critical design review (cdr) report...critical design review (cdr) report submitted to: inst....

1

Critical Design Review (CDR) Report

Submitted to:

Inst. Patrick Herak

GTA Robert Gammon Pitman

Created by Team G:

Logan Fleisher

Laura Inbody

Sean Lincoln

Matt Schaefer

Engineering 1182

The Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio

April 22, 2015

2

Executive Summary

At the beginning of the semester, the engineers were given the challenge to create an advanced energy

vehicle, AEV, for the new Jurassic World Park. The park is going to be located on an island with scare

energy resources, so the AEV needs to be energy efficient. Then, the owners want the tour guides to pay

attention to the guest instead of driving the vehicle, so the vehicle needs to be automated. Finally, the

owners would like the vehicle to be cost effective. The major goal for the lab was to construct an AEV

that meets the requirements of the park owners.

In order to find a vehicle that meets the requirements of the owners, multiple tests were conducted to

determine the strengths and weaknesses of designs. To find a body design, there were two designs

tested with the same code, and then data was extracted and analyzed through the AEV Data Analysis

Tool in Matlab. Based on the data a design prototype was determined and the engineers looked at ways

in which the AEV design could be further improved. The prototype AEV body frame was bulky and had a

lot of mass. The engineers decided to 3D print a new body frame that would reduce weight while

keeping a similar design.

Then, to determine efficient propulsion methods, two coding techniques were tested, using the same

vehicle design and the run data was analyzed with the Matlab program. The different methods used a

constant motor speed to propel the AEV and the other used a pulse method of propulsion. When the

data from the two codes was compared, the pulse method used less energy compared to the constant

speed method.

The engineers then explored ways to stop the AEV. At first the engineers were using a reverse engine

pulse to slow down and stop the AEV, but the engineers noticed that using the motors to stop the AEV

was wasteful and unreliable. Additionally, the exact stop location changed for every run as a result of

battery power drainage. As a way to improve reliability and save energy, the engineers mounted a servo

motor and used the servo to create a braking system. The braking system saved energy and added a

safety feature because the AEV will have two ways to stop instead of just using the motors.

To improve the lab experience, there should be some standardization for the testing scenarios. The

tracks used to test on should be similar in characteristics, such as free of dips and imperfections such as

tape. Next, there should be different batteries used, so that the batteries will hold charge longer

compared to the batteries being used for the project. Ultimately, there should be more consistency

within the testing for the engineers.

3

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Experimental Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4

Results ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Discussion........................................................................................................................................... 10

Conclusion and Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 18

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 21

4

Introduction

Throughout the semester, the engineers worked on developing an Advanced Energy Vehicle, AEV, for

the owners of Jurassic World. The owners want the AEV to be energy efficient, cost effective, and

preprogrammed so the tour guide can pay attention to the guest instead of driving the AEV. In order to

find the best AEV design for the park owners the engineers performed a series of tests to determine a

useful AEV design. First, the engineers have created multiple prototypes of AEVs and tested the

prototypes to determine which design will be perused. Once a design was chosen, a programming

strategy was to be determined. Finally, after having the final AEV design and programming strategy, the

engineers needed to evaluate the system and determine where energy can be reduced in the design.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Performance Test 4 was to work with the design and programs to make

sure the AEV was consistent, prepare the AEV for testing, and make sure the AEV meets all of the

requirements of the Mission Concept Review.

Experimental Methodology

In the lab experiments, similar methodology was used, but different variables were being tested for

each experiment. To start the lab, the AEV design would be assembled and prepared to be tested. While

the AEV was being constructed, the code for the AEV would be created or adjusted, depending on what

was being tested. Next, the program used for the AEV would be uploaded. After uploading the program,

AEV would be ran on the track and observed. Once the AEV run was complete, data would be extracted

from the Arduino microcontroller and then EEProm data, the raw data from the run, was imported into

the Matlab AEV Data Analysis program. To use the Data Analysis program, the program should be

downloaded from the AEV Documents section of the Engineering 1182 website. Next, extract the files

and then click the AEV Data Analysis App, a box like in Figure 1 should pop up in Matlab.

Figure 1: Installation of the AEV Data Analysis Tool

Once the program is downloaded and installed, open up the program in Matlab in the Apps Tab on

Matlab (Figure 2). To use the program, click the file tab and load wind tunnel test data. Then, click the

file tab again and upload Matlab data from the AEV run. Finally, upload the mass of the AEV and the

program can make energy analysis calculations and analyze the data. Depending on the how the AEV

ran, there would be troubleshooting of errors and problems that occurred.

5

Figure 2: AEV Data Analysis Program in Matlab

Results

In Performance Test 1, the engineers compared the efficiency of two AEV designs. The two designs are

pictured in Figures 3 and 4. Figures 5 and 6 are energy analysis of the data from both runs. One thing to

note was that Design A (252 grams) weighed more than the modified original design (209 grams), but

still used about 6 Joules less energy than the modified original design. In Figure 6 for Design A, the

majority of the power being used for the initial step was between 4-5 Watts. In Figure 5 for the modified

original design, the input power range for the first step was 4.3-5.2 Watts. In Table 1, the total energy

used of the AEV prototypes can be compared. When comparing the total energy consumed, the results

of the calculations correspond to the energy analysis graphs, by proving Design A used less energy than

the Modified Original Design.

6

Figure 3: Modified Original Design

Figure 4: Design A

7

Figure 5: Energy Analysis for Modified Original Design

Figure 6: Energy Analysis for Design A

Table 1: Total Energy Supplied for Performance Test 1

Prototype Total Supplied Energy (J)

Design A 45.5518

Modified Original Design 51.5627

8

In Performance Test 2, two programming methods were tested, a pulse method and a constant speed

method. The tests for the codes were only partial scenarios in order to save time, but the engineers

assumed that the results could be extrapolated and represent the entire run scenario. In Figure 7, the

pulse code was shown to use less energy over the five meter distance compared to the constant speed

method in Figure 8, which can be seen in Table 2 below. In addition to using less energy, the pulse

method was also faster than the constant speed method.

Figure 7: Energy Analysis for Pulse Code

Figure 8: Energy Analysis for Constant Speed Method

9

Table 2: Total Supplied Energy for Performance Test 2

Specification Pulse Method Constant Speed Method

Energy Used (J) 35.795 45.55

Duration of Run (seconds) 8.041 20.76

For Performance Test 3, one concept was tested using the final AEV design. The engineers compared

running the AEV using a servo brake assembly to stop, which can be seen in the SolidWorks Drawing in

the Appendix, to using a stop command where the engines are reversed to stop the AEV. In Figures 9

and 10, there are two types of plateaus shown in the graph – a plateau for powering the AEV (higher

plateau), and a plateau for stopping the AEV (lower). When comparing the plateaus for powering the

AEV, the braking system required 10 Watts of power compared to 12 Watts with the code not using the

brake. The plateaus for braking in Figure 9 were smaller in height and smaller in width compared to the

code not using the brake. After compiling the data from the run, using the brake reduced energy

consumption by 33%, which can be referenced in Table 3.

Figure 9: Energy Analysis for Using a Servo Brake

10

Figure 10: Energy Analysis for Not Using a Servo Brake

Table 3: Total Supplied Energy for Performance Test 3

Code Energy Consumption (Joules)

Final Code without Servo Brake

180.90

Final Code with Servo Brake

122.73

Discussion

During the final test the AEV performed its function with little to no problems. The AEV accelerated

around the track, stopped where the AEV needed to, and ultimately completed the circuit. However, the

engineers observed that the AEV was stopped for a longer time than required for the gate to open. To

improve the overall score, the engineers could reduce the AEV’s wait times. Additionally, the AEV could

save even more energy if the speed pulse was further calibrated so the AEV coats to a stop, rather than

going too fast and wasting energy.

To formulate the final AEV design (Figure 11), the engineers conducted a number of performance tests

for the AEV, which included as design concept comparison test, operational objectives test, and an

energy optimization test, to make data-based decisions on how to improve their designs. During the

design concept comparison test, the engineers compared the designs of all the team members. Two

were selected to be built and tested. The first design was a modification to the sample AEV design, but

11

to reduce weight, a new frame was 3D-printed to cut away unneeded material (Figure 3). The second

design that was chosen to be tested is displayed in Figure 4, and is referred to as Design A. This design

focused on creating a compact vehicle, and keeping the center of mass directly under the AEV arm. After

energy analysis, it was determined that Design A used less energy to operate. The engineers then set

forth to further reduce weight in Design A, and streamline the AEV. A new frame was designed and

printed to reduce weight and tie the design to the parks theme. The engineers believe that the final

design resembles a pterodactyl and is found in figure 11, which would improve park aesthetics.

Figure 11: Final AEV Design

The purpose of the next test performed, the operational objectives test, was to develop a programming

strategy for completing the operational objective. Before the tests started, engineers had two different

coding strategies that were already developed: the "constant speed" method and the "pulse" method.

The engineers ran sample runs with both methods of code and extracted data from the AEV. As seen in

Table 2, the constant speed method used more total energy than the pulse method. Thus, the

engineers implemented the pulse method into the final programming strategy for the AEV.

Now that the AEV design was finalized and a programming method was determined, the engineers set

out to make sure the AEV could complete the requirements as efficiently as possible. After analyzing

the data, the engineers noticed that the AEV uses a lot of energy to stop, by running the engines in

reverse for a short pulse. In order to maximize efficiency and minimize total energy used, a new method

of stopping the AEV was implemented. In the supplied AEV kits, there was a servo motor which the

engineers decided to use to make a braking system. The engineers mounted the servo motor to the arm

of the AEV and attached a bracket to the servo motor arm. When the AEV needed to stop, the servo

would rotate and the arm would make contact with the metal railing, ultimately stopping the AEV and

using less energy than the reverse pulse method (Table 3).

12

Figure 12 compares the advance ratio data to the propulsion efficiency. In theory, the lowest power

setting, around 5% would yield to most efficient vehicle. However, there were minimum power input

requirements (roughly 21%) in order to have the AEV move on the track. In the final code, the motors

had 38% power supplied to the motors. The engineers have found in testing, specifically Performance

Test 2, that using short bursts of the engines at high power and then letting the vehicle coast used less

total energy compared to using the motors at constant power of 21% for the duration of the scenario.

The engineers were using the inertia and kinetic energy of the vehicle to compensate for running the

motors at a higher speed in order to increase efficiency. As a result the engineers interpreted

“efficiency” to mean total energy use, not advance ratio, and continued tests to try to reduce total

energy consumption.

Figure 12: System Efficiency versus Advance Ratio

To add validity to using the higher motor speed for short bursts, reference Tables 4 and 5. For the AEV to

go roughly 5.22 meters with the short burst of the engines at high power, 35.79 Joules of energy were

required to move the AEV. In order for the constant speed method to go the same distance, 45.55 Joules

were needed. For the constant speed method, the majority of the energy consumption came from

phase 2, where the AEV was constantly under power until the AEV got to the visitor gate. In phase 2 of

the pulse method, there was less energy used because the engines ran for a short time with high energy.

From the data, similar movements were made by the AEVs in both coding strategies, but by using the

pulse method, the energy consumption of the AEV can be reduced.

13

Table 4: Phase Breakdown for Pulse Method

Phase Arduino Code Distance (m)

Start Time (s)

End Time (s)

Elapsed Time (s)

Energy Used (J)

1 reverse(4); 0 0 0.06 0.060 0.5018

2 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed); goFor(pulseTime); goToAbsolutePosition(visitorCenterToGate);

1.7088 0.06 3.001 2.941 34.9355

3 N/A 3.5166 3.061 8.041 4.980 0.3579

Table 5: Phase Breakdown for Constant Speed Method

Phase Arduino Code Distance (m)

Start Time (s)

End Time (s)

Elapsed Time (s)

Energy Used (J)

1 reverse(4); 0 0 0.06 0.06 .1965

2 motorSpeed(4,AEVSpeed);

goToAbsolutePosition(visitorCenterToGate);

3.6652 0.06 9.24 9.18 41.377

3 brake(4); reverse(4); 0.099 9.24 9.42 0.18 0.5503

4 motorSpeed(4,stopPulse+x);goFor(1);

0.7429 9.42 10.74 1.32 2.9163

5 N/A 0.9411 10.74 20.76 9.96 0.5117

In the final run of the AEV, the process can be broken down into phases according to the code. From

Table 6, the different phases can be compared. Phase 1 was when the AEV was traveling to the visitor

gate and used the servo brake assembly to stop. Then, Phase 2 was when the AEV was going to pick up

the caboose at the storage facility. Phase 3 was when the AEV stopped to pick up the caboose and the

motors were reversed. Next, Phase 4 was when the AEV was traveling to the visitor gate with the cargo.

Finally, Phase 5 was when the AEV returned to the starting gate. All the phases, but phase 3, used

comparable energy because similar tasks were being done. Phase 4 and 5 required a little more energy

due to the increased load the AEV was pulling. Phase 3 used the least amount of energy because the

AEV was not moving. Table eight below compares the energy required for the AEV in the two scenarios:

with and without using the brake.

14

Table 6: Phase Breakdown for Final AEV Code with Brake

Phase Arduino Code Distance Traveled (m)

Start Time (s)

End Time (s)

Elapsed Time (s)

Energy Used (J)

1 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed); goFor(pulseTime); brake(4); goToAbsolutePosition(visitorCenterToGate); servoBrake(visitorCenterToGate);

4.9778 0 15.962

15.962 29.8634

2 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed); goFor(pulseTime-.5); brake(4); goToAbsolutePosition(gateToStorage);

9.3116 15.962

21.926

21.926 25.1982

3 stopAEV(0); goFor(3); goFor(9); reverse(4);

10.3146

21.926

35.462

35.462

4.8691

4 motorSpeed(4,reversePulseSpeed+trailorSpeedBump); goFor(pulseTime); brake(4); goToAbsolutePosition(storageToGate); servoBrake(storageToGate);

15.0695

35.462

51.782

51.782

31.0873

5 motorSpeed(4,reversePulseSpeed+trailorSpeedBump); goFor(pulseTime); brake(4); goToAbsolutePosition(30); servoBrake(0);

20.7531

51.782

73.922

73.922 31.7137

In comparing the stopping strategies, Table 7 contains the phase breakdown for the code using the stop

command of reversing the motors to stop the AEV. To compare the codes, comparable phases need to

be established where the AEV did the same tasks. For example, phase 5 for the code with the brake

would be comparable to phases 7 and 8 for the code with no brake being used. During the phases the

AEV had both motors running at the same speed for the pulse time and then the AEV was stopped. In

phase 5, the AEV used 31.7137 Joules of energy compared to phases 7 and 8 which used 48.9917 Joules

of energy to do a similar tasks.

15

Table 7: Phase Breakdown for Final Code with no Brake

Phase

Arduino Code Distance (m)

Start Time (s)

End Time (s)

Elapsed Time (s)

Energy Used (J)

1 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed); goFor(pulseTime); goToAbsolutePosition(visitorCenterToGate);

3.9872

0 5.042

5.042

35.5374

2 stopAEV(0); goFor(7);

5.0149

5.042

15.542

15.542

6.3683

3 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed); goFor(pulseTime); goToAbsolutePosition(gateToStorage);

8.3953

15.542

19.742

19.742

35.3112

4 stopAEV(0); reverse(4);

10.327

19.742

24.182

24.182

6.3836

5 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed+trailorSpeedBump); goFor(pulseTime); goToAbsolutePosition(storageToEntrance);

14.9704

24.182

30.542

30.542

35.2307

6 stopAEV(trailorSpeedBump); goFor(7);

15.3048

30.542

41.042

41.042

13.0762

7 motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed+trailorSpeedBump); goFor(pulseTime); goToAbsolutePosition(visitorCenterToGate);

20.233

41.042

47.282

47.282

35.6944

8 stopAEV(trailorSpeedBump); 20.9017

47.282

51.782

51.782

13.2973

Table 8 describes the total energy used when the final AEV design completed all the operational

objectives. The final AEV design with a servo brake used 122.73 joules of energy, around 58 less joules

compared to using the reverse pulse brake. Additionally, final AEV design had the lowest energy to

mass ratio, and used 139 less joules of energy than the class average to complete the objectives.

Table 8: Total Supplied Energy

Concept Total Supplied Energy (Joules)

Final AEV Design 122.73

Final AEV Design with No brake 180.90

16

The engineers also decided that the servo brake was important, not only because the brake saved

energy, but because the brake also added a safety feature to the AEV design. The final AEV design will

eventually be replicated on a larger scale. Safety is an important aspect of the design, the engineers

want the AEV be safe if people and dinosaurs will be transported with the AEV. With the servo brake the

AEV has two ways of stopping and is ultimately safer.

Tables 9 and 10, are the concept screening and scoring matrices used to determine which prototype to

further develop in Performance Test 1. When comparing the final design to previous designs, the final

design had the highest scores. The aerodynamics of the final design were comparable to the other

prototypes, so the scores were similar. Then, the mass of the final AEV (226 grams) was still greater than

modified original design (209 grams), but less than Design A (252 grams). Although final design weighed

about 17 grams more than the modified original design, the final design includes a braking system that

the modified original design did not have, which was why the final design had greater scores than the

modified original design. When comparing the designs hanging on the track, the final design had the

best center of gravity compared to the other two designs. When comparing looks, Design A had a lot of

excess pieces making up the body and did not look professional, but the final design used a 3D printed

body part to minimize the bulk of the frame and made the final design appear more professional than

Design A. Finally, the biggest factor when deciding which design to use, was the energy consumption.

The modified original design 51.56 Joules of energy for a partial run. When Design A ran the same

course with the same code, the design used 45.55 Joules, making Design A rank higher. The final design

scored higher than Design A in the scoring matrix because the final design has a braking system to

reduce the energy consumption. The final design was similar to Design A in body style but less in mass,

so less energy would be required to move the AEV, as well.

Table 9: Concept Screening Matrix

Criteria Reference AEV Design A Modified

Original

Design

Final Design

Aerodynamics - + + +

Mass - 0 + +

Center of Gravity and Balance

0 0 + +

Minimal Energy Consumption - + 0 +

Appearance 0 + - +

Sums + 0 3 3 5

Sums 0 2 2 2 0

Sums - 3 0 1 0

Net Score -3 3 2 5

Continue No No Yes

17

Table 10: Concept Scoring Matrix

Reference AEV Design A Modified

Original Design Final Design

Success Criteria

Weight Rating Weighted Score

Rating Weighted Score



Aerodynamics .065 1 0.065 3 .195 3 .195 3 .195

Mass .217 2 .434 3 .651 4 .868 4 .868

Center of Gravity and

Balance

.334 2 .688 2 .688 3 1.032 5 1.67

Appearance .051 2 .102 4 .204 3 .153 5 .255

Minimal Energy

Consumption

0.333 1 .333 4 1.332 2 .666 5 1.665

Total Score 1.622 3.070 2.914 6.948

Continue? No No No Yes

In Table 11, the estimated cost of each prototype is listed. The final design chosen costs around $161.91,

which is similar in the price of the modified original design. The final design had one significant thing

done to reduce the cost of the AEV. Design A used many pieces to make the body frame which increased

the mass of the AEV as well as the cost. The engineers had a new body frame 3D printed for the AEV in

order to reduce the cost as well as the mass. The price of the final design was then reduced to $158.46.

However, with the addition of the servo brake assembly, the price increased to $161.91. The addition of

the braking system would reduce the operational cost of the AEV in the long run because the brake used

less energy to stop the AEV and the brake made the AEV more reliable when stopping.

Table 11: Cost of AEV Prototypes

Prototype Cost

Modified Original Design $160.46

Design A $166.24

Final Design $161.91

As for scoring, the first test run for the AEV was a 44 out of 50 points. The deduction of points came

from the AEV battery being underpowered and stopping before the visitor gate when returning with the

caboose. The AEV did not have enough power when moving with the trailer during the second half of

the run and friction stopped the AEV while it was coasting. In addition to the AEV stopping early, the

engineers had to manually move the AEV to the visitor gate which was another reduction in points.

However, the engineers had a second test run with a fully charged battery and the AEV vehicle

completed the tasks effectively without any errors. The engineers used the exact same test program just

with a fully charged battery.

18

One of the major sources of error in the running of the AEV was the battery. Every lab the power

delivered to the AEV would be different because the batteries were at different charges. Additionally

the batteries died over the course of testing. As a result the power delivered to the engines would be

different every test and calibration was hard to achieve. In final testing the same code was ran twice, on

different tracks, with different batteries. One test resulted in a 6 point deduction, while in the other test

the AEV performed received full points.

Conclusion and Recommendation

During the semester, the team performed 8 different lab experiments (Labs 1 through 8) to teach the

engineers about the AEV and how to use tools, such as the AEV Data Analysis tool, to create a prototype

AEV. During Performance Test 1, the engineers worked on finding an AEV model for the prototype. Then

in Performance Test 2, the engineers developed a programming strategy to run the AEV. Once the AEV

model and coding strategy were determined, the engineers needed to find ways to reduce the energy

consumption of the AEV which was the focus of Performance Test 3. Finally, in Performance Test 4, the

engineers worked on making the AEV run consistently for the test runs and making last minute

adjustments to the code.

In Table 12 below, a summary of Performance Tests 1-3 are consolidated. In Performance Test 1, the

design the engineers chose used less energy than the original design developed from the beginning of

the semester. Design A was 40 grams more than the modified original design, and still used less energy.

The engineers decided to reduce the mass of the AEV Design A by 3D printing a body frame to be used,

so the efficiency would increase and energy consumption would decrease. Next in Performance Test 2,

the pulse method coding strategy was chosen, because the pulse method used about 10 Joules less of

energy. Finally, in Performance Test 3, by using the servo braking system, there was a 33% reduction in

energy consumption compared to not using the braking system.

Table 12: Performance Test Summary Data

Performance Test 1

Energy Consumption (Joules)

Modified Original Design 51.5627

Design A 45.5518

Performance Test 2

Constant Speed Method 45.55

Pulse Method 35.795

Performance Test 3

Final Code with No Brake 180.90

Final Code with Brake 122.73

From looking at data from other groups test runs, the final AEV design used the least amount of energy

to complete the course compared to the other designs in the class. However, the design did not have

the highest score in the class the AEV took more time to complete the course. There was

19

miscommunication between the engineers and instructors by what was ideally wanted. The engineers

thought that the AEV should be light and use the least amount of energy, when the AEV should have

more mass and a low energy consumption. Even though the AEV was not the highest scored in the class,

the AEV was still the best compared to the other vehicles. The vehicle used the least amount of energy

to complete the run and the AEV had a braking system to increase the reliability of the AEV when

stopping.

In the experiment, there were errors in running the AEV such as the battery and inconsistencies in the

track which caused problems when doing the first final test for the AEV. To overcome the errors in the

experiment for the second final test run, the engineers would only use the same battery for two runs

and then test the voltage. If the voltage was below 8.3 volts, the engineers would charge the battery or

get a new battery. By monitoring the voltage, the engineers could be assured that the AEV could

properly complete the scenario according to how the engineers programmed the AEV. To compensate

for the track discrepancies, the engineers had variables set up for the different distances and power

needed to be supplied to AEV, so that the adjusting the code for the track was more efficient. By

compensating for the errors in the experiment, the AEV was able to fully complete the scenario without

any problems.

There are a few things that can be done to improve the AEV projects for the engineers. First, there

should be more batteries available so that there are fully charged batteries for the engineers to use. The

fully charged batteries would help make the testing more consistent. In addition to having more

batteries, if plausible, have a charger for the batteries at each table so engineers can charge the

batteries between runs. Next, the tracks for the testing should be made consistent. The tracks should be

level and free of dips so that the AEV can run similarly on both tracks.

Ultimately, the purpose of the semester long project was completed. The engineers created an

advanced energy vehicle that completes the Mission Concept Review scenario perfectly and the vehicle

minimized the energy consumption. The engineers met the objectives by using a servo braking system,

the pulse coding strategy, and modifying design A to create a light final design that resembles a

pterodactyl.

20

Appendix

AEV Schedule

Schedule

Task Start Date End Date Completed

Lab 1- Creative Design Executive Summary

January 14th, 2015 January 21st, 2015 yes

Lab 2- Arduino Programming Basics Executive Summary

January 21st, 2015 January 28th, 2015 yes

Lab 3- AEV Designs Concept Screening and Scoring Executive Summary

January 28th, 2015 February 4th, 2015 yes

Lab 4- External Sensors Executive Summary

February 4th, 2015 February 11th, 2015 yes

Lab 5- System Analysis 1 Executive Summary





February 25th, 2015 March 4th, 2015 yes

Lab 8- Design Analysis Tool Executive Summary

March 4th, 2015 March 11th, 2015 yes

Write PT1 TRR Executive Summary


Design AEV Concepts March 10th, 2015 March 11th, 2015 yes

Test Concepts and Extract Data from AEVs


Analyze Data March 23rd, 2015 March 25th, 2015 yes

Write PDR March 24th, 2015 March 26th, 2015 yes


March 23rd, 2015 March 25th, 2015 yes

Write PT2 Memo March 28th, 2015 April 6th, 2015 yes


March 29th, 2015 April 2nd, 2015 yes

Make Poster Rough Draft April 2nd, 2015 April 9th, 2015 yes

Write PT3 Memo April 8th, 2015 April 13th, 2015 yes

Finalize Poster April 10th, 2015 April 13th, 2015 yes

Write CDR April 15th, 2015 April 20th, 2015 yes

Update Webpage March 10th, 2015 April 20th, 2015 yes

AEV Showcase April 20th, 2015 April 20th, 2015 yes

21

Tasks Completed (Over Entire Semester)

Designing and Modeling AEV Concepts

o Estimated Time- 4 hours

o Sean, Logan, Laura, and Matt create initial AEV design sketches

o Logan and Sean design AEVs

o Sean designed parts on SolidWorks for 3D-printing

o Sean builds the designs during the labs

o Sean and Logan compose SolidWorks models for AEV designs

o 100% completed

Test Concepts


o Logan and Matt test the AEVs during lab sessions

o 100% completed

Extract Data from AEVs

o Estimated Time- 45 minutes

o Logan gets the AEV data and sends the data to Laura

o 100% completed

Analyze Data


o Laura analyzes the data in Matlab and Excel

o Sean creates breakdown of AEV data with AEV code

o 100% completed

Update Webpage


o Laura updates the u.osu.edu page with labs and other documents

o 100% completed

Write Reports


o Logan, Sean, Matt, and Laura all work together to write reports

o 100% completed

Final AEV Program

//all measurements are made in feet

//all measurements are made from the visitor center

#include <PWMServo.h> //includes the servo library of functions

PWMServo myServo; //creates a servo class object

int pos = 0; //created initial servo arm positions

22

double visitorCenterToGateFeet = 15.7; //location of stop position when first

//stopping at gate

double gateToStorageFeet = visitorCenterToGateFeet+14.5; //location of stop position when picking

//up caboose

double storageToGateFeet = 18.175; //location of stop position between

//storage facility and gate on return

int pulseSpeed=38; //engine speed setting

int reversePulseSpeed=30; //engine speed setting when running in

//reverse

int trailerSpeedBump=10; //speed bump needed for trailer

int stopPulse=20; //engine speed setting when stopping

int pulseTime = 3.25; //engine pulse time

//conversion from feet to marks

int visitorCenterToGate= visitorCenterToGateFeet*12/.4875;

int gateToStorage = gateToStorageFeet*12/.4875;

int storageToGate = storageToGateFeet*12/.4875;

void stopAEV(int x) //function to stop AEV using a pulse

//argument is speed increase

{

brake(4);

reverse(4);

23

motorSpeed(4,stopPulse+x);

goFor(1.5);

brake(4);

reverse(4);

}

void servoBrake(int x) //function to stop AEV using servo

//argument is location to stop

{

goToAbsolutePosition(x); //location to stop

myServo.write(0); //rotate servo arm to brake position

goFor(9); //time to stay stopped

myServo.write(60); //rotate servo arm to moving position

}

void myCode() //main program function

{

myServo.attach(SERVO_PIN_A); //initializes servo

myServo.write(90); //rotate servo arm to moving position

goFor(.35); //time needed for arm to rotate

reverse(4); //sets engines in the right direction

//the following commands send the AEV to the first stop before the gate and makes it stop

motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed);

goFor(pulseTime);

brake(4);

24

servoBrake(visitorCenterToGate);

//the following commands send the AEV to the to the storage facility to pick up caboose

motorSpeed(4,pulseSpeed);

goFor(pulseTime-.05); //not as much power is needed

brake(4);

goToAbsolutePosition(gateToStorage);

//the following commands make the AEV pick up the caboose

stopAEV(0);

goFor(9);

reverse(4);

//the following commands send the AEV to the second stop before the gate and makes it stop

motorSpeed(4,reversePulseSpeed+trailerSpeedBump);

goFor(pulseTime);

brake(4);

servoBrake(storageToGate);

//the following commands send the AEV to the visitor center and makes it stop

motorSpeed(4,reversePulseSpeed+trailerSpeedBump);

goFor(pulseTime);

brake(4);

servoBrake(5);

}