Table of Contents
This page contains links to important final documentation of our project. Feel free to look around for more information!
Powertrain Test Bench User Manual
For a copy of the overall user manual for the test bench, please click the link below.
- Add strength to the front of the powertrain cart to hold the motor. The design is slightly shaky and may not accommodate a heavier motor in the future.
- More Robust Sensors- The sensors used on our system failed during routine testing per the specification sheets. These reason for failure was never explicitly discovered and have been operating properly on the test bench, however, in the future more robust sensors should be selected per the needs of the electrical system being tested.
- Graphical User Interface can only connect to the dyno once through serial communication. The user must exit the GUI and re-open to run a new test.This feature is cumbersome and needs to be addressed.
- Could be more user friendly in setting max and min allowed throttle position and dyno RPM
- User must clear the data being collected after each test as it compiles in the same file name. It would be a great addition if every test was saved as a new file.
- Set up the E-Stop to shut down the dyno through hardware instead of software
For a copy of the project poster, please click the link below.
For a copy of the project technical paper, please click the link below.
For a copy of the final presentation, please click the link below.
Electrical Hardware DocumentationFor the zip file of the electrical hardware system, please click the link below. The file contains a list of wires, the electrical wiring system diagram, and the PCB schematic.
Final Code & GUI FilesFor Files pertaining to the Final Code and GUI , please click the link below.
Below are links to the CAD files for the major mechanical components
Gate Review: Final Minutes
i) The project was handed to the customer in working condition and adhered to all but two customer requirements that were discarded due to changes from the customer during the project. The project was completed over $500 under budget. The customer was satisfied overall when they saw the operational system at the customer demo. Due to issues with the GUI access, the customer currently can not use the system at all. They will fully satisfied when that issue has been resolved.
ii) Based on the timeline in the beginning of MSD II to the end, the project followed a fairly predictable path. There were some places we got off schedule like when Eric had to re-design the idler or when Vlad was struggling with the GUI but overall we allotted the time properly to give everyone the opportunity to succeed.
iii) Our team struggled to fully use the problem tracker. We felt that if the problem tracker was presented to us earlier in the course it would have been more effective, it was not effective after we had already encountered and were dealing with the issues. This hurt us because we didn't follow a set problem solving process.
- Future recommendations need to be recorded and put on EDGE for the next iteration of the project
- Team members liked the structure of the plan in MSD II versus MSD I
- Generally, the team members were proud of the work we accomplished over MSD I and II
- Some members did not feel MSD was representative of a real world design and build project, maybe a small business type design and build project.