CDR

Link to CDR:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_YM9Xt8hiEG_C0c8nDNZoDudbauM4ycwQ-UmPYEEQrg/edit?usp=sharing

 

Just In Case Link Did Not Work

Abstract

 

The AEV is an Advanced Energy Vehicle that will be used to transport people from Linden to Easton and Polaris. The goal of this AEV experiment and testing was to make the AEV energy efficient, safe and balanced, a quick travel time.. The main takeaways from the advanced R&D of the design was the motor configuration as it was more efficient and faster. Another takeaway is power vs. coasting braking. Through testing it was found that using a combination of both is more efficient rather than using only one. Our results showed that the AEV was able to complete the final performance test and maintained both an efficient run using only 198 joules and also stayed under the budget.  A recommendation for this AEV is to change the layout of the arduino and battery to have easier access to the USB port on the arduino. Also, the layout would make the AEV more stable which is a major factor in the AEV performance. Additionally a recommendation is to adjust the code to run with the most consistency and add the printed nose cone.

 

Introduction

 

The AEV is an Advanced Energy Vehicle that will be used to transport people from Linden to Easton and Polaris. The AEV is energy efficient, autonomous, and is suspended from a monorail. The AEV will be required to complete 4 main tasks. First, the AEV will start at the dock and then move forward until a gate, where it will have to wait until it opens. Second, the AEV must successfully connect to the load (passenger car). Third, the AEV needs to get back to gate without disconnecting from the load. Finally, the AEV will continue to the starting dock and stop past the starting line. There are also budget constraints for the AEV such as cost of parts, energy costs, time, and research costs. First, this paper will look at the procedure and the parts required to build the AEV from beginning to the performance test. Next, the results will be discussed and analyzed to see what can be done to make the AEV more energy and cost efficient. Finally, the conclusion and discussion will used for recommendations and discussion of two prototypes.

 

Experimental Methodology: Procedure

 

The first step for Group H in developing a successful AEV for the Smart Columbus project was to develop an efficient design that could correctly maneuver the track correctly. Once the design of the AEV was designed, different codes had to be developed and tested in order to make the AEV start at one end of the track and then stop before the gate. Then the AEV had to stop and wait for the track to open, and then proceed through. The next step is to edit the code so that the AEV attaches to the payload at the end of the track and then proceed back to the gate, wait for it to open and then proceed back to the starting point.

 

Experimental Methodology: Equipment

 

Group H’s current design for the AEV (see Design1 in Appendix) was created with the idea of efficiency and keeping the AEV compact to use minimal energy during the run. The motors were attached at a 45 degree angle because Group H discovered that the AEV design covered a greater distance than the previous without the code being modified. Two propellers were used in the design to provide more speed to the AEV running down the track.

 

Result

 

The start of this project began with prototype designs by each group member which are labeled and then described below

Figure 1: Design 1

 

Figure 2: Design 2

 

Figure 3: Design 3

 

Figure 4: Design 4

 

Snigdha chose this design (Figure 1) because the curved shape provided the AEV to have less air resistance. This results in it being more energy efficient because it uses less power to run. But, this design would make it heavy, thus having more maintenance costs.

Nan chose this design((Figure 2) because the fastigiate design can reduce the air resistance on AEV, which can make the AEV faster with less power. It’s helpful for energy saving. And the shape of this design is pyramid, not cone. It’s much easier to make and maintain. What’s more, the shape of the design is symmetrical so it has a good balance, which will enable passengers have a comfortable trip. At last but not the least, the two motors and propellers are placed on the front and back of the device. And there is room for air flow between them, which further reduces the air resistance on AEV.

Eli’s design was developed after the design((Figure 3) of a train. The motors of the AEV are stacked in order to maintain a thin body with a streamline front.

Jack’s design was(Figure 4) developed using basic ideas from that of aircraft and propeller driven vehicles. The propellers were positioned evenly on the far ends to provide even propulsion when the vehicle travels but also provided some unbalanced transportation. The cost of this vehicle is less than 150 and makes it relatively easy to build but has its flaws. The design also uses a triangle base structure to provide more aerodynamics and help balance the weight. The arduino and battery are positioned in the middle to help balance the weight and allow the vehicle to travel the most efficient on the tract. This designs main focus points are efficiency, speed, and cost. The final design that we decided to use was Eli’s because from the concept screening and concept scoring tables. It was energy/cost efficient and was good overall.

 

Table1: Concept Scoring Matrix

 

After deciding two final prototype designs the advanced R&D was used to test these designs to decide on one final. The motor placement test was the biggest factor for us shown by the table below.

This data allowed us to see that when using the two slanted motor design the AEV traveled much farther and that is the main reason we choose to use the slanted motor design.

 

In the performance test, we observed that after the motors were stopped, the AEV would slide a distance forward because of the inertia, so we not only need take the distance from the start point to the gate into account, but also need consider the inertia. And we need to change the code to adjust different prototypes because different prototypes have different magnitude of inertia. At last, after lots of testing and adjustments, our AEV meets our expect. It is able to start from the start point and wait before the gate and then go through the gate after the gate open.

 

In the final performance test, the goal of our aev was to be both efficient and fast while being under budget. As seen in the table below our results show that our aev maintained a time of around 45 seconds and only used 198 joules throughout the run.

The energy analysis chart also shows that our run consisted of multiple points where we would coast and then use power breaking to make for an accurate stop. Lastly below the cost of our aev is shown an we were able to stay below the 600,000 budget that was outlined for the project.

 

RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3
Capital Costs $ 164,440 $ 164,440 $ 164,440
Energy Costs $ 219,857 $ 325,000 $ 377,000
Time Costs $ 157,500 $ 157,500 $ 168,000
Accuracy Penalty 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
R&D Costs $ – $ – $ –
Safety Violations $ – $ – $ –
TOTAL COST $ 541,796.50 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

 

Discussion

 

Our data obtained from the preliminary and advanced r&d showed us that the motor configuration test had a positive outcome and allowed us to redesign our aev to become more efficient and quicker. Secondly the battery test allowed us to realize that our aev was energy efficient but that the balance could be improved to allow easier coasting and more evenly distributed motor power. A potential error in our experiment was that the battery testing was hard to obtain results that could be completed. This was because there was no way to tell what individual part of the code affected that battery or not. If there was a way to see how much the battery voltage drops at the start or when the motors are reversed then the code could be manipulated to help reduce that usage. In the motor configuration lab the potential error was that we tested the configuration using distance. The code ran allowed for some coasting which could have caused some discrepancy in the results.

 

Based on our two prototypes we had one prototype that had the motors out to the side(design 1 in appendix)  and one prototype with the motors both angled one up and one down( design 2 in appendix). Our first design ran an average distance of 177 inches. After reconfiguring the motors so that each motor was slanted outward on the AEV the average distance ran was 276 inches. After these results our final aev design was selected using the slanted motors design. This was chosen due to the farther distance in the results and the the aev placement was adjusted to balance the aev.

 

After completing the final performance test our final AEV design ran with the realtcie expectations that we had aligned. The AEV was able to complete the track using under 200 joules and also ran with a time of 45 seconds which was under the 50 second mark we wanted. Lastly the AEV also stayed under the 600,000 dollar budget by around 60,000 dollars. The combination of these factors allowed our aev to have a strong overall performance and showed that in the public transportation field it provided all the necessary factors of speed, efficiency, and safety. Also an observation noticed from the final run is even after all the testing and configuring the AEV still was not fully consistent and had to be adjusted continually. This is mainoy in part to the AEV design and being that accuracy is not easy to have using propellers. Another part our group noticed was that after pulling the load several times the battery would usually start to weaken and then a new battery would have to be used.

 

Conclusion

 

After the preliminary R&D and the advanced R&D there have been several conclusions that have been drawn from our testing. The first conclusion we drew as from the battery testing. After running two different codes on two different batteries the results showed that the batteries were fairly consistent and the voltage only dropped a very small amount. It also showed that our AEV design is efficient and does not provide a lot of stress on the battery. This will help us when the payload is added to the AEV to keep the battery lasting longer and stronger. During the tests limitations were also noted how the battery could not be tested during a run but only before and after. Because of this there could be some errors in the results and their is no way to tell how the battery voltage responds to individual parts of each trial.

The second conclusion we were able to draw from our testing was the motor configuration. Our first design had to motors horizontally next to each other in the back of the AEV. After testing this configuration with the code the AEV ran an average distance of 177 inches. After reconfiguring the motors so that each motor was slanted outward on the AEV the average distance ran was 276 inches. The motor change provided almost a 100 inch difference using the same code. We concluded that the reason for this drastic change was that now the motors each were creating their own propulsion on each side of the AEV to provide a larger amount of thrust then when being right next to each other and directly behind the AEV. Furthermore pulling the motors out to the side acts as a balancing device for the AEV and allows it to run smoother on the track because the weight is more evenly distributed and lastly our aev motors could run at a lower power and still provide the same speed and thrust needed.

 

The last conclusion drawn from the final performance test and final data collected was that our AEV proved to be a fast, and efficient transport to use. The final test did still show some weakness in the AEV’s ability to be consistent but it still was able to successfully land in each zone and complete all tasks. We were able to conclude that overall our AEV project was successful and we were able to work through all the bumps to design a successful AEV that aligned with our goal.

The final shortcomings with our AEV that were not fully resolved was the issues still with consistency. Even though our AEV completed the track for the most part there were still many times when it would not make and that would not be good for a true public transport. During some runs our aev would run over and hit the starting gate or sometimes the AEV would come short. To fix this problem it would be beneficial if the AEV had its own sensors to run the motors until it sensed the stop gate and then stop the aev at a specific spot everytime. Additionally the last shortcoming was our group wanted to use a 3-D printed nose cone for our final design. Unfortunately, when we received the nose cone back from the lab the front connector piece was broken and there was not enough time to print a new one. But for future reference we now know that the 3-D printed pieve must have higher error built in the to not try and have there be many precise cuts in the model.

The final recommendations that our group has is that looking forward if more time was added to the AEV project we would look to use the servo and try and manually break the AEV to see if that would provide more accurate results. Additionally looking at the project as a whole it would be cool to try and implement other technologies into this project such as the use of remot control, or different forms of propulsion.

 

 

 

 

Appendix

 

Schedule

Table 1: Upcoming Schedule

 

Task Start Date End Date Group Member
Grant Proposal 02/12/18 02/12/18 All
Committee Meeting 1 02/13/18 02/13/18 All
Website Update 3 02/20/18 02/26/18 All
R&D Oral Presentation 02/21/18 02/27/18 All
Progress Report 2 02/27/18 03/06/18 All
Performance Test 1 03/20/18 03/20/18 All
CDR Draft 03/20/18 03/22/18 All
Performance Test 2 03/27/18 03/27/18 All
Committee Meeting 2 03/29/18 03/29/18 All
Progress Report 3 04/01/18 04/05/18 All
Final Oral Presentation Draft 04/07/18 04/09/18 All
Final Performance Test 04/12/18 04/12/18 All
Final Oral Presentation 04/16/18 04/16/18 All
Final Team Evaluation 04/19/18 04/19/18 All
Final Website Ongoing since first website update 04/19/18 All

 

Prototype Designs

 

Design 1

 

Cost of prototype 1

 

STANDARD AEV PARTS
Unit Cost # Used Cost
Propulsion System Arduino $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000
Electric Motors $ 9,900 2 $ 19,800
Servo Motors $ 5,950 $ –
Count Sensor $ 2,000 2 $ 4,000
Count Sensor Connector $ 2,000 2 $ 4,000
Propellers $ 450 2 $ 900
Body Structure T- Shape $ 2,000 $ –
X- Shape $ 2,000 $ –
2″ x 6″ Rectangle $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
2.5″ x 7.5″ Rectangle $ 2,000 $ –
1″ x 3″ Rectangle $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000
1.5″ x 3″ Rectangle $ 1,000 $ –
Trapezoids $ 1,000 $ –
L-Shape Arm $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000
T-Shape Arm $ 3,000 $ –
Wheels $ 7,500 2 $ 15,000
Battery Supports $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000
Brackets & Tools Angle Brackets $ 840 6 $ 5,040
Screw Driver $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
1/4″ Wrench $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
Motor Clamps $ 590 2 $ 1,180
#55 A Slotted Strip, 2″ $ 1,260 2 $ 2,520
TOTAL: $ 164,440

 

Design 2

 

STANDARD AEV PARTS
Unit Cost # Used Cost
Propulsion System Arduino $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000
Electric Motors $ 9,900 2 $ 19,800
Servo Motors $ 5,950 $ –
Count Sensor $ 2,000 2 $ 4,000
Count Sensor Connector $ 2,000 2 $ 4,000
Propellers $ 450 2 $ 900
Body Structure T- Shape $ 2,000 $ –
X- Shape $ 2,000 $ –
2″ x 6″ Rectangle $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
2.5″ x 7.5″ Rectangle $ 2,000 $ –
1″ x 3″ Rectangle $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000
1.5″ x 3″ Rectangle $ 1,000 $ –
Trapezoids $ 1,000 $ –
L-Shape Arm $ 3,000 $ 3,000
T-Shape Arm $ 3,000 $ –
Wheels $ 7,500 2 $ 15,000
Battery Supports $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000
Brackets & Tools Angle Brackets $ 840 6 $ 5,040
Screw Driver $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
1/4″ Wrench $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
Motor Clamps $ 590 2 $ 1,180
#55 A Slotted Strip, 2″ $ 1,260 2 $ 2,520
TOTAL: $ 236,040