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
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 11th, 2015 February 18th, 2015 yes
Lab 6- System Analysis 2 Executive Summary
February 18th, 2015 February 25th, 2015 yes
Lab 7- System Analysis 3 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
March 9th, 2015 March 11th, 2015 yes
Design AEV Concepts March 10th, 2015 March 11th, 2015 yes
Test Concepts and Extract Data from AEVs
March 10th, 2015 March 24th, 2015 yes
Analyze Data March 23rd, 2015 March 25th, 2015 yes
Write PDR March 24th, 2015 March 26th, 2015 yes
Write PT2 TRR Executive Summary
March 23rd, 2015 March 25th, 2015 yes
Write PT2 Memo March 28th, 2015 April 6th, 2015 yes
Write PT3 TRR Executive Summary
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 Estimated Time- 15 hours
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 Estimated Time- 3 hours
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 Estimated Time- 10 hours
o Laura updates the u.osu.edu page with labs and other documents
o 100% completed
Write Reports
o Estimated Time- 60 hours
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);
}