Marcus Garza, Sherena Guild, Eric Perkey & Evan Provan

Team 25 MCEN 3025

Final Report 5/4/2017

Table of Contents

I. Introduction…………………………………………………………….......3

II. Vehicle Design……………………………………………………………....4

III. Vehicle Analysis…………………………………………………………….8

IV. Fabrication………………………………………………………………...11

V. Vehicle Testing and Results………………………………………………13

VI. Design Iteration……………………………………………………….…..15

VII. Runoff Results/Lessons Learned………………………………………...15

VIII. Bill of Materials…………………………………………………………...16

IX. References………………………………………………………………....18

Appendix A: Engineering Calculations 19

Appendix B : Conceptual/Engineering Drawings 30

Appendix C: Vehicle Assemblies 35

2
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

I. Introduction
a. Purpose of Project

The main purpose of the project is to design and create a drill powered vehicle which will
complete a maneuverability challenge. The vehicle must adhere to all rules, regulations, and
constraints specified in the project rubric. This project is relevant to the engineering curriculum
because it requires students to learn and apply the design process for creating new products while
designing their vehicle. It is necessary to combine both standard parts as well as effectively
designed and manufactured custom components to produce a successful vehicle. This will
require the application of engineering skills learned in class, as well as skills acquired throughout
the undergraduate engineering curriculum so far. This project will also necessitate effective
teamwork to manifest designs into reality.

b. Summary of project objectives

For the vehicle to compete in the race, some requirements must be met. The primary
requirements are: the vehicle, without the driver, must weigh less than 50lb, the total budget
must be less than $200, and at least one custom component must be utilized in the final design
that is integral to the vehicle’s functioning. The $200 budget is calculated only from the parts
present on the vehicle during run off. Because a lightweight and inexpensive design has the best
chance of success in the race, these two factors will be considered while the vehicle is designed
and manufactured.

The main objectives, necessitated by the maneuverability challenge itself, is to have a vehicle
with a reliable drivetrain as well as a tight and stable turning radius. Without these two factors,
the vehicle will be unable to complete the course successfully. These design choices are explored
further in later sections of this document.

c. Motivation behind design

In the initial stages of the design process, the obstacles present in the maneuverability course
influenced many design choices. Creating a vehicle with the primary objective of completing the
maneuverability challenge made effective steering the top priority to accommodate tight turns.
With steering as the main focus, the weight and endurance of the vehicle is less vital to the
design, making gear ratios and drill power less important aspects of the vehicle’s design.

The vehicle must also be able to withstand the weight of the driver, brake, and steer with
stability. Ideally the design will be simple enough to effectively complete all the obstacles

3
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

presented by the maneuverability challenge in addition to being cost effective to manufacture.

All of these objectives will be considered when creating the vehicle, and are discussed
thoroughly in the Vehicle Design section.

II. Vehicle Design

a. Conceptual Designs
i. Summary of Conceptual Designs

During the initial design phase, there were two types of vehicles that were designed to
accomplish all the tasks needed. Figure (B2) depicts a four-wheeled frame, with the driver sitting
toward the back. The design includes a selectively engageable four-wheel steering system. For
example, in a right hand turn the two front wheels would turn left and the rear wheels would turn
right. This would allow the minimum four wheel turning radius for any given turn. The driver
could also disengage the steering when needed using a gear/socket lever system for maximum
stability at speed. This idea was brought to the mentor, Daniel, who gave an alternative design
that would be simpler and easier to manufacture. While this design would be great for all
challenges, the complexity of the design produced more disadvantages than advantages. This
would take a great deal of time to complete and requires too many resources. Learning from this,
the second design in Figure (B1) was chosen.
Sketches
See Appendix B for scanned sketches.

b. Selected Design
i. Overview of design and operation

The final design is essentially a modified tricycle that utilizes a dolly as the frame with the front
steering of a bicycle. Initially the final design utilized a wooden frame with a gearbox attached to
the back. However, speaking to Greg at the machine shop motivated a change to a stronger and
more stable steel frame, and rid the design of wood in all areas except for the seat. The wheels of
the dolly would be removed and replaced with 16 in. bicycle wheels and the drive shaft would be
connected to the drill via a chain drive. Due to the turning difficulties of a direct two-wheel drive
system, one rear wheel will be driven while the other is free spinning. This was accomplished by
welding one wheel to a collar that was fixed to the drive axle, while the other wheel spins freely
on its original bearings as it would on a standard bike. The most important factors of this design
are the length of the wheelbase, which had to be optimized to find a compromise between
stability and turning radius, and the height of the vehicle. This design requires six custom
components, most of which are needed in the drivetrain, including: a sprocket adaptor for the
primary drive axle, steel shaft supports which contain the gearbox along with its axles and
bearings, a drive shaft that integrates with a freehub as well as the drill, another shaft that holds
the idler sprocket and is used to tension the chain, the primary drive axle which connects the two

4
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

wheels to the gearbox via the sprocket adapter, and finally the custom frame that includes the
front bike stem and the welded gearbox shaft supports. All these components can be easily
manufactured using the lathe and mill. The cushioned seat will be made from wood and will sit
parallel to the ground on the dolly. The gearbox will be contained by the seat to keep the rider
safe. The unmodified front brake system from the bike frame will be used as the braking system,
while the rear brake will be modified to actuate the drill. The rear brake will actuate a lever
system, comprised of a T-hinge and an L-bracket, which is integrated into the seat, pulling the
trigger on the drill and powering the vehicle. This design leaves the drill unmodified and
replaceable if the conditions require. This vehicle design was selected because it meets the
requirements, falls within the budget, and is easy to manufacture.

i. Race Course Selection and Rationale

The maneuverability race course was selected for the challenges it presents. The tight turns and
speeds that the vehicle must be capable of require a design that will be simple and stable, while
still allowing maneuverability at various speeds. The main focus of the design will be around the
boxed U-turn challenge. Because the box is only 10 ft. wide, the vehicle must have at the most a
5 ft turning radius, without accounting for the wheel base. When the rear wheelbase is
considered, the turning radius becomes larger and further necessitates the need for a tighter turn
radius through further optimized wheelbase. However, if the focus is only on the turning radius,
the vehicle will not be totally stable.

The slalom cone further complicates the challenge as the vehicle is now also required to make
turns in quick succession, increasing the importance of turning stability. The rationale of a three-
wheeled vehicle was to enable the tightest turning radius. The concern with this tricycle design is
turning the front wheel at speed and causing the vehicle to flip. This problem is further discussed
in the turning radius calculations and was optimized through testing.

Lastly, the vehicle must fit in a 3 ft. 6 in high tunnel, limiting the vehicle’s height. This challenge
only affects how and where the driver sits. The highest point of the vehicle is designed to be
below this requirement. The seat is also designed to be as low as possible, enabling the driver to
sit close to the ground. This lowers the center of gravity, increasing stability.

ii. Description of Materials and Components

The frame is comprised of a modified steel dolly that required removing the exterior finish and
removing the existing wheelbase to accommodate other components. A standard 26 in steel fork
was chosen to provide ample strength for transferring the braking force to the vehicle. Standard
16 and 26 in bike wheels were chosen since they exceed the strength requirements of the forces
expected in the maneuverability course. There are four custom components that are in the

5
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

gearbox of the vehicle. The 32-tooth sprocket adaptor connects to the face of the sprocket via
bolts and has a shoulder extrusion that is used to fix the adapter, and thus the sprocket, to the
drive shaft using dog point set screws. 6061 aluminum alloy was selected for this part due to ease
of manufacturing, as well as retaining a high yield strength which will preventing warping and
failure from the expected torsional forces. The dog point set screws which connect the 32-tooth
adapter to the steel drive shaft are made of 18-8 stainless steel and have an extended tip and
larger surface area to prevent shearing. The drive shaft, penetrated by the dog point set screws
and welded to the drive wheel, is 0.5 in diameter 1566 carbon steel. This was chosen for its high
yield strength at 75,000 psi and provides a satisfactory factory of safety against warping while
under expected loads. The shaft attached to the idler gear, allowing the idler sprocket to spin
freely, is aluminum 6061. A steel freehub is threaded onto the steel drive shaft to allow the
vehicle to move freely without destroying the drill. Steel square tubing is welded to the base of
the dolly that holds the drive shaft and idler gear in place. Steel was chosen for this component
so it could be welded and provide ample strength for the significant forces in the gearbox. The
bearings used for the primary shaft as well as in the gearbox are light duty roller bearings which
are rated for a dynamic loading of 1100 lbs., far more than the vehicle is expected to withstand.
They were also chosen for their ability to self-align and compensate for shaft misalignment.
Finally, the seat was chosen to be made of lightweight, but sturdy wood.

iii. Preliminary SolidWorks Assembly views

(Figure 1: Final Design- steel dolly frame)

6
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure 2: Exploded view of gear box)

c. Design iteration

i. Description of changes made to “Selected Change”

The initial selected design was a wooden frame tricycle. The original intent was that wood would
make the frame simple to manufacture, lightweight, and budget friendly. However, it was
difficult to manufacture the wood/shaft interface, and after advice from Greg in the machine
shop, it was decided to switch to an alternate frame design comprised of metal. This switch led to
the dolly design, due to the prefabricated, durable, and cheap steel. This design iteration changed
the chassis design as well as the integration of some sub systems, but kept most of the big idea
intact. Additionally, the original intent of the design was to utilize a single driven rear axle, but
after the design review it was decided to only have one wheel driven to facilitate steering.

(Figure 3: Preliminary Design Assembly left, alongside Final Design Assembly right)

7
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

III. Vehicle Analysis

a. Critical Components

i. Drive Shaft

The drive shaft is a critical component in this design because of the high shear stress and bending
moment it will be under that may cause the shaft to fail. As well it’s responsible for moving the
vehicle and supporting the weight of the vehicle and the driver. With the current design the shaft
diameter was limited due to the size of the rear bicycle wheels being used. The inner diameter of
these wheels was approximately 0.4 in so the shaft had to be relatively small. The rotary shaft that
was chosen was a 0.5 in diameter 1566 steel rod with a yield strength of 75 ksi. The rod was
turned down to the specified diameters on the ends to fit within the wheels. The rod will have the
sprocket adaptor connected to it via two dog point set screws, these will also be under a large
amount of torsion and the factor of safety was calculated to be 2.81 which is reasonable for the
conditions the vehicle will be under. In regards to the maneuverability challenge the rear shaft had
to be strong enough to support all the forces being endured while also being compact enough to
limit the turning radius. If the shaft was too long the turning radius would drastically increase.
Using the constraints of the dolly width it was decided to use a 24 in stock size shaft. Any longer
would increase the moment and the turning radius to a point of failure.

ii. Front Steering

Steering is the most vital component in terms of completing the maneuverability challenges. A
turning radius of under 5 feet is the largest obstacle, but as well the vehicle must have responsive
steering to maneuver through cones and the steering mechanism is forced to be under 3 feet 6
inches. The front steering of a bicycle is ideal to meet all these constraints and because of its
importance for the obstacles the steering is a critical component. Further analysis of the steering
mechanism will be discussed in the race course constraints.

b. Analytical Methods

i. Front Steering

The front steering is the most vital component to maintaining a maneuverable vehicle. One of the
most challenging tasks is the beat the box challenge because of the 5-foot turning radius
constraint. Analytically using trigonometric ratios, the turning radius can be estimated by
equation A27 in the appendix. This estimation also needs to consider the total radius by adding
half the distance of the rear wheelbase. Another important aspect of the turning radius is the

8
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

distance of the rear wheels to the front wheels. Using MATLAB, the turning radius can be
approximated while varying the wheelbase of the vehicle. If the turning radius is around four feet
for a conservative initial analysis, the vehicle’s initial results should be promising enough until
actual empirical testing. This analysis determined the length of the wheelbase and the front bike
stem was welded at 32 inches to create a tight turning radius.

ii. Primary Shaft

In order to determine the factor of safety of the shaft the stress concentrations due to the shoulder
fillets and the notches within the part must be considered. This can be accomplished by finding
the geometric stress concentration factor and the notch sensitivity. From there the fatigue stress
concentration factor can be used to find the max shear stresses or the max bending moment for
the drive shaft. The factor of safety can then be calculated by dividing the yield strength by the
von mises effective stress. For the elements and forces this vehicle will be under the goal for the
factor of safety is between 2 and 3. Anything lower can be considered too dangerous and a
redesign will be necessary. Similar calculations were made for the sprocket adaptor, but the
forces were less severe because there was no bending and the factor of safety was high enough to
make it less critical.

c. Analysis for Failure of Critical Components

Like the sprocket adaptor the shaft will be

under 295 in*lbs. and will be constrained by
two 18-8 stainless steel dog point screws.
The shaft will have a geometric stress
concentration that will affect the shear
stress (Kts = 3.214 Eqn. A17) and bending
moment (Kt =3.332 Eqn. A26). The notch
sensitivity was calculated to be 0.0128
(A18) which was then used to find the
fatigue stress concentration factor for both
(Kfs =1.0283 Eqn. 1.028; Kf =1.0296 Eqn.
A27). From these calculations, the shoulder fillet of the shaft does very little in creating a stress
concentration at that point. Unlike the sprocket adaptor the shaft is under torsion and has the
weight of the vehicle being supported on it. The total stress will be a combination of axial stress
(458.6 psi Eqn. A24) and a bending moment (14672.32 psi Eqn. A23) and the shear stress from
the torsion is 12019 psi (A21). The max of the forces is found from the found fatigue stress
concentration factors: Max normal stress 16 ksi (Eqn. A28), Max Shear stress of 12.4 ksi (Eqn.
A21). The von mises can then be calculated at 26.7 ksi from equation A29 in the appendix and
yield the factor of safety by dividing the known yield strength of 1566 carbon steel of 75 ksi by

9
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

the von mises to find a factor of safety of 2.81 (A30). These results are within the factor of safety
range and can be confirmed by running FEA simulations on the component. The last concern for
this component is whether the set screws holding it in place will shear. There are two dog point
set screws which will alleviate the stresses by halving the force and quartering the resulting shear
stress; the force will be 590 lbf (Eqn. A31) instead of 1180 lbf and the shear stress will be 15.4
ksi (Eqn. A32) instead of the massive 60 ksi that would’ve been on one set screw. The factor of
safety against shear failure can then be calculated by first finding the shear yield strength which
is 0.577 times the yield strength and is 43.3 ksi which yields a factor of safety of 2.8 (Eqn. A34).
These results are also within the factor of safety range and indicates the chosen set screws are
large enough and won’t shear due to the torque. An FEA simulation on the rotary shaft with the
given torque and weight yielded a von mises of approximately 34 ksi which reinforces the
calculations with around a factor of safety of 2.

d. Race Course Constraints

The lower speeds required to navigate the maneuverability course impacted the sprocket adaptor
design. To achieve a manageable speed for the maneuverability obstacles the rpm output by the
drill must be geared to a much slower speed. Because adaptor was to be driving the vehicle at
approximately 5 mph with about a 200 lb load, the components will be subjected to larger torque
than the free spinning drill without a load. This had to be considered in the design of the sprocket
adaptors to ensure they would be able to withstand the torques applied to them and can drive the
vehicle. Hand calculations were used to determine that the torque applied to each component was
not of serious concern, making it possible to use aluminum instead of steel to make the parts
easily machinable.

The steering was additionally impacted by the constraints of the maneuverability course. The 5-
ft. turning radius for the box challenge determined the head tube angle of the bike fork due to the
turning radius’ reliance on the wheelbase by using the trig relation Eq. A31 from the appendix.
Using MATLAB simulations, the optimal head tube angle was found to be 65-70 degrees with a
wheelbase of 34-36 inches for achieving the turning radius needed to navigate the box turn.
These calculations can be seen in the appendix and in figure A5. The angle of the head tube
impacts the height of the vehicle, which is further limited by the 3ft 6in constraint of the tunnel
obstacle in the course. With a 26 in tire on the front fork however the vehicle should meet this
height requirement with a total height of 3ft.

10
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

IV. Fabrication
a. Fabrication
To fabricate the vehicle, pre-manufactured parts were
combined with 6 custom machined components through
welding, bolts, and press fits.

b. Custom Components
i. Shaft Supports (Figure 4)
The Shaft Supports are steel square tubing welded and
support the axles in the gearbox. These components are Figure 4: Shaft Support Drawing
made of 1”x1”x”0.120” square tubing that was cut to
10”. Slots created through milling guide the gear
tensioner axle. A large hole to mount the flange bearing
for the drive shaft was milled. Additional holes were
drilled to bolt the bearings in place.

ii. 32 Tooth Sprocket Adaptor (Figure 5)

The outer diameter of the 32-tooth sprocket adaptor and
the shoulder was turned down to size from stock. The
center hole and the 6 bolt holes were drilled using a
program. Holes for dog set screws were drilled with the Figure 5: Sprocket Adaptor
mill, and all holes were threaded using a manual tap. Drawing

iii. Primary Shaft (Figure 6)

Since the stock shaft was ½” O.D., only the two ends of
the rod were turned down as specified in the drawings. A
center was used to stabilize the rod during this process.
Then, the mill was used to drill two holes for the dog set
screws so the 32-tooth sprocket adapter could mate with
this drive shaft. Figure 6: Primary Shaft Drawing

iv. Drive Shaft (Figure 7)

The lathe was used to turn down a stock piece of aluminum
to the specifications in the drawing. As shown in the
drawing, one end was threaded using a lathe so the shaft
could be screwed onto the sprocket.

11
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

v. Gear Tensioner Axle (Figure 7)

The lathe was used to turn down stock material to specified Figure 7: Drive Shaft Drawing
dimension.
vi. Chassis (Figure 8)
The stock dolly was modified with the manufactured shaft
supports as well as the standard bike front fork through
welding. The frame was also re-welded to enhance strength
at critical junctions.

Figure 7: Gear Tensioner Axle

c. Standard Parts
Drawing
Table 1: Standard Parts on Vehicle

Figure 8: Chassis Drawing

d. Alterations

The drive shaft was changed throughout the design process. Initially the intent was to weld the
steel drive shaft directly to the two rear wheels. However, it was later discovered that to
accomplish the desired maneuverability, one wheel would need to spin freely. One side of the
shaft was threaded to allow for the wheel’s ball bearings to spin. A collar was welded to the
drive wheel and fixed it to the primary drive shaft. An additional issue that appeared in the drive
shaft assembly was the threads were misaligned during the manufacturing process. This made it
very difficult to thread nuts past a certain point and caused severe deformation. This issue was
addressed by redesigning the shaft to the specifications shown above in Figure 7. This redesign is
discussed in further detail in the “Design iteration after testing” section later in this report.

12
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

V. Vehicle Testing and Results

a. Test Plan
Empirical
i. Drill Speed Test

The gear train sub-assemblies responsible for moving the vehicle are paramount to having a
functioning drill powered vehicle. Things to be considered are the output speed of the drill, the
output speed on the drive axle, and the effect of weight on the output speed of both. The driver
must be on the vehicle to record the final speed. This can be tested by measuring a distance and
record the time it takes to reach full speed. After numerous trials, the mean output speed can be
calculated and equation A6 in the appendix calculates the rpm output on the drive axle. Using
equation A5 the rpm input from the drill can be calculated from the known gear ratio.

ii. Turning Radius Test

The importance of a small turning radius is this project’s goal and will also need to be tested.
However, because this design has one fixed wheel and one free spinning rear wheel, the turning
radius will change depending on what direction it’s being steered. This must be considered while
determining the max turning radius, because the beat the box challenge requires to steer in both
directions. Turning the vehicle to the left will be harder than turning to the right with a left fixed
wheel. Using consistent drill actuation and consistent steering angle in each test the vehicle will
turn 180 degrees. The diameter is calculated by measuring the distance of the start and end points
of the outside rear wheel. After several tests a mean turning radius can be concluded. Altering
the speed of the drill and the degree of the steering angle can also be tested to conclude the
optimum steering angle and speed to turn under a 5-foot turning radius. The accuracy of the
results will be compared to the calculations in the appendix.

iii. Tunnel Clearance Test

Another obstacle that constrains the design of the vehicle is the 42” tunnel challenge. An
experiment will be conducted to evaluate the capabilities of the vehicle and rider to clear the
tunnel. In this test the tunnel height will be varied using a measuring tape to measure certain
heights and a yardstick to mark the height horizontally in the air. The driver will attempt to drive
the vehicle under the yardstick at decreasing heights until the height is too short to fit under. This
will help to determine how close the vehicle and driver will be to meeting the tunnel height
requirements for the runoff.
b. Testing Results
i. Drill actuation test

13
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

These results in table 2 indicate that the desired speeds will be met and that the actual drill rpm
output is quite less than the no-load speed of the drill. These results indicate that the during the
runoff the driver can vary drill actuation and still receive a desirable speed without tipping.

ii. Turning Radius Test

The resulting values of the turning radius test are shown in Table 3. Figure A5 in the Appendix
compares to the results for right hand and left hand turns to the runoff box diameter. The data
shows that as the steering angle increases, the turning diameter decreases at an exponential rate.
Further discussion can be read in the design iteration testing section.

Table 2: Vehicle Speed vs. Drill Actuation

Table 3: Turn Diameter vs Steering Angle

iii. Tunnel Clearance Test

The results from the Tunnel Clearance Test

have been recorded in Table 4. The results
show that the minimum tunnel height that both
the vehicle and driver can fit under is 37”.
These results show that the rider and vehicle
can safely clear the 42” runoff requirement
with up 5” to spare. Table 4: Vehicle Tunnel Clearance

14
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

VI. Design Iteration After Testing

After the initial testing, a couple adjustments had to be made. The most prominent was the
alteration of the drive shaft. The original drive shaft that was used during the testing process
involved turning a 0.5-inch section of the shaft down to a 0.39 in diameter. During
manufacturing, the threads of this portion of the shaft were misaligned, making it impossible to
thread the fastener nut for the wheel past a certain point. This caused the free spinning rear wheel
nut to not be flush against the bearings. This, in combination with the length of the small
diameter in the shaft produced an area of very high stress During testing the threaded portion of
the shaft bent under the passenger load and the torque output by the drill. After testing it became
clear that the drive shaft would have to be redesigned. The new design, displayed in Figure 7,
minimized the length of the small diameter. It was also threaded correctly, allowing for the nuts
to screw into the thread with ease.

Another change that was made after testing was the addition of a trigger mechanism. During
testing the rider used their hand to pull the trigger of the drill to drive the vehicle. It required the
driver to lean back in an awkward position and put their hand near the turning sprockets and
wheels. After testing it was decided the risk of getting hands stuck in spinning components was
too great so a trigger was created to make it safer to drive.

It also became necessary to reduce the force applied to the drive shaft. One way to reduce this
was by changing the setting on the drill. During testing the drill had been run on the slower
speed/higher torque setting. This in combination with design flaws in the drive shaft mentioned
earlier caused the shaft to bend. To decrease the chance of this happening to the improved shaft
design, it was decided to reduce the torque on the shaft from the drill. By changing the setting of
the drill to the higher speed/lower torque option, the factors of safety for many of the parts were
drastically improved, among them being the drive shaft. This alteration put the factor of safety of
the drive shaft from 1.2 to a more idealized 2.8.
VII. Runoff Results and Lessons Learned
a. Runoff Results
The vehicle did as well as expected during the runoff. It completed the course in 37 seconds and
met all requirements specified in the rubric and design. The team took first place in the
maneuverability challenge and second place in aesthetics.
b. Lessons Learned
The runoff reinforced the value of vehicle safety. The design was counted off in judging due to
safety concerns. The height constraint of the tunnel obstacle caused the rider to sit with their legs
down putting their feet near moving parts. While most of the parts were covered, it still would’ve
been possible for the rider to accidentally get caught in one of the sprockets or a wheel if they
turned too sharply. An alternative for riding this vehicle in areas without a height limit is
kneeling on top of the seat. This keeps all appendages safely away from any moving parts.

15
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Future designs should take safety into more careful consideration to improve the vehicle’s
capabilities.
The team learned that it is very beneficial to finish projects well before the deadline. Most the
vehicle was assembled about a week before runoff. However, difficulties were encountered after
testing that required a new drive shaft to be manufactured. Having the vehicle done early allowed
for time to order and make a new one which drastically improved the vehicle’s performance.
Being done in advance also allowed for time to fine tune parts like the trigger and run through
the course a couple times to make sure the vehicle was working before runoff.
This class was also a wakeup call for the team the standards engineers will be held to in senior
design and industry. Initial grades on outline checks were lower than expected. The team had
originally thought they did a nice job on the reports but later realized that engineering requires a
higher quality of work with more calculations, testing, and evidence than originally provided. It
became obvious that spending extra time and detail on the project reports was necessary to be
successful and to the communication of the design.
VII. Bill of Materials
The goal of this vehicle was to be within the $200 budget and at runoff the total cost of the
vehicle was $199 which was under the goal. The largest expense was the drill which cost $47
and the mounted roller bearings that cost $32. These parts were necessary for the design and
were bought at the cheapest vendor and couldn’t be substituted for other cheaper options. Most
of the parts used were either from Home Depot or McMaster Carr and are easily available, the
remaining bike parts were provided at the DIDL or already possessed.

16
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Table 5: Final Bill of Materials

17
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

IX. References

● https://grabcad.com/library/20-bicycle-wheel-1
● https://grabcad.com/library/makita-cordless-drill

18
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Appendix A: Engineering Calculations

A1 Drill Output Calculations

Motor Performance:
Drill Specifications:
Max Power UWO = 300;
No Load Speed 0 – 450 RPM 1500 RPM max;

Torque Calculations:

(A1)
Speed and Torque Curves:

(Figure A1)
Optimal Motor RPM:

19
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(A2)

(A3)

Calculated Gear Ratios:

Calculated using the smallest and largest sprockets of a drive train, a 32 tooth and tooth
sprockets.

(A4)
Calculated Optimal Output Speed:
Optimal speed calculated using gear ratio and the rear wheel diameter of the vehicle

(A5)

(A6)

Component Failure Calculations

With components under constant torsion due to the drill, it’s imperative to determine whether
the components will deform or fail due to the stresses involved. To do this, there must be
several factors accounted for including the notch sensitivity and the theoretical/fatigue stress
concentration factors.

20
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Correction Coefficients : Aluminum Alloy 6061

Used to calculate corrected fatigue limit, later used for factor of safety calculations for all three
components

(A7)

A3 Large Sprocket Adaptor Calculations:

Nominal Shear Stress:

T = 295 in*Ibs
r = Radius
J = polar area moment of Inertia
Polar Area Moment of Inertia:

(A8)

(A9)

21
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Max Shear Stress Calculations:

Theoretical stress-concentration factor ( ):
Geometric Stress- Concentration Factor for a shaft w/ a Shoulder Fillet in Torsion

(Figure A2: Geometric Stress Concentration for a shaft w/shoulder fillet in Torsion)

Interpolation for constants A and b from Figure A3:

(A10)
Notch Sensitivity:

22
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(A11)
Fatigue Stress-Concentration factor ( ): Using Notch sensitivity Eqn. A11 and geometric stress
concentration factor Eqn. A10

(A12)
Max Stress Concentration: Using Fatigue stress concentration factor from Eqn. A25

(A13)
Von Mises Effective Stress:

(A14)
Factor of Safety: Using corrected fatigue limit Eqn. A7 and von mises Eqn. A28

(A15)
Angular Deflection:

(A16)

A3 Rotary Shaft Calculations:

Utilizing Figure A2:

Interpolation for constants A and b from Figure A3:

Geometric Shear Stress Concentration factor:

(A17)

23
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Notch Sensitivity:

(A18)
Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor:

(A19)

(A20)

(A21)
Max Moment:

(A22)
Bending Moment:

(A23)
Axial Stress:

(A24)
Total stress:

(A25)

24
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure A3: Geometric stress-concentration factor for a shaft with shoulder fillet in Bending)

Interpolation to solve for constants A and b:

Geometric Stress Concentration factor:

(A26)

Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor:

(A27)

25
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(A28)
Von Mises Effective Stress:

(A29)
Factor of Safety:

(A30)
Half Dog Point Set Screw Calculations:

(A31)

(A32)

(A33)

(A34)

A4 Turning Radius Calculations:

(A35)
r=turning radius (ft)
w=wheelbase (ft)
𝜃= steering angle (deg)

26
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure A4: Graph displaying the turning radius vs. Steering angle by varying head tube angle)

Testing Results

(Figure A5: Graph displaying turning diameter vs steering angle)

27
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

A5 FEA Results

(Figure A10: Von Mises Effective Stress of large sprocket adaptor(psi))

(Figure A11: Displacement of large sprocket adaptor (in): front )

28
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure A12: Displacement of large sprocket adaptor (in):back)

(Figure A13: Von Mises stress on drive shaft)

29
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Appendix B: Drawings
Initial Concept Sketches:Vehicle

(Figure B1: Initial concept of three wheeled vehicle with go kart steering)

30
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure B2: Initial concept of 4 wheel steering and engagement of all wheels)

(Figure B3: Rough sketches of a wooden designed chassis)

31
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Engineering Drawings: Custom Components

(Figure B4: Large 32 tooth sprocket adaptor)

(Figure B5: Shaft Supports)

32
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure B6:13 tooth adaptor)

(Figure B7: Drive Shaft)

33
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure B8: Drive Shaft with threaded hub)

(Figure B9: Dolly Frame Assembly)

34
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

Appendix C: Vehicle Assembly

Initial Concept Assembly:

(Figure C1: Initial concept-wooden frame)

Final Design Assembly:

(Figure C2: Gearbox Assembly)

35
Team 25 MCEN 3025
Final Report 5/4/2017

(Figure C3: Exploded view of final design)

(Figure C4: Exploded View of Gearbox)

36