Performance Test 1
The team ran performance test 1 with two designs which were very similar. As seen above, both designs used the same T shaped base because the team wanted to focus on the effects the orientation of the wings had on the efficiency of the AEV. Although, both designs completed the task correctly. The team decided to use design one (left) for the official performance test because after comparing the data, this design was much more stable. Although, looking at the graphs, the second design was slightly more efficient, the team decided it was important to sacrifice efficiency slightly to keep passengers safe. Using design one, Performance Test 1 was completed successfully and the results can be found below.
Results:
For Performance Test 1, the team was was required to ensure that the AEV was able to safely reach the gate, stop for the necessary amount of time, and then proceed to move past the gate. The data collected during these tests can be found in the charts above. The team decided to implement power braking with regards to having the AEV stop at the gate as it was more accurate than coasting in that the inconsistencies of coasting caused the vehicle to crash into the gate at times. This can be seen by the slight increase in power for a brief period around the five second mark, which indicated the polarity of the motors reversing and the AEV coming to a stop. By using power braking rather than coasting, the team successfully managed accomplish the goals set forth during the first performance test in a consistent manner.
Performance Test 2
The goals for Performance test 2 primarily involved the AEV safely attaching to the caboose and climbing up the track with the caboose. It was found that letting the AEV coast to the caboose resulted in the vehicle building up speed to the point that it would crash into the caboose. To remedy this, an edit was made which forced the AEV to power brake slightly while it was going down the hill to ensure it reached the caboose without crashing into it, and in turn allowing it to safely perform its function. By increasing the power as the AEV went up the hill back towards the gate with the caboose, the AEV successfully managed to climb the incline despite the added weight of the caboose, as can be seen in graph above. Through implementing these changes, the vehicle was able to successfully complete the necessary tasks for the second performance test.
Final Performance Test
The Final Performance Test combines performance tests 1 and 2 as well as the last part of the run. For our final performance test we had figured out how to complete the entire run successfully, but still had to account for inconsistency between runs. While preparing for our first run, we tested for completion and didn’t worry too much about efficiency or time so that we could have one “safety” run finished. The run did not perform as expected though, and our AEV did not completely reach the stop sign sensors after picking up the caboose. This affected our accuracy score and consequently: our efficiency and time due to a member having to hold the AEV so it didn’t hit the stop sign too early. For our second run, we believed that the only thing we had to change would be the absolutePosition of the AEV coming back to the stop sign with the caboose. Because we didn’t want to heat up our AEV and affect our consistency, the team decided to do our second performance run without testing in between. This turned out to be a misjudgment when the AEV still did not reach the sensors again. To compensate for this on our third run, we decided to attempt a substantially lower efficiency cost. To do this, on our last day we changed two places in our code where it would affect our energy the most. While doing this, we also re-estimated to make sure the AEV reached the stop sign and we could get full marks for accuracy. We were successful with our goals and our third run became our best run yet. The graph below shows all three runs of our final performance test.
After completing all runs, our scores/costs were determined by the average cost of our two best runs:
Run 2
Energy: 325.095 Joules
Time: 59.4 seconds
Total cost: $491, 363
Run 3
Energy cost: 308.46 Joules
Time cost: 56.59 seconds
Total cost: $454, 151
After all calculations, our final cost for the performance testing portion was as follows:
Average Cost: $472, 757