Report of Progress
Situation
With the conclusion of the first and second rounds of Advanced Research and Development, the group is moving towards the final stages and completion of the AEV. The first oral aR&D presentation, performance test two, Critical Design Review Draft and the third round of Advanced Research and Development have been completed. These stages of the project allowed the team to understand what would be required of the AEV in order to be the most successful on final testing day.
The oral aR&D presentations allowed the team to share its findings with other teams and teams within the Koffolt company. It also allowed the team to learn about other teams’ findings that could potentially aid the team’s current AEV. The oral presentation was a great way to prepare for the final presentation that will be done at the conclusion of the project. The team designed a presentation that would be able to be understood by everyone and put together a brief script to aid in presenting.
The Critical Design Review Draft allowed the team to reflect and revise on the work that had been done on the design of the AEV over the course of the semester. It’s interesting to note how the design of the AEV has changed drastically from the original design due to the performance needed from the AEV. Overall, the team has been moving in the right direction with the AEV and will continue to modify the design.
Performance test one showed that the team’s aR&D 1 & 2 were successful but performance test two presented new challenges to the AEV. The AEV design included one motor on each side, but with the introduction of the caboose this design was no longer a viable option. This led to the team taking the front motor off since it was found that both configurations produced similar results. Metal brackets were attached to the front and the test was successfully completed.
Going forward from PT2, the biggest issue the team saw was the inconsistency with the coasting distance and where the AEV stopped in relation to the gate. This led the team to devote the third round of aR&D to the servo function. The second propeller was also re-added to the AEV. It was placed below the AEV on a small rectangle that hung vertically. This allowed it to function as if it still had one motor on opposing ends.
For the servo testing, there were two situations tested with three trials done. The two situations included a precision test and a time and energy efficiency test. The precision test was done first so that the team could get an accurate idea of the stopping distance the servo provided. This information would be a key piece of information that would help the team with coding going forward. The team’s goal with the second test was to determine the added cost the servo would bring to the final budget. For test two, distance was maintained by running the first test without the servo and seeing the total distance that the AEV traveled. The trial with the servo included using the motor for a longer time and then stopping at approximately the same distance as the first trial. Overall, the servo demonstrated that it was worth the extra $20,000 in cost due to the precision it provided.
The team is currently working on code for the final performance test and believes that the current design for the AEV will produce the best results when it comes to a final grade and staying under budget.
Results and Analysis
It was found in the first round of aR&D that one motor on the back and two motors on opposing sides led to similar costs. This led to a new design which can be seen in Appendix C figure 2, where a motor was taken off and replaced with metal brackets that would allow the AEV to connect to the caboose.
Between each performance test, the team modified the AEV to better adapt to what will be asked from them for the test. Performance test one was successful on the grounds that the team completed the task at hand. The code can be seen in Appendix B figure 1. The problem was that coasting led to inconsistent results as the AEV would sometimes overshoot or undershoot. Between performance test one and two, it was noted that the configuration at the time would not work as the AEV had to connect to the caboose where a motor was sitting, this design can be seen in Appendix C figure 1.
For performance test two, the team had the same outcome as performance test one. The code used for the test can be seen in Appendix B figure 2. The AEV successfully completed the task at hand but had struggled with coasting to a proper distance. Using only one motor led to a problem where the AEV struggled to move the caboose even just a few inches at 40% power.
This led to brainstorming of a new design as the AEV was going to have to pull the caboose up the hill and back to the starting zone. The new design includes a motor that is attached below the AEV on a small rectangular panel that hangs vertically from the wheelbase. The implementation of the servo also occurred at the same time as the group wanted to eliminate all variables that came with coasting. This new design can be seen in Appendix C figure 3.
For the servo testing, the precision test found that the servo had a stopping distance of around 0.15 m or half a foot. The code used for this scenario can be seen in Appendix B figure 3. This was useful information as it provided the team with valuable insight for future coding as well as ideas on how to adapt the code specifically for the next servo test. For the time and energy efficiency test, it was concluded that the difference in cost was around $200. The code used for these two trials can be seen in Appendix B figures 4 and 5. The full data table for this trial is listed in Appendix C figure 4.
While Trial two with the servo used 10 J more of energy than without the servo (Appendix C figure 5), it completed the test in 3 seconds less which equated to the cost of the two trials being approximately the same. The graphs for the trials can be seen in Appendix C figures 5 and 6. The servo is an additional $20,000 to use on the AEV but the increased precision of the stopping point as well as having relatively the same cost makes a strong argument to use the servo in the AEV. The servo usage will eliminate many of the difficulties from performance test one and two that found the group struggling to have the AEV stop inside the gate consistently.
Takeaways
The whole process for the development of the AEV has showed the team that the AEV needs constant improvements to meet the changing tasks that it must accomplish. The design began with only a medium rectangle as the base but performance test two and three required the team to modify this design to include metal brackets, a vertical small rectangle and a servo. The engineering design process in this situation is that the AEV needs to be as versatile as possible; it’s important that the team is open to evolving the design at any point to help meet necessary requirements, and that applies to any engineering project.
The team accomplished their goals by working through the tasks at hand methodically with the goal of being as cost-efficient as possible while acknowledging and preventing safety concerns. The new design with the servo and newly-placed motor will be the design that the team uses moving forward. The extension under the AEV with the attached motor allows for a more balanced AEV, which allows it to run more smoothly. Using two motors as well also allows both to be going at the same time and create the most thrust for the AEV. The servo functionality on the AEV eliminates the problem the group was facing with inconsistency on where the AEV would coast to a stop.
Another takeaway in terms of the structure of the AEV project is that the goal of the AEV would be different if the costs of time and energy were structured differently. The motives behind most of the team’s decisions were to reduce cost as much as possible, Therefore, with the way the final cost calculation is set-up, the increased energy resulting from the use of the servo benefits the team in the long run due to the amount of time it cuts out from the run.
Overall, the team has worked through the recent performance tests and aR&D while using the engineering design process to come up with what the team believes is the final design. The team has had an enjoyable experience going through this process with engineering and the AEV and the team hopes to apply this information to the real world.
Future Work
Situation
Looking forward, the team will prepare for the final performance test, the final presentation, and the CDR. First, the team will complete a draft for the final oral presentation outside of class, and once that has been completed, the team will continue to perfect the code for the final performance test. In order to do this, the team will make finer adjustments so that the AEV more accurate and precise in its trial runs. By slightly changing the code and then testing it on the track, the team will be able to maximize efficiency as well as lower final costs.
Additionally, the final deliverables will be due as the semester nears the end. It is vital that the team begins revising and adding to the CDR draft as soon as possible. Once the feedback on the CDR has been received, the team may get to work. That way, the team can use the suggestions the TA’s give and bring forth the best possible product.
Furthermore, the team will continue to work with the servo to determine the most efficient way to incorporate it into the current AEV design. By doing so the group is able to further the precision of the AEV, and ensure that it will stop in exactly the same place for every trial, while at the same time minimizing the run time by as much as possible. This will allow the group to save money from the final budget, as the AEV will be more efficient with the servo rather than without. In order to accomplish this, the team will be required to run multiple test trials and adjust the code to determine which iteration of the code will be the most efficient and cost friendly..
Upcoming Goals
Short term goals for Group I are to perfect the code for the final performance test. While the addition of the servo enhanced the design and allowed the AEV to be more precise, the code will still require finer tuning in order to ensure the AEV can complete the test every trial. Once the team is completely happy with the code, the AEV will run the final performance test and examine quantitative values such as energy usage and overall efficiency. Qualitative values such as the consistency of the trial runs will also be tested. After this, the group will decide if any further actions are necessary, or if the AEV is ready for the final performance test.
Long term goals for the team are to complete and turn in the final deliverables. This includes the website, CDR, and final oral presentation. These three assignments make up a large portion of the final term grade, and are also a vital piece of the project as a whole, as it is how the group will communicate what has been accomplished this semester.
Upcoming Schedule
4/4 Lab: (Advanced R&D Lab 19)
-This time will be spent working on perfecting the AEV for the final performance test. There are a lot of aspects of the AEV that need to be tweaked in order to have maximum efficiency for the final test. The AEV will be necessary to complete this task, as well as a deeper understanding of how it works. These changes, such as enhancing the code, or even upgrading the servo arm, has the potential to take the AEV to the next level. Outside of class tasks will be to begin completing the final deliverables. These include the presentation draft for the final oral presentation, the CDR, as well as the website. The time spent working on these deliverables will vary, but enough time should be spent in order to produce the best possible product. The group task is to continue with a plan for an outside of class meeting.
Outside of class meeting: (4/5-7 expected meeting date for two hours)
-At this meeting, the group will create a presentation of the findings made from aR&D three. Additionally, the final CDR draft will begin to be revised and added to in order to reflect the final findings of Group I. This meeting will include all team members. Necessary materials to complete these goals will be laptops, as well as a quiet classroom to work in. After this meeting, individual tasks will include revising the presentation, as well as updating the website with any necessary updates to meeting minutes, evolution of design, or any additional individual 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 as to whether the group would like to create a poster board for the competition.
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 products of the final deliverables in order to get the best grade possible.
Appendices
Appendix A: Team Meeting Minutes
Meeting One
Date: 3/20/19, 10:20-11:15
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach, Mike Elyian
Objective Statement: Make finishing touches on AEV for performance test one and then complete the graded assignment. If extra time, work on code for performance test 2.
Completed Tasks:
- Camille Corbi- Continued working on the development of the oral presentation slides
- Maddie Gwinn- Developed a script for the oral presentation
- Ryan Edelbach- updated code in evolution of design, finished code for performance test 1
- Mike Elyian – Helped with performance test 1 and began developing code for performance test 2
Deadlines:
- 3/21/19 – R&D oral presentation
- 3/21/19 – Website Update 3
Meeting Two
Date: 3/21/19, 11:10-12:30
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach, Mike Elyian
Objective Statement: Completed and listened to the presentations from different groups about their findings.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – Participated in presentation
- Ryan Edelbach – Participated in presentation
- Camille Corbi- Participated in presentation
- Mike Elyian – Participated in presentation
Deadlines:
- 3/27/19 – performance test 2
Meeting Three
Date: 3/25/19, 10:20-11:15
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach, Mike Elyian
Objective Statement: There wasn’t a lot of time for lab work after the exam but with the remaining time, the group began work on CDR Rough Draft and continued work on performance test 2.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – Updated website with any new information and looked over CDR rubric
- Camille Corbi – Helped with the website update and made an outline for the CDR
- Ryan Edelbach – Tweaked previous code for performance test 2 and began testing
- Mike Elyian – Helped with the code for performance test 2
Deadlines:
- 3/27/19 – performance test 2
- 3/28/19 – CDR rough draft
Meeting Four
Date: 3/27/19, 10:20-11:15
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach
Objective Statement: Focused on developing and finishing performance test 2 in the allotted time as well as begin the work for the CDR.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – Continued the outline for the Critical Design Review Rough Draft
- Ryan Edelbach – Developed the finishing touches for performance test 2
- Camille Corbi- Wrote sub notes in the CDR draft to ensure a smoother process when worked on later
Deadlines:
- 3/28/19 – CDR Rough Draft
Meeting Five
Date: 3/28/19, 11:10-12:30
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach, Mike Elyian
Objective Statement: Conducted the second Committee Meeting, turned in the CDR draft, as well as chose the third round of aR&D methodologies within both the company and group.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – Updated meeting minutes, worked on the third round of aR&D, completed second committee meeting
- Ryan Edelbach – Worked on third round of aR&D, updated AEV design
- Camille Corbi- Updated meeting notes, worked on third round of aR&D, completed second committee meeting
- Mike Elyian – Worked on third round of aR&D, completed second committee meeting
Deadlines:
- 4/4/19 – Progress Report Three
Meeting Six
Date: 4/1/19, 10:20-11:15
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach, Mike Elyian
Objective Statement: Focused on developing the third round or aR&D methodologies, as well as began the third progress report. Additional changes were made to the AEV, and the viability of the servo was tested. Base code for the next performance test was also created.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – Updated meeting minutes, worked on progress report three
- Ryan Edelbach – Developed code for the next performance test, as well as tested the servo on the newly updated AEV
- Camille Corbi- Updated meeting notes, worked on progress report three
- Mike Elyian – Updated the AEV and helped Ryan with the AEV testing
Deadlines:
- 4/4/19 – Progress Report Three
Meeting Seven
Date: 4/3/19, 10:20-11:15
Location: Hitchcock Hall
Team Members in Attendance: Maddie Gwinn, Camille Corbi, Ryan Edelbach, Mike Elyian
Objective Statement: Focused on developing the third round or aR&D methodologies, and continued to work on the third progress report. The testing of the servo was completed, and the skeleton for the final oral presentation was made.
Completed Tasks:
- Maddie Gwinn – Updated meeting minutes, worked on progress report three and final oral presentation
- Ryan Edelbach – Developed code for the next performance test, as well as tested the servo on the AEV
- Camille Corbi- Updated meeting notes, worked on progress report three and final oral presentaion
- Mike Elyian – Tested the servo on the AEV, helped Ryan with code
Deadlines:
- 4/4/19 – Progress Report Three
- 4/8/19 – Final Oral Presentation
Appendix B: Arduino Code
Figure 1: Performance test 1:
// Goal of this code is to complete PT1
motorSpeed(4,30); //sets both motors to 30%
goToAbsolutePosition(185); //motors go until absolute position 185
brake(4);
goToAbsolutePosition(201); //brakes motors until absolute position 201
brake(4);
goFor(7); //brakes for 7 seconds
motorSpeed(4,30);
goFor(3); //motor speed at 30% goes for 3 seconds
Figure 2: Performance test 2:
//Goal of this code is to complete PT2
motorSpeed(2,40); //Motor 2 is set to 40%
goToAbsolutePosition(207); //motor goes until absolute position 207
brake(1);
goToAbsolutePosition(223); //brakes go until position 223
brake(4);
goFor(7); //brakes both motors for 7 seconds
motorSpeed(2,40); //sets motor 2 to 40%
goFor(3); //motor goes for 3 seconds
brake(1);
goFor(2); //brake on motor one goes for 2 seconds
reverse(1); //reverses motor 1
motorSpeed(1,12.2);
goFor(2); //sets motor 1 to 12.2% for 2 seconds
brake(1);
goFor(8); //brakes goes for 2 seconds
motorSpeed(1,40);
goFor(3); //motor 1 goes at 40% for 3 seconds
Figure 3: Servo test:
Figure 3a: Precision:
// The goal of this code is to check the precision of the servo by measuring stopping distance
motorSpeed(2,30);
goToAbsolutePosition(148); //motor 2 is set at 30% until absolute position 148 (6 feet)
brake(2);
goToAbsolutePosition(210); //brake of motor 2 goes until absolute position 210
rotateServo(90); //rotates servo
goFor(2); //holds servo in place for two seconds
rotateServo(-90); //unrotates servo
Figure 3b: Trial 1: (No servo)
// Overall goal of this code is to test energy and time with coasting
motorSpeed(2,30); //sets motor 2 to 30%
goToAbsolutePosition(148); //motor goes until absolute position 148 (6 feet)
brake(2); //brakes motor 2
goFor(10); //time for coasting
Figure 3c: Trial 2: (With Servo)
// The overall goal of this code is to test the servo’s efficiency of energy/time compared
// to not using the servo.
motorSpeed(2,30); //sets motor 2 to 30%
goToAbsolutePosition(276); //motor goes until absolute position 276 (11.3 feet)
brake(2);
goToAbsolutePosition(338); //brakes motor until absolute position 338 (13.7 feet)
rotateServo(90); //rotates servo
goFor(2); //holds servo in place for 2 seconds
rotateServo(-90); //unrotates servo
Appendix C: Graphs and Figures
Figure 1: AEV design for PT 1 and aR&D 1/2
Figure 2: AEV design for PT 2
Figure 3: AEV design for PT 3 and aR&D 3
| Trial | Total Distance (m) | Difference in Distance after Motor was Shut Off (before Servo) (m) | Difference in Distance After Servo Activated (m) | Time (s) | Total Energy (J) | Total Cost |
| Servo Calibration | 8.3789 | 0.7677 | 0.1486 | 7.743 | 18.0856 | 20657.3 |
| Trial 1 (AEV without Servo) | 4.3339 | 2.4765 | n/a | 10.5 | 16.1786 | 23839.3 |
| Trial 2 (AEV with Servo) | 4.4825 | 0.7677 | 0.2105 | 7.321 | 26.1222 | 24042.6 |
Figure 4: Data table from aR&D 3
Figure 5: Energy vs time for both trials
Figure 6: Distance vs time for both trials