Evolution of Design

Originally approached in Lab 3, Creative Design Thinking, each group member submitted a hand drawn design explaining their design approach through graphical representation. From each sketch, each design concept was screened and scored, performed in Lab 5, to determine which design could complete the final goal the best. The selected design was progressively modified to fit AEV requirements and improve efficiency, shown pictorially below.

Preliminary Designs

Design A – Grant Gursky

Dual Propellers – COM along wheelbase – 3D Printed body for additional compactness and weight reduction

Design B – Kyle Ackermann

Dual Propeller attached to wheelbase – Minimal material usage

Design C – Rider Osentoski

‘Basket’ design to house all components in an aerodynamic unibody – Motors attached directly to wheels for precision and energy efficiency

Conclusion

While quite wildly different from our final design, Design A, at the time, was determined to be the best design, due to its through design, minimal use of material, and general feasibility with the given parts. This design was changed quite drastically due to unforeseen design complications revealed during building, such as troublesome motor attachments, insufficient propeller clearance, and overall unbalanced design. Although modified, some aspects stayed, such as the vertical configuration of the propeller and use of the L-shaped bracket.

 

 Preliminary and Advanced Research and Development

Due to the design flaws of Design A, a quick, utilitarian prototype had to be built in order to complete preliminary and advanced R&D. Using a bare minimum of materials, a design containing only the necessary components, such as the Adurino, motors, wheel assembly, and a single body piece was built and used in testing. Due to its minimal weight and seemingly efficient design, our group decided to base our final design heavily off of this one.

Preliminary and Advanced R&D Design

Figure on the left displays model testing a single motor configuration while the figure on the right displays model testing a dual motor configuration. Both models did not meet requirements of attachment so they were later modified. Additionally, not displayed in the figures, this model was not properly balanced, causing additional drag.

 

Performance Testing 1 and 2

From the previous design, a few modifications had to be made, such as adjustment of the reflectance sensors, the addition of an attachment point for the cart, and moving the Adurino a minimum of two inches away from the the attachment point and any metal contacts. In the figure below, one can see the modifications made to the AEV.

Performance Testing 1 and 2 Design

Final Performance Testing Design

Having additional time for improvements, further modification to the AEV was done in order to improve efficiency. The primary enhancement was improving the center of mass of the vehicle so it lies more level on the track, reducing friction. Shown in the figure below, the Adurino and battery pack was moved to the backside of the AEV to improve balance. This was our final working design used in final testing.

Final AEV Design