In performance Test 1, Group F created two different prototype designs of AEV to be tested using the same code to determine which one of the two vehicles is the most energy efficient, structurally sound, and cost-efficient design. The first design test was the combined design that incorporated the designs of group members Stevie’s and Alicia’s individual designs, as seen in Figure 1.1 and 1.2. The second seen in Figure 1.3 and 1.4 was the group design the group had come up with during the preliminary labs. Both design have implemented the motor and propeller configurations based on the findings of the Advanced Research and Development lab.
To determine which of the two designs are designed more structurally sound and cost efficient, a screening and a scoring matrix was created to compare the combined and group design to a reference design. Based on the scoring matrix seen in Table 2.1 and 2.2, the combined design is scored to be more stable, aerodynamic, cost efficient, and had less blockage when compared to the reference design. When the scores are weight and added up, this design score a total of 2.6 points. This is 0.6 points more than the score of the reference design. When analyzing the group design on the other hand, this design is seen to be more stable and aerodynamic, but had more blockage. When the scores are weighted and added up, this design scored a total of 2.2 points. This is 0.2 points more than the reference design but 0.4 points less than the combined design.
To determine the power usage of each design during each line of code, the Power versus Time graphs from figures 3.1 and 3.2 were used. This was done by averaging the power used in each trial during certain lines of coded. After the calculations, it was found that the Combined AEV design utilized an average power of 8.06W for the line of code where the AEV is traveled towards the gate. For this same line of code, the Group AEV design utilized an average power of 8.25W. Then, when the AEV was coded to power brake and settle to an average power usage to trigger the sensors of the gate to open, the Combined design utilized an initial power of 22.95W to brake the AEV, then settle to an average power of 15.31W whereas the Group design utilized an initial power of 24.87W to brake the AEV then settling to 15.75W. When the gate opened, the AEV was then coded to travel past the gate. During this line of code, the Combined design utilized an average of 8.06W whereas the Group design utilized 8.25W.
The data results showed that the combined design was the most energy efficient design. The combined design would save about 0.19 J/s when climbing and moving through the gate. Additionally, an average value of 0.44J/s would be saved when power braking. The data gathered by the group design showed more consistent results. This can be explained by how the group design had an increased mass compared to the combined design. This is likely what resulted in the increased power consumption during the climb and going through the gate, as well as when power braking. Based on the scoring matrix, power efficiency is not the only category where the combined design excels. The combined design was superior to the group design in minimal blockage. This could have resulted in an increased power efficiency in power vs. distance as well. However, despite this, the group design was more consistent than the combined design based on the collected data.
In conclusion, from Performance Test one, it was determined that the combined design is more energy efficient and structurally sound. This will be the design that Group F will be moving forward with for the rest of the Performance Tests.
Appendix
Combined Design:
Figure 1.1: Combined Design Width
Figure 1.2: Combined Design Length
Group Design:
Figure 1.3: Group Design Width
Figure 1.4: Group Design Length
Screening and Scoring Matrices:
Table 2.1: Screening Matrix
| Success Criteria | Reference | Combined Design | Group Design |
| Stability | 0 | + | + |
| Safety | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Durability | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Minimal Blockage | 0 | + | – |
| Aerodynamic | 0 | + | + |
| Cost efficient | 0 | + | 0 |
| Sum +’s | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Sum 0’s | 6 | 2 | 3 |
| Sum –‘s | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Net Score | 0 | 4 | 1 |
Table 2.2: Scoring Matrix
| Reference | Combined Design | Group Design | |||||
| Success Criteria | Weight | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score | Rating | Weighted Score |
| Stability | 25% | 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.75 | 3 | 0.75 |
| Safety | 25% | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.5 |
| Durability | 15% | 2 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.3 |
| Minimal Blockage | 10% | 2 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 |
| Aerodynamic | 15% | 2 | 0.3 | 3 | 0.45 | 3 | 0.45 |
| Cost efficient | 10% | 2 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.1 |
| Total Score | 100% | 12 | 2 | 16 | 2.6 | 13 | 2.2 |
Energy graphs for performance test 1:
Figure 3.1: Combined Design Power over Time
Figure 3.2: Group Design Power over Time