| F – Emily Laudo, Sarabeth Hewa, Nick Besancon, Bradley Moyer | Progress Report 3 |
| Instructor – Richard Busick, GTA – Sheng Zhu | 1 – Apr – 2019 |
Report of Progress
Situation
Recently, Team F with the Watt’s Science Corporation, conducted a series of tests to improve the efficiency of the AEV. These R&D 3 tests consisted of measuring the efficiency of 2 different types of propellers. The AEV was set to run for a certain amount of marks, and this distance was cross examined with the energy output of the propellers. This code can be found in appendix B. To measure the performance of the 2 different propellers, data was collected in the “AEV_Data_Extraction” tool found in MATLAB. From there, the group was able to determine which propeller is best suited for the design of the AEV.
The propeller that was seen to perform the best was kept on the AEV, and was used for final performance testing. It was very important to conduct these propeller tests, because during the final performance test, energy output is accounted for and a cost is associated with it. The team strived to have the most energy-efficient vehicle while running through the final performance test.
To analyze the tests conducted, graphs were developed. These graphs can be found in Appendix A. Team F determined the “best performing” propeller by reviewing which propeller travelled the most distance with the least energy output.
Results and Analysis
The first test the team conducted was testing both the white and black propellers on a goFor(2) command. For the white propellers, as seen in Appendix A.1, the AEV had a total energy output of roughly 13.5 J and traveled a total distance of 0.35 m. The team chose to look at the final distance traveled value for this section because the AEV drifted for a small portion of time, seen when the energy output no longer increases because this was also dependent on how fast the AEV going. Logically, if the AEV was going faster, the AEV drifted further. Therefore, the team chose the best way to look at the results and analyze them in order to get the best takeaway possible from the experiments conducted. For the black propellers, as seen in Appendix A.4, the AEV had a total energy output of roughly 13.5 J and traveled a total distance of 0.56 m. Comparing this data, the propellers caused the same amount of energy to be used by the AEV during this time period, but the black propellers caused the AEV to travel 0.21 m more. This was a 60% increase of distance and is therefore statistically significant. From this data, it was evident that the black propellers performed better than the white propellers.
The second test the team conducted was testing both the white and black propellers on a goFor(4) command. For the white propellers, as seen in Appendix A.2, the AEV had a total energy output of roughly 28 J and travelled a total distance of 2.25 m. For the black propellers, as seen in Appendix A.5, the AEV had a total energy output of roughly 27.5 J and travelled a total distance of 2.75 m. Comparing this data, not only did the black propellers use less energy than the white propellers, they also travelled 0.5 m more than the white propellers. The black propellers demonstrated 2% decrease in total AEV energy consumption and a 22% increase in total AEV distance travelled. Although the total energy consumption is not enough for the difference in total energy to be statistically significant, the total distance travelled is. From this data, it was evident to see that the black propellers performed better than the white propellers.
The final test the team conducted was testing both the white and black propellers on a goFor(6) command. For the white propellers, as seen in Appendix A.3, the AEV had a total energy output of roughly 41 J and travelled a total distance of 4.15 m. For the black propellers, as seen in Appendix A.6, the AEV had a total energy output of roughly 41 J and travelled a total distance of 3.15 m. Comparing this data, both propellers consumed the same amount of energy required by the AEV, but the white propellers travelled 1 m more in total distance. The white propellers caused a 32% increase in distance and is therefore statistically significant. From this data, it was evident that the white propellers performed better than the black propellers.
Takeaways
These results help to maximize the efficiency of the AEV as a whole. The black propellers were able to move the AEV 60% further with the same amount of energy when running for two seconds. The black propellers also moved the AEV 22% farther when running for four seconds. Finally, on the final test of running the AEV for six seconds, the white propellers performed better. The white propellers moved the AEV nearly 1 meter farther than the black propellers. These results show that in short distances the black propellers are more efficient but in longer distances, the white propellers are better. The team decided that because most of the time on the track the AEV is only run for a few seconds before coming to a stop, that the black propellers are the more efficient propellers to use.
Future Work
Situation
Upcoming tasks the group will need to complete will be the very last Performance Test and the final Oral Presentation. The guidelines for the last Performance Test include properly adjusting the AEV at the starting dock, stopping the AEV between gate sensors for 7 seconds, and making the AEV proceed through the gate. Then, the AEV must attach to the load, or caboose, without recoiling out of the loading zone and pause for 5 seconds. The AEV and caboose must make it over an elevated raise and head toward the gate again, stopping between the gate sensors for 7 seconds, proceeding through the gate, going over an elevation drop, and then returning safely to the starting dock with the caboose still attached. This is the final test evaluating the AEV’s performance under certain circumstances. This will be completed by conducting a code using the Arduino, testing this code on the track by making sure the guidelines previously stated are met, and adjusting the code as needed. Along with the code, a servo motor attached to the arm of the AEV serves as the main braking mechanism by stopping the wheel at certain points along the test. For the final Performance Test, the servo stops the AEV after it hits the first sensor right before the stop sign and is then used once the caboose is attached and the AEV needs to go through the gate again. The last time the servo is used is at the very end when the AEV reaches its stopping point. In this case, the servo acts not only as a brake, but it slows down the momentum of the AEV as well. For the final Oral Presentation, the group will prepare a poster exploring the timeline of both design and performance that the AEV underwent throughout the process of the project. This will be completed by first, drafting up what the team needs for the board, such as appropriate labels, the evolution of the AEV’s design, and the evolution of each of the performance tests (See Appendix C).
Upcoming Goals
The team has been adjusting the code and running multiple test runs for the final Performance Test. The ultimate goals are to keep the AEV consistent and give the servo motor the multipurpose use of braking the AEV and slowing down its momentum. When Sarabeth was adjusting the code to adapt to the conditions of the test, the rest of the team noticed that results were not consistent. For example, the AEV would attach to the caboose sometimes, but other times would not. Another scenario includes how to propeller flew off during one of the test runs. These types of mishaps are currently being resolved in hopes that the test runs can become more consistent. The goal of the servo motor is mostly met due to the team’s decision to use it to reduce momentum when the AEV heads back to the starting zone. Overall, the team strives to keep the AEV consistent and perform efficiently for the final Performance Test.
Upcoming Schedule
Task Teammates Date Time Needed
aR&D 3 Methodology: Bradley 4/1/19 15 Minutes
Meeting Notes: Emily 4/4/19 30 Minutes
Final Performance Test: Everyone 4/11/19 1 Hour
Critical Design Review: Everyone 4/18/19 3 Hours
Final Website: Emily 4/18/19 30 Minutes
Final Oral Presentation: Everyone 4/18/19 4 Hours
Appendices
Appendix A: Graphs
A.1 Testing “goFor(2)” for White Propeller
A.2 Testing “goFor(4)” for White Propeller
A.3 Testing “goFor(6)” for White Propeller
A.4. Testing “goFor(2)” for Black Propeller
A.5. Testing “goFor(4)” for Black Propeller
A.6. Testing “goFor(6)” for Black Propeller
Appendix B: Arduino Code
B.1: Testing “goFor(2)” for White Propeller
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(2);
brake(4);
B.2: Testing “goFor(4)” for White Propeller
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(4);
brake(4);
B.3: Testing “goFor(6)” for White Propeller
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(6);
brake(4);
B.4: Testing “goFor(2)” for Black Propeller
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(2);
brake(4);
B.5: Testing “goFor(4)” for Black Propeller
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(4);
brake(4);
B.6: Testing “goFor(6)” for Black Propeller
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(6);
brake(4);
Appendix C: Team Meeting Notes
C.1: Meeting 1
Date: 1 – Apr – 2019
Time: 3:00 PM (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Emily Laudo, Sarabeth Hewa, Bradley Moyer, Nick Besancon
Location: Hitchcock 308
Topics Discussed: aR&D 3 and Testings Propellers
****Decisions made are initialed in parenthesis
(i.e. Bradley made decision: (BM)****
_______________________________________________________
Objective: Today’s main focus was on meeting as a team to begin aR&D 3 and testing different propellers.
_______________________________________________________
To Do/Action Items:
- Prepare for final Oral Presentation Draft (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Prepare for Progress Report 3 (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Test Different Propellers (SH, BM, NB, EL)
_______________________________________________________
Decisions:
- Big-Square Propellers are better than Aerodynamic ones (NB)
- Test each type of propeller on the AEV and analyze the energy efficiency based upon distance covered (SH, BM, NB, EL)
_______________________________________________________
Reflections:
- The propellers we have been using are more effective than the other propellers, therefore, we may not change our design.
_______________________________________________________
Upcoming Tasks:
- Prepare for final Oral Presentation Draft (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Prepare for Progress Report 3 (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Finish aR&D 3 (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Update Website with plausible data and information (SH, BM, NB, EL)
C.2: Meeting 2
Date: 3 – Apr – 2019
Time: 3:00 PM (Face-to-Face)
Members Present: Emily Laudo, Sarabeth Hewa, Bradley Moyer, Nick Besancon
Location: Hitchcock 308
Topics Discussed: Final Performance Test
****Decisions made are initialed in parenthesis
(i.e. Bradley made decision: (BM)****
_______________________________________________________
Objective: Today’s main focus was on meeting as a team to discuss who is doing what for Progress Report 3 and finish the code and trial test runs for the very last Performance Test.
_______________________________________________________
To Do/Action Items:
- Finish Progress Report 3 (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Finish Last Performance Test (SH, BM, NB, EL)
_______________________________________________________
Decisions:
- Decided to use the goToRelativePositition command instead of the goFor command (SB)
_______________________________________________________
Reflections:
- The group is content with the design and functionality of the code for the last Performance Test and is feeling confident of their performance. The group does need to get together soon or work on Progress Report 3 on their own.
_______________________________________________________
Upcoming Tasks:
- Prepare for final Oral Presentation Draft (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Prepare for Progress Report 3 (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Update Website with plausible data and information (SH, BM, NB, EL)
- Finalize code for the very last Performance Test (SH, BM, NB, EL)