PDR Report

Lab 09B: Preliminary Design Report

Submitted to: Dr. Kadri Parris

Created by: Team J

David Gairford

Clara Jin

Michael Martinez

Engineering 1188

The Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio

28 March 2017

Executive Summary:

The main purpose of the Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV) Design lab is to create a vehicle which, when given a set of tasks to complete, would complete them using the minimal amount of energy possible. The design requirements were defined by the Mission Concept Review (MCR) and restrained our design to some degree. The MCR required that team J design and fabricate a small, autonomous vehicle that was propeller-driven, which would traverse along a monorail track to secure new R2 units. Along the monorail was a gate which would require the AEV to pause momentarily for the gate to open on both the initial and the return trips. The MCR also defined the goal of using the least amount of energy possible due to limited planetary supplies. As individuals, each member considered the given MCR parameters and came up with a design which they wanted to use. Together the team decided on a combination “Pusher-puller” motor configuration which can be found in Figure 1 of the Appendix.

 

Throughout the process of the lab, individual labs were completed to explore the various aspects of the design process and aspects of working as a part of a team. Though each group member had their designated strengths, every member of the team is responsible for the eventual group success or failure. Each member was given more responsibility within their aspect of strength in order to help the team stay on track for successful completion within the given time constraint.

 

As a team, the preliminary design has shown its ability to successfully complete the given mission tasks. Team J has been and will continue to work on energy optimization leading to the final design report and final lab tests. Currently team J AEV will complete the MCR with 395 joules of energy. Preliminary tests have shown that with energy optimization in the coding and design could drop the final energy usage by roughly 100 joules.

Team J should continue to work with coding and weight management in the remaining time to further optimize energy usage, allowing not simply the completion of the MCR but the most energy efficient completion.

 

Table Of Contents

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………

Experimental Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….…

Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….

Conclusion & Recommendations  – Clara Jin …………………………………………….………………………………..

Conclusion & Recommendations  – Michael Martinez…………………………………………….………………………………..

Conclusion & Recommendations – David Gairford …..………………………………………………………………..………….

 

Introduction

The purpose of the Advanced Energy Vehicle Design Lab is to create a small autonomous vehicle that, when programmed to complete a certain set of tasks, will complete them with the minimal amount of energy usage and zero human intervention until the completion of the prescribed tasks. In this lab report the design process and initial design testing done by Team J will be explained and justified, along with recommendations for optimization moving toward the Final Design Report.

Experimental Methodology

  1. Task 1 – Creative Design Thinking

In lab one the group learned the basics of programming the Arduino board and took the first steps to create a useable AEV program. After reading the given lab report material, each member was familiar with the basic functions available through sketchbook.

  1. Task 2 – Arduino Programming Basics

in External Sensors & System Analysis 1 lab 2, the objectives is to be familiar wih the external sensor hardware components, with troubleshooting techniques and program function calls for using externa sensors with AEV control.

  1. Task 3 – Concept Screening and Scoring

The brainstorming process was done initially on an individual level and later each member came together to create and agree upon a singular design. At the individual level, each member considered the MCR and the available resources and began to sketch out a design which they found would complete the given tasks.

  1. Task 4 – External Sensors

The team is now more familiar with functionality of external sensors on our AEV after this lab . new arduino functions were introduced.  Required equipment include the assembled AEV, the external sensors, zip-ties, USE cables, servo, the LI-PO battery.

 

  1. Task 5 – System Analysis 1 – Propulsion Efficiency

This lab is focusing on wind tunnel testing.  The team analyzed the propulsion efficiency and use the data we got to decide which kind of propeller system are we going to use. The leb equipments are in the front of the classroom offered by instructor.  Figure is attached.

  1. Task 6 – System Analysis 2 – Performance Data Analysis

the primary goals of this lab are: to practice downloading data from the AEV after a run, practice converting EEPROM Arduino data to conventional units, and practice using given calculations to analyze performance characteristics.  In order to practice and utilize the skills necessary to complete the assigned primary goals for lab 4, a physical run of the AEV was completed on the assigned track area. That is, a complete program code and implementation of that program code was conducted. After this run completed the AEV automatic controller recorded data that was utilized in performance analysis.

  1. Task 7 – Design Analysis Tool

We learned arduino analysis tool to analyzing data via MATLAB in this lab. We used sample data to learned how to analyzed data and improve AEV model.

  1. Task 8 – Performance Test 1 – Design

This lab is to test the functionality of the AEV and code including three performance test.  First, test 2 different designs, second, uses different amount of motors, third , control the AEV to reach the gate, wait, and travel to the turn-around point.

Results:

The following graphs and tables were completed during labs detailed above. Immediately below are the team’s original design sketches for what they thought the AEV should look like. Each sketch has the author’s name on it. During decision making the team decided to proceed with David’s and Clara’s design sketch as the two designs that the team would evaluate.

These graphs led the team to decide to use a pusher-puller AEV design that way there will always be a motor configured to be pushing at all portions of the track. Because the higher efficiency seen in these graphs for the puller configuration.

 

Concept Scoring Matrix

 

Reference Reference Design A Design A Design B Design B Design C Design C
Success Criteria Weight % Rating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score
Balanced 25 3 0.75 3 0.75 2 0.5 3 0.75
Minimal Blockage 5 2 0.10 4 0.20 2 0.1 1 0.05
Center/Gravity 30 2 0.60 1 0.30 1 0.3 3 0.9
Maintenance 15 3 0.45 4 0.60 2 0.3 2 0.3
Durability 15 2 0.30 3 0.45 1 0.15 1 0.15
Cost 5 3 0.15 3 0.15 2 0.1 2 0.1
Environmental 5 3 0.15 3 0.15 3 0.15 3 0.15
Total Score 100 2.50 2.60 1.6 2.4
Continue? No Develop No No

 

The above concept scoring matrix provided the team with an unbiased way to determine which design to proceed forward with. By eliminating bias and using reasoning and logic to reach a conclusion, the team was able to agree on the final decision. In the end the decision was made to pick David’s design which used a pusher-puller motor configuration.

 

This picture is the final rendition of the AEV. The decision not to use any extra parts was made unanimously by the team to keep weight down. The left side of the screen is the front of the AEV. The front propeller will never come in contact with the cargo, and no part of the AEV will interfere with proper functioning of the AEV on the track.

Conclusion and Recommendation – Clara Jin

In Engineer 1188, our team worked together to design an AEV to perform tasks. We used Arduino code programming and data analytics to achieve our goal . The most important task is to travel by rail to pick up a cargo train, and at the same time focus on energy efficiency. In order to create an energy efficient AEV we used wind tunnel test to decide the system. We also used different data analytics method to help us make the decision.  We compared two designs’ performance, one ran both motors and the other one only use one motor.

When analyse the data, we used the AEV data analysis software, which read from EEPROM. This is useful to test our final designs.

 

Our team worked very well together and accomplished our goal by doing our part responsibly.

My suggestion is assign enough people for each team. Our team had a really hard time for losing team member and falling behind. Also i think it’s a good idea to have example for each step so we won’t confused. As a transfer student I’ve had some engineering classes in my previous institution. I know this is a really fun and good class for first-year engineering student but it’s kind of heavy for students enrolled in higher level classes. I think you can leave the most important tasks and maybe decrease the amount of progress lab report. I like this class, and enjoy learning new things and all the hands on part. Those are just suggestions.

 

Conclusion and Recommendation – Michael Martinez

In this Advanced Energy Vehicle project this team was challenged to design, test, and troubleshoot various engineering concepts to develop a vehicle that could accomplish a set of outlined tasks. The team took full advantage of the kit given by the teaching staff and used only parts from this kit to keep the overall weight of the vehicle low. After deciding which team members design to proceed with the team conducted analyzed several different performance analysis of code that will give the most efficient use of energy.

 

Several factors were taking into consideration when testing the most efficient use of energy. From testing “celerate” vs. “motorSpeed” for optimal output, or comparing coasting vs. using full power output to the desired stopping point and more. This team has taken careful consideration into creating the best AEV they could produce. Since the decision not to use custom made parts and only use those that were giving, the team was able to focus on the given coursework and AEV efficiency. After test the AEV with using only one motor as a pusher vs. using one motor as a pusher and the other as the puller simultaneously it was determined that using both motors was more energy efficient. After downloading and analyzing data from both of these configurations it was clear that both motors work more efficiently when used in tandem.

 

The team experienced several errors that affected the way data was collected and read. During several trial runs the absolutedistance changed in small ways so that one dat the distance worked well and then others it would not be enough to get the AEV to the desired location. After ruling out potential causes like the sensor test, starting point, wheals, weight changes, and battery life. The team was able to find a position that worked best for the AEV.

 

Currently the team is trying to develop a code the uses the least amount of energy through a full completion of the course.

 

This team worked well together and accomplished assignments and tasks in a timely manner as possible. Clear and equal communication was used throughout and respect was shown by all members always. Together the team was able to make significant accomplishment in class and in the overall design of the AEV, like being the first to effectively use the servo motor effectively yo stop at the desired location. This move inspired many other teams to attempt to use the servo in their designs as well.

 

In addressing recommendations to the lab, a change to the way the labs and their progress reports are titled would be essential. The current way that they are named has caused much confusion on what and where to submit certain assignments. A solution to this would to not call lab progress reports “Lab ##” and only refer to them as the lab report the their respective lab. Other than this the lab has been structured very well and has been extremely conducive to learning the outlined engineering concepts. Thank you.

Conclusion and Recommendation – David Gaisford

Engineering 1188 enables students to work together, possibly for the first in this setting, to research, design, and develop a device that will complete a given set of parameters. For this task our mission concept review was to create a vehicle for the rebel alliance which needed to pick up cargo autonomously, and transport it to the destination facility. Along the way it needed to make stops, making the trip more complicated. Each team was given all the materials that were needed to complete the task at the minimum requirements. It is up the the groups to individually design an AEV which could complete the tasks with the minimal amount of energy.

 

Ultimately, this lab has shown me more of the smaller details that go into the engineering process. In other lectures and labs the procedures are given to students to recreate the lab and results are compared to what should have been. With this lab, the groups were given the final desired result and, with the guidance of individual lab tasks each week, left to their own devices. With this however, comes the requirement to check-in with our instructor and TA’s, providing insight into our thought process and progress on the MCR.

 

There seem to be more variables which are out of the control of the individual group than originally accounted for. For example there are issues with the track which cause the AEV to have different results with each consecutive run, even when the coding was not changed. The main example of this is the use of the “goToAbsolutePosition();” code. During performance testing the same absolute position was used on two different days, with no other variation in AEV design or coding and the AEV stopped perfectly the first day and to early the second. This can be attributed to some human errors in the track installation and errors in starting position during the beginning of the test runs.

 

Based on the first half of the lab, the recommendations that I can make pertain mostly to the way the class is handled and structured. Clarity of the explanation of the procedures for assignments seems to be lacking in my opinion. This may be because of the assumption that students are transferring in and therefore have done similar memos or progress reports. However at my previous institution we were never required to do more than lab reports. The information was available however it was never communicated where the technical communication guide was located. Another recommendation would be streamlining the names of the lab assignments. By this, I mean that calling the first report due “progress report 2” is convoluted and confusing. Then continuing on into the semester, each report that is due, bears the number that is one higher than the lab that it pertains to. Finally the last recommendation is that with three lab members, this 1.5 credit hour class easily becomes a 3 credit hour class with the work done outside of class.

PDR-1d5uz4g