Now for Performance Test 2, Group F came up with two different sets of codes for the AEV to test out which one of the two codes is more energy, time, and cost efficient. As seen in Appendix C, the first code of performance test two was created with the intention to save time by using more energy. This time saving code utilized the reverse function for power breaking and higher motor speeds when compared to the second code. The second code, though similar in design to the first, featured sections focusing on saving energy. This mostly consisted of lowering motor speed which resulted in decreased energy usage, but a larger run time. Additionally, by allowing the AEV to coast on the track and lowering motor speed based on location. Compared to the first code, the second code saved 7 Joules but took 6 seconds longer.
When running the AEV with the time saving code, it was observed that this code allowed the AEV to complete all the runs successfully and consistently. It allowed the AEV to trigger the sensors for the gate to open for every run. Whereas when running the AEV with the energy saving code, although the runs were mostly consistent, it was not as consistent as the first code. This is because, anecdotally, there were instances where the AEV will stop short in front of the gate without triggering the sensors for it to open. Though all data collected were of successful runs.
Looking at Figure 4.1 and 4.2, the time saving code utilized a total power of 85.5 Joules in 36 seconds for each run, while the energy saving code utilized a total power of 78.5 Joules in 42 seconds. The time saving code ended up saving $5,500 more at $471,670 compared to the energy saving code’s $477,170. Since the time saving code ended up saving more money, Group F decided to move forward with the first code as it gives more consistent runs while taking less time to complete the runs.
Appendix A
Energy graphs for performance test 2:
Figure 4.1: Time Saving Code
Figure 4.2: Energy Saving Code
Appendix B
Arduino Code