Material Testing

Problem Background

The first test that was tasked to Team A was finding the most energy efficient material (being the actual structure: boards, wings, etc). A wide amount of materials were present for various teams to utilized, including polypropylene (which was the given material used throughout Phase One), ABS Plastic, Acrylics, and MDF. Each of these materials can be seen below:

Polypropylene Material Base

ABS Material Base

Acrylics Material Base

MDF Material Base

Plan

First and foremost, Team wanted to develop a clear-cut plan to provide the best and most reliable information for Company Scarlet. Throughout intensive research in the project’s documentation and many discussions between team members, and other division members, a definitive course of action was identified and set into motion. The following was the plan implemented for this specific test:

  1. Create a set scenario (using code developed by Team A) to run the AEV through; each trial having a different material attached (see the section titled “Code”).
  2. Record the distance the AEV traveled on the track and the power usage of the vehicle, all in relation to time (see the section titled “Results & Analysis”).
  3. Draw any conclusions and recommendations from the test that could be useful for Company Scarlet (see the section titled “Takeaways”).

Code

Arduino Code Glossary

Code Comments
motorSpeed(4,30);  //Set All Motors to 30%
goFor(4); //Have AEV go for 4 seconds
motorSpeed(4,0); //Set All Motors to 0%
goFor(10); //Have AEV go for 10 seconds

Arduino code for Material Testing

Shown above is the Arduino code for the material test (to learn about Arduino, see “Programming Basics” in “Phase One Development”). This particular scenario run makes the AEV move all motors at 30% speed for 4 seconds, and then have all the motors run at 0% speed for 10 seconds. This test case was chosen to get a variety of movement options for the AEV; making sure that the best material would be shown in all aspects of motion. Also, being a relatively short piece of code, it makes sure that the only thing being tested is the material, ergo limiting other factors of influence.

Results & Analysis

Below are the graphs that were generated from the data extracted during the tests for each material. The distance was measured in meters, the power was measured in joules, and the time was measured in seconds. The order in which the data is presented is the order the tests were conducted.

Distance v. Time & Power v. Time Graphs for Polypropylene

Distance v. Time & Power v. Time Graphs for ABS Plastic

Distance v. Time & Power v. Time Graphs for Acrylics

Distance v. Time & Power v. Time Graphs for MDF

Takeaways

After Team A compiled the data generated from the scenario, a ranking system was implemented for the group to determine which material was the best. This system culminated numerical input, as well as observations team members noticed during the trial runs. The following shows the ranking of each material (in presented order), and notes from its performance:

Polypropylene Takeaways (Ranked #2 Overall):

  • Able to travel the farthest out of all the materials.
  • Structure is sturdy and able to support weight.
  • Adds unnecessary weight to the vehicle.

ABS Plastic Takeaways (Ranked #4 Overall):

  • Traveled the third farthest out of all the materials.
  • Structure is noticeably flimsy.

Acrylics Takeaways (Ranked #1 Overall):

  • Traveled the second farthest out of all the materials.
  • Great structural rigidity.
  • Less bend gives a more aerodynamic design.
  • The material can shatter, if not careful.

MDF Takeaways (Ranked #3 Overall):

  • Shortest travel distance out of all the materials.
  • Structure is the sturdiest of the materials.
  • Largest size constraints.

As seen above, Team A will be utilizing Acrylics as its material structure for the AEV. The entire team came to the consensus that (given its impressive data and overall balanced observations) Acrylics provides the most energy efficiency with little to no drawback. However, a noted con that the material presents is its ability to shatter if dropped. While this is a very major concern, Team A believes that this can be stopped with careful treatment and care of the vehicle; omitting any unnecessary worry. Also, Team A will revert this negative aspect by changing the placement of certain parts. Doing this action will create a more balanced vehicle, which will put less stress on portions of the transportation unit. This integration will consist of moving the battery on one end of the AEV, which will counterbalance the Arduino system on the other end, and to move the support hanger to a closer midpoint on the AEV. This configuration will differ from the initial design in Phase One by acting as a more compact unit with a focus on balance.