Lab 5: Concept Screening and Scoring

Concept Screening matrix
Success Criteria	Reference	Design A	Design B	Design C	Design D	Design E
Stability	0	–	0	+	+	0
Durability	0	0	+	0	+	+
Safety	0	0	+	+	+	0
Weight	0	+	–	+	0	0
Aerodynamics	0	–	+	0	+	+
Sum +’s	0	1	3	3	4	2
Sum 0’s	5	2	1	2	1	3
Sum -‘s	0	2	1	0	0	0
Net Score	0	-1	2	3	4	2
Continue?	Combine	Combine	Combine	Yes	Yes	Revise

Table 5.1: Chart describing what each design from the students achieved and did not achieve.

Concept Scoring matrix
		Reference		Design A		Design B		Design C		Design D		Design E
Success Criteria	Weight	Rating	Weighted score	Rating	Weighted score	Rating	Weighted score	Rating	Weighted score	Rating	Weighted score	Rating	Weighted score
Stability	15%	3	0.45	2	0.3	4	0.6	5	0.75	3	0.45	3	0.45
Durability	25%	3	0.75	3	0.75	4	1	3	0.75	4	1	4	1
Safety	20%	3	0.6	3	0.6	4	0.8	2	0.4	4	0.8	3	0.6
Weight	20%	3	0.6	2	0.4	2	0.4	5	1	2	0.4	3	0.6
Aerodynamics	20%	3	0.6	2	0.4	4	0.8	4	0.8	5	1	4	0.8
Total Score			3		2.45		3.6		3.7		3.65		3.45
Continue?		No		No		No		Develop		Develop		No

Table 5.2: Chart describing what group H felt was important for the final design and how each design created was rated compared to the tasks that were important.

 

The criteria were chosen for the following reasons:

Stability: A well-designed AEV should be stable because extra movement could put more strain on the AEV and shorten its lifespan.

Durability: The AEV should be durable and well-made, with no risk of it falling apart. It should be able to handle the task with no broken parts.

Safety: An AEV that isn’t safe shouldn’t be used. The AEV should be able to perform consistently across multiple runs while maintaining the 2 criteria above.

Weight – A lighter AEV means less energy consumption and therefore more efficiency.

Aerodynamics – This determines how hard the AEV will have to work to fight the forces of air resistance. An aerodynamic AEV will have to consume less power to move and therefore is more efficient than a non-aerodynamic design.

 

After doing the  Concept Screening and Scoring spreadsheets it was decided that design C and design D had the highest scores and will be carried on throughout the design cycle. 

 

Design A:

 

The pros of this design is that it is a very safely built structure that is also very simplistic in the way that nothing extra would have to be built for it.

The cons of this design is that though the structure is safe and simplistic it is not very aerodynamic and so it could weigh too much when trying to run across the tracks.

Design B:

The pros of this design is that it is very aerodynamic and has a simplistic design while also having safety features throughout, which includes making sure the Arduino and battery are enclosed and attached well.

The cons of this design is that there are a few difficult features that need to be built, which could also add a lot of weight. It also may not be very aerodynamic when running backwards.

Design C:

The pros of this design is that it is a very compact design which could lead to it being quite light and it also has a balanced weight on either side.

The cons of this design is that it is not a very safe design since it is so compacted and it is also not very aerodynamic which could be a challenge while going across the tracks.

Design D:

The pros of this design is the aerodynamic features it presents on all sides of the AEV. In addition, this design also allows the AEV to change the direction of its movement much quicker.

The cons of this design is it that it weighs more, which is caused by the equipments needed to make the AEV more aerodynamic.

Design E:

The pros of this group design is that it is a very aerodynamic design that combines all the other designs together and also has a great breaking feature.

The cons of this group design is that though it would be very aerodynamic with the advanced design it could weigh too much which would be a problem when it is being tested.