Lab 5

The objectives of Lab 5 were to become familiar with techniques for design decision making by utilizing structured methods to screen and score design concepts, program the sample AEV for a specific operation and test on the track, and implement the concept screening and scoring methods with AEV design concepts. The Purpose of lab 5 was to screen and test AEV designs by using decision matrices (see Table 1 and Table 2). The team started by creating the AEV Concept Screening matrix (Table 1) with physical parameters the team decided were most important to the AEV design. This matrix allowed the team to quickly down-select the less efficient AEV designs. The team then created the AEV Concept Scoring matrix (Table 2) which provided more resolution than the Concept Screening matrix. The Concept Scoring matrix contained ratings that were based on numerical values which allowed the team to properly score each individual AEV design. The team then built the most effective AEV design based on the matrices and tested it on the rail system. The screening and testing of AEV designs was a vital part of the design process because it allowed the team to create a table with physical parameters that could be used to eliminate design options and formulate an idea of what the final AEV product should look like.

During Lab 5, the team created two concept screening and scoring matrices to aid in deciding which AEV design would be best suited to complete the Mission Concept Review. Table 1 (shown below) depicts a Concept Screening matrix which is a quick method used for down-selecting ideas. The far left column from rows (2:8) show the 7 physical parameters (aerodynamics, center-of-gravity location, maintenance, durability, cost, speed, and environmental) that the team deemed most important to use as scoring criteria for an effective AEV design. Column 2 corresponds to the reference baseline AEV design. Each column from columns (3:6) corresponds to a specific AEV that was designed by an individual team member. Within each design, a score of (-), (0), or (+) was given to each physical parameter. A (-) indicates that the design scored worse when compared to the reference baseline in a particular physical parameter. A (0) indicates that the design scored the same when compared to the the reference baseline. A (+) indicates that the design scored better when compared to the reference design. At the bottom of the table, the scores were added up and a decision was made on whether the team should continue with or dispose of a design concept. From Table 1, it was clear that design A would continue in the development process and design B would continue only if it was combined with other designs.

 

Figure 1: AEV Concept Screening

 

Table 2 (shown below) depicts the Concept Scoring matrix. The Concept Scoring matrix was similar to the Concept Screening matrix except that it provided better resolution. In the far left 2 columns, the same scoring criteria was used. The team “weighted”  each of the scoring criteria. This weight gave a physical representation of the importance of each criteria. Within each design, the team assigned a rating on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being low and 5 being high) to each physical parameter. These ratings represent how well the team thought each design performed with respect to each parameter. After the ratings were assigned, the team calculated the weighted score by multiplying the rating score by the weight score associated with each physical parameter. The weighted score represents a numerical value that can be attributed to the overall success of each AEV design. At the bottom of the table, the weighted scores are added up and a decision was made on whether to continue or dispose of a particular design. Table 2 shows that design B is the most effective AEV design.

    Figure 2: AEV Concept Scoring

 

Designs A and B scored well in all physical parameters when compared to the baseline reference. Both designs had no particular cons. Design C scored better than the reference, but worse than the A and B designs. This design was not energy efficient compared to the reference which is shown by its rating of 1 in the environmental criteria. Design D scored poorly in all physical parameters when compared to the reference and was therefore disposed of. After each AEV design was scored appropriately, the team determined that design B would be assembled and tested on the rail system. The team utilized the scenario code given by the lab manual (see appendix). The AEV ran as expected with no major issues. The vehicle maintained its center-of-gravity with no noticeable lean. However, there was a slight delay in the movement when the code was activated. The team decided that it may be possible to reduce the weight of the AEV to negate this issue. Based on the scoring matrices and the track test, the team agrees that design B is currently the most effective choice and will continue to develop this design for the final AEV product.

 

 

Team meeting notes

2/18/17

Houston Study Room

Gabe, Eugene, Andrew, Mark

 

Objective

Complete Project Report 6. Beginning work on PDR. Create final team schedule. Create final team AEV design.

 

Tasks Completed

  • Progress Report Lab 6- All- Complete
  • Code Commenting- Andrew Coyle- Complete
  • Team Meeting Notes-Mark Hoelzer -Complete
  • Updating Project Portfolio- Gabe Hedges- Incomplete
  • Update “To-do” list – Gabe Hedges – Complete
  • Begin work on PDR – All – Complete
  • Create team schedule – All – Complete
  • Create final Team AEV design – All – Incomplete

 

Tasks for Upcoming Week

  • Update Project Portfolio- Gabe
  • Discuss Gannt Chart
  • Complete PDR
  • Prepare for Lab Proficiency Quiz

 

Reflection

  • Team meetings are running efficiently with the structure the team implemented
  • Team determined that work on PDR will have to be done as efficiently as possible with current team schedule constraints.
  • No additional reflections
Task Teammate(s) Start Date End Date Time Needed
PDR ALL 2/18 3/6 2 hours
Extra credit video Eugene and Mark 2/21 2/28 2 hours
Project Portfolio Gabe 2/21 2/28 30 minutes
Build AEV ALL 2/18 2/28 1 hour
Solidworks Designs Eugene 2/21 3/6 3 hours