Exercise 5: Concept Screening and Scoring

Concept Screening Matrix

Click on Image for Crisper, Larger View

Concept Scoring Matrix

Click on Image for Crisper, Larger View

Criteria Descriptions:

The safety criteria covered questions like, are the passengers on the caboose in proximity of the motor propellers or is the arduino close to magnet or touching metal. The Safety criteria covered how well the AEV holds on the trackwhether it sways while moving or if there is an imbalance in the design, and does the AEV sit at an angle rather than being parallel to the track? The efficiency criteria covered subjects like, what are some othe majodesign flaws, is the AEV aerodynamic traveling forwards and backwards, how long do the propellers have to run before the AEV begins to moveand how heavy is the AEV? And finally, the cost criteria covered subjects like, how much does the AEV cost and How does this cost relate to the sample AEV? 

Pros and Cons of Each Design: (To view the designs please follow the link below.)

Creative Design Thinking

Paul’s design featured a shell the was intended to add an aerodynamic effect, but upon further analyzation, the same design attribute also provided a hindrance in adding extra drag when moving in reverse. Also, to add this extra feature it would cost more due to the increase in materials. If edited properly, it could potentially be an advantage that would save money on fuel. 

Reed’s design has a similar structure to that of the sample AEV but is slightly longer and has a better center of balance.  The AEV does not hang to one side when on the track.  This AEV weighs a bit more as it uses slightly more material.  It is also about as efficient as the sample AEV because it features the same lift in the wings that the motors are attached to.  The safety factor of this design is comparable to that of the sample because on both the design the passengers are in optimal position compared to any dangerous things, like the propeller blades or Arduino. This design will be combined with Mark’s and carried forward. 

Mark’s design utilizes a different mounting apparatus that allows the wheels to be centered over the AEV and where the apparatus is attached to the AEV. This will add stability and alleviate the problem of having to balance the front and backside of the AEV. This design will be combined with Reed’s and carried forward. 

Kartik’s design was like that of the sample AEV, but it features another set of wings in the front for greater stability a center of balance that sits more towards the middle rather than the back.  This design does not sway on the track as it travels along.  It is as efficient and might be a little bit more efficient than that of the sample AEV.  This bit of advantage in efficient doesn’t change the benefit of the design all that much.  The cost will also be slightly more than that of the stock AEV but not enough for it to matter.  This design is all around pretty good and we will continue to use this design as a proponent of further research. 

The Team design sketch combined the best features of some everyone’s concept sketches but primarily from Reed and Marks design. It combines the concepts of being lightweight while also being more aerodynamic and allows for easy balancing and high efficiency. This was the best design as it combines the most crucial parts from all designs to make an optimal AEV model. 

The two designs that will be carried forward throughout the design cycle are the Team’s Concept and a design that combines the Reed’s design and Mark’s Design. Both of these designs seem to exhibit some of the most successful qualities analyzed above.