During Lab 1 we were introduced to the Advanced Energy Vehicle project and worked on some initial sketches of concept designs. Specifically, each team member came up with a design and the pros and cons between each were compared. We were able to agree upon important design variables that could effect the AEV’s performance, like aerodynamics and weight. We also took the time in this lab to introduce ourselves to each other and establish best methods of communication. Phone numbers and emails were exchanged between all the group members and the first executive summary was assigned. A copy of the summary has been provide below:
Michael Ahlbeck-Fetch, Chenchao Jin, Thinh Tran, Bolong Zhang Lab 1: Creative Design Thinking
Group J – Instr. Kadri Parris, GTA Hossein Qarib February 5th, 2015
Executive Summary
The group is to design and test an Advanced Energy Vehicle that can complete the scenario described in the Mission Concept Review on an overhead track. The goal in completing the Creative Design Thinking Lab was to initiate and introduce the design process, familiarize the group with the vehicle components, and begin sketching initial designs. Each group member came up with an AEV design, which was compared to the sample AEV design. The concept sketches for these can be found in the Appendix. Drawing A is estimated to cost $140.44 and is motivated by reduction in weight. As compared to the sample AEV, it has only one motor in a puller configuration. Ideally the reduction in weight and single motor will maximize energy efficiency. Drawing B is estimated to cost $150.00 and is motivated by increasing aerodynamics. It uses two motors in a puller configuration with one in pusher on the back. The reduction in drag forces via the designs aerodynamic shell also tends toward maximizing energy efficiency. Drawing C is estimated to cost $120.00 and is also motivated by increasing aerodynamics. Inspiration for the shell shape comes from the nose of bullet trains. It has two motors in a puller configuration. In comparison to the sample AEV, considerations are the same as the previous design: aerodynamic shell will reduce drag forces. Drawing D is estimated to cost $150.00. It has two motors placed in a puller configuration and a third motor on the tail in a pusher configuration, as well as an aerodynamic shell around the microcontroller and battery. The motivation behind the design is similar to the last two in respect to maximizing efficiency by reducing drag forces. The primary difference between Drawing B and D and the sample AEV is the addition of a third motor. The mounting of the caboose magnet will need to be addressed for the three motor designs.
The Creative Design Thinking Lab produced four designs for the group. Most likely design to be used will not be any of the provided sketches, but rather a composite of Drawing B and Drawing C. Implementation of an aerodynamic shell is agreed to be desirable, however weight increase must be considered when testing is carried out to insure our vehicle has a net gain in efficiency.
Appendix
Figure 1: Design A
Figure 2: Design B
Figure 3: Design C
Figure 4: Design D