HyperNova Hpyerloop Final Design Report | SpaceX Hyperloop Competition 2017

Final Package Report - Space X Hyperloop Competition II © Hyper nova Team, 2017 1/46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TEAM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 3
2. DESIGN DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. DESIGN SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 5
2.2. POD DIMENSIONS “MM”.......................................................................................................... 7
2.3. SUBSYSTEM DEFINITION ........................................................................................................ 8
2.4. PAYLOAD CAPABILITIES ......................................................................................................... 9
2.5. MECHANISMS ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.1. LEVITATION & PROPULSION.......................................................................................... 9
2.5.2. BRAKING ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.5.3. SUSPENSION................................................................................................................ 14
2.5.4. STABILITY & NAVIGATION............................................................................................ 14
2.5.5. NAVIGATION................................................................................................................. 16
2.5.6. GROUND STATION ....................................................................................................... 19
2.6. AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS ............................................................................................ 19
2.7. MAGNETIC PARAMETERS..................................................................................................... 21
3. PREDICTED POD TRAJECTORY .................................................................................................... 22
4. PREDICTED POD THERMAL PROFILE............................................................................................ 24
5. PREDICTED VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................ 25
6. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CASES....................................................................................................... 25
6.1. DESIGN................................................................................................................................. 26
6.2. CASE1: ACCELERATION 5 M/S2
........................................................................................... 27
6.3. CASE2: DECELERATION 11.5 M/S2
...................................................................................... 28
6.4. CASE3: PUMP 10 M/S2......................................................................................................... 29
6.5. CASE4: CRASH .................................................................................................................... 30
6.6. OPTIMIZATION ...................................................................................................................... 31
7. POD PRODUCTION SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................... 33
8. COST BREAKDOWN ...................................................................................................................... 34
9. SENSOR LIST AND LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................... 35
10. SCALABILITY ON AN OPERATIONAL HYPERLOOP ......................................................................... 36
11. LOADING AND UNLOADING PLAN.................................................................................................. 37
11.1. FUNCTIONAL TESTS ......................................................................................................... 37
11.2. READY TO LAUNCH CHECK LIST....................................................................................... 37
11.3. READY TO REMOVE CHECKLIST....................................................................................... 38
11.4. MOVEMENT TO STAGING AREA/ EXIT AREA..................................................................... 38

12. LIST OF STORED ENERGY ............................................................................................................ 38
13. LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ................................................................................................... 39
14. SAFETY FEATURES....................................................................................................................... 40
15. TEST PROGRAM (BEFORE POD ARRIVES FOR COMPETITION WEEKEND II)................................. 43
15.1. WIND TUNNEL TEST ......................................................................................................... 43
15.2. MATERIAL TEST................................................................................................................ 43
15.3. LOW DRIVE TEST/ ELLUSTOMERS TEST .......................................................................... 43
15.4. MAGNETIC BRAKES TEST/ FRICTION “EMERGENCY BRAKES” ........................................ 43
15.5. MOTOR LEVITATION TEST ................................................................................................ 44
MOTOR THRUST TEST ...................................................................................................................... 45
15.6. SENSOR, CONTROLLER, AND GROUND STATION TEST ................................................... 45
16. VACUUM COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 45

1. TEAM DESCRIPTION
Hyper nova team is a group of young engineering students with strong bachgroud and track
record and big ambition for Hyperloop as sustainable and disruptive innovative transportation
technology. In the Hyperloop first competition, our team, with a background since the Hyperloop
first competition through Nova team who won the design innovation award in SpaceX weekend
I, at Texas A&M. Later on after publishing the first paper in Berlin, in collaboration with previous
team member, the team was structured then for a two years research program to optimize the
pod design as a product.
When Dubai announced to build a Hyperloop, the team decided to test its functionality through
participating in the Build Earth Live Challenge. Our design was selected from the top 6 finalists
(knowing that, we were the only students team in the finalists), The team was able to get a
chance to present its Hyperloop capsule and station designs in front of the UAE government
and got judges discretionary award for best student design. While working on Dubai design,
SpaceX announced for Hyperloop competition II and this was the perfect scenario for us to take
a step forward in our design which is by default, building a pod to test our subsystems design.
Meanwhile, since the team has an objective plan which is designing and manufacturing a
capsule that can actually win the SpaceX competition based on a track run, then we can utilize
a product to propose in the near future.
Also, we have an educational vision to outreach engineering students and firms in the
MiddleEast/ Africa region to raise awareness and prove the concept and high quality
manufacturing abilities. That’s why the team has started a series of educational events in Egypt
universities and soon heading to Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Contributers
Samar Abdelfattah
Aerospace Engineering
Team Captain
Chassis & Body Team
Amr Mousa
Ahmed Salah
Mohamed ElAlfy
Braking Team
Ahmed Ewida
Hesham Hassan
Abdelrhman Kassem
Aerospace Egineering
Ahmed ElMoslemany
Vibrations Team
Ahmed Gamal
Dr. Alaa Khamis
Mechatronics Engineering
Faculty Advisor
Mechnical Team
Peter Latif
Mechanical Engineering
Ahmed Attia
Mechanical Engineering
Control Team
Ahmed Radwan
Abdelrhman Nasr
Mahmoud Yehia
AbdelRahman Sewesy
Propulsion Team
Essam Omar
Ahmed Hashem

2. DESIGN DESCRIPTION
2.1. Design summary
The main goal of our design is to achieve a full solution which can soon replace the traditional
methods of long distance travel (railway and aviation transportation). So our main target in this
project is to design and develop a low cost, light weight, reliable, energy efficient, easy to
manufacture and mass-producible capsule (pod) able to travel at high speed in a nearly
vacuumed tube.
As stated earlier, the first objective is a low cost product and to achieve that a common in
market materials (steel, aluminum) were used to produce parts for the assembly and carbon
fiber was used to produce the body shell. Main chassis plate and lead screw systems were used
for all linear actuation due to its availability in the market.
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the Hyper nova capsule consists of 4 main subassemblies, namely,
chassis & body, drive & motors, braking, control & ground station .The body shell incorporated
in which a rigid four layer carbon fiber reinforced epoxy which works as the main chassis to hold
all components of the assembly. Carbon fiber plate provides rigidity and stiffness for the whole
structure. To account for impact, two layers of S-glass will be molded in the nose area and that
is due to its high toughness.
Fig. 1

The propulsion and levitation motors with low speed drive system and its retracting mechanism
are all held together with a sheet metal/ carbon fiber structure, as shown in Fig. 3, which is
bolted to the chassis carbon fiber plate through rubber elastomer, for the purpose of max
damping of vibration. The whole assembly is bolted with 8 bolts to the main chassis plated,
which facilitate maintenance and assembly illustrated also in Fig. 8.
Braking is achieved by 2 separate systems: main and emergency. Main braking is done by
permenant magnets which can generate enough braking force to bring the pod to a stop in 300
m. In case of main brake failure, an emergency braking system can be used which can achieve
braking by mechanical friction with the I-beam surface.
The pod is at all-time controlled from the ground station and there is an emergency channel
which controls the emergency braking system.
Fig. 2 Front block

2.2. Pod dimensions “mm”
Fig. 3 3- views dimensions

2.3. Subsystem definition
Table. 1 summarizes the specifications of Hyper nova subsystems.
Subsystem Mass (Kg) Material Power Source
Power
Consumption
(KW)
Propulsion &
Levitation
“Motor”
28
(7kg* 4 motors)
Aluminum Li-Polymer
batteries
12 VDC
12
Braking “Main” 17.5 -Aluminum 7075 T6
-Steel structural member
-2 mm Steel sheet
-Stainless steel shaft
-Plum Flexible Duty
Coupler
-NEMA 23 Stepper motor
-8 mm x 2 mm Lead screw
-8 mm Lead copper nut
-LME8 UU Linear Rulman
SK8_Shaft_Bracket
-Bolts and Nuts
- 72 permanent magnet
Li-Polymer
batteries
12 VDC
1.44
Braking “Emergency” 8.5 Aluminum alloy 0.8
Capsule Control &
Navigation
7.5 PLC s7-300 Li-ion Batteries
24 VDC
0.079
Low drive system 24
(including
wheels, DC
motors for low
drive, and
fixation part)
steel members are DIN
(S235J0) for ( 19 mm steel
structure tubes) And (AISI
1010 – hot rolled ) for
sheet metal And 7075-
O(SS) for aluminum parts
1.6
Body & Chassis 20 Carbon fiber
“bidirectional woven plain
wave 3K”
Seats 2* 2 seats Carbon fiber
Total 130 “batteries
included”
15.9

2.4. Payload capabilities
Table. 1 shows that our total vehicle mass (on a subsystem assembly including seats, Fig. 5) is
130 kg. Based on subsystems and assembly total mass, payload capability is around 20 Kg
based on our targeted total mass of 150 Kg. Knowing that our capsule is capable of reaching a
nominal load of (220 Kg), but definitely this will affect the thrust capabilities and eventually
affecting the maximum speed.
Fig. 4 inside view of chassis Fig. 5
2.5. Mechanisms
2.5.1. LEVITATION & PROPULSION
Using the Arxpax motors, Fig. 6 was a logical decision for our design and
manufacturing criteria. As the motor has been tested and managed to
achieve both thrust and levitation for the simplicity of the Hyperloop
concept, which was our main aim. Yet we are planning to test the motor
performance under lower loads to provide more thrust.
Fig. 6
Levitation is mainly provided by 4 Arxpax, We updated our design to use 4 motors instead of 6
motors. At the beginning, our main concern was to develop the max thrust through the motors,
but then after test weekend I. We noticed how powerful the SpaceX pusher was. Thus, we
decided to reduce the mass and power consumption by using motors mainly for levitation.
However, we decided to keep the option of the tilting mechanism to provide thrust in case we
needed to overcome the drag during moving by inertia. Moreover, reversing the tilt angle in the
opposite direction can provide sufficient thrust in the opposite direction and works as an
additional braking element as illustrated in Fig. 7.
Each motor generates lift force by spinning in its place, creating eddy currents in the Aluminum
track underneath which create secondary magnetic fields that oppose the primary one in the
motor starm. Non-equal lift forces generated result in both rolling and pitching the pod. Also
every two motors face each other spin in the oppose direction to eliminate yawing effects, but
non-equal spinning speed of each motor results in net-yawing of the pod.

In case of motors are off, capsule is levitated on a 4-wheel system integrated in the motor-low
drive block.
Fig. 7 Static Thrust Characteristics
The pod can propel itself along the I-beam and the sub track by the mechanical low speed drive
system (service propulsion system), the system is integrated with sheet metal/ carbon fiber plate
and uses a system pulley and belt which is connected to a DC motor and drive a 100 mm
diameter wheel (polyurethane), the low speed drive system can propel the pod to about 30
km/h.
Fig. 8

2.5.2. BRAKING
2.5.2.1. Main braking
From among all the allowed methods for the braking on the SpaceX I beam, we chose to brake
on the web of the I-beam of the track as shown in Fig. 9 for the following reasons:
1. To avoid the possible crashes with the flange of the I-beam due to the vibration especially
during the deceleration.
2. To help get largest facing area of the I beam with the braking magnet so that we can get
biggest possible forces out of the magnets with the least number of magnets and least weight
accordingly which gives us more power and higher speeds accordingly.
Fig. 9 Side guidance and Braking
Braking occurs when the four magnet skis move linearly from their disengaged position which is
50 mm away from the web of the aluminum rail to their fully engaged position which is only 5
mm away from the web and without any physical contact with the rail as illustrated in Fig. 10.
Each skis of assembly consists of an array of 18 neodymium permanent magnets of grade N52.

Fig. 10 braking mechanism
2.5.2.2. Magnets Mounting
All the magnets are mounted in the orientation of halbach array in which the magnetic field is
strong on one direction (braking direction) and weak on the other side as shown in Fig. 11 and
12. Each 18 magnets will be mounted together in one aluminum U channel externally then
mounted inside the braking pad safely to avoid any injuries while dealing with the halbach
arrays. Then the magnets are covered with an aluminum cover of thickness 5 mm.
Fig. 11 Magnet mounting

2.5.2.3. Braking Force Profile
Using COMSOL Multiphysics, Fig. 12, ACDC Module to simulate our eddy current bakes, we
get the following graphs: (PS: those graphs are only for two skis which represent half of the
magnetic braking system). Start braking at speed of 77 m/s, the pod will stop 2.25 seconds. Fig.
12 represents global magnet velocity profile
Fig. 12
Simulating the resulting magnetic field for one magnet at different gaps gave good results that
agrees with the calculations of having the arrays of magnets able to brake the whole system as
shown in figure.
Fig. 13
2.5.2.4. Emergency braking
In case of emergency, the brakes sliders start to move to approach the web of the I-beam, the
pads attached to the sliders starts to contact the web generating friction force required to stop

the pod. The slider moves on a lead screw using a stepper motor which rotates the lead screw
and moves the slider towards the I-beam, the slider is assembled on the base using linear
bearings.
Fig. 14
2.5.3. SUSPENSION
To avoid the hasttle and hazar of having spring-damper or even pneumatic systems, we decide
to make it more industrial, through being efficiently performing under low mass/ low cost. So, we
decided to use customized ellastomers to connect our motor assembly with fixation plate as a
reference to absorb motor vibrations, and to fix the plate to our chassis, thus, reducing
assembly vibrations. At the same time, a clean, fast, and easier fixation process in case of
maintainance or check.
Figs. 15, 16
2.5.4. STABILITY & NAVIGATION
After conducting a comparative study between maglev system modeing and hexa-copter,
mathematical models of the pod, the motors and the aerodynamic environment were developed
for the purpose of simulation and control based on the 6 DOF hexa-copter model for developing.

It is found that aerodynamic forces do not dramatically affect the lateral state of the pod. On the
other hand, the main effect on the lateral motion of the pod comes from the motors used for
levitation and thrust. Fig 17. shows the mounting of the motors on the pod (top view):
Fig. 17 Motor mounting
Final Model
Overall system model
The mathematical modeling of the pod gives 12 nonlinear DEs that can be used to control the
attitude and the lateral motion:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.
Where
, , :the velocities in x,y,z directions
, , : pitch,roll,yaw angles
, , : rotations around x,y,z directions
: disturbance caused by gyroscopic torques
, , : components in the aerodynamic torques MA
, : coeffs of the air friction and they are elements in the diagonal matrices At, Ar
, , , , : moment of inertia componentsThe model of the system developed in
Simulink with the controllers and an observer is shown in Fig. 18.
Fig. 18 Simulink Model
2.5.5. NAVIGATION
2.5.5.1. Using reflective tape (IR)
Using IR sensors that work by using a specific light sensor to detect a select light wavelength in
the Infra-Red (IR) spectrum. By using an LED which produces light at the same wavelength as
what the sensor is looking for, we can look at the intensity of the received light. When an object
is close to the sensor, the light from the LED bounces off the object and into the light sensor.
This results in a large jump in the intensity, which we already know can be detected using a
threshold. When the sensor detects a stripe, then we will know that the pod moved 100 feet and
so on and we receive on ground station the location of the pod.
As shown in Fig. 18, where along the tube; every 100 feet, a 4-inch wide reflective
circumferential stripe will be applied to the inner circumference of the tube when the sensor
detects 10 stripes, we receive on ground station that "1000 feet remaining" where; At 1,000 feet,
a pattern of ten 4-inch wide stripes separated by 4-inch “blank sections” of the underlying steel
tube will be applied as a “1,000 feet left” marker for the Pods. Similarly, when the sensor detects

5 stripes, we receive on ground station that "500 feet remaining" Where; at 500 feet from the
end of the tube, a pattern of five 4-inch wide stripes separated by 4-inch “blank sections” of the
underlying steel tube will be applied as a “500 feet left” marker for the Pods.
Fig. 18 Reflective Tape
2.5.5.2. Using Wi-Fi
Position tracking using Wi-Fi is needed as a more accurate method of intra-building tracking due
to Global Positioning System’s (GPS) lack of accuracy in buildings. The main application of this
project is moving to track object (Pod) throughout a building (Tube). The devices can send
simple messages to a central server in a remote location (Ground station).
The central server handles the communication between the pod and the ground station and the
locations of the Pod.
.
2.5.5.3. Using IMU (3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyroscope)
IMU will be used as an additional modularity to estimate: pod attitude (roll, pitch, and yaw) and
position within tube (X, Y, and Z).

2.5.5.4. Hybrid Localization
Nowadays, there is no single sensor technology that has the capability to attain good levels of
accuracy in localizing a moving rigid object within indoor environment like the pressurized tube
of the competition. Multi-sensor fusion is a technology to enable combining information from
several sources in order to form a unified picture. Robustness, increased coverage, improved
confidence, reduced uncertainty are a number of foreseen benefits of fusing data/information
from multiple sources. Multiple sources provide redundancy which, in turn, would enable the
system to provide information in case of partial failure or data loss from one sensor.
Spatial/geometrical and temporal coverage is enhanced as one sensor can look where other
sensors cannot look and provide observations. As illustrated, a Bayesian approach will be used
to fuse data from the different sensors exploiting the complementary nature of these sensors in
order to increase accuracy and robustness.
Reflective tape-based Localization
IMU-based Localization
Capsule Pose
To Telepresence Module
Wifi-based Localization
Position estimate
Bayesian-based Fusion
Approach
Position estimate
Pose estimate
Sensor data must be transformed from each sensor’s local frame into a common frame before fusion
occurs. Such an alignment problem is often referred to as sensor registration and deals with the
calibration error induced by individual sensor nodes. Data registration is of critical importance to the
successful deployment of fusion systems in practice. Meta-data describing the sensor
performance, the platform parameters, and environmental characteristics will be sued to
transform the sensor data into common frames of reference, to identify identical pieces of data,
and to merge similar pieces of data into one single augmented piece of information.
Results of our matlab code for data fusion
Fig. 19

2.5.6. GROUND STATION
Ground station will be provided a remote eye and a remote hand for the operator enabiling
him/her to continousely monitoring the operation of the capsule within the tube and to start the
operation and to intervene in case of emergency.
A labview VI-based GUI will be built to provide monitoring from the ground station, and to
support control orders design in a user friendly way.
Fig. 20
2.6. Aerodynamic Coefficients
Many iterations were done since the announcement for the competition to develop the perfect
shape design for an aerodynamically efficient pod. Then we started iterating on structure
compatibility with other subsystems.

Fig. 21 Body development
In aerodynamics analysis, we used CFD (Computational Fluid dynamics) to analyze the flow
over the pod and solve the Navier-Stokes equations numerically. In the solution criteria, we
used (Realizable k-epsilon) as a viscous model. The air flow was considered to be
incompressible based on our chosen flow velocity and with a constant value of temperature.

2.7. Magnetic parameters
We are using neodymium (NdFeB) permanent magnets (Fig. 21) of grade N52 due to its
high residual induction (Br=1.48T) and Maximum energy product (BHmax=51 MGOs).
 Coating: All the magnets are coated with the common Ni-Cu-Ni coating which
helps in reducing the possible rusting of the magnet and minimizing the heat
generated while braking.
 Dimensions: Each magnet has dimensions of (10mm*30*mm*50mm) and two
holes centered in the middle of the magnet through which the magnets are
attached together to form the halbach arrays.
 Weight: each magnet has a weight of around 0.125 kg. So the total mass of the
four halbach arrays is about 9 Kg.
 Total number of magnets: We have 18 magnets in each arrays with a total of
72 magnets. Each magnet weights 114 g so the total weight of the permanent
magnets is 8.2 kg.
Assigned Boundary
Conditions
Result
Velocity = 80 m/s Cd = 0.287
Pressure = 865 Pa Drag Force = 3.515 N
Temperature = 300 K Cl = - 0.078
Reference Area = 0.19
m^2 (Projection on the
plane normal to the
flow)
Downforce = - 0.961
N (which is equivalent
to 97.98 grams)

Fig. 22 Magnet
3. PREDICTED POD TRAJECTORY
The acceleration is mainly based on the SpaceX pusher that will push the pod with 0.5 g
acceleration for 487 meter, then the pod will separate from the pusher with speed of
66.7 m/s, then the pod will use inertia till a distance of 1200m where the capsule is
expected to face a max drag (magnetic+aerodynamic) of 50N through the tube run.
The pod starts its main braking from 1200m for a 300m of magnetic deceleration till it
reach the zero velocity.

Fig. 23 Pod Trajectory

4. PREDICTED POD THERMAL PROFILE
Fig. 24 pod thermal distribution
Fig. 25 heat generation from motor

5. PREDICTED VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT
The simulation over the pod structure shows a range of frequencies acting over the body with
critical value of 1148.3 HZ causing a total deformation of 0.6938 mm MAX
Fig. 26 Vibration
6. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CASES
The structure concept is based on the sandwitch material of 3K epoxy
carbon fibers with soric and coremat as a core material and Epoxy
Resin as a resin between layers. It can be divided into (Body, Chassis
and Cut-outs) with different sandwich structure and thicknesses each.
The analysis was done by the ACP pre and post, static structural and
explicit dynamics Modules in ANSYS and optimization was done by
Ansys OptiSlang package to minimize the weight and maximize the
stiffness and rigidity. The analysis was targeting to simulate the ability

of the structure to sustain the loads safely during four load cases and assuring a safety factor of
4 theoretically that might be reduced maximum to 2 due to manufacturing process possible
errors, which will be discussed along with the results in the following sections.
6.1. Design
a) The Body consists of a thin skin (1mm soric core and single carbon fabric
each side -45) stiffened by thick axial and lateral stiffeners (10mm coremat
core) and final 45 carbon ply passes by both the stiffeners and the skin
Figure - Layups and Mechanical properties of the skin and the stiffeners
b) The Chassis consists of two carbon plys -45,0 then 7mm soric core material
and two carbon plys 0,45

Figure - Layups and Mechanical properties of the chassis
c) The cutouts are the door, right and left side covers which has the same plys
and core material for the skin
6.2. Case1: Acceleration 5 m/s2
The loads are defined as shown in Fig. 27 and they consist of forces due to masses,
moments due to remote forces such as the friction forces at the wheels,
aerodynamics load and the CGs of the different subsystems and acceleration due to
gravity side by side with the initial acceleration of the pusher.
Fig. 27

Fig. 28 Acceleration
The total deformation is maximum with a value of 0.67 mm, given that the maximum
stress that the used Epoxy Carbon can hold is 513 MPa, the results of the stresses
showed a good safety factor with maximum failure criteria (Tsai-Wu coupled with
max-stress and core failure) 0.136 which gives 7.35 safety factor.
6.3. Case2: Deceleration 11.5 m/s2
The loads are defined as shown in Fig. 29 with linear deceleration 10 m/s2
which
moments and forces were defined upon.

Fig. 29 Deceleration
The results shows that the maximum deformation was 0.4 mm, maximum stress of 12 MPa
in the critical ply and using the same failure criteria used for the previous load case, it shows
a maximum value of 0.154 that gives factor of safety 6.49
6.4. Case3: Pump 10 m/s2
This case simulates the extreme situation of losing the levitation and the pod falls freely on
the main wheels with 1g falling acceleration besides the constant static load. The boundary
conditions were different and defined.

This was the toughest case with maximum deformation of 1.36 mm, maximum stress of
17 MPa and the failure criteria was 0.2489 which gives a minimum factor of safety for
the whole structure 4.017 and that was the target in the preliminary design phase and
was the optimization phase output which will be explained in the next section.
6.5. Case4: Crash
The simulation was executed in ANSYS using Explicit Dynamics with fixed foam wall as
mentioned in the regulations and the whole structure is moving with a linear velocity of
80 m/s as a maximum targeted velocity for our design.

The results shows that despite the impact was huge, the pod shows a great resistance to
severe deformation thanks to the curvatures of the nose in the frontal area which provides
the structure with sufficient rigidity to withstand such a crash with minimum losses (Fig ).
6.6. Optimization
Ansys optiSLang package was used to run the optimization on the structure. The input
parameters were twelve; eight ply angels and 3 core materials thicknesses. The output
parameters were the dry weight of the structure as an objective to be minimized and the
maximum failure of the three cases without the crash to be less than or equal 0.25 as a
constraint to achieve a minimum factor of safety of 4.
The best optimization approach was chosen automatically (Evolutionary Algorithm – EA
global) and different designs were made. The analysis end up with 46 designs with the
optimum one which was the eighth.

The suggested design succeeded to meet the criterion of the minimum factor of safety with
reducing the weight 20.9 % from 10.31 kg to 8.154 kg.

7. POD PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
Gantt chart is shown below.

8. COST BREAKDOWN

9. SENSOR LIST AND LOCATION MAP
Sensor Number Function
Linear position 10 Measuring linear gap of pod and track/ sub-track
Temperature 4 Temperature from 4 points on pod
IMU 1 3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyroscope to estimate:-
- Acceleration within tube (X, Y, Z)
-pod attitude (roll, pitch, and yaw)
- Position within tube (X, Y, and Z)
-Velocity within tube (X, Y, and Z) By Integrating.
IR 2 Navigation mechanism
Current 4 Sensing current draw
Fig. 30 Sensor Layout

10. SCALABILITY ON AN OPERATIONAL HYPERLOOP
Our pod is designed to accommodate 2 passengers (Fig. 31) with height of (160 cm) and its
initial scalability to be built in a full scale is to accommodate 6 passengers. Since the motors
used for thrust and levitation (Arxpax HE3.0) in our prototype represents 75% of the total cost of
our capsule, on a full scale motors required will be 12 motors with a cost of (60,000$) which will
eliminate the low cost advantage. For that our design was based on using the Arxpax motor as
a prototype for initial pod assembly, while achieving efficient operation for the SpaceX
competition. Our plan is to use the permanent magnets for levitation, and optimize the LIM
systems to achieve the high thrust potentials but this will need more research to develop on the
input requirements as targeting very high speeds will require a very high frequency inputs which
is hard to provide.
Fig. 31 2-passegnger pod
Knowing that the Hyperloop as a product is defined by tube, station, and pod designs, our
design is to be simple, flexible and cost efficient with different environmental effects. The 2
passengers (150kgs) capacity capsule cost –excluding the motors– is around 6,000$ which on a
full scale of 6 passengers (500kgs) will rise to 8,000$ so we are talking about 0.3X rise in cost
for 2X rise in capacity for a total efficient system, in case we managed to develop a potential low
power input thrust system.

Fig. 32 6-passegnger pod
11. LOADING AND UNLOADING PLAN
11.1. Functional tests
I. Power ON
II. Communication channel from and to ground station/ sensor signals check
III. Actuators check
- Low speed retaraction
- Brakes mechanism check
- Emergency brakes check
- Low speed motor check
- Tilting mechanism checl
IV. Motors power ON
“levitation on the desired height check”
11.2. Ready to launch check list
- Manual switch ON
- Stable communication line
- Sensor signal (wheels liftes and clearance from the I-beam= 4mm/ Brake position
adjustment)
- Tilt angle = 0˚
- Emergency brakes at widest position
- Pod is stable on motor levitation
- Pusher is engaged
- Parameters check
(Vacuum pressure= 861Pa/ Gero. V=0, a=0, Temp.)

11.3. Ready to remove checklist
- Release the magnetic brakes
- Zero tilt angle of the motors
- Lower low drive system
- Switch off The motors
- Switch off manual switch
11.4. Movement to staging area/ Exit area
The capsule is capable of moving along the subtrack in the staging area and exit area through
the side 4- wheels (No power) as illustrated in Fig. 31. However, we will use the Crane for pod
placement and removal from the staging and exit areas.
Fig. 33 side 4-wheels
12. LIST OF STORED ENERGY
36 Li- polymer battery are packed on our capsule for mainly hover engines, and also for
communication/ control systems. Discharge rate is shown in Fig. 34.

Parameter Value
Motor power 80 watt/kg.load
Battery configuration 18s18p
Nominal Voltage 66.6 V
Cell Capacity 5.2 Ah
Pack Capacity 93.6 Ah
Bod weight 150 kg
Total power 12 kw
Total Current 180 A
Cell Discharge Current 10 A/Cell
Total pack weight 20 kg
Fig. 34
13. LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
The main hazardous materials on our capsule will be the batteries listed above, and the
Neudimium N52 magnets used for braking. As for safety and thermal isolation, we have a semi-
coated implemented partition inside the chassis floor to insert the battery pack and avoid heat
transmission attached along with floor and inner shell skin laminated layers acting as heat sinks
to avoid rise in temperature.

14. SAFETY FEATURES
 Hardware and software inhibit on braking during the acceleration phase
1. During the acceleration phase the low drive system will be attracted and by default the
breaks (the normal one and the emergency one) won’t be near the I cross section so their
forces will be neglected in the acceleration phase (the distance between the I cross
section and the breaking system during the acceleration phase is determined).
2. The motors that control the breaking system is programmed to be at the distance
calculated to make the magnetic drag force from the magnets is neglected (calculated)
and at the start (in staging area) we will check that the motors are in right position and
from the readings from sensors we know the behavior of the motors and the whole
breaking system.
 Mechanisms to mitigate a complete loss of power
1. In our pod, there will be an emergency power source since when any failure occur
the pod will not completely cut off power this emergency power should make the
pod safe until the pod stop command implemented (it will make the pod gliding)
between the two power sources (the main one and the emergency one) will be a
relay to switch between them.
2. Another way to mitigate the complete loss power (when any failure happens to the
relay we mentioned above) is a mechanical way it’s about a rod connecting to low
drive system wheels when the voltage drops down the rod will be enforced to
down the wheels on the rail and the pod will continue movement using its inertia.
3. The last way is a replacement for the previous ways and it’s to use halbach array
as a magnetic suspension and the pod will move with its inertia to the end.
 Recovery plan if pod becomes immovable within tube
At first we need to know the most common reasons to make the pod immovable within tube:
1. Motors failure: when motors fail there should be another way to move it which is low
drive system. If motors over heated, over loaded, jammed or jogged they will be off the power
(to protect them from damage) and the motor that control the low drive system will adjust the
wheels and will drive our pod but on low speed.
2. Complete loss of power: we have an emergency power source for the low drive system
only to adjust it on the Rail
3. If the inertia of the pod isn’t enough to reach the end of the tube,
we should use halbach array for this situation to reduce the inertia of the pod.
 Implementation of the Pod-stop command
There is a sequence of deceleration phase of our trip to stop the pod at the end of the tube
without any crashes First, the motors that control the main breaking system will make the
breaking pads near to the I-cross section then the motors will tilt to make thrust force in the
opposite direction then the low drive system motors will generate a re-generative breaking force.

 Fault tolerance and protection circuit
We think about methods to make the trip of the pod is more safe, our role is to handle the
situation before the failure occurs, our system include more than a method to make our motors
during the trip. One of them is to make a protection circuit to protect MCU (motor control unit)
against out of range voltage and current or over heating since it is the most sensitive component
and need high effective protection method.
We will use a resettable fuse and connect it series-way with the MCU The PPTC (polymeric
positive temperature coefficient) is a strong replacement to the fuse and doesn’t need to be
replaced if the circuit is breaked it makes the circuit on after cooling (the process takes few
seconds (1-3 seconds)) within those seconds the controller will handle the situation until the
fuse match the circuit again.
PPTC also is used as high resistance when an undercurrent fault occurs the PPTC absorb
much current to balance the current and the voltage and adjust the power factor, and if an over
current fault occurs. The resistance will be too high to prevent the current from passing and cut
the circuit after the over current removes it switches on the circuit again, we also can reduce the
time duration of cooling it depends on the cooling system itself.
Mechanism of the protection circuit using (PPTC): From the temperature sensor and the
stall current sensor which connect to our controller we connect between them with an OR gate
and AND gate it means if (temperature>=certain value || stall current>=135% running current)
&& (time>setlling time).
- The controller will send a signal to the PPTC to break the circuit
- This method will save the MCU and the motor from being destroyed

15. TEST PROGRAM (BEFORE POD ARRIVES FOR
COMPETITION WEEKEND II)
15.1. Wind tunnel test
To verify our aerodynamic simulation on ANSYS, we will use the wind tunnel test of scale 1:10.
15.2. Material test
Material tests were conducted mainly for sheet metal/ emergency brakes material/ low
drive rubber wheels/ carbon fiber layers to verify our design specs.
15.3. Low drive test/ Ellustomers test
Simulating the low-drive loads and testing our retracting mechanism and motor
capability to drive our capsule load. Applying high load vibration on the elastomers used to fix
the motor- low drive block in the chassis.
15.4. Magnetic brakes test/ Friction “Emergency brakes”
We will design a device (Fig. 32) to validate the results of the simulation and test our main
magnetic braking system that consists of:
Two arrays of permanent magnets, each one consists of at least 4 magnets oriented together in
Halbach configuration.
- All the magnets will have the same dimensions (50 mm length, 30 mm width and 10 mm
depth)
- All the magnets are permanent neodymium magnets, grade N52.

Aluminum disc the same alloy of the aluminum rail of the SpaceX track or any similar alloy of
the same relative permeability and magnetic properties.
Same rig is used to test the rubber friction emergency brakes by replacing the magnets pads
with the friction pads.
15.5. Motor levitation test
Testing the motor levitation height specified by Arxpax and testing
levitation change with our specified less load/ motor.

15.6. Motor thrust test
Also to test motor thrust potentials specified in HE3.0. Datasheet and the change of thrust with
load/ tilting angle/ and levitation. Shown in Fig. 35 Arxpax developer’s kit trial, to test our
system.
Fig. 35
15.7. Sensor, controller, and ground station test
All verification and error definition tests before assembly in the capsule and to assure control
signals sequence.
16. VACUUM COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
All of the capsule components are compatible with the tube environment and the working
selected pressure of our design. The mechanical components show no interaction with the low
pressure environment or vacuum however, there will be material testing in our laboratory to
simulate the environment that the material will behave in. Also, the controller and sensors were
selected up on their specs from manufacturers to show high efficiency performance in a low
pressure environment that’s why their price was high in our cost plan. These components will be
tested to avoid any error or delay.
For the Arxpax motors, they are already designed to fit in the SpaceX tubes specs. Concerning
that we are planning to optimize the efficiency. There will also be another test for the motor
compatibility under lower pressures and vacuum.

HyperNova Hpyerloop Final Design Report | SpaceX Hyperloop Competition 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to HyperNova Hpyerloop Final Design Report | SpaceX Hyperloop Competition 2017

Similar to HyperNova Hpyerloop Final Design Report | SpaceX Hyperloop Competition 2017 (20)

More from Ahmed Elbermbali

More from Ahmed Elbermbali (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

HyperNova Hpyerloop Final Design Report | SpaceX Hyperloop Competition 2017