Solar Array Assistant: Battery/Capacitor Assistant: Motor/Controller Mingming Liu Andrey Shum

1. SHELL ECO-MARATHON CHALLENGE
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM OF SOLAR VEHICLE
ECE TEAM 30
Asaf Erlich, Mingming Liu, Conjee Yeung, Alexey Leontyev, Andrey Shum

2. OVERVIEW
 INTRODUCTION
 STATUS REVIEW
 DECISION METHODOLOGY
 TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
 CONCLUSION

3. INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
 Objective: is to be able to build a vehicle that can travel the
longest distance using the least amount of energy
, , ,
o Gasoline, Electric Diesel Hydrogen Biofuel , Solar
 Key: Efficiency, not speed
 Goal: is to apply creativity in designing sustainable
transportation to achieve the highest possible fuel efficiency.

4. INTRODUCTION
 HISTORY
 Started in 1939
 The winner of the first Eco-
Marathon achieved 50 mpg
 TODAY
 Over 400 students and 70
teams across the United
States participate
 Last year, the winning team
achieved 2,487.5 mpg!
Record was 10,705 mpg
(2003, UK)
http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/americas/for_participants/faqs/

5. INTRODUCTION
TEAM GOAL
 Design and Build a Solar Powered Vehicle to compete in The Shell
Eco-Marathon Competition
 Collaborating with two Mechanical Engineer Mechanics (MEM)
Teams to design and construct the vehicle
 MEM Team 1 (Structural) are responsible for chassis design,
analysis, and construction
 MEM Team 2 (Aerodynamics) are responsible for body design,
analysis, construction, paint and touch ups
 ECE Team (Electrical) are responsible for power train design,
testing, and evaluation of all required electrical components

6. INTRODUCTION
Changes from Proposal
 The primary goal of the project is to design, test and evaluate
the electrical system for a solar vehicle. Meeting the race
constraints will no longer be our deliverable.
 New alternative of motor is used instead of the one that was
described in the proposal.

7. INTRODUCTION
Competition Overview
 Shell Eco-Marathon is an annual competition to determine the
most fuel efficient vehicle.
 Held in Houston, Texas.
 Date: April 14-17.
 Divided into two vehicle groups: Prototype (3-Wheel) and
Urban Concept (Four-Wheel).
 Further divided into classes based on fuel type: Diesel, petrol,
LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), electric, hydrogen, ethanol,
Biofuels, gas to liquids, and Solar.
 Requirement: Vehicles must be capable of running a 10 mile track
at a minimum average speed of 15 mph.
 Fuel will be measured at the beginning and at the end of the race.
http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/americas/for_participants/americas_rules/

8. INTRODUCTION
Shell Eco-Marathon Guidelines
Electrical Power Constraints of Solar Powered Vehicle:
 Must have two joule meters to measure generated and
consumed power (provided by competition).
 Supply voltage must not exceed 48 volts.
 Supply Current must not exceed 50 Amperes continuous and
150 Amperes Peak.
 Battery Monitoring System (BMS) must be equipped.
 Vehicle without driver must not exceed 140 kg (309 lbs)
 Vehicle must be capable of seating 1 person
http://www-static.shell.com/static/ecomarathon/downloads/2011/global/SEM_Rules_2011_Final.pdf

9. INTRODUCTION
Eco-Shell Marathon Guidelines
Electrical Component Requirements:
 Two front headlights.
 Two rear red lights.
 Two front/rear red brake lights.
 Front/rear turn signals.
 Emergency/Hazard lights.
 Horn (purchased through Shell).
 Emergency shutdown mechanism to isolate battery and
motor.
 Electrical components must be fused in transparent box.
http://www-static.shell.com/static/ecomarathon/downloads/2011/global/SEM_Rules_2011_Final.pdf

10. INTRODUCTION
 Objective of the Electrical Team is to build a powertrain that
includes:
 An Array Of Solar Panels/Cells used to charge the battery.
 An Accumulator (Battery/Capacitor) to power the motor,
controller, and other electrical components of the vehicle.
 A Motor Controller to drive the electric motor.
 An Electric Motor to provide mechanical power and propel the
vehicle.

11. STATUS REVIEW
 Top three options:
 Solar arrays
 Electric Motor
 Battery
 Simulation:
 General Simulink Model of the powertrain
 Basic PSpice circuit diagram

12. DECISION METHODOLOGY
 SWOT Analysis for Solar Cell
Polycrystalline Monocrystalline
Strength Weakness Strength Weakness
Much Less Expensive Most Efficient
Less Efficient Expensive
Durability Durability
Most Commonly
Most Commonly
Weather Conditions Used Weather Conditions
Used
Fragile Most Experienced Fragile
Opportunities Threats Opportunities Threats

13. DECISION METHODOLOGY
Considerations for Alternative Types of Solar Arrays
Total Weight Total Power Output
Brand Model Type Total Cost ($)
(lbs) (W)
ALPS ALPS-85 Polycrystalline 88.18 426.3 $2,200.00
BP Solar BP3125J Polycrystalline 105.82 501.12 $2,296.00
ALPS ALPS-123 Polycrystalline 104.06 495.36 $2,540.00
Suntech SunTech65 Polycrystalline 109.35 520.128 $3,248.00
BP Solar BP3115J Polycrystalline 105.82 458.28 $2,136.00
Suntech SunTech80 Polycrystalline 123.46 559.776 $2,926.00
Suntech SunTech45 Polycrystalline 119.05 540.672 $3,048.00
Power Film P7.2-150 Amorphous Flexible 11.40 69.12 $5,755.20
Power Film PT15-75 Amorphous Flexible 12.86 143.99 $7,470.65
Power Film P7.2-75 Amorphous Flexible 12.86 67.32 $7,470.65

14. DECISION METHODOLOGY
DECISION MATRIX FOR SOLAR ARRAYS
Brand Model Type Total Weight Total Power Output Total Cost Total
ALPS ALPS-85 Polycrystalline 3.8 7.6 5.0 16.3
BP Solar BP3125J Polycrystalline 2.4 8.9 4.9 16.2
ALPS ALPS-123 Polycrystalline 2.6 8.8 4.7 16.1
Suntech SunTech65 Polycrystalline 2.1 9.3 4.2 15.6
BP Solar BP3115J Polycrystalline 2.4 8.1 5.0 15.6
Suntech SunTech80 Polycrystalline 1.0 10.0 4.4 15.4
Suntech SunTech45 Polycrystalline 1.4 9.7 4.3 15.3
Power Film P7.2-150 Amorphous Flexible 10.0 1.0 2.3 13.3
Power Film PT15-75 Amorphous Flexible 9.9 2.4 1.0 13.3
Power Film P7.2-75 Amorphous Flexible 9.9 1.0 1.0 11.9
1- Heaviest 1 – Lowest 1 – Highest
Scale 5- Medium 5 – Medium 3 – Medium
10- Lightest 10 – Highest 5 - Lowest

15. DECISION METHODOLOGY
SWOT Analysis for Electric Motors
AC DC
Strength Weakness Strength Weakness
Simple Design Variable Frequency
Easy Design High Maintenance
Reliable Operation Source
Simple Speed Control Physically Larger
Mounting Variety Requires Expensive
Simple Torque Control
Long Life Controller
Industrial Applications Inability to Operate at Inexpensive Drive
Overload Damage
Full Size Vehicle Low Speed Design
Overload Damage Efficient at Low Speed
Opportunities Threats Opportunities Threats

16. DECISION METHODOLOGY
CONSIDERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF DC MOTOR
Power Weight Torque Relative
Brand Model Type RPM
(W) (lb) (Nm) Cost
High Speed Brushless
Freeenergystore 1000 11.9 30 450 $600.00
Hub Motor Hub
Golden Motor MagicPie PM Hub 1000 16.53 27 2500 $293.00
Electric EVT Hub
PM Hub 1086 18 25.5 676 $750.00
Motorsports Motor
Perm-Motor PMG-132 PM 7220 24.25 20.5 2200 $1,024.95
5.07 inch
Koford Brushless 1000 9.7 40.7 2563 $1,200.00
series
D40-675D-
MMP 1215 25 30.5 285 $1,150.00
48V
Torque Provided By MEM Team = 29.5 Nm

17. DECISION METHODOLOGY
DECISION MATRIX FOR DC MOTOR
Torque
Brand Model Power Rating Weight Cost Total
Rating
High Speed
Freeenergystore
Hub Motor 1.0 8.7 10.0 7.0 26.7
Golden Motor MagicPie
1.0 6.0 7.0 10.0 24.0
EVT Hub
Electric Motorsports
Motor 1.1 5.1 8.0 5.5 19.7
Perm-Motor PMG-132
10.0 1.4 5.1 2.7 19.3
5.07 inch
Koford
series 1.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 17.0
D40-675D-
MMP
48V 1.3 1.0 9.0 1.5 12.8
1- Lowest 1 – Heaviest 1- Non-desirable 1-Expens.
Scale 5-Neutral 5 – Medium 5- Neutral 5-Neutral
10- Highest 10 – Lightest 10- Desirable 10-Cheap

18. DECISION METHODOLOGY
SWOT Analysis for Battery and Super Capacitors
Strengths Weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses
Store Energy Life Cycle Store Energy Varied Voltage
Provide Power Gets Hot Long Life Energy per unit stored
Small/Portable Time to Charge High Rate of Charge Electronic Control
Lightweight Monitoring System High Rate of Discharge Energy Loss
Easily Mounted May Fail No Overcharging Dielectric Absorption
Readily Available HighTemperature
Common Use Environment
Variety of Voltages Fire Risk Readily Available Rapid Energy Release
Variety of Current Short Circuit Risk High Energy Density Large Energy Release
Series or Parallel Capacity Overload
Capable Loss of Charge
Opportunities Threats Opportunities Threats

19. DECISION METHODOLOGY
CONSIDERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF BATTERY
Energy
Voltage Rating Discharge Rate Weight
Brand Model Type Density Cost ($)
(Volts) (KWh) (kg)
(KWh/kg)
Apple A1185 Li-Ion 10.8 0.061 0.454 0.134 $38.59
Apple B-APL-06-O Li-Ion 10.8 0.048 0.454 0.106 $76.00
NYCEWheels TOYO-USP SLA (Lead acid) 12 0.228 5.94 0.038 $54.95
Electric Scooter
UB12180 SLA (Lead acid) 12 0.222 5.94 0.038 $54.95
Parts
Dell B-5908H Li-ion 11.1 0.072 1.36 0.053 $82.88
HP RQ204AA Li-Ion 7.2 0.018 0.5 0.036 $84.99

20. DECISION METHODOLOGY
DECISION MATRIX FOR BATTERY
Discharge Energy
Brand Model Weight Cost Total
Rate Density
Apple A1185 1.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 16.8
Apple B-APL-06-O 1.6 5.0 3.9 1.8 12.2
Dell B-5908H 5.0 1.0 1.1 3.6 10.7
HP RQ204AA 4.9 1.0 1.1 3.6 10.6
Electric Scooter
UB12180 2.0 4.3 1.7 1.2 9.2
Parts
NYCEWheels TOYO-USP 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 8.0
1 – Lowest 1 – Heaviest 1 – Lowest 1 – Expensive
Scale 3 – Neutral 3 – Medium 3 – Medium 3 – Neutral
5 – Highest 5 – Lightest 5 – Highest 5 – Inexpensive

21. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Vehicle Chassis Design In SolidWorks

22. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Vehicle Body Design In SolidWorks

23. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
PSpice Circuit Model
Castaner, Luis (2002). Modeling Photovoltaic Systems Using PSpice. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

24. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Simulink Model

25. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Simulink Model
MATLAB R2010b, Matlab Solar Cell Demo. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, 2000

26. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Simulink Model

27. TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Simulink Model

28. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TEAM ROLES
Dr. Fontecchio
David Ho Asaf Erlich
Advisors
MEM Team Lead Team Lead
Dr. Layton
Mingming Liu Andrey Shum
Publicist Treasurer
Alexey Leontyev Conjee Yeung
Correspondence Liaison

29. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TECHNICAL ROLES
Asaf Erlich Conjee Yeung Alexey Leontyev
• Simulink, • Matlab Expertise and • Power Systems and
Programming and Battery Motor
Script Development Expertise/Researcher Expertise/Researcher
Mingming Liu Andrey Shum
• Matlab Expertise and • Power Systems
Solar Panel Expertise
Expertise/Researcher • System Analyst

30. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDUSTRIAL BUDGET
Materials/Equipment/Overhead
Expense Category Costs
Electrical Solar Panels $ 4,000.00
Wages Components Motor/Controls $ 3,000.00
Total
Batteries $ 6,000.00
Category Expense Cost/Unit Units Total Cost
Wires $ 200.00
Initial Design Project manager 40 200 $ 8,000.00
Electrical Engineer(4) 35 200 $ 28,000.00 Nuts/Bolts/Screws/Fasteners $ 150.00
Construction Project manager 40 300 $ 12,000.00
LED, Gauges, Switches $ 500.00
Electrical Engineer(2) 35 300 $ 21,000.00
Equipment Multi-meters $ 200.00
Technician (2) 25 300 $ 15,000.00
Ammeter $ 200.00
Testing Project manager 40 40 $ 1,600.00
Joulemeter $ 200.00
Electrical Engineer(4) 35 40 $ 5,600.00
Hand Tools $ 750.00
Documentation Project manager 40 40 $ 1,600.00
Software Pspice $ 500.00
Electrical Engineer(4) 35 40 $ 5,600.00
MatLab/Simulink $ 500.00
$ 98,400.00
Microsoft Office $ 300.00
$ 16,500.00
Estimated Overhead Costs 50%

31. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
OUT OF POCKET BUDGET
Part Est. Price How to Obtain Sponsorship Budget Hess Garage
Lights - Garage X
Wiring - Garage/Budget X X
Connectors/Switches - Garage/Budget X X
Joule-Meters/Monitoring Devices - Provided X X
Battery/Monitoring $1000 Budget X X
Solar Panels $2200 Donation X X
Rectification System - Build X X
Motor/Controls $1,000.00 Donation X X
Total $4,200.00

32. Design
Design
Touches
objectives
Competition
Construction
Decision Matrix
Add Solar Panels
from Solar Panels
Tasks
Preliminary Research
complete the required
Gathering Components
Ensure the system will
Completed Power System
Debugging/Testing/Prepping
Finish Construction Finishing
Matlab/Simulink Block Diagram
Calculate the Power Required
Connect From Motor To Battery
Determine the available Power
20 - Sep - 10
27 - Sep - 10
04 - Oct - 10
11 - Oct - 10
18 - Oct - 10
25 - Oct - 10
01 - Nov - 10
08 - Nov - 10
15 - Nov - 10
22 - Nov - 10
29 - Nov - 10
06 - Dec - 10
13 - Dec - 10
20 - Dec - 10
27 - Dec - 10
03 - Jan - 11
10 - Jan - 11
17 - Jan - 11
24 - Jan - 11
GANTT CHART
31 - Jan - 11
07 - Feb - 11
14 - Feb - 11
21 - Feb - 11
28 - Feb - 11
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
07 - Mar - 11
14 - Mar - 11
21 - Mar - 11
28 - Mar - 11
04 - Apr - 11
11 - Apr - 11
18 - Apr - 11
25 - Apr - 11
02 - May - 11
09 - May - 11

33. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FUTURE STEPS TO TAKE
 Model Simulation in Simulink
 Circuit Simulation in PSpice
 Ordering Parts
 Construction
 Testing
 Competing in Shell’s Eco-Marathon Challenge On
April 14th 2011!

34. CONCLUSION
The final product will be a vehicle
power train that will be safe,
lightweight, cost-effective, and meet
the requirements to compete in the
Shell Eco-Marathon Challenge 2011
in Houston, Texas

35. Questions?

36. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
PROJECT CASHFLOW ANALYSIS
MONTHS
 Sponsorship 3
 Drexel
 Donations
8
 Parts/Supplies
0 1 2 4 5 6 7
 Parts
 Maintenance