1

Critical Design Review (CDR)

Submitted to:

Professor Busick

GTA Jin Yang

Created by:

Group E (12:45 PM Lab)

Ramon Weldemicael

Noor Afifa Mohd Hanafiah

Ngagne El Hadji

Grace Ammons

Engineering 1182

The Ohio State University

College Of Engineering

Columbus, OH

March 27, 2014

2

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables …………………………………………………………….3

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………….………..4

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..5

Preliminary Design Phase ……………………………………………………….……6-8

Experimental Testing and Analysis……………………………………………………9

Final Design……………………………………………………………………………..10-13

Conclusion and Recommendations…………………………………………………..14

3

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: AEV Concept 1 ……………………………………………………….7

Figure 2: AEV Concept 2……………………………………………………….8

Figure 3: AEV Final Design…………………………………………………….11

Figure 4: AEV Final Drawing…………………………………………………...12

Table 1: Energy Used for Each Component…………………………………..13

4

Executive Summary

The Advanced Energy Vehicle (AEV) Project was a semester long project done by the team in order to produce a lightweight, energy-saving monorail vehicle that follows certain commands outlined in the operational requirements of the vehicle. The team had basically taken progressive processes in the completion of the AEV; the design process, the system analysis process and the performance tests process. The AEV project had also allowed the team to gain a sense of project management and teamwork that are used frequently in the field of engineering, hands on experience with many different engineering techniques such as computer coding, organizing a design process, and practicing formal project documentation of each the vehicle’s progress. In the design process the team produced individual designs that were evaluated by the concept screening and scoring sheet which sees the pros and cons of the designs made. While Ngagne and Afifa’s designs supported the concept of a horizontal base for the vehicle Grace and Ramon’s design supported the concept of a vertical base instead. As the scoring sheet shows the highest scores for Afifa and Ramon’s designs, the AEV concept is tried for both horizontal and vertical based designs for the vehicle where the vertical design is made as Concept 1 and the horizontal as Concept 2. The system analysis process familiarized the team with Arduino programming for the AEV. The coding outlines from System Analysis 1 and System Analysis 2 gave practice on the use of the function calls and its effectiveness when observed in the AEV track runs. After the track runs, analysis was then carried out by using data extracted from a MATLAB program. The data was calculated for several components and graphs of Power vs Time, Power vs Distance, Propeller Efficiency vs Advance Ratio, Thrust vs Voltage and Efficiency vs Time were then extracted as well as a table of the energy breakdown and total energy used. In the Preliminary Design Review, system analyses were then made for both Concept 1 and Concept 2 based on the arduino programming from System Analysis 2 and Concept 1 was chosen due to its lower total energy. Performance Tests 1, 2 and 3 were made to test AEV that was programmed accordingly to the outline of the Operational Requirements as follows: The AEV first runs off from the distribution center in a pusher propellers configuration, it would stop at the entrance gate, and wait for 7 seconds to be checked in and a position sensor would open the gate. After the entrance gate opens, it travels to the loading dock to be attached to a caboose. Then, it reverses its way back to the gate, stops at the entrance gate, and wait for 7 seconds to be checked out and a position sensors would reopen the gate. After the entrance gate opens, it travels back to the starting point. Analyses were carried out for each successful or unsuccessful run to see which parts of the codes may need modifications based on the its performance. From the Performance Tests we gathered that the final design proved to be energy efficient as it provides a smooth run due to it being more streamlined and have great aerodynamics. Using our final program, the final run shows the total energy usage of 158.4 J.

5

Introduction

The purpose of the AEV project was to gather a group of students of different background

so they would learn how to manage a project and work as team in order to program, to design, and to produce a monorail vehicle that would deliver goods from the warehouse to the customers. The AEV would start at the distribution center and would travel along a monorail track system above ground traffic. The AEV would pick up a caboose loaded with customers’ precious packages and deliver them at their final destination.

This project is important because it is valued research and development of alternative energy sources allowing customers a green, energy efficient at low cost effective for their packages to be delivered fast. The team had set up several operational objectives. First the team had to operate the AEV efficiently and consistency on the monorail track system (coasting). The team also made sure that the AEV successfully picks up and delivers the precious cargo while meeting the operational requirements, design constraints and minimizing the energy/mass ratio.

The team set up several operational requirements to fulfill by the AEV. First the AEV must start at the distribution center. Then, it traverses to the warehouse entrance gate. Then, stop at the facility’s entrance gate to receive approval for entering. Then, it navigates to the loading dock for supply pick-up. Then, it stops at the loading dock and attaches to the caboose. Then, it travels back to facility’s entrance gate and stops to have the cargo checked and approved. Finally, it traverses back to the distribution center where the supplies will be distributed to the consumer.

6

Preliminary Design Phase The Design phase was a long process. The team came up with four individual designs.

Then, these designs were examined and scored based on certain criteria such as balance, weight, and aerodynamics. Then one design was constructed out of all the best qualities of each of the four concepts. The team then took that design and broke it into two designs that had slightly different modifications.

The two designs were similar but had enough difference to test out different theories the team had about efficiency. Both of the AEV designs that were tested had basically close to the same T-shape design. The differences between the two designs were that the initial AEV concept had 3030 propellers and vertical hanging battery, and the second AEV design concept had 3020 propellers and a horizontal hanging battery. Both AEVs were run with a pusher configuration due to energy efficiency. Both designs were manipulated various times to find the best overall balance of the vehicle and make the vehicle as light as possible. Several test were run on both of the designs to test each manipulation that was done. The tests were double-checked and efficiencies were calculated multiple times to ensure accuracies.

After all manipulations were made on both of the concepts, the initial concept design was chosen. It was proven to be the lightest, it had the most balance, and the most was the most efficient: using the least amount of power and energy to do its job. The design was much less taxing on the AEV battery due to the fact that it did not use as much energy as design two, and its propellers tested better than design two.

7

Figure 1: AEV Concept 1

8

Figure 2: AEV Concept 2

9

Experimental Testing and Analysis The objective was to build an advanced energy vehicle with specific guideline and materials to perform certain tasks, using the least amount of energy possible. The AEV had to be built with the given materials and move by way of propellers. No less than one, and no greater than three propellers were allowed on the AEV. Furthermore, the AEV was required to run on a pre-set track. The track had both gates and cargo, for which the AEV was to stop at and pick up respectively. The AEV was to travel along the track stopping at one gate and pick up cargo, then successfully bring the cargo back to the starting point. In addition, the AEV was operated and controlled by the arduino. The team was to program a code for the arduino so that the vehicle would make its way around the track while stopping at the proper checkpoints. Coding proved to be the most challenging aspect of the entire project. The code had to not only run the proper course, but also be energy efficient. If too much power was applied, the AEV would no longer be efficient. Therefore, the team settled on a coasting method. This is where the power is cut off well before the gate so the AEV can coast in with the power cut and come to a complete stop before the gate. Coasting to just the right location took much trial and error along with many calculations. It was very important for the team to know the exact measurements of the track. Furthermore, two different concept designs we ran and tested on the track. The team made an equal comparison by using the same code for both concepts. After several runs on the track, it was clear that one concept was more efficient than the other as previously stated under “preliminary design phase.” The team needed the lightest, most efficient, and most aerodynamic design for their final concept. Also, different tests other than running the AEV on the track were performed. The wind tunnel test helped the team decide whether push or pull was the best method and which propeller blades were the most efficient. The thrust had to be tested as well using a design analysis tool. At each step of the experiment, an analysis of energy and power was conducted. This allowed the team to see if their adjustments helped. Overall, the teams final run was very successful and used very little energy.

10

Final Design

The team’s concept one was the final design that was chosen. The concept’s focus is

one lowering the weight of the vehicle so that it can move smoother and more efficient ride. To make this possible, only one panel, T-shaped, was used to construct the vehicle, and unnecessary parts were removed to minimize weight. The overall body way put in vertical orientation which gives it more stable movement by reducing air resistance. The vertical body also makes the vehicle balanced because it’s parallel to the support arm. Since the final design was changed to T-shaped, the motors were placed on top most and bottom edges; this placement allowed for minimal propeller blockage. The orientation of the final design can be seen in the 3 orthographic views for concept 1. The two components, battery and Arduino were placed in the left and right if the AEV to keep it balanced. The team then concentrated on working to get the AEV complete a half run, which was to the loading dock. Once the first half requirement was perfected and received repeatable results, the team proceeded to the next operational requirements.

The next concern was the matter of energy efficient. For example, the area under the curve of the power vs. time graph was calculated to compute total energy. To figure out the number of feet the AEV needs to travel, the group used wheel counts to calculate total distance in marks. The group discussed about running the motors throughout the whole track since it will have more consistent stops because it will not rely on coasting errors. This method was not used because it consumed a lot od energy. The group decided on running motors at higher speed, travel shorter distance, and coast the rest of the way. For example the AEV would run 34% full power and go for 143 wheel counts. This method reduced the total energy drastically by 28.4 Joules. Initially the AEV ran 25% full power and longer wheel counts. The final decision turned a good results of 158.4 Joules for the complete run.

The programming strategies that were used when designing the AEV began with deciding whether to have the AEV go For commands to focus on time or distance. I was decided to focus on measuring distance since it would be more accurate with initial tests instead of guess and checking how long it would take the AEV to travel certain distance at power level that could change. With this decision, it was rule out the possibility of using celerate command because it solely focused on time. When first testing the program, the AEV would travel at constant speed to the loading dock but the motor speed was increased when carrying the caboose because it has to counteract for the extra weight.

During the final testing, the group observed that AEV performed as expected and met every requirement. The AEV completed the track smoothly and efficiently. The final run was the most efficient run and it was able to finish the task I short time of 1 minute and 7 seconds. The vehicle was well balanced except when it was running high speed while turning. The AEV was also able to attach to the caboose without any difficulties. As seen on the AEV Final Testing Score sheet, the total energy used was one of the lowest energy in the class and the team had a perfect points earned and one of the highest total score.

11

Figure 3: AEV Final Drawing

12

Figure 4: Power vs. Time for Final Run

13

Table 1: Energy Used for Each Component

Phase Time (s) Distance (m) Energy (J)

Approaching gate 0 to 3.5 0 to 1.9 34.1

Break and Coast 3.6 to 9.2 2 to 5 0.02

Arrive and wait at gate 9.3 to 17.4 5 0.19

Approaching 17.5 to 20.8 5.1 to 7 35

Break and Coast 20.9 to 26.1 7.1 to 10.2 0

Attach to caboose 26.2 to 32.7 10.2 0

Reverses to gate 32.8 to 37 10.3 to 12.4 45.5

Breaks, Coasts, 37.1 to 41.8 12.5 to 14.8 0.9

Arrives at gate 41.9 to 50.8 14.8 0.5

Arrive back to start 54.8 14.9 to 17 42.2

Total Energy Used 158.4

14

Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion, the Advanced Energy Vehicle was able to travel three successful runs on the

track system. However, there were different energy consumed at each performance tests which satisfied our expectations by the fact that there decreasing throughout three runs. The energy used for each performance were recorded in order of run as follows, 187 joules, 186.6 joules, and 158.8 joules. The energy used by the AEV was improved approximately at 15% of the original energy used from run one.

There were many difficulties accounted throughout this project such as balanced the AEV on the track system, management of the team, programming the Arduino, and find the coasting position on the track system. However, the team believes that we could improve the project. For instance by better scheduling our meeting, by designing more concept in order to find an efficient AEV balanced on the track. Also, the team could better program the Arduino so the AEV would run efficiently and consistently on the track system to fulfill its requirements.