Final Performance Test

Final Performance Test Code:

Reference: “Preliminary R&D” The Ohio State University, Jan. 2018

For the final performance the code that was used for performance test 2. Again, some modifications had to be made for the first section because the rooms were different. For the code after the caboose was picked up, a lot of power had to be used in order to get the caboose up the hill. There was a bit of difficulty figuring out at what position to have the motor stop and then start again in reverse for the power breaking. After multiple trial runs, the correct position was found. After the AEV picked up the caboose, it was set to go 169 marks, coast for 30 marks, and then power break before the sensor for the gate. The AEV waited at the gate for 7 seconds and then went through the gate at 60% power until got to the downward slant of the track. When it was on the downward part, the AEV was set to coast for just over 3 seconds. After the coasting, power breaking was set in order to have the AEV stop within the loading zone.

Final Performance Test Data:

Above is the graph for power vs. distance during the final performance test. The code was successfully takes the AEV through the gate by itself, picks up the caboose, and brings the caboose back to the original landing zone. There are considerably more times where the power output is at zero due to stoppages. The power output towards the end of the track breaks into the 30s as the AEV had to compensate for the caboose also being attached so there is considerably more mass.

Above is the graph for power vs. time during the final performance test. The graph again depicts the the same scenario but using time. The time reaches into the 50s, which is unfortunate as it ended up adding a lot of money to the budget, putting Group J over budget for the test.

 

The AEV itself was better than the previous versions due to the amount of power need to be used to move the caboose was much less to actual move the AEV down the track. The video below shows the performance of the AEV in completion and proves that the AEV is better in previous versions due to completing the track with no error which were present in all of the other performance tests.

 

 

Video Footage of Final Performance Test