Poster ID 31 Continuous Track Design Mason Chen, Timothy Liu, and Jason Li. IEOM Society International

Transcription

1 Poster ID 31 Continuous Track Design Mason Chen, Timothy Liu, and Jason Li 1

2 Define Project Project Objective: Study Continuous Track Design Apply Minitab Statistics Project Scope: Play Hill Climb Racing Video Game Use Mountain Stage and Assess Five Cars Project Hypotheses: Any significant Player Dependency (Reproducibility) Continuous Track Design better than Wheel Design? 2

3 Introduce Continuous Track Technology Continuous track, also called tank tread or caterpillar track, is a system of vehicle propulsion in which a continuous band of treads or track plates is driven by two or more wheels. The large surface area of the tracks distributes the weight of the vehicle, enabling a continuous tracked vehicle to traverse soft ground with less likelihood of becoming stuck due to sinking. 3

4 Compare Wheel vs. Continuous Track Advantages of Wheel Design Lower Production Costs Higher Maneuverability Lighter Weight Design Simplicity More Material Selection Disadvantages of Wheel Design Drive over Obstacles Advantages of Continuous Track Design Higher Power Efficiency Higher Traction/Friction Moving on Rough Terrain Less Ground Impact/Damage Weight Growth Potential Disadvantages of Continuous Track Design Lower Speed Less Maneuverability Easier Track Broken Shorter Life Cycle Difficult to Repair 4

5 Mountain Stage Challenges (Peak Modulation Profile, Hill Slope) (Engine Power, Tire Size/Traction, 4WD, Suspension) 5

6 Design Experimental Study Measurement System Analysis Failure Mode Analysis Select and Compare Five Best Cars Wheel Design: Hot Rod with Bigger Tire Size, and Moon Lander with Lifting Feature Continuous Track Design: Tank (heavier), Super Offroad (lighter), and Hovercraft (larger contact area) Upgrade Car and Build Regression Model Identify which wheel/track design has more potential to overcome Mountain Stage Challenges 6

7 Select Five Cars for Mountain Stage 7

8 Measurement System Analysis I (Repeatability) Repeatability: run the same car on the same Mountain Stage for 10 Times: ensure player is well trained and who can repeat the same measurement Result: the distribution IQR= 168, Standard deviation= 120 due to two failure modes observed. Repeatability is acceptable. 8

9 Measurement System Analysis II (Reproducibility) Train three Players and check whether three players can reproduce the similar score distribution. Three Players (Player C, Player J, and Player M) demonstrated similar score pattern (no reproducibility concern) 9

10 Scatterplot of Car Upgrade Two Cars with Continuous Track Design (Track, Super Offroad) showed higher upgrade potential on the Mountain Stage 10

11 Build Regression Model Tank Regression Model has shown Slope= (Highly Upgrading Potential) and R-Square= 97.4% (Highly Accurate Model) 11

12 Results: Compare Regression Models Continuous Track Design has shown a higher potential than Wheel Design to run over the modulated peaks Heavier Continuous Track Tank has a better prediction (97.4%), though Lighter Super Off-Road has a better Potential Slope Even with Bigger Tire Size, Hot Rod still could not survive on the highly modulated Mountain Stage 12

13 About Super Off-Road Pros: It's very fast Can reach long distances Can climb tall hills Stay more often on the ground than in the air Cons: It's very easy to lose the spoiler When you lose the spoiler, it's difficult to drive Can't make any flips unless you lose a spoiler Fuel runs pretty quickly (within 47sec) 13

14 Conclusions Conducted Measurement System Analysis: passed both repeatability and reproducibility Designed a successful experiment to study the Car Upgrade Potential among five different cars Demonstrated the Advantages of Continuous Track Design over the Wheel Design on the Mountain Stage Future Work Further Study the Track Design Upgrade Technologies: Engine, Suspension, Tire, Fuel, and Downforce 14