Preliminary Design Report
Submitted to:
Inst. Dr. Kadri Parris
GTA Sheena Marston
Created by:
Team F
Amirah Azlan
Stephen Balko
Sugene Park
Shane Ruiz
Engineering 1182
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
27 March 2017
Executive Summary
The focus of this lab has been to create an energy efficient vehicle that abides by the constraints presented in the Mission Concept Review. The Mission Concept Review calls for an this vehicle to be an Advanced Energy Vehicle. In the Mission Concept Review, the scenario laid out calls for the vehicle to transport R2D2 units on a distant planet where power is a finite resource. Since power is a finite resource on this planet, the Advanced Energy Vehicle needs to be as energy efficient as possible. The lab team’s AEV focus’ on how much energy consumed during trips to obtain R2D2, as well as other factors in design that will make the Advanced Energy Vehicle be more efficient in order to achieve the goal laid out in the Mission Concept Review. The tests undertaken during the allotted lab times utilize multiple techniques in order to determine, which facets of the Advanced energy Vehicle are optimal. Some of the techniques utilized are screening and scoring and collecting power consumption data. With some of these various factors taken into account, the team was able to test the Advanced Energy Vehicle in order to make the runs more efficient or to correct any imperfections within the code. The team later found that the code was acting inconsistently due to the diminishing power provided by the battery, so the team had to alter the code for when the battery was low on power and when it was at full power. When taking the ideas presented in this assignment to the real world, there are some direct applications because if a design is more efficient than another design in the real world, it will cost less money and consume less resources.
When constructing the Advanced Energy Vehicle, the team really honed in on aerodynamics as a priority of focus. With this being said, the design that the team came up with has a shark shaped front(streamline front) in order to make it aerodynamic. However, the design has been in the works, which hasn’t allowed the team to directly test it. With this being said, the team has been testing with a more basic design in order to perfect some things like the code and other minor things. Despite not being the design the team plans to use, this design will provide the team with a baseline that the team will need for the actual design when ready.
Some error that the team ran into through the testing process involves a lot to do with the code, however that wasn’t all of the error observed. When testing the code of the Advanced Energy Vehicle there were some inconsistencies with the performance of the code, and after multiple tests the team concluded that the diminishing power caused the Advanced Energy Vehicle to operate at non-optimal conditions. After observing this, a new battery had to be obtained in order to make the Advanced Energy Vehicle to operate properly, although when using a fully charged battery, the Advanced Energy Vehicle yet again didn’t work as expected. What the team got out of this is that the battery caused significant variation in the code, so it was necessary to have multiple codes in place as the battery dies down. Additionally, when the Advanced Energy Vehicle picked up R2D2, the magnet was connecting to the back of the Advanced Energy Vehicle, although due to the positioning of our 90-angle bracket it caused the back wheel of the Advanced Energy Vehicle to be pulled off of the track. In turn, the reflectance sensors weren’t reading the distance traveled on the track, and it never stopped. As result, the group decided to put a couple spacers in between the 90-angle bracket and the screw in order to raise the positioning of the connection and that ended up working out.
All in all, the group has been making progress and is headed in the right direction and once the group gets its final design, all of the testing done prior should be directly applicable to the newer design. I think the team’s design at the end of the day will be optimal due to its shape, along with the attention to coding. As previously stated, the group focused on aerodynamics, which will clearly make the Advanced Energy Vehicle utilize less energy. Based on the team’s tests, the team’s design has had optimal functionality, as well as having an energy efficient code so the team believes for these reasons that the current design should be the best in the class.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………2
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Experimental Methodology…………………………………………………………………………….4
Results………………………………………………………………………………………6
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Conclusion & Recommendations…………………………………………………………11
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
Introduction
The goal given to the group of engineers was to create an AEV device that using the finite amount of energy available would be able to travel along a monorail to pick up and deliver an R2D2 for the rebel alliance. Using this information the team designed and built an AEV that has made strides towards achieving those goals. The Team still has a lot of correcting to do with the code in order to make it much more stable, however they are quickly approaching the time when the empire will be hard pressed to outsustain the mass supply of R2D2s that are transported everyday along the monorails.
The main purpose of Performance Test 1 is to choose the final design among the two prototype AEV concepts. To achieve the goal, the group will test two AEV designs and compare the performance of each designs using System Analysis Tool. By using System Analysis Too in the MATLAB, the group were able to analyze the performance of each AEV designs. The most efficient AEV design in completing the Mission Concept Review will be chosen as the final design of the group.
Experimental Methodology
Please refer to The Ohio State University Advanced Energy Vehicle Design Project, 2016, Department of Engineering Education, The Ohio State University, Dr. Clifford Whitfield, Dustin West, Jacob Allenstein, pages 19-104, for the proper procedure and equipment for all labs. See Table of Contents on page 3 of the lab manual for location of specific lab equipments and procedures.
For Lab 8, Performance Test 1, the team decided which two designs will be tested as the prototype AEV concept. The purpose of the Performance Test 1 is to compare which AEV design is the most efficient to be used as the final design for the project. The two designs were built based on the result from Lab 5 considering all the factors that the team thought would contribute to the efficiency. The team started the Performance Test 1 with the first design and it was constructed according to the drawing shown in Figure 1. Before testing the AEV on the trail, the team ran a test to analyze the wheel sensors to see what needs to be altered in the code. The team then upload the code to the Arduino and tested the AEV on the inside trail. The uploaded code can be found in the appendix.
Figure 1: Orthographic view of Design 1
During the testing, the AEV moved right away after on the trail when the code is activated and stopped in front of the gate. After the AEV completed the run, the team took the AEV off the trail and download the data from the AEV to the computer. The team analyzed the data gained from the completed run using System Analysis Tool from the MATLAB. The data obtained can be found in figure 3 in the results.
The second design is constructed according the drawing shown in Figure 2. The same method is used to test the second design; run a test to analyze the wheel sensors, upload the code, test the AEV on the trail, download the data and analyze the data using System Analysis Tool in MATLAB.
Figure 2: Orthographic view of Design 2
After completing the Performance Test 1, the team compared the data obtained from both prototype using System Analysis Tool. AEV with the most efficient performance will be used as the final design.
Results
The team’s first AEV prototype concept used in the Performance Test 1 is based on one of the team member’s design and the second team’s prototype AEV concept is based on the team’s overall decision. The first prototype shown in Figure 1 and Figure 8 in the appendix has the feature of an upper body shark at the front part of the AEV. With the fin on both sides of the shark and the aerodynamic shape of the shark’s body, the structure of a shark’s body is similar to the structure of an airplane which could reduce air resistance. The second prototype AEV concept has the structure of an aerodynamic as well and it is a combination of all team member’s design and the sample AEV design used in previous labs. This design uses a plastic rectangle and trapezoid at both sides as the main structure to reduce air resistance. Both of these designs used L-shaped arm and plastic as the main materials. More similarities of the two designs are the location of the battery, propeller and the Arduino, as can be seen in figures 1 and 2.
The first designed AEV has a different base than the others, and evolved from the shark body chosen from Lab 4, while the second prototype evolved from all four designs and combined them with the sample AEV design. Since all four designs created by the team members has the aerodynamic structure, the team evolved all the designs considering the cost, stability, durability and weight of the AEV to the second prototype AEV concept as shown in Figure 2.
During Lab 5, the team decided to implement the screening and scoring concept on the three designs where the best design is constructed as the team’s chosen design, the design B is the shark model and the reference design is the sample AEV design. Only one design was tested which was design A. The result of scoring and screening for each design is shown below in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1: Design Screening
Table 2: Design Scoring
Table 1 and 2 shows the result of screening and scoring for the first, second and third design. Since only one design was successfully tested, the other two designs; design B and C, had their performance hypothesized from the performance of design A. As it can be seen from the tables, design A could not be proceed due to the low score and failure it caused. The position of the propellers in design A does not support the movement of the AEV and thus it could not be proceed to the final design.
In order to determine which design was the best one to use the group referred to table 1 and table 2, and determined that Design B was the best one. Although, this design needed to be 3D printed, the group couldn’t physically test that design. However, the team had an alternative design that was relatively similar to Design B. That design was tested and it had great balance, along with a code in which the design functioned properly aside from on the trip back because the code still has to be modified a bit to stop before the gate. Design C has been tested as well, however the code needed to run the AEV, didn’t function the way that it ran in Design B. It was interesting to see how the code worked for one design and not the other, however it just proved that the various factors associated with the AEV can have a relatively big impact on the functionality of the AEV. Additionally, while testing the AEV it was observed that as the battery lost power across the duration of the class period, and the code had to be adjusted accordingly.
Due to the power efficiency that can be seen in figure 3 below, the code does seem to run efficiently both forwards and backwards consuming almost the same amount of power. This is due to the design choice of using the EP-3030 propellers in order to maintain power no matter if it is using the puller or pusher method, which can bee seen in the power efficiency graph in figure 7 of the appendix. Also the advance ratio of the EP-3030 propeller increases in efficiency the further the AEV goes without stopping,which can be seen in figure 6 in the appendix, so the propellers are more useful for a code where the propellers are running for a majority of the time. In the case of a low battery it can still run on slightly decreased power by lowering the amount of time that the motors run and letting it coast for a bit before running the motors in reverse to slow it down. One goal the group has is to incorporate this into our future code designs in order to make them even more power efficient. Unfortunately the group was unable to take data for design 1 because it was still being printed so the data in design 2 was used to try to make assumptions of how efficient design 1 will be.
Figure 3: Design 2 Power versus Distance
Testing the performance of the AEV design is very important for the team to decide which and what to alter on the design. This Performance Test has made the team aware of the small details on the design could affect the performance of the AEV. Based on second trial, the team discovered that the placement of the metal on the AEV should be at the same level of the metal on R2D2. Otherwise, the AEV will be lifted and one of the wheel is not touching the rail. The knowledge gained from System Analysis 1-2 could enhance the understanding of the AEV’s performance by knowing the energy used by each motion on the rail. By using the data from the System Analysis, the team were able to know which design is the most efficient.
Discussion
The aim of the Advanced Energy Vehicle lab was to evaluate how the energy efficiency of the Advanced Energy Vehicle was influenced by the shape of the Advanced Energy Vehicle, through creating codes and considering aerodynamics, durability and efficiency. The energy efficiency observed by the team and several tests were identified based on results.
It was evident from the results that there is a relationship between the design of the Advanced Energy Vehicle, codes, and energy efficiency. The different designs show a difference in energy efficiency on the track; the team tested two designs and theorized how others would work based on the results. After testing design A, the Advanced Energy Vehicle’s propellers crashed into each other because they were located too close to each other. Design B, which has a shark shaped front, might have the best aerodynamics, but it was not able to be tested. Therefore the team tested with the basic design and theorized what would change.
After testing the basic design, the power output of the battery influences the code performance. The battery which is not always fully charged diminished the consistency of the Advanced Energy Vehicle. Also another error in design arose when the magnet connected to pick up the R2D2 the wheel was forced off the track by how high up the magnet needed to be connected. The team will consider these errors for the next test and while editing codes.
However, there are other details the team should consider. The team considered the weight of the Advanced Energy as one of the important factors in lab 5. Therefore if the team put a hood on the Advanced Energy Vehicle, the weight will be increased. So the weight might be a potential error in the future labs, however from the designs it seemed that the elimination of screws may balance out the added weight of the hood. This can be seen in the estimated weight and cost tables.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The goals of this lab were to create and design an Advanced Energy Vehicle, and create a code for an Advanced Energy Vehicle to do a specific task. For the entire scenario, the team’s Advanced Energy Vehicle would be able to go forward on the monorail, and transport R2D2 from one end of the track to the other. The team considered the consistency, flexibility and energy efficiency for creating the code for the Advanced Energy Vehicle.
The purpose for this experiment is to create an energy efficient Advanced Energy Vehicle, so the team considered aerodynamics as one of the most important factors of the Advanced Energy Vehicle. Also the durability and efficiency are important factors for team’s design. Followed by the results from the concept screening and scoring test, the team choose the design as shark shaped front which is streamline front to improve the aerodynamics. However, the design that team choose was not able to test, so team used basic design which is based on lab 2, in order to test and develop for the perfect code.The team tested multiple times, and continued editing the code in order to achieve the goal.
The group was able to create an AEV that was able to perform half of the task perfectly, and almost completed ¾ of the task, however some hiccups occurred. As can be seen in prior evidence design 2 for the AEV was tested and performed better than the group had first expected, and was fairly energy efficient with only a few minor hiccups. The group strives to be able to overcome these hiccups in multiple ways which will be explained below.
When testing the code with team’s Advanced Energy Vehicle some errors occurred, however the AEV was able to make it to the first gate wait and then proceed to the pickup point for the R2D2 and even connect to the R2D2. The first error was from battery which might not have been fully charged or died within a short time. The battery influences to the Advanced Energy Vehicle’s movement, as it dies the power for the Advanced Energy Vehicle decreased. To resolve the battery problem, multiple codes should be prepared for different amounts of power that the battery can supply.
Another error comes from the position of the connection magnet. When the Advanced Energy Vehicle transports the R2D2, the magnet connects the Advanced Energy Vehicle and R2D2. However, after connect the Advanced Energy Vehicle and R2D2, the position of magnet made a space between the track and the Advanced Energy Vehicle’s back wheel. Consequently, the distance on the track was not counted in the reflectance sensor, and it could not able to stop at the stop point. To resolve the position problem, the team put spacers to raising the position of magnet and remove space between track and Advanced Energy Vehicle’s back wheel.
The main reason that the group was not able to fulfill all of the goals that had been set prior to this is because the group was delayed in printing the AEV. Other than this many of the goals were fulfilled, and the only main area that the group needs to focus on is in resolving the discrepancies between runs. One way the group is hoping to achieve this is by having the code require less power in order to be able to do more runs before it runs out of power. Along with this the team plans to balance the AEV better, because in some of the runs it seemed as if balancing the AEV was the only reason that the AEV would perform better.
Overall, even though team still needs to perfect the codes, the experiment is heading in the right direction. The design of the Advanced Energy Vehicle excels in aerodynamics, efficiency and durability as seen in the concept screening and scoring test. To correct the code the team should take into account where the AEV attaches and how efficient the code can be made in terms of power consumption.
Appendix
Table 3: Schedule Task
| No. | Task | Start | Finish | Due Date | Est.
Time |
Member 1 | Member 2 | Member
3 |
Member 4 | %
Complete |
| 1 | Build Design 2 | 3/19 | 3/20 | 3/20 | 1 hr | 1 hr | – | – | – | 100% |
| 2 | Test Design 2 | 3/20 | 3/25 | 3/25 | 1.5 hr | .5 hr | .25 hr | .5 hr | .25 hr | 100% |
| 3 | Create Model of Design 1 in Solidworks | 3/18 | 3/22 | 3/22 | 2.5 hr | 2.5 hr | – | – | – | 100% |
| 4 | Write Code for Arduino | 3/18 | 3/22 | 3/24 | 2 hr | 1 hr | .25 hr | .25 hr | .5 hr | 100% |
| 5 | Weekly Report | 3/20 | 3/24 | 3/24 | 3 hr | .5 hr | 1 hr | .75 hr | .75 hr | 100% |
Table 4: Estimated Cost and Weight Design 1
(Arduino was removed from calculations of weight and cost)
| Item No. | Part Identification | Quantity | Cost
($) |
Total Cost
($) |
| 1 | Base | 1 | $5.00 | $5.00 |
| 3 | Support Arm | 1 | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| 4 | 90-deg bracket | 3 | $0.84 | $2.52 |
| 5 | Nut | 11 | $2.88 | $2.88 |
| 6 | Screw | 7 | packaged with 5 | packaged with 5 |
| 7 | Motor Mount Clip Aluminum | 2 | $0.59 | $1.18 |
| 8 | Motor Screw | 4 | packaged with 5 | packaged with 5 |
| 9 | Propeller Assembly | 2 | $10.44 | $20.88 |
| 10 | Battery Spacer | 2 | $1.00 | $2.00 |
| 11 | Battery | 1 | varies depending on battery | varies depending on battery |
| 12 | Battery Pack Clamp Plate | 1 | $1.00 | $1.00 |
| 13 | Long Screw | 2 | packaged with 5 | packaged with 5 |
| 14 | Wheel with Reflective Tape | 1 | $7.50 | $7.50 |
| 15 | Wheel | 1 | $7.50 | $7.50 |
| 16 | Hex Bolt | 2 | packaged with 5 | packaged with 5 |
| 17 | Hex Nut | 2 | packaged with 5 | packaged with 5 |
| 18 | Reflective Sensor | 2 | $2.00 | $4.00 |
| Overall Cost | $56.46 | |||
| Total Weight | 171.46 grams |
Table 5: Estimated Cost and Weight Design 2
| Item No. | Part Identification | Quantity | Cost
($) |
Total Cost
($) |
| 1 | Large Rectangle | 1 | $9.00 | $9.00 |
| 2 | Trapezoid | 2 | packaged with 1 | packaged with 1 |
| 3 | 90-deg bracket | 3 | $0.84 | $2.52 |
| 4 | Motor Mount Clip Aluminum | 2 | $0.59 | $1.18 |
| 5 | AEV Motor | 2 | $9.99 | $19.98 |
| 6 | Support Arm | 1 | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| 7 | Wheel with Reflective Tape | 1 | $7.50 | $7.50 |
| 8 | Wheel | 1 | $7.50 | $7.50 |
| 9 | Propeller | 2 | $0.45 | $0.90 |
| 10 | Battery Pack Clamp Plate | 1 | $1.00 | $1.00 |
| 11 | Magnet Cube | 1 | unknown | unknown |
| 12 | Battery | 1 | varies on choice of battery | varies on choice of battery |
| 13 | Battery Spacer | 3 | $1.00 | $3.00 |
| 14 | Reflective Sensor | 2 | $2.00 | $4.00 |
| 15 | Screw | 20 | $2.88 | $2.88 |
| 16 | Washer | 6 | Packaged with 15 | Packaged with 15 |
| 17 | Nut | 23 | Packaged with 15 | Packaged with 15 |
| 18 | Hex Bolt | 2 | Packaged with 15 | Packaged with 15 |
| 19 | Small Screw | 1 | Packaged with 15 | Packaged with 15 |
| 20 | Flat Bracket | 4 | $1.26 | $5.04 |
| Overall Cost | $66.50 | |||
| Total Weight | 167.412 grams |
Figure 4: Bill of Materials Design 1
Figure 5: Bill of Materials Design 2
Figure 6: Advance Ratio for EP-3030
Figure 7: Power Efficiency for EP-3030
Figure 8: Shark Design
Sample Code:
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,32.5);
goToAbsolutePosition(-184); celerate(4,32.5,27.5,1);
goToAbsolutePosition(-400); reverse(4); motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1);
brake(4);
goFor(7);
reverse(4); motorSpeed(4,32.5);
goToAbsolutePosition(-501);
celerate(4,32.5,27.5,1);
goToAbsolutePosition(-820);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1);
brake(4);
goFor(5);
motorSpeed(4,32.5);
goToAbsolutePosition(-656);
celerate(4,32.5,27.5,1);
goToAbsolutePosition(-420);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1);
brake(4);
goFor(7);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,32.5);
goToAbsolutePosition(-339);
celerate(4,32.5,27.5,1);
goToAbsolutePosition(-20);
reverse(4);
motorSpeed(4,40);
goFor(1);
brake(4);
goFor(7);
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 32.5% power
\\run until the position at -184 marks is reached
\\decelerate all motors over 1 second to 27.5%power
\\run until the position at -400 marks is reached
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 40%
\\run motors for 1 second
\\stop all motors
\\idle for 7 seconds
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 32.5% power
\\run until the position at -501 marks is reached
\\decelerate all motors over 1 second to 27.5%power
\\run until the position at -820 marks is reached
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 40%
\\run motors for 1 second
\\stop all motors
\\idle for 5 seconds
\\change all motor speeds to 32.5% power
\\run until the position at -656 marks is reached
\\decelerate all motors over 1 second to 27.5%power
\\run until the position at -420 marks is reached
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 40%
\\run motors for 1 second
\\stop all motors
\\idle for 7 seconds
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 32.5% power
\\run until the position at -339 marks is reached
\\decelerate all motors over 1 second to 27.5%power
\\run until the position at -20 marks is reached
\\reverse all motors
\\change all motor speeds to 40%
\\run motors for 1 second
\\stop all motors
\\idle for 7 seconds