Group D — Paul Crock, Joshua Dakwar, Alicia Sanders, Megan Sanders Progress Report 3
Instructor — Richard Busick, GTA — Ben Richetti 4/4/19
Report of Progress
Situation
For lab twelve, the team began preparing for the Research and Development Oral Presentation, which took place during lab thirteen. To prepare for the presentation, each member of the team was given a topic to speak about and then PowerPoint slides were constructed to serve as a visual to go along with the presentation. During the presentation, the team discussed goals regarding their AEV design process, as well as the results from the Advanced Research and Development (aR&D) tests and Performance Test 1. The team also discussed how the results would be analyzed and used in future assignments. The purpose of the presentation was to give teams the opportunity to share their findings with other groups.
During lab fourteen, the team began coding and conducting trial runs of Performance Test 2. For the performance test to be considered a success, the AEV had to complete Performance Test 1 and reach the loading zone at the end of the track where a load with a magnet was waiting. The AEV had to slowly approach the load and connect to the magnet on the load while not recoiling outside of the loading zone. Then, the AEV had to brake for five seconds and leave the loading zone.
For lab fifteen, the team continued to work on Performance Test 2 and eventually perfected their code to produce a successful run. Following the completion of Performance Test 2, the team began working on the Critical Design Review Draft, a technical report on the progress of the AEV.
For lab sixteen, the team attended their second committee meeting. During the meeting, the team updated the Smart City Team on the progression of the AEV and notified them of any plans that had changed since the first committee meeting. The Smart City Team then provided feedback on the team’s advancements as well as advice on how to improve the team’s AEV design and website. Immediately following the Committee Meeting, the team collaborated with their company, Koffolt Properties, to decide what research investigation needed to be conducted for aR&D 3. It was decided that the team would conduct a research investigation named “Pusher vs Puller”. The goal of this investigation was to discover if the AEV’s propellers worked better by pushing the AEV from the back or pulling the AEV from the front. This research topic was important for the team to ensure that the AEV was as efficient as possible, and the type of propeller configuration could have a big impact on the efficiency of the AEV.
During labs seventeen and eighteen, the group worked on aR&D3. To discover which propeller configuration was most efficient, the team tested how quickly the AEV could travel from the starting dock and through the gate after orienting the propellers in a “push” configuration, and then in a “pull” configuration.
Result and Analysis
For Performance Test 2 (Appendix A), the team used most of the same coding techniques that were used in Performance Test 1 (Appendix B). While coasting to a stop proved to be more energy-efficient, it was much harder to control the AEV’s stopping location. In an effort to gain more control over the AEV’s stopping location, the team used reverse commands to slow down the AEV’s forward motion. The team calculated the approximate distance to run and brake so the “goToRelativePosition” command could be used. However, for Performance Test 2, the team used the “goToAbsolutePosition”, which accounts for the distance from the stop sign to the “loading zone” (Appendix C). The team was able produce consistent results using the command in Performance Test 2.
After completing aR&D3, it was discovered that the amount of energy used to “pull” the AEV was comparable to the amount of energy required to “push” the AEV. However, the team found that orienting the propellers in a “pull” configuration resulted in a much quicker travel time. It took 9.6 seconds for the AEV to travel from the starting dock and through the gate with the propellers in a “pusher” configuration, and only 7.8 seconds for the AEV to travel the same distance with the propellers in a “puller” configuration (Appendix D).
Takeaways
- Although coasting was proven to be more energy-efficient, it was difficult to control the stopping location of the AEV. Reverse commands helped to gain more control in slowing the AEV’s momentum.
- Orienting the propellers to “push” the AEV and orienting the propellers to “pull” the AEV used approximately the same amount of energy.
- Having the propellers pull the AEV instead of push resulted in a quicker travel time. It took 9.6 seconds for the AEV to travel from the starting dock and through the gate with the propellers in a “push” configuration, and 7.8 seconds for the AEV to travel the same distance with the propellers in a “pull” configuration.
Future Work
Situation
The team’s next goal is to complete the Final Oral Presentation draft, which will inform the audience of the discoveries made during the AEV’s research and design process. Then, the team will work on completing the Final Performance Test. To successfully complete this performance test, the team must complete an additional two tasks on top of the two that were required for the second performance test. Once the AEV exits the loading zone after pausing for five seconds, the AEV will need to return to the gate without the hitch disconnecting during the elevation change (Appendix C). Next, the AEV must pause at the gate between the two sensors for seven seconds. This will conclude the third main task. The fourth and final main task requires the AEV to continue to the starting dock after the seven-second pause at the gate. The elevation will change at this point, so once again, this must be performed without the hitch disconnecting. The AEV must then stop past the starting line at the starting dock. The reason why these performance tests are important is because the AEV will need to stop at specific locations to allow passengers to board and exit. These performance tests allow the team to fine-tune the AEV’s code to ensure the safety of the passengers.
Finally, the team will need to complete several finishing tasks which will wrap up the AEV project. First, a final Critical Design Review will need to be written after receiving feedback on the rough draft. Next, the group will focus on preparing for the Final Oral Presentation, which will showcase their final AEV design. The last task will be completing the final website update. The team’s website will be geared towards the general public, so information regarding the AEV will be presented in a way that keeps the audience in mind. For example, the website will address expected areas of interest of the general public, such as safety, speed, and reliability.
Upcoming Goals
The team’s next goal is to finish the final copy of the Critical Design Review, which is a report about the development of the AEV. After completing the Critical Design Review, the team will then focus on successfully completing the Final Performance Test. Soon after the completion of the Final Performance Test, the team will then turn their attention toward presenting the AEV at the final oral presentation and submitting the final website update.
Upcoming Schedule
4/08/19 at 10:20 AM – Team will complete a draft of the Final Oral Presentation
4/11/19 at 12:30 PM – Team will conduct Final Performance Test
4/18/19 by 8:00 AM – Team will complete final Team Evaluations
4/18/19 by 11:10 AM – Team will complete Critical Design Review (CDR)
4/18/19 by 11:10 AM – Team will complete final update for the website
Appendix
Appendix A: Code for Performance Test 2
// Run all motors at a constant speed (24% power) to 122 marks
motorSpeed(4,24);
goToRelativePosition(122);
//Brake all motors at 16 marks, then reverse
brake(4);
goToRelativePosition(16);
reverse(4);
//Run all motors at a constant speed (20% power) for 1.5 seconds
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(1.5);
//Brake all motors for 7 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(7);
//Reverse all motors, then run at a constant speed (30% power) to 205 marks, then reverse
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,30);
goToAbsolutePosition(205);
reverse(4);
//Brake all motors to 40 marks for 6 seconds
brake(4);
goToRelativePosition(40);
goFor(6);
//Run all motors at a constant speed (25% power)
motorSpeed(4,25);
Appendix B: Code for Performance Test 1
//Run all motors at a constant speed (23% power) to 122 marks
motorSpeed(4,23);
goToRelativePosition(122);
//Brake all motors at 16 marks, then reverse
brake(4);
goToRelativePosition(16);
reverse(4);
//Run all motors at a constant speed (20% power) for 1.5 seconds
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(1.5);
//Brake all motors for 7 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(7);
//Reverse all motors, then run at a constant speed (25% power) to 40 marks
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,25);
goToRelativePosition(40);
Appendix C
Shows the elevation changes that the AEV will travel through during the performance tests
Appendix D: Graphs and tables for aR&D 3, Pusher vs. Puller
| Push | Pull |
| 7.8 seconds | 9.6 seconds |
| 48.9 J energy | 45.8 J energy |
Shows the amount of energy and time it took for the AEV to travel from the starting dock and through the gate when orienting the propellers to “push” the AEV and also when orienting the propellers to “pull” the AEV
Appendix E: Code for aR&D 3, Pusher vs. Puller
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,30);
goToRelativePosition(225);
//Brake all motors at 16 marks, then reverse
brake(4);
goToRelativePosition(40);
reverse(4);
//Run all motors at a constant speed (20% power) for 1.5 seconds
motorSpeed(4,20);
goFor(1.5);
//Brake all motors for 7 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(7);
//Reverse all motors, then run at a constant speed (30% power) to 205 marks, then reverse
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,30);
Appendix F: Meeting Minutes
Meeting #12
Date: 3/20/19
Time: 10:20 AM – 11:15 AM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Prepared for the R&D oral presentation and worked on updating the team’s website
Meeting #13
Date: 3/21/19
Time: 11:10 AM – 12:30 PM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Presented the team’s AEV and research findings in the R&D oral presentation
Meeting #14
Date: 3/25/19
Time: 10:20 AM – 11:15 AM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Began trial runs for Performance Test 2
Meeting #15
Date: 3/27/19
Time: 10:20 AM – 11:15 AM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Successfully completed Performance Test 2 and began working on the Critical Design Review Draft
Meeting #16
Date: 3/28/19
Time: 11:10 AM – 12:30 PM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Attended the second Committee Meeting and chose the research topic for aR&D 3, which was the “Pusher vs Puller” investigation
Meeting #17
Date: 4/01/19
Time: 10:20 AM – 11:15 AM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Researched the aR&D 3 topic, “Pusher vs Puller” and worked on Progress Report 3
Meeting #18
Date: 4/03/19
Time: 10:20 AM – 11:15 AM
Place: Hitchcock Hall
Results: Continued researching the aR&D 3 topic and worked on Progress Report 3