| Team C – Nick Braun, Jeffrey Gaydos, Samira Wehmann | Progress Report 3 |
| Instructor – Bill Cohen, GTA –Sheng Zhu | April 7, 2019 |
Progress Report
Situation Summary
Performance Test 1 and 2 as well as Advanced Research and Development 3 were completed to improve on the AEV design and prepare for the final performance test. During Advanced Research and Development 3, one AEV component was tested: if the placement of the reflector sensors at the start of the path will impact how far the AEV travels and the consistency of the distance traveled. The team believed this would aid in avoiding inconstant runs that may be encountered in the future. The team first defined the problem revolving around the sensors then brainstormed ideas about how to test the issue. The procedure was designed to eliminate as many sources of outside error as possible. During the test, the sensor was placed at different locations at the start of each trial: top of wheel, left side of wheel, right side or wheel, and bottom of wheel. The AEV with this configuration was run a minimum of 5 times for each configuration to compare the distance and consistently of each trial. Once this procedure was approved, the team tested the AEV and added additional trials as needed to ensure the data was accurate.
Results and Analysis
Performance Test 1:
For Performance Test 1, the task was to approach the gate, stop for 7 seconds, and continue past the gate after the gate had opened. To complete this test, the AEV was required to stop at a sensor near the gate (without triggering a sensor closer to the gate), wait for the gate to open, and then travel far enough to not interfere with the gate closing afterwards.
When preparing for this test, it was necessary to have methods to ensure the safety of colleagues and the protection of the equipment used when testing. For this reason, multiple team members were placed along the track to catch the AEV in the case of unexpected behavior. Failure to have enough team members ready to catch the AEV resulted in the AEV falling off the track and landing safely on its 3D printed standoffs with no damage to the AEV or its components. To prevent this incident from happening in the future, signals were used to ensure that all members were present and ready for each test.
Leading up to Performance Test 1, the design of the AEV included the 3D printed aerodynamic shell (see Figure 1, below). Though the part was printed accurately, it was quickly determined that the shell’s design interfered with modifying certain components of the AEV. Another challenge when testing was the inconsistency of the AEV periodically. The AEV would travel the correct distance consistently for a number of tests, but upon the next test would travel too far or short from the intended distance. This made traveling to the first gate sensor without tripping the second gate sensor difficult, especially when using the method of coasting to stop. Despite these challenges, the aerodynamic shell was used to determine if it aided in performance tests and it was planned that the AEV would stop by coasting to conserve energy.
Figure 1: aerodynamic shell on AEV creates difficulty when accessing AEV components
Performance Test 2:
Performance Test 2 was similar to Performance Test 1, but had the additional task of making the AEV connect with a load at the end of the track. It was required that the AEV’s front wheel not pass the red tape near the end of the track. After connecting with the load, the AEV was required to wait for 5 seconds, and move the load backwards, past the red tape. When beginning Performance Test 2, the shell was removed from the AEV and various components were moved to ensure the balance of the AEV. Some components were removed for weight reduction. Finally, a mechanism to connect with the magnet on the load was added.
Designing the connector for the load’s magnet involved trial and error. At first, the connector was too close to the AEV, causing the propellers of the AEV to intersect with the load. To fix this, the connector was extended outwards from the AEV using spacers and spare nuts. This inadvertently created a lever that could cushion the connection using friction (see Figure 2, below). The cushion made connecting with the load smooth and reduced the inertia transferred to the AEV-load system.
Figure 2: Magnet connector. Yellow arrow shows the point at which the load connects.
When testing the AEV for Performance Test 2, it was found that the same inconsistencies from Performance Test 1 were observed in Performance Test 2. When attempting to correct for this error, code was added to fully stop the AEV well before the second sensor of the gate. After coming to a complete stop, the AEV then traveled forwards at the minimum speed needed to move the AEV. Once the AEV reached the first sensor, the code stopped the motors. Because the AEV was previously traveling the minimum speed, coasting was minimized, helping to reduce the observed inconsistency. A similar method was used to attach the AEV to the load without the inertia carrying the system past the red tape.
Take Away
Performance Test 1:
The AEV design used in Performance Test 1 passed the test completely, but had serious flaws. Upon officially testing the AEV, the propeller partially broke. This was due to the insecurity of the motors on the AEV. To correct this problem, it was planned for the next design to have a solid plastic piece holding the motors in place (see Figure 3, below). In addition to the aerodynamic shell blocking access to the AEV’s components (see Figure 1, above), it caused the AEV to be off balance considerably. It was also assumed that the shell was too heavy for the aerodynamic benefits to positively affect the AEV. As such, the shell was opted to be discarded from future designs, and an alternate design was proposed and used in Performance Test 2.
Figure 3: Solid plastic piece holds motors more securely
As far as the Engineering Design Process (EDP), it was found that the second step of the process was revisited multiple times during each test to decide which strategy for completing the Performance Test 1 successfully was best. The code for the first performance test was also constantly being changed, implemented, and evaluated at each test, and the entire design process took place rapidly and repeated frequently to create a successful design.
Performance Test 2:
The AEV performed better in Performance Test 2 due to the utilization of more robust code and removal of the shell. The AEV was able to start and stop moving quicker and it also had code that allowed for the vehicle to correct itself if it did not make it all the way to the gate or the caboose. This allowed the AEV to be more consistent during Performance Test 2. The code created to make the AEV more consistent was useful in further development of the AEV as it allowed future testing of the vehicle for Performance Test 3 to be more consistent.
Performance Test 2 mainly utilized the last 2 steps of the EDP, Implement and Evaluate. These steps were important in refining the functionality of the AEV. Testing for Performance Test 2 consisted of attempting to account for or eliminate all inconsistencies in the AEV’s performance and doing so enabled the vehicle to perform well on almost every run.
Future Work
The team’s next focus is the final performance test. This test includes the AEV going to the gate, stopping for 7 seconds, going and picking up a load, waiting, then proceeding back through the gate to the start. Completing the final performance test will enable the final AEV design to be submitted to Smart Columbus with confidence that it will work when implemented. The team will focus on a code based on distance rather then power or speed. This will allow the AEV to complete the course at the same level of accuracy every time despite a change in the charge of the battery or the changes in the track surface. This will be completed by editing and testing the code already created from the second performance test.
In addition, the team will focus on end of the year decimation. This includes the final poster/presentation, CDR, website, and any additional items needed. The teams’ goal is to complete all these tasks with high quality in a reasonable amount of time. To do this, the team plans to complete assignments 24 hours before the due date for class. This time will allow for unexpected situations to occur while still submitting a high quality assignment. This will be accomplished by setting strict deadline and spacing out work. In addition, it will be accomplished by having weekly meetings outside of class to edit the assignments as a team.
Another one of the team’s goals is to be well prepared for the Final Oral Presentation by ensuring that the poster is done more than 24 hours before the submission deadline to allow for members to practice what will be said during their part of the presentation. For the CDR the goal is to have more than the necessary amount of information, focusing mostly on the major results that are applicable to Smart Columbus. Finally, for the website, the team wants to ensure that it is easy to navigate and is consistent with the other divisions’ sections.
One of the team’s more general goals is to use 75% or less of the budget given. This will be accomplished by avoiding breaking or losing parts. In addition, the team will be careful to program the AEV so it does not fly off the track. The team will also have multiple members acting as stoppers along the track to ensure it is caught to avoid damages and safety violations costing the team. The team will also stay within the budget goal through the aid of the grant paying for 50% of the cost to 3D print items. Currently, the team is on track to meet its goals.
Appendix
Appendix A: Meeting Notes
Date 3/19/19
Time: 9:10-10:05 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Complete the performance test, complete advance R&D presentation slides
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: work on performance test
Nick: work on performance test
Samira: work on performance test
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: be prepared to present the Advance R&D presentation (propellers), submit slides
Nick: be prepared to present the Advance R&D presentation (intro and test)
Samira: be prepared to present the Advance R&D presentation (battery), edit slides
Reflection:
The team concluded the performance test. The team had to edit the code to rely more on coasting. During the test, the propeller broke but this did not impact the results of the data. The team obtained a new propeller and decided the shell is too much weight, causing problems with stopping. The team decided to remove the shell. In addition, the AEV was titled, so the team decided to move the L-shaped arm more towards the center to balance out the vehicle.
Date 3/21/19
Time: 9:10-10:05 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Present Advance R&D, talk about next class
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: Present on propeller R&D test, Discuss ideas for performance test 2
Nick: Present approach and performance test, work on performance test 2 code
Samira: present battery R&D test, discuss ideas for performance test 2
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: N/A
Nick: N/A
Samira: N/A
Reflection:
The team presented on the results from the two advance R&D tests. In addition, the team shared how the team is approaching to the task assigned by the city of Columbus. The Team shared the results from the first performance test and discussed the changes in the design for the second performance test. After the presentation was done, the team answered questions and listened to three other Teams presentations. Finally, in the last 10 minutes of class, the team shared ideas and worked on the code for the second performance test.
Date 3/22/19
Time: 9:35-10:55 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Complete performance test 2
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: test AEV for performance test 2
Nick:test AEV for performance test 2
Samira: test AEV for performance test 2
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: N/A
Nick: N/A
Samira: N/A
Reflection:
The team began coding the AEV for the second performance test. The AEV must travel to the gate, wait 7 seconds, go pick up a load, wait 5 seconds and proceed from loading doc. The team was having trouble with the AEV traveling up to the proper position of the gate.
Date 3/24/19
Time: 5:15-6:00
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Discuss the CDR and committee meetings
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: discuss CDR
Nick: discuss CDR
Samira: Discuss CDR
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: write results, executive summary and discuss of CDR, be prepared to present research and development and finances during committee meetings
Nick: write results, executive summary and discuss of CDR, be prepared to present public relations of committee meetings
Samira: write intro, conclusion and recommendations, and executive summary of CDR, be prepared to discuss human resources during committee meetings
Reflection:
The team split up roles for the CDR and discussed a due date to allow enough time for editing. The team also decided to stay in the same roles for the committee meetings. For the human resources, the team will contact Samira if the members have any concerns about another member to keep the issue confidential.
Date 3/26/19
Time: 9:10-10:05 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Complete performance test 2
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: complete performance test 2
Nick: complete performance test 2
Samira: complete performance test 2
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: write results, executive summary and discuss of CDR, be prepared to present research and development and finances during committee meetings
Nick: write results, executive summary and discuss of CDR, be prepared to present public relations of committee meetings
Samira: write intro, conclusion and recommendations, and executive summary of CDR, be prepared to discuss human resources during committee meetings
Reflection:
The team had multiple issues while completing the second performance test. The AEV would go too far past the sensor at the gate, then start reversing. Once that was fixed, the AEV was not going far enough to the load, but the propellers were still moving. Increasing the speed and other changes to the code solved this. Then the AEV would land near the load, and stop, but not go again. The team focused on getting the AEV to wait and start again before worrying about getting all the way to the load. Once this was fixed, the AEV began going too far pas the first sensor of the gate again. The team did not complete the 2nd performance test.
Date 3/29/19
Time: 9:10-10:05 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Complete performance test 2, have team meeting notes
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: complete performance test 2, present on research and development
Nick: complete performance test 2, present public relations of committee meetings
Samira: complete performance test 2, discuss human resources during committee meetings
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: N/A
Nick: N/A
Samira: N/A
Reflection:
The team, present the community meetings. The website changes include descriptions for the links. The team also needs to figure out why the AEV flew off the tracks. Finally, the team is doing well working as a group. The team also completed the progress report 2. The only issues was ensuring that the AEV went the proper distance for multiple trials. The team decided that the team will test the distance traveled by the AEV at different positions to see if the AEV actually goes the distance programmed.
Date 3/28/19
Time: 9:35-10:55 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: Complete the Advance R&D 3 (placement of the reflector sensors), if time allows start testing for final performance test
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: complete A&D 3, start final test
Nick: complete A&D 3, start final test
Samira: complete A&D 3, start final test
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: work on progress report 3, results section
Nick: work on progress report 3, results section
Samira: work on progress report 3, intro and future section
Reflection:
The team, decided to test how the placement of the reflector sensor at the start of the trial impacted the distance and consistory traveled. The trials consisted of the sensor being on the right, left, top and bottom. It was noticed that after a certain amount of trials, there was a dip in the distance that would rise again. The conclusions showed that top configuration is most consistent. Then the team began coding for the final performance test.
Date 4/2/19
Time: 9:10-10;05 (in class)
Members Present: All
Topics/Agenda: test for final performance test
Action Items with names assigned:
Jeff: work on final test
Nick: work start final test
Samira: work final test
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: work on progress report 3, results section
Nick: work on progress report 3, results section
Samira: work on progress report 3, intro and future section
Reflection:
The team worked on coding for the final test. The team received a fully charged battery, as opposed to the semi charged battery last meeting. The team therefore had to adjust the code for the intense increase in power. The AEV was traveling too far and too fast. Once this issue was solved, the team worked on the code coming back after the load was picked up.
Date 4/4/19
Time: 9:10-10;05 (in class)
Members Present: Samira and Nick (**Jeff had an excused absence*)
Topics/Agenda: test for final performance test
Action Items with names assigned:
Nick: work on code for final testing
Samira: work on code for final testing
To be completed before next meeting:
Jeff: work on progress report 3, results section
Nick: work on progress report 3, results section
Samira: work on progress report 3, intro and future section
Reflection:
The Team continued to work on the final code. During one of the tests, there was a metal piece on the load from another team, resulting in the damage of the Teams propeller. The team had to replace the propeller to continue with the code.
Appendix B: Performance Test 1 Code
reverse(2);
motorSpeed(4,50);
goToAbsolutePosition(220);
motorSpeed(4,0);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,50);
goFor(1);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,15);
goToAbsolutePosition(290);
brake(4);
if (getVehiclePostion()<304) {
motorSpeed(4,20);
goToAbsolutePosition(300);
brake(4);
} else if (getVehiclePostion()>304) {
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,20);
goToAbsolutePosition(306);
brake(4);
reverse(4);
}
goFor(7);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(2);
brake(4);
Appendix C: Performance Test 2 Code
int i = 297;
reverse(1);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goToAbsolutePosition(240);
brake;
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1.5);
reverse(4);
// motorSpeed(4,22);
// goToAbsolutePosition(290);
brake(4);
while (getVehiclePostion()<i-1||getVehiclePostion()>-+1) {
if (getVehiclePostion()<i-1) {
motorSpeed(4,19);
goFor(0.25);
brake(4);
} else if (getVehiclePostion()>i+1) {
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,19);
goFor(0.25);
brake(4);
reverse(4);
}
}
goFor(7);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goToAbsolutePosition(500);
brake;
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1.5);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,18);
goToAbsolutePosition(520);
brake;
goFor(5);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
brake(4);
Appendix D: Advanced Research and Development 3
reverse(1);
motorSpeed(4,50);
goToAbsolutePosition(150);
brake(4);
Appendix E: Schedule
| Task | Start Date | Finish Date | Due Date | Primary Person | Secondary Person | Est. Hours | % Completed |
| Grant Proposal | 2/9/19 | 2/14/19 | 2/14/19 | Jeff, Nick | Tiana, Samira | 2 | 100 |
| Progress Report 1 | 2/9/19 | 2/14/19 | 2/15/19 | All | 4 | 100 | |
| Committee Meeting | 2/20/19 | 2/22/19 | 2/22/19 | All | 0.5 | 100 | |
| Advance R&D 1 | 2/22/19 | 3/1/19 | 3/1/19 | Nick, Jeff | Samira | 3.5 | 100 |
| Advance R&D 2 | 3/3/10 | 3/7/19 | 3/8/19 | Nick,
Jeff |
Samira | 4 | 100 |
| Performance Test 1 | 3/8/19 | 3/19/19 | 3/19/19 | Nick | Jeff | 2 | 100 |
| GOAL: Secure wires and propellor motors | 3/18/19 | 3/19/19 | 3/19/19 | Jeff | Nick, Samira | 0.5 | 100 |
| Advance R&D Presentation | 3/18/19 | 3/19/19 | Lab 13 | Samira | Jeff, Nick | 2 | 50 |
| Performance Test 2 | 3/20/19 | 3/28/19 | 3/28/19 | Nick, Jeff | Samira | 2 | 100 |
| Advanced R&D 3 | 3/26/19 | 3/29/19 | Lab 18 | Jeff | Samira, Nick | 2 | 100 |
| Final Deliverables | 3/29/19 | 4/3/19 | Lab 19 | Nick | Jeff, Samira | 5 | 0 |
| Final Performance Test | 4/2/19 | 4/5/19 | Lab 21 | Nick | Jeff | 3 | 0 |
| Oral Presentation | 4/1/19 | 4/14/19 | Lab 24 | Samira | Nick,Jeff | 2 | 0 |
| Progress Report 2 | 3/3/19 | 3/18/19 | 3/19/19 | Samira | Nick, Jeff | 5 | 100 |
| Website 3 Update | 3/3/19 | 3/7/19 | 3/8/19 | Samira | Nick, Jeff | 2 | 100 |
| CDR (draft) | 3/20/19 | 3/21/19 | Lab 14 | Jeff | Nick, Samira | 3 | 100 |
| Team Eval 2 | 3/25/19 | 3/27/19 | Lab 16 | All | 0.5 | 100 | |
| Committee Meetings 2 | 3/25/19 | 3/27/19 | Lab 16 | All | 1 | 100 | |
| Progress Report 3 | 3/29/19 | 4/3/19 | Lab 19 | Jeff | Nick, Samira | 5 | 0 |
| Final Oral Presentation Draft | 3/29/19 | 4/4/19 | Lab 21 | Samira | Nick, Jeff | 3 | 0 |
| Final Team Eval | 4/15/19 | 4/17/19 | Lab 25 | All | 0.5 | 0 | |
| CDR | 3/22/19 | 4/17/19 | Lab 25 | Jeff | Samira, Nick | 5 | 0 |
| Final Website | 4/11/19 | 4/17/19 | Lab 25 | Samira | Jeff, Nick | 4 | 0 |
| GOAL: use less than or equal to 75% of the budget | 2/19/19 | 4/18/19 | Lab 25 | ALL | Throughout | 50 | |
| GOAL: finish assignments 24 hours before due date | 4/7/19 | Lab 25 | ALL | Throughout |