Progress Report One

 

G – Joe Georges, James Bott, Michael Nedved, Nick McLauhghlin Progress Report 1
Instructor – Busick, GTA – Sheng Zhu 2/14/19

Report of Progress

In Exercise 1, the motors were tested with sample code to determine functionality as well as strength. The motors both fully worked and were identical in function although there was some delay between the start of the program and the first set of movements. However this can be accounted for in the final design and program. This exercise gave the team a better understanding of simple arduino commands as well as how to navigate the software used for coding the AEV.

In Exercise 2, the different functions were tested as well as brainstorming means of stopping the AEV. For example, the braking function stops the propellers but since the AEV’s movement is independent of the propellers, it will continue coasting forward after the propellers stops moving. This will either be implemented into the programming for the final project or the group will work on the idea of flipping the direction of the propellers to provide a counter force for more precise braking. The idea of a brake system involving a servo motor was also considered. Exercise 2 also tested the reflectance sensors on the AEV. From this test the group took away a better understanding of how the reflectance sensors work to measure the distance the AEV travels, as well as how this reflectance sensor data can be used to stop the AEV at a certain position.

In Exercise 3, the AEV ran a simple program while on the test track. Data was collected on this program and the results match the program very well. Starting the Power Vs. Distance graph (Figure A1) compared to the Exercise 3: Data Collection code, the AEV starts in reverse with fans attempting to push it backwards rather than forwards. There is a parabola due to an acceleration onto the motors for 3 seconds to 25% power. Next, there is a constant distance due to all motors running at a constant power of 25%. After that constant speed, the motors are given a command to drop the power to 20% for 2 second, which is why you see the sudden drop in power, and still a coverage in distance. Then there is a huge spike due the reversal of direction for which the AEV goes. After this reversal the AEV runs at 25% power for 2 seconds. A much larger distance is covered over these 2 seconds than the last 6 because the fans are now pushing the AEV in the optimized direction (+x direction). Finally the power drops to 0% and the brakes are applied, the AEV slides a considerable distance until it finally comes to a stop.

Now looking at the Power vs. Time graph (Figure A2) compared to the Exercise 3: Data Collection Code, the AEV once again starts in reverse with its fans attempting to push it backwards. To start you can see a constant rise in power over a time period where the motors are accelerating to 25% power over 3 seconds. The motors then stay at 25% power for 1 second giving you a constant line because of constant power. There is a instant drop to 20% power for 2 seconds, which is why on the graph you can see a drop in power and constant line. There is then a surge of power forcing the fans to change direction now attempting to push the AEV forward which is why you see a large spike in power. After the reversal, the motors are again put at 25% power now for 2 seconds holding power which is why again you see a constant line. Finally all motors are break and the power cuts to 0%, ending the graph with a large drop off to 0.

 

 

 

In Exercise 4, the team made individual designs that were considered for the final project. (Appendix A3) attempts to utilize a bulk up design, where all components are pooled up together. This will bring the center of mass closer to the attachment that puts the wheels on the track. The budget necessary to create Joe’s design would be $148,340. (Appendix A4) focused on adding more thrust to the AEV by adding more fans, as well as adding a sloped front to make the AEV more aerodynamic. The budget for Michael’s design would be $174,730. (Appendix A5) was predicated on making the AEV more aerodynamic by adding a front piece that emulates a bullet train, there are also numerous quality of life improvements such as holes in the base for wires to run through. The budget for Nick’s design would be $154,340. (Appendix A6) seeks to optimize efficiency and control by motorizing both wheels. The budget for James’s design would be $147,890. The team concept design takes the most from James’ design and includes a single motorized wheel, as well as an extension arm to hole the motor, and a new drive wheel. The team design also slims down to a skinnier base plate to conserve weight. A servo motor will also be included into the design as a braking mechanism for the final team design. The budget for the team design would be $154,290.

 

In Exercise 5, a concept screening and scoring  matrix was made and utilized to decide which AEV design to proceed with developing (Appendix C1 & C2). Through this matrix the various pros and cons of the prospective AEV designs were compared and summed. After compiling the scores a wheel based AEV design was chosen as the candidate for development. The scoring categories were primarily based on performance and efficiency. This ruled out powerful but inefficient designs while still assuring the AEV be capable of performing its desired functions. From exercises 4 & 5, the group determined that the optimal AEV design would be the team design that has a motorized wheel as it will maximize the efficiency of the work done by the engine.

Future Work

If the group receives the grant or not will determine what the group can implement in terms of ideas for the AEV. As of right now, the group is expecting to receive the grant, which will allow the group to get the 3D printed part that will help in the construction of the final design. If the team does not receive the grant, the merits of the 3D printed part will be weighed to determine whether it is worth the extra cost or not, as well as a change to the design as a whole. At this point, James’ design is the template for the final design, but if a re-design of the final design is needed, then Joe’s or Nick’s design will be the template for the final design. If the team decides to buy a part with no grant, this will be some cost and add some time to the design process. If the grant is not recieved and the custom part doesn’t seem worth it then the group will move forward implementing a belt system to drive the AEV.

The current goals are figuring the best design as well as optimizing that design to have a braking system using a servo motor. This is a relatively new design focus, so the team currently doesn’t have much to add besides the idea of using the motor as more effective means of stopping the AEV. Tests will also need to be ran to optimize not only the drive system but also braking system.

The team has also assigned different roles for each member moving forward. Nick will be in charge of the creation and optimization of the custom part, Joe will be in charge of developing the code for the Arduino board, and James and Michael will work on the construction of the AEV.

Looking forward the team needs to be ready for the grant proposal. This entails having a clear design idea that can be explained in detail by the group and having a clear plan of what the grant money would be used for. The team also needs to prepare for the committee meeting to discuss the success of the group so far and address potential problems.

Appendices

Appendix A

Figures

 

Figure A1

This figure shows power vs distance for propeller AEV

 

Figure A2

This figure shows power vs time for propeller AEV

 

Figure A3

This figure shows Joe’s individual design for the AEV

 

Figure A4

This figure shows Michael’s individual design for the AEV

 

Figure A5

This figure shows Nick’s individual design for the AEV

 

Figure A6

This figure show’s James’ individual design for the AEV

 

Figure A7

This figure shows the group AEV design that will be the basis of the grant proposal

 

Appendix B

Code

 

Exercise 1

 

// #1
celerate(4,0,15,2.5);
// All motors accelerated from rest to 15% power in 2.5 seconds.

// #2
motorSpeed(4,15);
goFor(1);
// All motors ran at 15% power for 1 second.
// #3
brake(1);
// Braking motor one.

// #4
celerate(2,0,27,4);
// Motor two accelerated from rest to 27% power in 4 seconds.

// #5
motorSpeed(2,27);
goFor(2.7);
// Motor two ran at 27% power for 2.7 seconds.

//#6
celerate(2,27,15,1);
// Motor two decelerated from 27% to 15% power in 1 second.

// #7
brake(2);
// Braking motor two.

// #8
reverse(2);
// Reversing motor two’s direction.

// #9
celerate(4,0,31,2);
// All motors accelerating from rest to 31% power in 2 seconds.

// #10
motorSpeed(4,35);
goFor(1);
// All motors ran at 35% power for 1 second.

// #11
brake(2);
motorSpeed(1,35);
goFor(3);
// Motor two braked while motor one ran at 35% power for 3 seconds.

// #12
brake(4);
goFor(1);
// All motors braked for 1 second.

// #13
reverse(1);
// Motor one reversed.

// #14
celerate(1,0,19,2);
// Motor one accelerated from rest to 19% power in 2 seconds.

// #15
motorSpeed(2,35);
motorSpeed(1,19);
goFor(2);
// Motor two ran at 35% power while simultaneously motor one ran at 19% for 2 seconds.

// #16
motorSpeed(4,19);
goFor(2);
// All motors ran at 19% power for 2 seconds.

// #17
celerate(4,19,0,2);
// All motors decelerated from 19% power to rest in 2 seconds.

// #18
brake(4);
// Brake all motors.

 

 

Exercise 2: Reflectance Sensor test

 

// before the program

 reflectanceSensorTest();

 // #1

 motorSpeed(4,25);

 goFor(2);

// #2

motorSpeed(4,20);

goToAbsolutePosition(295.23);

 

 // #3

 reverse(4);

 // #4

 motorSpeed(4,30);

 goFor(1.5);

 // #5

 brake(4);

 

Exercise 3: Data collection

 

// #1
celerate(4,0,25,3);
// All motors accelerated from rest to 25% power in 3 seconds.

// #2
motorSpeed(4,25);
goFor(1);
// All motors ran at 25% for 1 second.

// #3
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(2);
// All motors ran at 20% power for 2 seconds.

// #4
reverse(4);
// All motors reversed direction.

// #5
motorSpeed(4,25);
goFor(2);
// All motors ran at 25% power for 2 seconds.

 

// #6
brake(4);
// All motors braked.

 

 

Appendix C

Tables

 

Table C1

 

Success

Criteria

Reference Design Nedved Design McLaughlin Design Bott Design Georges Team Design
Drive System 0 + 0 + 0 +
Brake System 0 + 0 + 0 +
Power Consumption 0 0 + 0 +
# of Motors 0 + 0 + 0 +
Sum +’s 0 3 0 4 0 4
sum 0’s 0 0 4 0 4 0
Sum -‘s 0 1 0 0 0 0
Net Score 0 2 0 4 0 4
Continue? Combine Yes Combine Yes Combine Yes

This table is the AEV design matrix used in exercise 5

 

Table C2

This table is the AEV Concept scoring matrix used in exercise 5

Appendix D

Team Meeting Notes

Meeting 1 – January 10, 2019

1/10/19 – Hitchcock 224 – 1 hour 20 minutes

Attendance:

  •         James Bott
  •         Joe Georges
  •         Michael Nedved
  •         Nick McLaughlin

Objective: Meet the new lab group and other groups comprising Watt’s Science, and test the Arduino control system.

Completed tasks:

  •         Review AEV kit policies – completed by whole team
  •         Arduino software downloaded to lab computers – completed by Joe and James on lab computers and Nick on personal computer
  •         Arduino test code was written – completed by Joe
  •         Test code was ran on the testbed – completed by team
  •         Website created – completed by Sarabeth from Group F
  •         GroupMe created – completed by Michael

Tasks to be Completed:

  •         Team info to be added to website – each member will add their own info
  •         Fill out AEV kit label – team as a whole
  •         Download AEV sketchbook – each member individually

Decisions:

  •         Sarabeth from Group F will create the website.
  •         Michael will create a GoupMe for Group G communication

Timeline

1-10-19 – Lab 1 – pR&d 1

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 1 due

1-17-19 – Lab 2 – pR&d 2

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz ­­­­2 due
  •         Website update 1
  •         Team Meeting Minutes

1-31-19 – Lab 3 – pR&d3

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 3 due

2-7-19 – Lab 4 – pR&d 4 & 5

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 4 due

2-14-19 – Lab 5 – Grant Proposal & LPQ

  •         Progress Report 1 due
  •         Lab Practical Quiz
  •         Present Grant Proposal

 

Meeting 2 – January 17, 2019

1/17/19 – Hitchcock Hall 224 – 1 hour 20 minutes

Attendance:

  •         James Bott
  •         Joe Georges
  •         Michael Nedved
  •         Nick McLaughlin

Objective: Receive and assemble the AEV kit and test the reflectance sensors.

Completed tasks:

  •         Fill out AEV kit label – completed by team as a whole
  •         Take inventory of AEV kit to ensure all pieces are present – completed by Nick
  •         AEV kit was constructed into the sample design – completed by James and Michael
  •         Reflectance sensor test code was written – completed by Joe

Tasks to be Completed:

  •         Run reflectance sensor test and troubleshoot battery voltage issue – Joe
  •         Record team meeting minutes – Nick

Decisions:

  •         James will take home and be in charge of the AEV kit and will take it home with him because he is the only one who lives within walking distance of campus.

Timeline

1-10-19 – Lab 1 – pR&d 1

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 1 due

1-17-19 – Lab 2 – pR&d 2

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz ­­­­2 due
  •         Website update 1
  •         Team Meeting Minutes

1-31-19 – Lab 3 – pR&d3

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 3 due

2-7-19 – Lab 4 – pR&d 4 & 5

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 4 due

2-14-19 – Lab 5 – Grant Proposal & LPQ

  •         Progress Report 1 due
  •         Lab Practical Quiz
  •         Present Grant Proposal

 

Meeting 3 – January 31 2019

1/31/19 – Hitchcock 224 – 1 hour 20 minutes

Attendance:

  •         James Bott
  •         Joe Georges
  •         Michael Nedved
  •         Nick McLaughlin

Objective: Finish troubleshooting the reflectance sensor test and complete lab activity 3 using the data analysis tool to collect data on how the AEV moves.

Completed tasks:

  •         Reflectance Sensor test was ran on James’ computer – Completed by entire group
  •         Download the data analysis tool – James
  •         Write AEV code to take data on – Nick
  •         Data collected on track – Joe and Michael
  •         Data exported into Data Analysis Tool – James

Tasks to be Completed:

  •         Finish making plots of collected data – tbd at next meeting
  •         Individual AEV Design – each member individually
  •         Website Update 2 – team will divide work

Decisions:

  •         James’ computer will be used to run code because it doesn’t work on joes

Timeline

1-10-19 – Lab 1 – pR&d 1

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 1 due

1-17-19 – Lab 2 – pR&d 2

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz ­­­­2 due
  •         Website update 1
  •         Team Meeting Minutes

1-31-19 – Lab 3 – pR&d3

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 3 due

2-7-19 – Lab 4 – pR&d 4 & 5

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 4 due

2-14-19 – Lab 5 – Grant Proposal & LPQ

  •         Progress Report 1 due
  •         Lab Practical Quiz
  •         Present Grant Proposal

2-21-19 – Lab 6 – aR&D 1

  •         aR&D Quiz 1
  •         Committee Meeting

2-28-19 – Lab 7 – aR&D 1

3-4-19 – Lab 8 – aR&D 1

 

 

Meeting 4 – February 7 2019

2/7/19 – Hitchcock 224 – 1 hour 20 minutes

Attendance:

  •         James Bott
  •         Joe Georges
  •         Michael Nedved
  •         Nick McLaughlin

Objective: To collect all individual AEV designs and brainstorm a group design. Then create a design matrix to objectively compare the designs

Completed tasks:

  •         Collect individual AEV designs and draft ideas for a group design – whole group
  •         Sketch group AEV design – Nick
  •         Put all designs in a design matrix so that they can be objectively compared – Joe, Michael and James
  •         Brainstorm an idea for a 3d printed part to be part of the grant proposal – whole group

Tasks to be Completed:

  •         Grant proposal parts and  slide – Nick
  •         Progress report 1 – whole group
  •         Prepare for lab proficiency quiz
  •         Update Website – Joe and James
  •         Update Meeting minutes – Nick

Decisions:

  •         Team unanimously decided that the grant proposal will be parts to motorize a wheel and Nick will make the parts and slide
  •         Servo brake will be incorporated into final design if the friction in the driver wheel is not enough to stop the AEV
  •         If grant is not received, Joe’s idea of a belt system to power a wheel will be used

Timeline

1-10-19 – Lab 1 – pR&d 1

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 1 due

1-17-19 – Lab 2 – pR&d 2

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz ­­­­2 due
  •         Website update 1
  •         Team Meeting Minutes

1-31-19 – Lab 3 – pR&d3

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 3 due

2-7-19 – Lab 4 – pR&d 4 & 5

  •         Preliminary R&D Quiz 4 due

2-14-19 – Lab 5 – Grant Proposal & LPQ

  •         Progress Report 1 due
  •         Lab Practical Quiz
  •         Present Grant Proposal

2-21-19 – Lab 6 – aR&D 1

  •         aR&D Quiz 1
  •         Committee Meeting

2-28-19 – Lab 7 – aR&D 1

3-4-19 – Lab 8 – aR&D 1