Group I – Maddie Gwinn, Ryan Edelbach, Camille Corbi, Mike Elyian
Instructor – Dr. Busick, GTA – Ben Richetti
Report of Progress
Situation
Programming basics were first completed, figuring out the exact code to run the motors, run the motors in reverse, and brake the motors. This allowed the team to gain a thorough understanding of the arduino program, as well as the basic coding necessary to complete the rest of the project. Next, external sensors were used to help determine how precise the AEV moves, for example, to ensure it stops at the right location. The coding that brakes the motors tells the AEV to stop, however, it was learned that does not mean the AEV will stop right then and there at that location. This was discovered by watching other groups’ test their AEVs on the straight tracks, their AEVs kept drifting even after the motor was braked. To fix this, the motor was reversed after, so it drifts back to the place it was needed to stop. This allowed the team to gain valuable knowledge in the precision of the AEV. From this, the team was able to account for all future backspin of the AEV and add to the code in order to neutralize this issue. Next, the reflectance test was run to ensure the reflectors were working properly, which is vital because they determine where the AEV is and when it should stop. This was accomplished by writing code to make the motors run at a given speed for a given amount of time. By doing so, the team could predict where the AEV should stop. This information was utilized when creating designs of a new AEV. Each group member came up with individual designs, and a final design was agreed upon that is aerodynamic, light weight, and has a good center of mass. Since creating a new design, the team has used it moving forward as the aR&D lab approached.
Results and Analysis
Exercise one provided the group with several observations related to programming with Arduino as well as its relation with the AEV. The electronic motors showed to have some resistance, as they did not start rotating the propeller until they reached a certain power level. This was something that had to be taken into consideration when the group wanted the AEV to move at slow speeds. In addition, commands like “brake(m);” weren’t be as effective as a deceleration command, because “brake(m);” doesn’t require any specifics to be input, as opposed to allotting a certain time frame for the engine to decelerate from 50% down to 0%. An initial error encountered by the group was not being able to determine whether or not the program was working properly due to the speed of it. It was resolved by breaking down the program and knowing what to expect when going through it. The group also faced confusion when it came to the “reverse” command.
When coming up with original designs, the group differed in intentions. Some went for more aerodynamic designs, and some went for bulkier but more stable designs. The group decided to focus on a more aerodynamic design for the new AEV design and incorporated elements from several individual sketches to come up with the final design. This design consisted of a dome-like end piece which improved its aerodynamic ability and will have to be 3D printed. With the piece, the team predicts to cut down energy usage and thus it will be more efficient.
The original AEV design was not the most effective on the track. When the program started, it did not move immediately, and it even went in the wrong direction at times. It swiveled on the track a bit. For this reason, the group decided to move toward a design with a more stable center of mass and an engine on either side so that acceleration and changing of direction can be more easily controlled
In Appendix C, figure two shows the power vs distance traveled for the AEV. The first region of the graph shows the acceleration from 0 to 25% as in this time not a lot of ground was covered but, in the time, when it was running fully at 25%, it was able to cover more ground. The power then decreases as the motor decreases to 20% speed and by going at a consistent speed with no change allowed it to covered significant distance. The large spike in power is due to the reversing of the motors and then initializing at 25% again but going for less time so it covered less ground. The ending part of the data reflects the AEV braking and coasting to a stop. Also in Appendix C, figure three shows the power vs time for the AEV and this graph can directly represent what was happening in the code. For the first three seconds or so, the AEV was increasing power by accelerating its motors to get to 25%. Then there is a small plateau that represents the AEV running at that current system for a second or so. However, after that the AEV decreased its power speed to 20% and this can be reflected in the graph by the decrease in power for a constant two seconds. The large spike is due to the AEV reversing its motors and then going at the consistent 25% again before braking for good.
Found in Appendix C, figure nine shows the current AEV design that was created after taking all the individual designs into account. It is largely a mix of Ryan and Maddie’s design, while still being compact like Mike’s design. It is made to be as aerodynamic as possible, while still being cost and time efficient. It is almost completely symmetrical and has a near perfect center of mass which incorporates Camille’s design.
In Appendix C, figure ten depicts the concept screening chart. It was created in order to flesh out each individual design. The five most important factors that make up the AEV were decided. Once the table was made each design was inspected and evaluated in order to decide which design was the best, and which parts of each design would be used for the new design. The reasoning behind the five categories are as follows: The weight element looks at how heavy the AEV is. The heavier the AEV will allow for more friction with the wheels so there will be no chance for slipping but also means that it will require more energy from the motors which will increase cost. This success criteria will define how easily the AEV slices through the air and this will also play a role in the Time-Energy Efficiency category. A better score for aerodynamics relates to have a front and back end that allows for better airflow such as using covers like bullet trains use. Time energy efficiency is crucial aspect of the AEV as the group have to stay within the budget and time and energy are both aspects that will factor into the budget. Each second will cost the group $1.5K but each joule will cost $500. This category explores how quick the AEV design can go while still fitting in the guidelines. Center of mass for the AEV relates to how hard the motors will have to work in order to accelerate and decelerate the AEV so therefore the group wants the design to have the mass concentrated in the center. This will also allow the AEV to be more level and not have a chance of falling off the tracks. Finally, size matters when it comes to the AEV’s as the group need it to be able to fit within the gates of the “stations”. This also relates to center of mass because having a larger size means a more spread out mass distribution.
In Appendix C, figure Eleven depicts the concept scoring chart. After considering all aspects of the screening and scoring charts, instead of having two primary designs to move forward with, the group determined that combining three of the designs into the new design of the AEV was the best. This means the group will be moving forward with the new design and tweaking it from there.
Takeaways
The sample AEV given was a great starting point that allowed the group get an idea for what it did and did not want in the final product. The T shape was great to begin with but didn’t allow for much future improvement. This is why the group transitioned to a more linear shape to improve the aerodynamics of the vehicle. The battery and Nano placement was decent but caused one to be under and one to be over the belly of the AEV. This is why the group shifted to putting one on each side of the main wheels to better balance.
The engineering design process is an aspect of this project that has flowed really well from past general group experience to an actual engineering project. In the first five weeks of lab, the group brainstorming aspect could have definitely been improved on as this is a crucial part that allows a coherent design to be put together. One aspect the team did really well was the analyze, compare, and research stage. The group came together and had thorough discussions about what has been happening with the AEV and where the group wants the AEV to go. Another overall aspect that this group has had a strong takeaway from was the splitting up and delegation of tasks. When something needed to be completed, there was clear communication as to how the group would split up the work and in the end, that clarity paid off well.
Future Work
Situation
The preliminary testing for the AEV has been completed and the the what, why, and how the AEV works has been understood. After collaboration, the first Team I design has been created. This means that testing the design comes next. The testing will include how efficient the AEV is now that a motor is on each side instead of both on one side, how manageable it is to accelerate and decelerate, as well as testing the relative and absolute position functions. Energy and time efficiency is a part of the budget that will need to be minimized as much as possible. The position functions for the AEV is an aspect that will be crucial to getting it to stop in the right place and not over or undershooting since there isn’t a physical brake on the AEV yet.
The first aspect of testing will be completed by running the same code that was used in activity three but modifying it for only one motor on each side. The data will be extracted from the AEV like in activity three and this will allow for direct comparison between the two methods of motor placement. The manageability of acceleration is more of a qualitative aspect of testing, the team will have to get an idea of an average minimum motor speed. This can also be taken quantitatively by performing data extraction and looking at motor speed acceleration and energy usage. The relative and absolute position testing will be done by writing code for the Nano that goes a specified distance (that the team knows in inches) and assess where the AEV ended up.
Upcoming Goals
The short-term goals for Table I are to get the end-pieces for the new design of the AEV funded and manufactured. Once that is settled, the group will complete construction of the new AEV design and test it for quantitative values such as energy efficiency and the amount of time required to complete the course. Qualitative values such as how the AEV performs and watching the AEV for any trouble areas will also be tested. From there the group will decide further actions and suggest changes to the design if necessary.
The longer-term goals are to prepare for the advanced R&D as well as have a strong foundation in understanding as the advanced R&D will allow multiple aspects of the AEV to be significantly improved. Code will also need to be designed for the final test of the AEV and this will be completed and enhanced through the advanced R&D.
Upcoming Schedule
2/21 Lab: (Advanced R&D Meeting 1)
-This time will be spent working the Advanced R&D lab. There are a lot of aspects when it comes to the advanced R&D that will need a chunk of time devoted to them to fully understand and utilize them. The AEV will be necessary to complete this as well as an understanding of how it works. The advanced R&D has the potential to take the AEV to the next level through the servo, energy efficiency, and propeller configuration. Outside of class tasks will be to continue to look at the Advanced R&D and apply it to the AEV. The time spent understanding aspects of the Advanced R&D will vary but enough time should be spent to get a thorough understanding. The group task is to continue with a plan for an outside of class meeting.
Outside of class meeting: (2/24-26 expected meeting date for two to three hours)
-At this meeting, the group will review the current designs for the AEV by comparing reasonings behind the design as well as discussing any new ideas for the AEV. This will include all team members and a brainstorming session. The materials needed will be a whiteboard/paper/computer to do the brainstorming session as well as a quiet classroom to complete this task. After this meeting, individual tasks will include updating the website with any necessary meeting minutes or assigned subtasks. Group tasks will be coming together to determine the date for the next meeting outside of class as well as coming to a consensus for the next Advanced R&D lab.
After this, the appropriate cycle of outside of class meetings as well as labs will continue and more outside of class meetings will be added when necessary. The future schedule will reflect the team’s appropriate desires and needs and how they can be balanced to better the AEV whether that is through changing the design or solely focusing on the integration of advanced R&D.
Appendices
Appendix A: Team Meeting Minutes
Meeting One
Date: 1/10/19, 11:10 – 12:30
Location: Hitchcock Hall 224
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Mike Elyian, Ryan Edelbach
Objective Statement: The purpose of this meeting is to divide up roles within the group as to who will complete overall tasks within the AEV project. An overview of the project was reviewed, as well as deliverables that will be due within the next week. The team divided up tasks to complete before the next lab period.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – helped create website, completed meeting minutes and team information
- Camille Corbi – helped create website, completed meeting notes and team information
- Mike Elyian – helped create website, completed glossary, progress report and worked on Arduino
- Ryan Edelbach – helped create website, completed glossary, progress report and worked on Arduino
Deadlines:
- 1/17/19 – Turn in meeting minutes
Meeting Two
Date: 1/31/19, 11:10 – 12:30
Location: Hitchcock Hall 224
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Mike Elyian, Ryan Edelbach
Objective Statement: The purpose of this meeting is to catch up on the AEV project, as the class had already missed two labs. Exercise two was finished and exercise three was started. Deliverables that will be due within the next week were reviewed. The team divided up tasks to complete before next lab.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – helped update website, completed meeting minutes and updated the progress report
- Camille Corbi – helped update website, completed meeting notes and helped Ryan with assembling the AEV
- Mike Elyian – Downloaded and worked on Data Analysis tool, and worked on Arduino code
- Ryan Edelbach – completed glossary, progress report and worked on Arduino code
Deadlines:
- 2/7/19 – Turn in website update two
Meeting Three
Date: 2/7/19, 11:10 – 12:30
Location: Hitchcock Hall 224
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Mike Elyian, Ryan Edelbach
Objective Statement: The purpose of this meeting is to catch up in completing the exercises due to lost class time from cancelled classes. Exercise three was completed, and exercises four and five were started. An additional team meeting was arranged in order to complete exercise four and five outside of class.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – helped update website, completed meeting minutes, updated evolution of design
- Camille Corbi – helped update website, completed meeting notes, updated progress report
- Mike Elyian – completed the performance analysis, created graphs in MATLAB
- Ryan Edelbach – updated Arduino code, tested AEV on track, updated progress report
Deadlines:
- 2/8/19 – Turn in Website Update Two
- 2/14/19 – Turn in progress report one
Meeting Four
Date: 2/10/19, 1:00-3:00
Location: Knowlton
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Mike Elyian, Ryan Edelbach
Objective Statement: The purpose of this meeting is to catch up in the AEV project due to missed classes and shortened time. The team finalized an AEV design and also completed the screening and scoring charts. This made up exercise four and five.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – helped update website, completed meeting minutes, screening and scoring chart
- Camille Corbi – helped update website, completed meeting notes and completed the new AEV design
- Mike Elyian – helped update website, completed screening and scoring chart, updated AEV design
- Ryan Edelbach – helped update website, completed screening and scoring chart, updated AEV design
Deadlines:
- 2/14/19 – Turn in progress report one
Appendix B: Arduino Code
Programming Basics Exercise (01)
celerate(1,0,15,2.5); //Accelerates motor 1 to 15% in 2.5 seconds
goFor(1); //Maintains the current system for one second
brake(1); //brakes motor one
celerate(2,0,27,4); //Accelerates motor 2 to 27% in 4 seconds
goFor(2.7); //Maintains the current system for 2.7 seconds
celerate(2,27,15,1); //Decelerates motor 2 from 27% to 15% in 1 second
brake(2); //Brakes motor 2
reverse(2); //reverse motor 2
celerate(4,0,31,2); Accelerates all motors to 31%
motorSpeed(4,35); //Initializes the all the motors at 35%
goFor(1); //Maintains the current system for 1 second
brake(2); //Brakes motor 2
goFor(3); //Maintains the current system for 3 seconds
brake(4); //Brakes all motors
goFor(1); //Maintains the current system for 1 second
reverse(1); //Reverse motor 1
celerate(1,0,19,2); //Accelerates motor 1 to 19% in 2 seconds
motorSpeed(2,35); //Initializes motor 2 at 35%
goFor(2); //Maintains the current system for 2 seconds
motorSpeed(4,19); //Initializes all motors at 19%
goFor(2); //Maintains the current system for 2 seconds
celerate(4,19,0,2); //Decelerates all motors from 19% to 0% in 2 seconds
brake(4); //Brakes all motors
Reflectance Sensors Exercise (02)
reflectanceSensorTest(); //this code when executed will be ran in the system’s monitor by displaying rolling 1’s until the wheel is turn and then will display the position, relative turns and absolute turns.
Performance Analysis Tool Exercise (03)
celerate(4,0,25,3); //Accelerates all motors to 25% in 3 seconds
goFor(1); //Maintains the current system for 1 second
motorSpeed(4,20); //Initializes all motors at 20%
goFor(2); //Maintains the current system for 2 seconds
reverse(4); //Reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,25); //Initializes all motors at 25%
goFor(2); //Maintains the current system for 2 seconds
brake(4); //Brakes all motors
Appendix C: Graphs and Figures
Figure One: Picture of External Sensor
Figure one shows a picture from the second exercise, which depicts where the reflectance sensors were placed on the AEV base. These reflectance sensors are vital to the success of the AEV because they keep track of the current relative and absolute position of the AEV.
Figure Two: Power (watts) vs. Distance (meters)
This figure depicts, the power vs distance traveled for the AEV.
Figure Three: Power (watts) vs. Time (seconds)
This figure shows, the power vs time for the AEV and directly shows what is happening in the code.
Figure Four: Picture of Original AEV Design
Figure four shows a picture of the original AEV design. This is the sample AEV that was created before new designs were made by each individual team member.
Figure Five: AEV Designed by Ryan
Figure five shows Ryan’s design. It is made to be sleek and aerodynamic, which allows the AEV as a whole to be more lightweight than the original design. The design was created with a centered mass distribution.
Figure Six: AEV Designed by Mike
Figure six shows Mike’s design. It was made to be very concentrated in the center. This would allow for a centered mass distribution, as well as a compact AEV. The design itself was created with OSU in mind, as the aesthetics make up a block “O”.
Figure Seven: AEV Designed by Camille
Figure seven shows Camille’s design. It was created with efficiency in mind. The design would allow the AEV to move faster than the original as it was sleeker, as well as more aerodynamic, and has good center of mass.
Figure Eight: AEV Designed by Maddie
Figure eight shows Maddie’s design. It was made with aerodynamics in mind, as it is supposed to model a mix of a car and rocketship. The design itself supports a moderate weight distribution, while still keeping the weight to a minimum.
Figure Nine: Current AEV Design
Figure nine shows, the final design, it takes a little bit from each group members design, and the final design is aerodynamic, light weight, and has a good center of mass.
Figure Ten: Concept Screening Chart
Figure ten shows, the screening chart, an important tool in aiding to the final AEV design. The screening chart was used to pick out components from each members individual design that worked well and what did not work well.
Figure Eleven: Concept Scoring Chart
Figure Eleven depicts the concept scoring chart. The concept scoring chart breaks down what each member had on their design that the team wanted to incorporate in the final AEV design.