and come up with possible solutions
  - Get everything organized for evaluation on Wednesday

Arduino Code:

Coasting vs Power Braking Code:

// Code for power braking:

// Accelerate all motors from start to 35% power in 5 seconds

celerate(4,0,35,5);

// Run previous command for 2 seconds

goFor(2);

// Reverse all motors

reverse(4);

// Run all motors at 35% power

motorSpeed(4,35);

// Run previous command for 0.75 seconds

goFor(0.75);

// Cut power to all motors

brake(4);

// Code for coasting:

// Accelerate all motors from start to 35% power in 5 seconds

celerate(4,0,35,5);

// Run previous command for 2 seconds

goFor(2);

// Cut power to all motors

brake(4);

Propeller Configuration Code:

// Code used for each propellor configuration:

// Run all motors at 40% power

motorSpeed(4,40);

// Run previous command for -50 marks

goToRelativePosition(-50);

// Reverse all motors

reverse(4);

// Run all motors at 40% power

motorSpeed(4,40);

// Run previous command for 50 marks

goToRelativePosition(50);