Senior Project1presentation


Published on

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

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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 />