Design and Manufacture of an Energy Storage Mechanism

DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF AN
ENERGY STORAGE MECHANISM

1 | P a g e
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................2
Belbin Team Roles.........................................................................................................................................3
Product Design Specification ........................................................................................................................8
Concept Design ...........................................................................................................................................10
Detailed Design...........................................................................................................................................14
Calculation of Energy Required by Buggy ...........................................................................................14
Measuring Chassis Frictional Losses ...................................................................................................21
Minor System Energy Losses...............................................................................................................23
RPM Calculations ................................................................................................................................25
Material Selection...............................................................................................................................29
Parts and Assembly Drawings.............................................................................................................32
Materials Price ....................................................................................................................................33
Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................35
Testing.........................................................................................................................................................37
Evaluation ...........................................................................................................................................38
Appendix 1..................................................................................................................................................39
Appendix 2..................................................................................................................................................42
Appendix 3..................................................................................................................................................45
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................59

2 | P a g e
Introduction
The aim of the following report is to describe the total design activity for a system to
mechanically power a buggy. The system was supplied by an external power source in the form
of a rolling road. The primary objective of the work was to ensure the buggy traveled a specified
distance up a ramp. The secondary objective was to create a system with a least possible amount
of friction in order to ensure free rollback.
The design team consisted of nine people with each being allocated a role through the
form of a Belbin test. A product design specification was then created composed of all the key
parameters required by the system including cost, method of manufacture, and design for
performance. In the concept design phase a set of solutions were generated and matrix analysis
was performed with controlled convergence to find a final solution to the PDS. The detailed
design phase includes calculations of power, component specifications and material selection. A
3D CAD model of the system was also created using Solidworks. The next phase of the report
features the manufacturing section starting with a project plan in the form of a Gantt chart. The
methods of component manufacture and assembly together with the procedure are described.
Finally the results of the test day are presented with an evaluation, self-assessment and
conclusion.

3 | P a g e
Belbin Team Roles
A popular and widely used framework for understanding roles within a group or a team
was developed by Meredith Belbin, termed as, ‘Belbin’s Team Roles’ (Huczynski & Buchanan,
2013) . He identified 9 team roles which each makes its own contribution to the performance of
the team. Researchers have grouped these roles into three categories, namely, action roles (shaper,
implementer, and completer-finisher); people roles (coordinator, team worker, and resource
investigator); and cerebral roles (plant, monitor-evaluator, and specialist) (BELBIN Associates,
2014). Belbin Team Roles are used to identify people's behavioral strengths and weaknesses in
the workplace. This information can be used to build productive working relationships, developing
high-performing teams, raising self-awareness and building mutual trust and understanding
(BELBIN Associates, 2014).
These 9 team roles were identified using a short questionnaire each member of the team
had to fill out. The questionnaire consisted of 5 questions and each question had 6 options
labelled from a-f. The results were displayed on a table as one can see from appendix one.
Appendix one depicts the results for each team member, as the team role was given according to
how well the team member scored.
Belbin argued that “in an ideal (‘dream’) team, all the necessary roles are represented,
and the preferred roles of members complement each other, thereby avoiding gaps (Huczynski &
Buchanan, 2013). Therefore, team members with same points were analyzed by the
corresponding team members and were identified with another role of preference. Hence, each
member of the team had a different role and therefore, not only, fulfilling Belbin’s 9 team roles
but also, ensuring we had a complete Engineering team. However, the questionnaire was based
on the team members self-reporting. Self-perceptions are a poor basis upon which to select team

4 | P a g e
members. A more objective measure might be established through a personality assessment
questionnaire (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013), and this was conducted through a psychometric
test.
Below are the roles described in further detail as well as a description on how well the
team member fulfilled the role or in which areas was the team member most effective in this
design task. For the results of the Belbin tests from the questionnaire provided for the course,
please refer to appendix 1.
Vlad was our team’s ‘coordinator’ as his highest row score was 3 which was his highest
score row score as well as the highest in comparison to the group. This can be seen in appendix
1. His primary goal was to bring the group together and clarify goals. As the tasks went on, we
could see that he was willing and able to allocate responsibilities and ensure every members
commitment towards the team. This was apparent through his confident and calm approach to
problems as well as good use of delegation. For example, during the design calculations phase
Vlad ensured each team member was allocated a part according to their best skillset. However, in
some cases he was considered manipulative and clashed with our team’s shaper (Paddy) due to
differences in their management styles.
The row score of 3 meant that the role of a team ‘shaper’ was allocated to Paddy.
Throughout the design and manufacturing process, he displayed the drive and courage to overcome
obstacles. He had a high need for achievement and constantly drove others to action. His dedication
towards achieving some pattern on group discussion further affirmed his suitability to the role. He
remained highly motivated and thrived under pressure, thus was well suited to make required
changes, even if the unpopular among the other members of the team. However, sometimes his
determination led to argumentative environment and he lacked interpersonal sensitivity.

5 | P a g e
The role of a ‘specialist’ was given to Lloyd. As we can see, a score of 3 showed that he
was best suited from our group for this position in the team. His role incorporated providing the
team specific and technical input. His contribution of knowledge and skills was immense in tasks
where others contribution was minimalistic; thereby leading to him commanding respect. This was
highlighted through his dedication in every task, especially in the calculations task. However,
while he had in depth knowledge of certain subjects, he tended to lack interest in other people’s
knowledge of the same causing a negative working environment.
The creativity of Josephine led her to becoming the team’s ‘plant’. Her creative skills were
shown by the results of the questionnaire where her highest row score was 3 which was for the
position plant. Her input was essential especially in the concept design task as she acted as the
innovator of the team. She preferred working alone and responded intensely to criticism and praise.
She was capable to deliver new suggestions and was competent to overcome intricate
complications, especially during the initial process of the project and at times when it was failing
to progress. Nonetheless, her ideas were sometimes radical and lacked practical restraint.
Moreover, even though she was independent and original, her weakness was shown through her
difficulty to communicate with other team members that were on a different wave length to her.
From the questionnaire results we can see that Benny’s highest scores were for the row
score corresponding to the role of a coordinator and a team worker. Referring back to the 9 Belbin
team roles, Benny felt that he would be more beneficial and effective to the team as the third people
oriented role option which was of a research investigator instead of the other 2 has he only scored
2 points each. His primary responsibility was to keep others in touch and explore any possible
opportunities. . He possessed qualities of being an extrovert, enthusiastic member and
communicative emphasizing his appropriateness to the role. In addition, he was good at

6 | P a g e
discovering and reporting back on ideas at the same time developing other people’s ideas further.
Nevertheless, his enthusiasm hugely stimulated by others else it would rapidly diminish.
Although Fred’s highest score was for plant, a row score of only 2 meant that Josephine
was more suited for that role. In addition, Fred wasn’t as keen on taking up that role and when
presented the nine Belbin roles, he felt that a role of a monitor evaluator was best suited for him.
As the ‘monitor evaluator’ of the team as he provided critical input and a careful and objective
approach to the tasks. He was best suited to examining difficulties and assessing propositions. He
continually checked group progress and was able to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages
of options, thereby aiding us in avoiding mistakes. However, due to overthinking at times, he was
relatively relaxed in taking decisions. Furthermore, his over-critical judgements delayed team
progress.
The ‘team worker’ of the group, Faraday’s main objective was to look after interpersonal
relationships between team members and to resolve any conflict. His row score of 4 meant that
this was the ideal role for him. In addition through providing support he ensured team cohesion,
thereby increasing team effectivity and morale. He had a higher for adaptability with different
people and situations. Nonetheless, he was slightly diplomatic and indecisive during the time of
taking crucial decisions.
It was found that the team ‘implementer’ was Nathan as he favored hard work and tackled
problems in a methodical manner. The questionnaire results supported this as he scored highest
for the row corresponding to the role of an implementer. He was the practical thinker who turned
theoretical ideas into workable solutions. It was essential to have him in the concept designs task
as well as the detailed design tasks because he was reliable and efficient. His quality of
transforming ideas to workable solutions also was very helpful in the manufacturing process where

7 | P a g e
he lead this activity due to his skills. He displayed practical common sense, self-control and
discipline. Having said this, he tended to lack spontaneity and had a rigid personality, affecting the
group task in a negative manner.
Pranay’s highest row score was that for a shaper. This was the same as Paddy. However,
between them and an additional psychometric test it was assessed that Paddy was more suited for
the position of a shaper whilst Pranay was more suited for another action oriented role such as a
completer finisher. He actively searched out errors and omissions and paid close consideration to
detail. His drive to keeping his team is on track, ensuring they meet deadlines and guaranteeing
quality and timeliness further illustrated his importance in that role. For example, he corrected
any errors in the controlled convergence process for the concept design task. His role proved
invaluable where tasks demanded close deliberation and a high degree of accuracy. Thus,
through internal motivation, he was able to foster urgency within the team at the same time
producing quality work. However, his role was linked to certain disadvantages such as his
uncomfortableness on delegating tasks.
Schedule of meetings
Over the course of project the design team participated in a set of meetings for role
allocation, work delegation and management purposes. The minutes of these meetings are
outlined in appendix 2.

8 | P a g e
Product Design Specification
Product: Buggy Energy Storage Mechanism
Date: 21/02/15 Issue: PDS Buggy Energy Storage Mechanism/01
Parameters The design Description
Performance  To transfer power from
the rolling road to the
flywheel
 To transfer the energy
from flywheel to the
wheels which lead to
movement of the buggy
The energy storage mechanism
should provide the buggy with
enough power to move along
the 5m distance and up the
ramp by a distance of 1m as
well as be able to roll back to
the start line from the 1m high
distance
Environment  Should be manufactured
so that the parts can be
re-used within the
university
buggy mechanism could be
used for demonstration for the
followings doing the project
year
Maintenance  Cheap
 Trivial
The mechanism should be
easily detached from the buggy
in order to carry out any
maintenance required
Competition  To reach a height of 1m
after a 5m long track
The competition will include a
total of 12 teams with the same
goals
Quantity  One off production
Manufacturing facility  All facilities are
provided in the Harrison
workshop
a few components such as the
bearings will be outsourced
from
Size  According to the dimension of the buggy
Weight  Not restricted
Materials  Flywheelheavy
 Supporting framerigid
 AxlesStainless steel
Product life span  the competition consist of trials and actual runs, so the
mechanism should be able to operate throughout the
competition
Standards/Specification  Engineering drawings of
the mechanism should
adhere to the BS8888
standard
The mechanism should fit on
top of the buggy so that it can
be securely attached to the
buggy
Ergonomics  Weight balance for not too heavy or too light
 Flexible to examine in different positions

9 | P a g e
Quality and reliability  A quality assurance team will be allocated in order to check
the engineering drawings and the final product to ensure all
the criteria are met
Processes  Manufacturing processes
Time scale  The time scale of the
production of the
mechanism is expected
to take 6 hours. The
manufacturing process
should be completed by
Friday 27th
March 2015
The Engineering drawings, bill
of materials and financial
analysis will take one week to
complete. This process will
commence on the week starting
from Monday 23rd
February
Testing  See if the buggy goes up
the ramp by a height of
1m
 Test ability to go back
down and distance of
this
This can be carried in several
trials and take the best one out
of them
Safety  No sharp edges
 Safety goggles whilst
manufacturing
To prevent any injuries
especially in workshop
Installation  Dimensions and
placement of the holes
must be in line with the
holes on the chassis in
order to ensure that the
mechanism is securely
attached to the chassis
Mechanism must be easily
detached from the chassis as
well
Cost  A budget of £80 is given to us for the project
Aesthetics  No sharp edges
 Both sides have to be symmetric
Shelf life  Relatively long as this project occurs
throughout the year, we can
assume that this product runs
once every year
Disposal  Metals would have to be disposed
 SGears can be recycled

10 | P a g e
Concept Design
This section of the report consists of conceptual design ideas and the process of
improving these ideas in order to receive several strong concepts by the end of this process.
Firstly, a PDS was created as a group which is attached in the report as we can see
previously. The PDS gave a clear idea of what the final product should consist of in order for it
to be a successful product. This gave the members a clear idea of what was needed to be created
and this sense of direction allowed a brainstorm of ideas. Ideas included a large spring buggy, a
tensile drum powering mechanism and a flywheel design. All the ideas brainstormed were drawn
in detail by the respective members and is attached in appendix 3.
Moreover, after this stage, a matrix analysis was conducted. In order to construct this, a
criteria was produced of the essential needs the buggy must have. In addition, a datum was also
decided as a group after a presentation of each individuals design idea. This allowed the other
eight ideas to be compared against the criteria as well as the datum. This in return gave an
overall score for each concept design which told us how well the design met the criteria.
Furthermore, further group meetings were held in order to analyze the matrix in more
detail. During these meetings, the weak concepts were examined to see if they could be
improved in comparison to the datum. Also, any negatives that arose from the strong concepts as
seen by any low scores in certain criteria’s were also examined to see if they can be improved
upon.
Using this analysis, a second matrix was created consisting of the groups strongest
concepts.

11 | P a g e
Matrix Analysis 1
This section shows a table of eight concept designs and their comparison to the datum
which was decided as a group to be concept design 9.
Criteria
Concept
1
Concept
2
Concept
3
Concept
4
Concept
5
Concept
6
Concept
7
Concept
8
Fulfill its
functional
purpose
S - S + S - S -
Economical
in resources
for the
producer
+ - + + S + - -
Economical
in resources
for the user
S + - S + + - S
Good
mechanical
properties
- - + ? S + S S
Lasting
aesthetic
qualities
- + + - - - + -
Total
material
costs of £80
+ S S + S + - +
Propel a
buggy
specified in
the brief
S - S S S S S S
Key:
 + means better than the datum
 - means worse than the datum
 S means same as the datum or if
there is a doubt

12 | P a g e
Accuracy of
The buggy
coming to an
instantaneous
rest when it
reaches a line
1 m high on
the slope and
how far the
buggy travels
after
returning
back down
the slope
S - - S S - - S
Σ+ 2 2 3 3 1 4 1 1
Σ- 2 5 2 1 1 3 4 3
Total 0 -3 1 2 0 1 -3 -2
Matrix Analysis 2
After discussions with the module leader and the co-lecturer, Keith Smith, using the
scores on matrix one, the best 3 concept designs indicated by the best 3 scores were re-evaluated
using the same criteria and were set against the same datum (concept design 9). The new scores
are displayed on the table below.
For concept design 3, the fact that there was no method of ensuring it would stop was the
primary reason for its lower score. Whilst, for concept design 4 the main reasons for the lower
score was that we found out that the University didn’t have the resources to manufacture, it was
too expensive and it would not generate enough power. Finally, for concept design 6, there were
a lot of external properties and therefore would affect meeting the mechanical properties criteria
as well as extra costs.

13 | P a g e
In conclusion, based on the scores above we have decided to go with the flywheel
mechanism (concept design 9). However this concept will need to be developed further before
the manufacturing process. In addition, if over the weeks we overcome the issue of ensuring the
buggy will stop for concept design 3 we will favor that mechanism.
Criteria
Concept
3
Concept
4
Concept 6
Fulfill its functional purpose - S S
Economical in resources for the producer - S -
Economical in resources for the user - S -
Good mechanical properties - S -
Lasting aesthetic qualities S + S
Total material costs of £80 - S S
Propel a buggy specified in the brief - - S
Accuracy of The buggy coming to an
instantaneous rest when it reaches a line 1 m
high on the slope and how far the buggy
travels after returning back down the slope
- - -
Σ+ 0 1 0
Σ- -7 -1 -4
Total -7 0 -4

14 | P a g e
Detailed Design
Brief
The second stage of the design project focuses on the calculations regarding the energy
required to propel the buggy to the specified distance and height up the ramp. These calculations
are then used to inform the decisions about final dimensioning and material selection for the total
buggy design. The report can be divided into four sections:
1. Calculation of total energy required for task
2. Discussion of other minor system losses
3. Calculation of RPM for the flywheel
4. Material selection
Calculation of Energy Required by Buggy
This section is concerned with finding the total energy required by the buggy, from the
flywheel, to reach point C. This was achieved by comparing energy differences along the length
of the ramp. The required kinematic energy of the buggy at the start of the test is the required
energy from the flywheel after energy losses between the flywheel and the wheels.
Method:
Figure 1: Horizontal course and slope for buggy testing
The first step was to split the ramp up into three sections as shown in figure 1, based on
their geometry and the material they were made from. Then for each section the gravitational
Buggy project Introduction to Mechanical Engineering Design
A
x
y
5 m
0.7 m
y=0.4x2
Start
1.5 m
Fig. 1 Definition of buggy start-stop points.
The task has been partly designed to illustrate that the engineering approach to design
involves the prediction of product performance. The concept of performance
prediction is essential if the expense of repeated and undirected prototyping is to be
avoided. As you will see from the assessment details, a relatively large proportion of
the marks will be given for correct performance prediction.
Material
The material from which your mechanism is to be manufactured can be obtained from
B
C

15 | P a g e
potential energy was calculated at the start and end. Next, the work done to overcome friction was
calculated along the length of each section. From this it was possible to work back along the ramp
working out the change in kinetic energy for each section. This relied upon the fact that at C the
kinetic energy would have to be zero for the buggy to have come to rest as kinetic energy is equal
to a half time mass times velocity squared. From this it was possible to add together the change in
gravitational energy and the work done overcoming friction for the section to gain the value for
initial kinetic energy at B. This method of adding the change in potential energy and the work done
overcoming friction to the final kinetic energy for each section to give the initial kinetic energy
was then repeated along the length of the ramp. In this way the initial Kinetic energy at the start
was found and the results are displayed in tables 3 to 8.
Sections of ramp:
 Start to A; this section is a horizontal 5-metre stretch of carpet.
 A to B; this section is a curve, formula given in diagram. It is constructed from
finished plywood and at B it is 0.7m above A and (71/2
)/2 horizontally from A.
 B to C; this is a straight section of finished plywood and the end point of the
experiment. At C it is 1m vertically from A and has the formula y = ((2*(141/2
))/5)x.
Section ‘Start to A’ calculations:
For this part there is no change in gravitational potential energy because there is no change
in height. This means the only change in the total energy between the two points - thus the only
change in kinetic energy - has to be caused by energy lost overcoming friction. The coefficient of
friction for the carpet was calculated experimentally (see Table 9) and so the formula in Equation
1.1 can be used:
W1 = L1mgμ
Equation 1.1: Work done overcoming friction

16 | P a g e
Where W1 is work done overcoming friction for section AB, L1 is the distance over which friction
acts, m is the total mass, g is the gravitational constant equal to 9.81 N/m2
and μ is the frictional
constant. The results of the calculations are shown in table 1. As mentioned above, this value was
added to the value of kinetic energy at A to give kinetic energy at the start.
Section ‘A to B’ calculations:
For this part both gravitational potential energy and frictional losses must be considered as
there is a change in height. Gravitational potential energy is calculated using the formula:
Gpe=mgh
Equation 2: Gravitational potential energy
Where Gpe is gravitational potential energy, m is mass, g is gravity and h is the height above the
datum. From Figure 1, h=0.7m. The next calculation is the length of the curve from A to B. The
arc length formula below (equation 3) is derived by combining Pythagoras theorem with calculus
and integrating over infinitesimally small intervals to get an approximation for the shape of the
curve.
𝑨𝒓𝒄 𝑳𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉 = ∫ √ 𝟏 + (
𝒅𝒚
𝒅𝒙
)
𝟐
𝒅𝒙
𝒃
𝒂
Equation 3: Formula for the length of a curve
The lower limit (a) is zero because workings are from point A. to calculate the upper limit
for x; y is taken as 0.7 and is then inserted into the equation of the curve (given in Figure 1). Using
Equation 3, a length of L2=1.539m is achieved, which is the length the buggy will travel from A
to B.

17 | P a g e
The next step is to formulate an equation for the friction along the length of the curve. This
is not as simple as the first section as the angle made between the tangent of the curve and the
normal is constantly changing. The formula used to obtain the ratio along the length of the curve,
between the weight of the buggy and the reaction force is
shown below in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Diagram for reference in the Weight/Normal ratio calculations
The gradient of the curve is given by
𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑥
. Using Pythagoras, equation 4 (sζζζhown below)
can be found, for the angle of the tangent to the slope at any point, which is also equal to the angle
between the directions of action of the weight, mg, and the normal force, R:
𝜃 = tan−1
(
𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑥
)
Equation 4: Formula for the angle between the lines of action of the weight, mg, and normal force,
R
The general equation for finding the dynamic frictional force (since the buggy will be
moving) is: 𝐹𝑓 = 𝜇𝑅 , where Ff is the frictional force, μ is the coefficient of friction and R is the
normal force.
Using trigonometry, it is clear that 𝑅 = 𝑚𝑔 cos 𝜃, therefore the overall formula for the
frictional can be written as:
𝐹𝑓 = 𝜇𝑚𝑔 cos 𝜃
Equation 5: Formula for calculating dynamic friction
Equations 4 & 5 can therefore together be used to work out the frictional force as follows:
𝐹𝑓 = 𝜇𝑚𝑔 cos [tan−1
(
𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑥
)] = 𝜇𝑚𝑔 cos[tan−1(0.8𝑥)]

18 | P a g e
Since the curve has the equation 𝑦 = 0.4𝑥2
, it is clear that:
𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑥
= 0.8𝑥. The total change in
height along the curve, y = 0.7m, therefore the horizontal distance, 𝑥 = √
𝑦
0.4
= √
0.7
0.4
=
√7
2
Therefore integrate to get the friction along the entire curve, using limits of x=0 and =
√7
2
:
𝐹𝑓 = ∫ 𝜇𝑚𝑔 cos(tan−1(0.8𝑥)) 𝑑𝑥
√7
2
0
𝐹𝑓 = 𝜇𝑚𝑔 [
5
4
sinh−1(0.8𝑥)]
√7
2
0
Since sinh−1(0) = 0 , the work done (and thus energy needed) to overcome friction, W,
along the length of the curve, L2:
𝑊2 = 𝐿2 × 𝜇𝑚𝑔 [
5
4
sinh−1
(0.8 ×
√7
2
)]
Equation 6: Formula for the Work Done to overcome friction along the length of the curve
Working out: [
5
4
sinh−1
(0.8 ×
√7
2
)] = 1.1525, this ratio can then be added into the friction
equation above to give an equivalent to equation 1.1 from the last section:
𝑾 𝟐 = 𝑳 𝟐 𝒎𝒈𝝁 × 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟓𝟐𝟓 × 𝑳 𝟐 𝒎𝒈𝝁
Equation 1.2: Equation for the work done to overcome friction from A to B
This then gives the energy lost due to friction along the length of the curve which, when added to
the change in gravitational energy and kinetic energy at B gives the kinetic energy at A, shown in
table 3.
Section ‘B to C’ calculations
For this section the first calculation necessary is the equation of the curve. This uses the
principle that the equation of any straight line is y=mx+c where m is the gradient of the line and c
is the y-axis intercept. The calculations are shown in Figure 3:

19 | P a g e
Figure 3: Diagrams for reference in finding the equation of the line from B to C
Gradient of straight line, m = gradient of tangent at B:
𝑚 =
𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑥
= 0.8𝑥 , therefore: 𝑚 = 0.8 ×
√7
2
=
2√7
5
The equation of a straight line is y=mx+c, so if we take B to be the origin, c=0 therefore:
𝑦 =
2√7
5
𝑥
Equation 7: The equation of the straight line BC
This can be used to find the horizontal distance, x (see figure 3), travelled from B to C as:
0.3 =
2√7
5
𝑥 , therefore: 𝑥 =
3√7
28
= 0.2835𝑚
Now Pythagoras can be used to find the distance travelled by the buggy in this section, L3:
𝐿3 = √0.32 + (
3√7
28
)
2
= 0.4127𝑚
Again both the change in gravitational energy and the work done to overcome friction
must be calculated. Gravitational potential energy at B is known from the last section and can be
worked out at C using the equation in figure 3 but changing the height from 0.7m to 1m.
The ratio of the weight to the reaction force for friction can be calculated using the
gradient of the slope shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Gradient and reaction force for slope B to C
tan 𝜃 =
𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑥
=
2√7
5
Therefore from Equation 5, it is clear that:
𝐹𝑓 = 𝜇𝑚𝑔 cos (tan−1
(
2√7
5
))
Equation 8: Frictional force for section BC
Now working out that the ratio, [cos (tan−1
(
2√7
5
))] = 0.6868, this can be used to find
the equation for the total work done to overcome friction for this section, W3:
𝑾 𝟑 = 𝑳 𝟑 𝒎𝒈𝝁 × 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟖𝟔𝟖 × 𝑳 𝟑 𝒎𝒈𝝁

20 | P a g e
Equation 1.3: Formula for the work done to overcome friction from B to C
The change in GPE from B to C can be calculated using Equation 2, with the change in
height, h = 0.3m. The kinetic energy at B is then obtained using these values, assuming kinetic
energy at C is equal to zero.
These calculations were used to give the values in Tables 1-4, showing the energy that is
needed to move the buggy through each section and the different kinetic and Potential energies
that the buggy should have at each stage.
Part Mass (kg)
Buggy 1.32
Flywheel 1.598
Supports (w/ Bearings & Bolts) 0.434
Axle/Gears/Belt 0.213
Total 3.565
Table 1: Total buggy mass and mass of constituent parts
Table 2: Distance covered by
buggy, change in height and coefficient of dynamic friction
Section
Change in
GPE (J)
Work Done to
Overcome Friction (J)
Total Energy Needed
(J)
Start to A, L1 0.00 6.16 6.16
A to B, L2 24.48 1.31 25.79
B to C, L3 10.49 0.21 10.70
Total 34.97 7.67 42.65
Table 3: Energy needed for the buggy to move through each section (given to 2.D.P)
Section
Distance
(m)
Change in
Height (m)
Friction
Coefficient
Start to A, L1 5 0 0.0352
A to B, L2 1.5393 0.7 0.0211
B to C, L3 0.4127 0.3 0.0211
Total 6.952 1

21 | P a g e
Section Energy
Type
Energy at Start
(J)
Energy at Finish
(J)
Start to A, L1 Kinetic 42.65 36.49
GPE 0 0
A to B, L2 Kinetic 36.49 10.70
GPE 0 24.48
B to C, L3 Kinetic 10.70 0
GPE 24.48 34.97
Table 4: Energy changes as the buggy progresses (given to 2.D.P.)
The tables show that the required value for starting energy (where rough values for
chassis and flywheel mass are taken into account) is 42.65 Joules (see Table 3), and this energy
value is used to obtain a value for the required flywheel RPM.
Measuring Chassis Frictional Losses
As already mentioned, to take into consideration the losses of the system due to the
friction created in the chassis – both a result of the contact friction between the surface and tires
as well as any internal losses in the wheel bearings – a number of measurements were taken
using a newton meter, the chassis and two different surfaces (hardwood to simulate the ramp and
carpet for the flat trial section).
To begin with the chassis had a G-clamp affixed to it to increase the mass; this makes it
easier to take significant readings for frictional forces. Following this a newton meter was used
to suspend the chassis, thus providing a value of the weight (in Newtons) of the chassis and
clamp. A Newton meter was then attached to the front of the chassis and a steady force was
applied horizontally until the chassis started to move, this was repeated several times to give an
average value for the force required to overcome static friction. This was repeated on both the
carpet and wood; the values for force were then divided by the weight of the rig to provide static
friction coefficients. Equation 4 displays the relationship between frictional force and object
mass:

22 | P a g e
𝝁 =
𝑭 𝒇
𝒎𝒈
Equation 9: Coefficient of Friction
Where 𝜇 is the friction coefficient, Ff is the frictional force applied and mg is mass
multiplied by gravity to give the weight.
Following this the dynamic frictional coefficients were calculated be pulling the chassis
along at a constant speed and measuring the applied horizontal force. This value was then used in
Equation 9 to calculate the dynamic friction coefficient.
Figure 5: Applying horizontal force to chassis with
Newton Meter
The results for this experiment can be seen in Table 5 below, having initially used a
spring meter to measure the frictional force we repeated the experiment with a digital Newton
meter as shown below. The reason for this was to provide more accurate and consistent results –
the spring meter contained a lot of internal static friction, meaning results were often inaccurate.
Values using digital Newton meter
Material Rolling or
Static
Force reading on Newton
meter (N)
Average
(N)
Friction
coefficient, μ
Plywood Rolling 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.0211
Static 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.0282
Carpet Rolling 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.0352
Static 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.0493
Table 5: Friction coefficient experimental results table

23 | P a g e
Minor System Energy Losses
Further to the energy and frictional losses calculations, it is appropriate to consider other
system losses that may have an effect on the required start energy, for this reason air resistance
of the flywheels along with the frictional energy losses inside the flywheel axle bearings were
considered. The findings are as follows.
Air Resistance:
The energy losses related to air resistance on the flywheel are investigated because the
angular speed of the flywheel is so high. To calculate the energy losses of the flywheel due to air
resistance, it is modelled as a cylinder for simplicity. The energy loss is set out in Equation 10
and is dependent on air density ρa (1.184 kgm-3
), dynamic viscosity of air βa (1.983x10-5
kgm-1
s-
1
), angular speed ω (186.7 rad s-1
), radius of cylinder r (0.045m), and the geometric ratio α
(0.2667). Where the geometric ratio is shown in Equation 11.
P = 0.04 . ρa
0.8 . βa
0.2 . (ω . r)2.8 . (2 . r)1.8 . (α + 0.33).
Equation 10: Energy losses due to air resistance
α = h/(2 . r)
Equation 11: Geometric Ratio
Where h denotes the width of the cylinder, these equations are taken from Xi Zhang, C. M.
(2011). Vehicle Power Management: Modelling, Control and Optimization. Springer.
This gives a result of 0.01591 J for one flywheel. As there are two flywheels on the
buggy this gives the sum of the losses to be 0.03183 J.
Due to the fact this energy loss is so small compared to the required calculated value; it
will be neglected in regard to the overall required rpm calculations.
Bearing Losses
Deep groove bearings can withstand large radial loads and small axial loads. The
flywheel axle of the buggy is shown in Figure 6.

24 | P a g e
The axial loads are minimal and
the radial loads are high, this
means that deep grooved bearings
are the ideal choice for this application. The life of the bearing will also be far greater than the
required life; hence these bearings are suitable.
Power loss in bearing = M x n
Equation 12: Power loss in bearing
Where M is the frictional moment of the bearing, and n is the revolutions per minute. The
flywheel is designed to spin at approximately 1780 rpm.
M=1/2(μPd)
Equation 13: Frictional moment of bearing
Where μ is the coefficient of friction, P is the load on the bearing, and d is the bore
diameter of the bearing. The coefficient of friction for the deep grooved bearing is 0.0015. Using
first Equation 18 for the power loss then putting that into Equation 19 the power loss for both
bearings is 0.189 J/s when running at 1780 RPM.
These calculations show that the energy loss in the bearings is, similar to the air
resistance; very small in comparison to the total energy calculated for the system, for this reason
this value is neglected when calculating the required rpm as it will be altered by a negligible
amount to which the system is not precise enough.
Figure 6: Flywheel axle setup

25 | P a g e
RPM Calculations
Having calculated the value for required kinetic energy of the buggy, the necessary rpm
for the flywheel can then calculated. This section describes the calculation process.
To begin with the moment of inertia for both flywheels and the drive shaft is calculated.
All three values are needed as the components act together as one big flywheel. The moments of
inertia for all three are summed and placed into Equation 22, along with kinetic energy
calculated from the previous section, to work out the rpm of the flywheel.
Step 1
The flywheel is split into three sections for the ease of the calculations; a ring, a disc and
a hub. The inertial moment of the ring is calculated using Equation 14, using the mass of the ring
(m) and the outer flywheel radius (ro) and recess radius (ri). The individual mass of the ring can
be found using Equation 15 with the results shown in Table 6.
MI1= 1/2 m ( ri
2 + ro
2)
Equation 14: Moment of inertia of a ring
m= ρdπ(-ri
2 + ro
2)
Equation 15: Separate mass of flywheel ring
The inertia of the disc is calculated using Equation 16 using the mass and the outer
flywheel radius. The answer is shown in Table 6. Again the separate mass needs to be worked
out first by using the density, depth of recess, width of flywheel (x) and the outer flywheel
radius, shown in Equation 17.
MI2 = 1/2 mro
2
Equation 16: Moment of inertia of a disc
m= (x-d)ρπro
2
Equation 17: Separate mass of the flywheel disc
The inertia of the hub is calculated using Equation 18, using the mass and the hub radius
(rh) and hole (rz) radius. The answer is shown in Table 6. Mass is obtained first, as with the

26 | P a g e
previous calculations using the density, depth of hub (y), and the hub and hole radius. This is
shown in Equation 19.
MI3 = 1/2 m ( rh
2 + rz
2)
Equation 18: Moment of inertia of the hub
m= ρyπ( -rz
2 + rh
2)
Equation 19: Separate mass of flywheel hub
Step 2
Dimensions are now taken from the axle including the density, length of shaft and radius.
Results can be seen in Table 6, with the radius of the hole also being the radius of the axle.
The inertia of the axle is calculated with Equation 20, using the mass and the hole radius
with the calculated value again in Table 6. Mass is calculated using the density, length of shaft
(l), and the hole radius, linked by Equation 21.
MI4 = 1/2 mrh
2
Equation 20: Moment of inertia of axle
m= ρlπrh
2
Equation 21: Axle mass
Step 3
The total moment of inertia (IT) can now be calculated by using Equation 22.
MIT=2(I1+I2+I3)+I4
Equation 22: Total moment of inertia
Step 4

27 | P a g e
With the total moment of inertia now known, the angular velocity can be calculated. This
is done by using Equation 23 and the kinetic energy value found in the energy calculations
section.
𝝎 = √
𝟐𝑬 𝒌
𝑰 𝑻
Equation 23: Angular velocity
The answer given is in radians per second (radsec-1
) and is to be converted into
revolutions per minute (rpm) to allow for calculation of the gearing and the desired rpm of the
rolling road. The answer is converted by using the Equation 24 giving a final value for the
angular velocity required by the flywheels of 1782 rpm.
Rev/Min = 2π𝝎/𝟔𝟎
Equation 24: Rpm in terms of angular velocity
The spreadsheet used is shown as Table 6. The reason excel was used to compute the
values was that with the equations entered it is very easy to change the variables and calculate
the new RPM or dimensions for example. Using the energy value previously calculated it
provides a value for the required rpm of the flywheel axle; with a chosen gear ratio that will
likely be between 2:1 and 2.5:1, the flywheel rpm can be easily converted into the rpm required
by the axle. As the rolling road is also a different diameter to that of the wheels, a simple ratio
calculation is required to determine the required rpm of the rolling road in terms of providing the
correct wheel axle rpm. Due to the fact the rolling road is currently locked away, no
measurements can be taken at this point in time and so no ratios can be calculated, however, this
is a simple task and can be done on the test day as it will take a minimal amount of time.

28 | P a g e
Required energy output (J) 42.65
Moment of inertia (kg m2
) 6.22E-04
Rotational Speed needed (rad s-1
) 300.0149
Rotational Speed needed (RPM) 1432.466
Radius of hole (m) 0.005
Radius of flywheel (m) 0.025
Width of flywheel (m) 0.05
Radius of recess (m) 0.03
Depth of recess (m) 0.01
Density of flywheel (kg m-3
) 8480
Depth of hub (m) 0.025
Radius of hum (m) 0.015
Length of shaft (m) 0.15
Density of shaft (kg m-3
) 7850
Moment of inertia of ring (kg m2
) 0.000547
Moment of inertia of disc (kg m2
) 6.07E-05
Moment of inertia of hub (kg m2
) 1.33E-05
Moment of inertia of axle (kg m2
) 1.16E-06
Volume of one flywheel (m3
) 5.0372E-05
Mass of one flywheel (kg) 0.427154
Table 6: Flywheel calculations table

29 | P a g e
Material Selection
Finally in order to choose the optimum materials for use in the construction of the buggy,
materials selection was performed for the flywheel (assumed to be brass in the above
calculations), the axles and the framework. The selection process is as follows.
There are three components of the buggy that require manufacturing; the flywheel, the
supporting frame and the axles. Each component requires a material selection to be carried out in
order to ensure that a suitable material is used. The materials readily available in the student
workshop are Steel, Aluminium, and Brass and for this reason the selection accounts for only
these materials.
Flywheel Material Selection
The flywheel will be operating at a limited velocity; therefore the toughness of the
materials available should be adequate to avoid failure. Due to this, stress in the flywheel was not
taken into consideration when deriving the material index for the flywheel.
Design requirements for a limited velocity flywheel
Function Flywheel for energy storage
Objective Maximise kinetic energy per unit volume
Constraints Fixed outer radius
Table 7: Flywheel design requirements
The most suitable material for the flywheel will be the material that stores the highest
energy per unit volume. The energy per unit volume at a given angular velocity and radius is
given by Equation 25.
U/V = 0.25(ρr2ω2)
Equation 25: Energy per unit volume

30 | P a g e
Where the radius, r, and angular velocity, ω, are fixed by the design limitations. Due to ω
and r being fixed, the most suitable material is that with the greatest value of ρ, giving a material
index as Equation 26.
M = ρ
Equation 26: Material Index
Material Density, ρ (kg m-3) Material index, M
Steel 7900 7900
Brass 8480 8480
Aluminium 2700 2700
Table 8: Material Index Table
From Table 8 it is clear to see that from these three materials, brass is most suited to be
used for a flywheel. For this project, recycled brass flywheels were available to the team; these
will be used to help reduce the overall material cost, thus enabling the project to remain within
budget.
Supporting Frame Material Selection
The supporting frame has to stay strong enough to hold the weight of the flywheels while
keeping the weight of the frame to a minimum. This material must be easy to machine as there is
a time restriction on manufacture. The frame material must also be readily available in stores.
It is therefore concluded, when presented with the choice of the three aforementioned
materials, Aluminum is the most suitable.
Axles Material Selection
During operation the axles will be subjected to a shear force caused by the rotation of the
flywheel, they must therefore be able to resist the force as any deformation will result in the
buggy losing energy or failing. The axles must be easily machined as there is a time limit on
manufacture, and be readily available in the stores as per the other materials. Steel, which has a

31 | P a g e
high resistance to shearing, is therefore the obvious choice and will be used for the manufacture
of the axles.
Conclusion
To conclude, the calculations set out above give an energy value of 42.65J for the
flywheels to provide. This takes into account the significant losses due to friction of the wheels
on the floor, although as stated, it was felt that air resistance and bearing friction were negligible
as they represented 0.07% and 0.05% of the total energy required respectively. The main source
of error in these calculations will therefore come from experimental errors in the calculated
friction co-efficient. However, this was reduced significantly with the use of a digital newton
meter and repeated tests. A further source of error could be the rounding of the flywheel RPM,
meaning the buggy fails to quite reach the line specified. Again however, with the rounding error
only being 4.6% this shouldn’t be significant in our test.
The material selected for the construction of the flywheel is brass. This is due to brass
having the highest density of the materials that were both easily available and easy to
manufacture, two important factors. Steel was chosen for the axles as it had the highest shear
modulus of the materials that fitted the above criteria and aluminum as it has the greatest strength
to weight ratio.
.

32 | P a g e
Parts and Assembly Drawings
The aim of this section was to complete a set of drawings ready for manufacture. Using
our design calculations and materials selection from our previous section and the PDS, we were
able to list all the essential details of each of the parts required for manufacture. Furthermore,
using Solidworks, we modelled the mechanism using the chassis for accurate dimensions. Using
this Solidworks model, we produced a complete set of drawings to the BS 8888 standards so that
it is ready for manufacturing. In addition, a Gantt chart with the manufacturing method, a bill of
materials and a financial analysis is also provided.
Throughout the course of the task we conducted numerous consultations amongst our
team to finalize part dimensions based on the calculations of energy, RPM, and inertia of the
flywheel. We also discussed with Keith Smith the preferred diameter of our axel to support the
disc. Due to the fact that it is under shear from rotation and sagging from the mass of the wheel;
the shaft has to be a sufficient thickness for a balanced system.
Overall the following drawings combined with supporting documents are sufficient for
proceeding to the manufacturing process. The engineering drawings are located in appendix 4.

33 | P a g e
Materials Price
Our pulley used the drive the fly wheel had to have matching features to the one provided
on the buggy, it also needed to be half the size to fulfil the chosen two to one pulley ratio. The
given pulley had a pitch of 5mm and suited a belt with of 10mm, these were both to be matched
by the chosen pulley. With the given one having 30 teeth we required 15 teeth for the 2:1 ratio.
The pulley will be mounted on a 10mm axel so it needs to have a maximum boar diameter of
10mm which the chosen one does despite having a given diameter of only 6mm.
Once the pulley was chosen the belt needed to have the same pitch and a width of 10mm.
To calculate the length needed a solid work model was used giving a length of 442mm, the
closest available length to this was 455mm so this was chosen. The extra length was not a
problem because the design enabled the distance to change.
The metal ordered had to have enough excess to allow for the manufacturing of the parts
without having a lot of waste and expense. This was done by designing the stands to fit inside a
small sheet of metal using the solid works drawings.
It was felt that high quality bearing would have a large effect on the success of the buggy
so once all the other parts had been priced we were able to select the best affordable bearings.
The choice of bearing all with the same dimensions were priced at £2.47 and £7.58, in the end
the highest priced bearings were chosen due to the money available.

34 | P a g e
Part Material Details Price (£)
Support Aluminium 15x150x150mm 19.00
Flywheel Brass 80Øx50mm 22.32
Axel Silver steel 10Øx150mm 2.73
Bearing Deep Groove
Stainless Steel
Inside 10mm Ø
Outside 19mm Ø
Width 5mm
2x7.58
Pulley Teeth: 15
Inside: 6mm Ø
Outside: 23.05mm Ø
Pitch: 5mm
6.54
Belt Thickness: 10mm
Pitch: 5mm
Actual Length:
442mm
Belt length: 455mm
Number of teeth: 91
T 5/455
6.41
Bolt Diameter:6mm Ø
Length: 25mm
2x0.02
Nut Diameter:6mm Ø 2x0.02
Grub screw 2x0.01
Total 72.20
With all the parts chosen, the total project comes almost 8 pounds under budget of £80 showing
good fund management when designing the buggy. Manufacturing costs, however, were not
taken into account due to the fact that we have not been able to consider precise power usage of
the machines. Reasonably they should not have exceeded our surplus of £7.80.

35 | P a g e
Manufacturing
In this section the manufacturing of the final design will be discussed.
Planning
It was important to plan the manufacturing process due to the eight-hour time limit in the
workshop. It was essential to use the time as efficiently as possible. Below is a Gantt chart that
was produced to highlight how much time would be allocated to each aspect of the construction.
Hour
Task 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
1
Prep and latheing of the
flywheel
2 Cutting of side supports
3
Drilling of bearing holes
and bolt holes
4
Drilling of grub screw
holes in flywheel
5
Drill out gear axel and
grub screw holes
6
Making good of axel for
fit
7
Construction and extra
time for completion
Method of manufacture
1 Either lathe from cylinder or first rough cut to shape from cuboid then lathe to precision
2 Supports marked then cut using the band saw
3 Supports marked and clamed the recesses for bearings and holes for axel and bolts drilled with pillar drill
4 Flywheel clamped and holes for grub screws drilled with pillar drill
5
Gear inside diameter is too small so must be drilled out to fit axel using pillar drill. Then holes for connecting grub screws drilled
out.
6
Axel should be designated size but some sanding on the lathe will probably be required to provide the correct fit for bearings and
flywheel.
7 Extra time allocated for any unforeseen work and final construction.

36 | P a g e
Supports
In the workshop, due to limited availability of the lathe, the supports were prepped first.
Firstly the design for the supports was marked up on the aluminum sheet. Careful attention was
paid to ensuring an economic use of the material. The supports were then cut roughly to size
with a band saw, leaving a little extra material for corrections. Using the milling machine, the
two supports were squared off on one side to create a datum edge. The rest of the sides were
squared off with reference to the datum edge. The location of the holes for the axle bearings
were then measured, marked, centre punched and drilled. Finally, obround holes were drilled
into the support for attaching the final structure to the buggy, and allow for adjustment to fit belt
size.
Flywheel
To manufacture the flywheel a solid cylinder of brass was obtained. The cylinder was
then roughly turned on the lathe to square of the ends. A large lathe was first used to bring the
cylinder to the rough dimensions of the flywheel, it was important however to leave enough
material so when moved to the digital lathe it could be re-squared. Once moved to the digital
lathe this allowed for accurate turning to the flywheels final dimension. At this stage the hole for
the axle was drilled through the flywheel.
A hole was drilled through the flywheel to allow for a grub screw to attach the flywheel
to the axle. This hole was then taped. A large grub screw, 6mm, was used as a greater grip
would be necessary to hold the flywheel in place and resist a large turning force.
Axle and Belt Pulley
The hole for the axle in the belt pulley was enlarged by drilling through the original hole,
as the standard would not fit the necessary axle width that was required to support the flywheel.
Once all the parts had been manufactured, the design was ready for assembly and testing.

37 | P a g e
Testing
There were three stages involved in the testing, these include: assembly, running, and
disassembly.
The Assembly involved the mounting of the driving mechanism on the buggy. Our
assembly time was short compared to that of the other groups because of the attention we paid to
our manufacture for assembly.
The running consisted of two parts: using the powering mechanism to move the buggy up
the ramp, and the roll back. For the first part, the buggy was initially pushed forward on the
ground by hand to test the freedom of motion, after which, energy was supplied to the flywheel
via a rolling road machine and the buggy was placed on the carpet and left to move, this energy
was measured in terms of rpm. Four attempts were made in total, the first of which was the trial
run; during these runs the buggy was always skidding off to the left and hitting the wall apart
from one when it managed to go straight for about 2m before it started skidding off again.
Finally, it covered 5m before hitting the wall, during this trial it seemed to have had enough
power to reach the mark but just wasn’t able to go straight. For the roll back the buggy was
placed on the mark up on the ramp and allowed to roll back. The roll back went quite smoothly
except for the fact that the buggy once again went off the carpet when it got back to ground level
and was only able to go 6m.
The disassembly involved the removal of the driving mechanism from the buggy. Our
disassembly time was also short compared to that of the other groups.

38 | P a g e
Evaluation
From our observation on the test day and after thorough evaluation of our calculations,
we found that the failure of our buggy to reach the desired mark wasn’t due to an error in our
calculation but due to certain factors in the manufacture and running set-up. During the running
it was observed that the buggy kept skidding off the desired route, this was due to a number of
factors which include shaky/imbalanced tires, un-level carpet/ground, and improperly centralized
flywheel. There were also other factors like the faulty rolling road machine which could be
taken into account.

39 | P a g e
Appendix 1
Belbin Test
Pranay
Question Number
Option 1 2 3 4 5 Row
Total
Team Role
A    3 Shaper
B  1 Implementer
C  1 Coordinator
D 0 Team
Worker
E 0 Plant
F 0 Specialist
Vlad
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A  1 Shaper
B Implementer
C    3 Coordinator
D  1 Team
Worker
E 0 Plant
F 0 Specialist
Josephine
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A 0 Shaper
B  1 Implementer
C Coordinator
D 0 Team
Worker
E    3 Plant
F  1 Specialist

40 | P a g e
Lloyd
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A  1 Shaper
B 0 Implementer
C 0 Coordinator
D 0 Team
Worker
E  1 Plant
F    3 Specialist
Benny
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A 0 Shaper
B  1 Implementer
C   2 Coordinator
D   2 Team
Worker
E 0 Plant
F 0 Specialist
Paddy
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A    3 Shaper
B  1 Implementer
C  1 Coordinator
D 0 Team
Worker
E 0 Plant
F 0 Specialist

41 | P a g e
Fred
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A  1 Shaper
B 0 Implementer
C 0 Coordinator
D  1 Team
Worker
E   2 Plant
F  1 Specialist
Nathan
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A  1 Shaper
B    3 Implementer
C 1 Coordinator
D  1 Team
Worker
E 0 Plant
F 0 Specialist
Faraday
Question Number
Total
Team Role
A 0 Shaper
B  1 Implementer
C 0 Coordinator
D     4 Team
Worker
E 0 Plant
F 0 Specialist

42 | P a g e
Appendix 2
Schedule of meetings
1st Group Meeting was held 15:00-16:00 on 6th February 2015
Agenda:
Discuss total design procedure of task, view task specification and implement Belbin test for role
allocation.
A list of matters discussed:
 Total design steps
 Possible ideas for powering the buggy
 Potential timeline of tasks to be completed
 Design for performance established as key design system.
Actions Required
Each member has to perform a psychometric test along with a Belbin test handout.
2nd Group Meeting was held 16:00 – 20:00 on 10th February 2015
Agenda:
Allocate roles and brainstorm conceptual designs from the PDS.
 Design team roles were allocated
 PDS created
 Concept designs
 Matrix analysis
 Brainstorm for solutions
 Iterations
 Each member received solutions to draw concepts of.
Actions Required
Draw concept designs and perform matrix analysis. Compile work and submit. Establish optimal solution
for detailed design.
3rd
Group Meeting was held 1200-1600 on 17th February 2015
Agenda:

43 | P a g e
Detailed design phase. Calculate the total energy required in our final design flywheel system.
 Friction coefficients
 Energy required along the flat carpet
 Energy required up the ramp
 Parameters of flywheel system required by calculations
 Material selection to fit parameters of performance, cost, aesthetics.
 Methods of manufacture
Actions Required
Finalise calculations, create tables and describe aspects. Write materials selection section.
4th Group Meeting was held 1200-1400 on 26th February 2015
Agenda:
Present system parameters derived from calculations to Solid works specialist. Create brief for ordering
raw materials and components.
 Layout of features on the buggy
 Manufacturing Gantt chart
Actions Required
Produce Solid works engineering drawings of the flywheel system to BS8888 standards. Order required
materials and components from stores.
5th Group Meeting was held 1000-1600 on 30th
of April & 1st
of May 2015
Agenda:
Manufacture flywheel and discuss test day procedure.
 Procedure of test day
 Assembly and disassembly
Actions Required
None
Next Meeting
Next meeting will be at 1300 on the 21st
of May in the Harrison court yard. The aim of the next meeting is
to test buggy.

44 | P a g e
6th Group Meeting was held 1300-1600 21st
of May 2015
Agenda:
Test buggy
 What needed to be covered in report
 Sections divided up
Actions Required
Write up sections.
Next Meeting
Next meeting will be at 1300 on the 24th
of May in the Printworks. The aim of the next meeting is to
compile report.
7th Group Meeting was held 1200-1600 24th
of May 2015
Agenda:
Compile report for submission.
Actions Required
Submit report.

45 | P a g e
Appendix 3
Conceptual design solutions drawings.

59 | P a g e
Bibliography
BELBIN Associates. (2014). Belbin Team Roles. Retrieved May 24, 2015, from www.belbin.com:
http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=8
Huczynski, A. A., & Buchanan, D. A. (2013). Belbin's team role theory. In A. A. Huczynski, & D. A.
Buchanan, Organisational Behaviour (pp. 370-372). London: Pearson Education.

Design and Manufacture of an Energy Storage Mechanism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Design and Manufacture of an Energy Storage Mechanism

Similar to Design and Manufacture of an Energy Storage Mechanism (20)

Design and Manufacture of an Energy Storage Mechanism