Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Senior Project1presentation


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Senior Project1presentation

  1. 1. Single Rider Human Powered Vehicle <br />Senior Project 1 Presentation<br />
  2. 2. Design and construct, <br /> respective of constraints,<br /> a single-rider recumbent fully faired human<br /> powered vehicle. <br />Compete and win the 2010 ASME East Human Powered Vehicle Challenge. <br />Objective<br />
  3. 3. Matthew Wright <br />Team Manager/Seating Position/Steering<br />James VanBiervliet<br />Frame<br />Dante Mucaro<br />Drivetrain/Frame Integrations<br />Rich Nelson<br />Fairing <br />Advisor: Dr. Lisa Grega<br />Co-Advisors: Dr. Norman Asper<br /> Dr. Manish Paliwal<br />Team Members<br />
  4. 4. 2010 ASME East Human Powered Vehicle Challenge<br />“to provide an opportunity for engineering students to demonstrate application of sound engineering design principles toward the development of efficient, sustainable, and practical human-powered vehicles” <br />May 7-9, 2010<br />Central Connecticut State University<br />
  5. 5. 2010 ASME East Human Powered Vehicle Challenge<br />Design Event<br />Submission of design report and presentation<br />Drag Event<br />Double elimination tournament<br />.6-.8 km track<br />Endurance Event<br />2 ½ hours<br />Multiple Drivers<br />
  6. 6. Design ConstraintsGoals<br />Roll Bar Loading<br />Top: 600 lb<br />Side: 300 lb<br />Turning Radius: 25 ft<br />Braking Distance (15 mph-0 mph): 20 ft<br />Incorporate Shoulder Harness<br />Top Speed in Drag Competition: 50 mph<br />Endurance Average Speed: 30 mph<br />
  7. 7. Project Management<br />Matthew Wright<br />
  8. 8. Ensure that the project team completes the task at hand<br />Develop the plan with the team and manages the team’s performance of tasks<br />Make sure the project is delivered in budget, on schedule, and is practical <br />Project Management<br />
  9. 9. Google Calendar<br />Coordinate schedules for meetings<br />Inform team members of project deadlines<br />Project Management<br />
  10. 10. Dropbox<br />Online file storage service<br />All team members and advisors<br />Project website<br /><br />Enable public to be informed and track progress of the project<br />Project Management<br />
  11. 11. Project Management<br />
  12. 12. Rider Position & Steering System<br />Matthew Wright<br />
  13. 13. Be secured safely within the vehicle<br />Comfortable<br />Provide power to the crank<br />Rider Position<br />
  14. 14. Rider Position<br />
  15. 15. Rider Position<br />
  16. 16. Above Seat Steering vs. Under Seat Steering<br /> (<br />Steering System<br />
  17. 17. Above seat steering system chosen<br />Head tube too far away from rider for standard straight bicycle handlebars<br />Solid bent handlebars (Tiller steering)<br />Universal Joint with steering column to handlebars<br />Enables easy entrance and <br /> exit of vehicle<br />Steering System<br />
  18. 18. Steering System<br />
  19. 19. Frame <br />James VanBiervliet<br />
  20. 20. Withstand a 600 lb top load at a 12 degree angle towards rear of vehicle<br />Support 300 lb loading directly to the side of the vehicle<br />All team members<br />must fit inside<br />Frame - Constraints<br /><br />
  21. 21. Original designs included one under seat support and two converging supports on the side of the seat<br />Pedals were located behind the front wheel <br />Frame - Design<br /><br />
  22. 22. Frame - Design<br />Frame Length: 75 inches<br />Total width: 20 inches<br />Ground clearance: 5 inches<br />
  23. 23. Second frame design incorporated a tub like style<br />Provides anchor points for fairing<br />Used a pedal set above the front wheel to reduce overall length length<br />Frame - Design<br />
  24. 24. Frame - Design<br />Frame Length: 60 inches<br />Ground clearance: 6.4 inches<br />Maximum width: 20 inches<br />
  25. 25. Ultimately chose the second design<br />Kept length to a minimum<br />Provided better support for the fairing<br />Gave driver the most leg room<br />Frame - Design<br />
  26. 26. Needs to be strong and durable<br />Since the goal is speed, lightweight materials are essential<br />Wanted a material that would minimize cost without sacrificing safety<br />Frame - Material Selection<br />
  27. 27. Two materials were considered<br />4130 Normalized Steel (Chromolly)<br />Bamboo Poles<br />4130 Steel was found to be used for frame construction by retailers<br /> Bamboo was found to be used by independent manufacturers<br />Frame – Material Selection<br /><br />
  28. 28. 4130 Steel properties are widely available but little can be found about Bamboo’s properties so tests were done to verify.<br />Frame – Material Selection<br />
  29. 29. Frame – Material Selection<br /><br /><br />
  30. 30. Frame – Material Selection Side Loading<br />4130 Steel<br />Bamboo<br />
  31. 31. Frame – Material Selection Bamboo<br />4130 Steel<br />Bamboo<br />
  32. 32. Frame – Material Selection<br /><br />Bamboo was ultimately chosen based on the significant difference in cost and weight.<br />
  33. 33. Drivetrain& Frame Integrations<br /> Dante Mucaro<br />
  34. 34. Drivetrain Requirements<br />High range of gears for acceleration runs and endurance testing<br />Durable<br />Easily serviced<br />Utilize standard bicycle drivetrain components for cost<br />2 wheel layout<br />Minimize weight<br />
  35. 35. Wheel Choices<br />2 wheeled vehicle<br />Front or rear drive wheel:<br />Image Sourced:<br />Image Sourced:<br />
  36. 36. Wheel selection <br />Rear drive wheel system selected<br />Wheel selection:<br />Maximize acceleration and overall speed<br />20” front wheel<br />Compact<br />Lightweight<br />26” drive wheel<br />Maximize development<br />Adaptable hubs<br />
  37. 37. Drivetrain System Selection<br />Requirements:<br />Wide gear range<br />Durable<br />Inexpensive<br />Adaptable<br />Easily serviced<br />Three options<br />Chain drive<br />Shaft drive<br />Belt drive<br />
  38. 38. Option 1: Chain Drive<br />Crankset<br />crank arms <br />chainrings<br />bottom bracket<br />Cassette<br />Derailleur<br />Cassette<br />Chain<br />Image Sourced:<br />
  39. 39. Option 2: Shaft Drive<br />Bevel gear replaces chainrings<br />Driveshaft replaces chain<br />Rear bevel<br /> gear<br />Hub Gears<br />Screen Capture Source:<br />
  40. 40. Option 3: Belt Drive<br />Single front gear<br />Single rear gear<br />Toothed belt <br /> replaces chain<br />Gearing <br />through <br />hub<br />Image Source:<br />
  41. 41. Decision: Chain Drive<br />Gearing:<br />Top speed and acceleration<br />Many available gears<br />High speed: High front-to-rear ratio<br />Quick start: Low front-to-rear ratio<br />Acceleration: Proper gear ratio spacing<br />
  42. 42. Sprocket options<br />Standard road bike drivetrain<br />Ten speed cassette<br />Two speed crankset<br />Modify to achieve proper gear spacing while getting a higher top gear ratio<br />Use two speed crank<br />Integrate second chain system with a high to low sprocket for higher overall ratios pedal-to-crank<br />20 overall speeds<br />
  43. 43. Layout<br />
  44. 44. Selected Sprockets<br />Front crank chainring: 55T<br />Drive chainring: 40T<br />Driven chainrings: 34/50T<br />Cassette: 11-28T<br />11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 28<br />
  45. 45. Gear ranges<br />Highest overall gear ratio:<br />55T-40T translated to 50T-11T<br />43.5mph at a pedaling rate of 90RPM<br />42.542ft of development/ revolution<br />Drive ratio: 6.25:1<br />Lowest overall gear ratio:<br />55T-40T translated to 34T-28T<br />11.6mph at a pedaling rate of 90RPM<br />11.365ft of development/ revolution<br />Drive ratio: 1.67:1<br />
  46. 46. Braking System<br />15-0 mph braking distance:<br />&lt;20ft<br />Stopping more mass than in typical bicycle application<br />Options<br />Rim Brakes<br />Disc Brakes<br />Hydraulic Disc<br />Mechanical Disc<br />Strong consideration to DH brakes<br />
  47. 47. Brake Selection<br />Mechanical disc brakes<br />Advantages:<br />Provide greater stopping power than most competitively priced rim brakes<br />Much less expensive than hydraulic disc brakes<br />No risk of boiling in high heat applications<br />Can be adapted well to a 26” wheel hub<br />Disadvantages:<br />Front 20” wheel must be custom built with a disc brake compatible hub<br />
  48. 48. Front Crank Arm Design<br />Adjustable for different riders<br />Withstand both torsional and axial cyclic loading with minimal deflection<br />House bottom bracket for crankset<br />House headset for steering system<br />Integrate into bamboo frame<br />Lightweight <br />
  49. 49. Front Crank Adjustable Arm<br />
  50. 50. Goals for Senior Project II<br />Construct adjustable crank arm<br />Determine ideal method to mount drive and driven sprockets beneath rider seat<br />Obtain all necessary drivetrain components<br />Construct custom front wheel<br />Construct chain guides for 55-40T chain extension<br />Develop lightweight kickstand to be integrated into fairing/ tub frame assembly<br />
  51. 51. Aerodynamic Fairing<br />Rich Nelson<br />
  52. 52. Rules<br />Require frontal fairing, tail box, or full fairing<br />Purpose:<br />To Reduce aero dynamic drag<br />When riding over 18 mph, drag accounts for over 80% of the forces acting to slow an unfaired bike. 1<br />Goals<br />Reduce Aerodynamic Drag<br />Fully Encompass Frame and Rider<br />Stiff<br />Light<br />Minimize Cost<br />Aerodynamic Fairing<br />Gross, Albert C., Chester R. Kyle, and Douglas J. Malewiki. Aerodynamics of human-powered land vehicles. Rep. Professional Engineering, 2004.<br />
  53. 53. Composite Sandwich Construction<br />High stiffness-to-weight ratio compared to standard coreless composite laminate 2<br />Acts similarly to an I-beam<br />Aerodynamic Fairing<br />Vinson, Jack R. Behavior of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite materials. Lancaster, Pa: Technomic Pub. Co., 1999.<br />
  54. 54. Common composite Sandwich materials<br />Light Core material<br />Structural Foam<br />Balsa Wood<br />Honeycomb Core<br />Core Mat Laminate Bulker<br />High Strength Composite Skins<br />Fiberglass<br />Carbon Fiber<br />Kevlar<br />Aerodynamic Fairing<br />Composite Skins<br />Core Material<br />
  55. 55. Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  56. 56. Construction of Samples<br />12”x3.5” with positive camber<br />Vacuum Bag Construction<br />Creates strong bond between core and skin<br />Removes excess resin<br />Presses samples onto the form<br />Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  57. 57. Vacuum Bag Layup<br />Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  58. 58. Samples in Vacuum Bag<br />Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br /><ul><li>Untrimmed Completed Samples
  59. 59. Wetted out with epoxy resin.</li></li></ul><li>Samples Tested as simply supported beams<br />Information Recorded<br />Maximum Deflection<br />Maximum Load Supported<br />Weight of Samples<br />Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  60. 60. Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  61. 61. Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  62. 62. Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  63. 63. Conclusions<br />Core<br />¼” Diviney Cell Foam (2x1/8” for tight contoured areas)<br />$50 more expensive Than 1/8” Foam for the whole fairing<br />Held the most weight in all cases<br />22-30% Heavier than 1/8” Foam but 60-77% Stronger<br />Composite<br />Fiberglass<br />held 10-20% less weight than Carbon Fiber<br />~4lb heavier for whole fairing.<br />Able to Deflect 40%-60% more than Carbon Before Breaking<br />2-3 time less expensive then Carbon Fiber<br />Aerodynamic Fairing – Materials Testing<br />
  64. 64. Requirements<br />Streamlined to reduce drag<br />Fully enclose frame<br />Allow for rider’s full range of motion<br />Aerodynamic Fairing - Design<br />
  65. 65. 2-D Sketch of Fairing Design<br />Aerodynamic Fairing - Design<br />
  66. 66. 3-D Model Made from 2-D Sketch<br />Aerodynamic Fairing - Design<br />
  67. 67. Aerodynamic Fairing - Design<br /><ul><li>Designs will be tested using
  68. 68. Computational Fluid Dynamics
  69. 69. Wind Tunnel Testing
  70. 70. Used to analyze
  71. 71. Aerodynamic Drag
  72. 72. Streamlines</li></li></ul><li>Future<br />Fairing design will be finalized<br />Construction on Fairing will begin<br />Methods of attaching the Fairing to frame will be tested<br />Construction of Fairing<br />Vacuum Bag<br />Positive mold<br />Wooden cross sections<br />Foam between the ribbing<br />Hot Wire cutter and sanding to smooth the mold.<br />Aerodynamic Fairing<br />
  73. 73. Sources<br />1: Gross, Albert C., Chester R. Kyle, and Douglas J. Malewiki. Aerodynamics of human-powered land vehicles. Rep. Professional Engineering, 2004.<br />2: Vinson, Jack R. Behavior of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite materials. Lancaster, Pa: Technomic Pub. Co., 1999.<br />4:Gupta, V. B., and V. K. Kothari. Manufactured Fibre Technology. New York: Springer, 1997.  <br />5: &quot; - Fiber Glass Fabrics.&quot; - Carbon fiber and composites for aerospace, wind energy and industrial. Web. 25 Dec. 2009. &lt;;.<br />Aerodynamic Fairing<br />
  74. 74. Frame: $440<br />Drivetrain: $1,785<br />Fairing: $1,535<br />Other: $300<br />-------------------------<br />Total: $4,060<br />Budget<br />
  75. 75. Thank You For Your Time<br />Questions?<br />