ASME Report Cover Page & Vehicle Description Form

Human Powered Vehicle Challenge

Competition Location: UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro

http://go.asme.org/HPVC Competition Date: July 27-29, 2018

This required document for all teams is to be incorporated in to your Design & Innovation Reports. Please
Observe Your Due Dates; see the ASME HPVC for due dates.

Vehicle Description

School name: Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University

Vehicle name: Turtle X II

Vehicle number 12

Vehicle configuration

Upright Semi-recumbent X

Prone Other (specify)

Frame material AISI 4130 Steel Annealed at 865 °C

Fairing material(s) Fiberglass

Number of wheels 3

Vehicle Dimensions (please use m, m3, kg)

Length 2.75m Width 1.2m

Height 1.1m Wheelbase 1.41m

Weight Distribution Front 15.2kg Rear 9.8kg

Total Weight 28 kg

Wheel Size Front 24 in Rear 26 in

Frontal area 0.52m2

Steering Front x Rear

Braking Front Rear Both x

Estimated Cd 0.046

Vehicle history (e.g., has it competed before? where? when?) … Turtle X II has registered before at E-
fest East 2018 but emergency conditions in our country prevented us from participating.
 Design of the Human Powered Vehicle
E-Fest South America 2018
By

Faculty Advisor
Dr. Ahmed Farouk AbdelGawad, afaroukgb@gmail.com, +201003619627

Team Leader
Ibrahim Ouf, Ibrahimouf31@gmail.com, +201158772738

Team Members
Ahmed Radwan Chief Engineer, ahmed.radwan1994@gmail.com, +201069434264
Amr Ashraf R&D Leader, Ashrafamr119@yahoo.com, +201273401907
Ahmed Abdel Kareem Technical Coach, ahmedalsawalhy17@gmail.com, +201098031089
Salma Samra Project Manager, salmasamra1996@gmail.com, +201123656528
Abdallah Mosaad Frame Engineer, abdallahmosaad@eng.zu.edu.eg, +201211559211
Ibrahim salah Salem Frame Engineer, ibrahimge7@gmai.com, +201122242820
Tariq Mostafa Alsawy Fairing Engineer, Tariqalsawy7@gmail.com, +201125215851
Ahmed Adel Fairing Engineer, a.ade_96@yahoo.com, +201022416003
Mostafa Negeda Transmission Engineer, mostafa.nigeda@yahoo.com, +201282199697
Mohamed Fikry Transmission Engineer, mohamed_124124@yahoo.comm +201120589907
Reham Ziad Steering Engineer, reham.ziad1995@gmail.com, +201069651117
Ahmed Sayed Managerial Member
Mohamed Gado Managerial Member
Hamdy Sheref Managerial Member
ABSTRACT
Passenger vehicles are a major pollution contributor, producing significant amounts of nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, and other pollution. In 2013, transportation contributed more than
half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons
emitted into our air. The need of a cleaner environment ,sporty people and also reducing the
traffic jam as HPVCs is smaller than cars motivates the ASME student section in Zagazig
University to introduce “Turtle X II”, a human powered vehicle, as a green alternative for inner-
city transportation to reduce air pollution coming from basic passenger “fuel combustion”
vehicles.
To drive the community to use our vehicle we mainly aimed to produce a lightweight, efficient,
safe, aesthetic, cost-effective, easy to use and fix product. These criteria were gathered from
several potential customer surveys. All design decisions, testing, and analyses were conducted
in accordance with the 2017-2018 HPVC South America Rules. Self-imposed team goals were
set to exceed and improve upon these standards, resulting in an innovative and optimized
design. The team also aimed to completely manufacture the product locally in Egypt so
availability of certain materials and parts were highly considered.
The final design of our vehicle achieved the desired attractive tadpole which weighs less than
280 N – with a frame made of AISI 4130 Steel Annealed at 865 °C and fairing with perfect
characteristics of aerodynamics (Cd =0.046 , Af =0.52 m2 ) . It contains also an over-seat steering
system and a 2-stages drivetrain system to encompass all performance events at competition.
Design considerations were taken by making proper analysis and testing of frame and fairing on
Solidworks 2016 and Ansys 16 with the priorities of speed, reliability, practicality, and
aerodynamics and our analysis emphasized the safety of the driver in case of different accident
situations.
Contents
Chapter (1) THE DESIGN
1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Prior Work............................................................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Frame Design ........................................................................................................................................ 8
1.5.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.5.2 Frame Concept Development and Selection ................................................................................ 9
1.5.3 Specifications of frame .................................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Ergonomics Design ............................................................................................................................. 10
1.7 Fairing Design ..................................................................................................................................... 11
1.7.1 Design criteria .............................................................................................................................. 11
1.7.2 Alternatives and Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 11
1.7.3 Final fairing Description .............................................................................................................. 13
1.7.4 Improving visibility ...................................................................................................................... 13
1.7.5 Entry and Exit............................................................................................................................... 13
1.7.6 Ventilation ................................................................................................................................... 14
1.8 Steering Design ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.8.1 Design Steps................................................................................................................................. 15
1.9.1 Approach & Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 18
1.10 Brake Design ..................................................................................................................................... 19
1.10.1 Objectives & Criteria ................................................................................................................. 19
1.10.2 Alternative & Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 19
1.10.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter (2) THE ANALYSIS
2.1 Rollover Protection System (RPS) ...................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Structural Analytical Calculations ...................................................................................................... 21
2.2.1 Analysis Case Definition .............................................................................................................. 21
2.2.2 Results.......................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Aerodynamics Analysis....................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.1 Initial Simulation ......................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.2 Model 1 final simulation ............................................................................................................. 24
2.3.3 Ventilation analysis ..................................................................................................................... 25
2.4 Drivetrain Calculations ....................................................................................................................... 26
2.5 Cost Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 26
2.5.1 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 26
2.5.2 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 26
2.5.3 Results.......................................................................................................................................... 27
2.5.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 27
2.6 Product Life Cycle Energy / CO2 Analyses .......................................................................................... 28
Chapter (3) TESTING
3.1 Ergonomic Testing .............................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.1 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.2 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 29
3.1.3 Results.......................................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 29

Table of Figures
Figure 1 HPV 2017/2018 Organizational Timeline ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 Frame Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 Seat Configuration........................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4 Fairing Models .............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5 Fairing Final Model ....................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6 Fairing Visibility ............................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 7 Fairing Entry & Exit ....................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8 Fairing Ventilation Determination............................................................................................... 14
Figure 9 Steering Software Model ............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 10 Steering Cad Model .................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11 Double Chain System ................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 12 Jack Shaft .................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13 The applied loads and constrains to the meshed geometry of the frame ............................... 21
Figure 14 FOS values distribution across the model geometry ............................................................... 22
Figure 15 Structure deformation values acrossthe model geometry ....................................................... 22
Figure 16 Model 1 Initial mesh .................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 17 Model 2 Initial mesh .................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 18 Model 1 refined mesh ................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 19 Model 1 Final Simulation ........................................................................................................... 24
Figure 20 Inlet flow in ventilation.............................................................................................................. 25
Figure 21 Outlet flow in ventilation........................................................................................................... 25
Figure 22 Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 23 Ergonomic Testing ...................................................................................................................... 29
Table of Tables
Table 1 Frame Decision Matrix .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2 Specifications of frame .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4 Males 99thdimension ................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3 Ergonomics angels ......................................................................................................................... 10
Table 5 Fairing Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 11
Table 6 Fairing Stability .............................................................................................................................. 12
Table 7 Fairing Aero Properties ................................................................................................................. 12
Table 8 Fairing Models Decision Matrix .................................................................................................... 12
Table 9 Steering system selection ............................................................................................................. 15
Table 10 Drivetrain System Alternatives Decision Matrix ........................................................................ 18
Table 11 Brake System Decision Matrix .................................................................................................... 19
Table 12 Disc Material Selection................................................................................................................ 19
Table 13 RPS Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 14 The Critical points and the Modifications in structure .............................................................. 22
Table 15 Stage 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 17 Total Gear ratio ........................................................................................................................... 26
Table 18 Important values ......................................................................................................................... 26
 Chapter 1: The Design
1.1 Objectives
The main goal of Turtle X II is to be a practical alternative green transportation inside
the city. Key factors as safety, aesthetics, cost, top speed and performance were
considered in this order due to our customer segmentation.
Team members for the Turtle X II were divided into five sub teams – frame, fairing,
transmission, steering and suspension, and innovations – which all worked towards
this common goal. Each sub team also established individual goals, which were focused
on reducing the weight of the vehicle instead of the heavy last year one, improving
aerodynamics by changing the fairing shape and optimizing the design. In particular,
the team focused on new manufacturing techniques so that the vehicle can be shipped
easily and as cheap as the team can.

1.2 Background
The team’s participation last year in ASME E-Fest East 2017 benefits us a lot as we
learned from this experience. When we decided to repeat this experience again, we
firstly searched carefully our previous participation to determine the Strengths and
weaknesses (mistakes) in the design and manufacturing to improve all of these. We
also researched other teams and gained a better approach to the competition. Our
main reference was the ASME HPVC Rules from where we based our design
approaches to pass the static and dynamic tests. From several surveys, we concluded
that the looks of the vehicle weigh more than other aspects as cost, top speed and
space consumption (volume) so we tried to balance between aesthetics we are looking
for and the performance of the vehicle. After researching several appealing fairings, we
reached a suitable configuration that would give us high aerodynamics properties to
reach the required speed and also the fairing’s geometry and shape for aesthetics so
we matched it to our configuration. We started then to set our seat configurations on
male (95th percentile) and female (5th percentile) drivers from anthropometric data to
achieve comfort. Configuration calculations and design assumptions were based on
several references including “Vehicle Dynamics: Theory and Application, Reza N.Jazar”,
“Brake design and safety, Rudolf Limpert” and “Machine Design, RS Khurmi”.
1.3 Prior Work
We participated in the last year competition and we have developed the design and
made a completely new one this year.
From the previous year design the frame was heavy and the total weight was 52 kg,
steering was under seat u-bar mechanism, and coefficient of drag was 0.26. We have
developed this year and made the frame lighter that is why the total weight became
28 kg instead of 52, we have chosen the over seat steering mechanism and reduced
the drag coefficient to 0.046.
Last year our main goal was the aesthetics, we designed it to attract people and to be
used in our daily lives, this year our main goal is the performance and efficiency of the
vehicle. We tried to solve the problems that faced us last year and avoided them
regarding the manufacturing process.
Every design aspect as the approach, material selection, manufacture process are new
and completed in the current academic year and we haven’t taken anything from last
year design (we made a completely new one different from last year).
1.4 Organizational Plan

Figure 1 HPV 2017/2018 Organizational Timeline

1.5 Frame Design
The main objective was reaching the proper geometry that will fit the selected fairing and
accomplish the general design goals as well as achieving our specific goals in reducing
costs and negative impact on the environment during production, making the weight as
light as we can and ensuring the rider’s comfort with suitable ergonomics.

The frame is the main part of the entire vehicle, so its design was very critical, starting
with its layout, a two-suitable structural-members-configurations have been made,
combined with the prior frame, the three frames have been considered for the HPV
chassis, for making the best decision a proper decision-matrix has been developed for
them.

Figure 2 represents the two frames with the RPS attached as following:

Frame Model 1 Frame Model 2 Final Frame Model

Figure 2 Frame Alternatives

1.5.1 Design Criteria

a) First of all, the frame must be designed to ensure the safety of the rider by maintaining
its rigidity (within reasonable deformation) under all expected driving conditions.
b) Weight, efficient design, so that it functions with the less volume of joined parts having
specific density.
c) Cost, it should be made with less cost as much as possible without compromising its
functionality.
d) Mass Production, ability for mass-production by selecting commercially available
uniform cross section structural members and sheet metal parts, and avoiding time
consuming machining processes as much as possible.
e) Adapting to surrounding physical characteristics and various road conditions and
speeds.
1.5.2 Frame Concept Development and Selection
Model 1 Model 2 Final Model
Structural Integrity (IF=3)
Stability 2 1 3
Flexing 2 2 2
Durability 1 1 2
Environmental
Adaptiveness
Manufacturability (IF=3)
Components 2 2 3
Ease of fabrication 2 1 3
Assembly 3 3 3
Cost 2 2 3
Performance and Ergonomics (IF=4)
Position Comfort 3 4 3
Power 4 2 4
Weight Distribution 2 1 4
Entering/Exiting 3 2 4
Safety(IF=5)
Harness Support 4 3 5
RPS System 5 3 4
Visibility 5 5 4
Integratability (IF=5)
Seat 4 3 5
Steering 3 5 5
Fairing 2 5 4
Drivetrain 4 3 4
Total 53 48 65
IF: Importance Factor Table 1 Frame Decision Matrix

From the decision matrix, it is obvious that the model 3 (the final model) is the most convenient
design according to the requirements, however, there is still room for further improvement
regarding the overall dimensions and seat configuration angles.

1.5.3 Specifications of frame

Total weight 11 kg
Max. height 110 cm
Max. length 275 cm
Track width (L) 105 cm
Wheelbase (W) 141 cm
W/L 1.34

Table 2 Specifications of frame

1.6 Ergonomics Design
The chassis layout and hence its frame and other components are mainly based on the
human ergonomics, so high attention has been paid for them in order to achieve a better
combination of Position, Comfort, Entering, Exiting, controls, weight distribution, and of
course, the human body configurations for high power. So, the proper anthropometric data
has been employed in addition to adjusting suitable Sitting Configurations.
Figure 3 demonstrates the Sitting Configurations and anatomic dimensions that considered
for the design.

Figure 3 Seat Configuration

All vehicle subsystems were taken into consideration to prevent any conflict may occur
with the pedals. After many trials the position of the pedals was chosen according to the
following angles:

Angel Value (deg.)

Seat tube angle 45◦
Maximum hip angle 127◦ Dimensions Value (cm)
Sitting Height 85
Minimum hip angle 72◦
Buttock to Knee Length 45
Maximum knee angle 151◦ Lower Leg 50
Minimum knee angle 65◦ Table 4 Males 99𝑡ℎ dimension

Table 3 Ergonomics angels

1.7 Fairing Design
The objective of the fairing is to reduce the drag force at relatively high speeds, protect
the driver from weather conditions, being relatively comfortable for the diver and give
aesthetic looking for the vehicle. However, the weight of the fairing must be considered
as well.

1.7.1 Design criteria

Goal Motivation Current

Weight less than 15 Kg Improving performance 12 Kg
Drag coefficient less than Enhanced Aerodynamics 0.032
0.2
Visibility Rules 180 deg
Parcel size Rules 30x33x20 Cm

Table 5 Fairing Design Criteria

1.7.2 Alternatives and Evaluation

Talking about model Selection, this year we had two suggested fairing designs to choose
from so the following data will illustrate the specifications that our team took into
consideration in choosing.

Model 1 Model 2

Figure 4 Fairing Models

1) Weight
The body fits the chassis in a slim way; it does not have any excess space or parts.
Moreover, big windshield covering the body made from Acrylic, which is lighter than
fiberglass-polyester matrix. This is a win-win situation, reducing the mass and improving
the visibility.
 2) Stability

Wheels will be outside the body. This will result in a steeper front as well
Model 1 as giving more freedom to the steering team to increase both the track
width and steering angle if needed.
Designed to have the wheels inside the body. This will increase the
Model 2 frontal area that first penetrates the air. Moreover, it will limit the track
width.
Table 6 Fairing Stability

3) Aerodynamics
Using CFD technique, both bodies were tested under exactly the same conditions at
speed of 45 Km/h utilizing ANSYS Fluent as a solver. The results were:

Frontal Area Effective Drag Drag

(m2) Coefficient (CD A) Force (N)
Model 1 0.52 0.032 2.6
Model 2 0.55 0.046 3.85
Table 7 Fairing Aero Properties

Both satisfies our considerations and requirements. To decide which design we will
manufacture, we made a decision matrix having weight as the most impactful factor.

Model 1 Model 2

Impact factor

Weight 3 3 2
Stability 2 4 2
Aerodynamics 1 3 2
Comfort 2 2 4
Aesthetics 1 3 2
Manufacturability 2 3 2
TOTAL 33 26

Table 8 Fairing Models Decision Matrix

1.7.3 Final fairing Description
Model 1 was selected to be this year’s fairing. The
design has been modified to, enclose the pedal and
leg and its motion, be more comfortable, having
more storage and reducing the length. The nose
area is increased but it still aerodynamically
efficient. And it has a new look too!

Figure 5 Fairing Final Model

1.7.4 Improving visibility

Windshield design was modified so the driver has more visibility to sides of the vehicle.

a) Before b) After

Figure 6 Fairing Visibility

1.7.5 Entry and Exit

The fairing is decided to be split near the driver so that this split body will be used as the
entry and exit of the vehicle. We split the body mainly to consider the overseat steering.
When the driver enters or exits the vehicle, disturbing by the steering arm and the chassis
should be eliminated. Moreover, the split part can be separated from the vehicle in the
endurance test to reduce the weight of the vehicle.

Figure 7 Fairing Entry & Exit

1.7.6 Ventilation
We simply need air inlet and outlet so we picked their place using the CFD simulation results
as a guide.
Using the static pressure contours and velocity stream lines on the body, we can observe
where the air pressure will be high and low as shown in Figure 8.

a) Static pressure contours

b) Velocity streamlines
Figure 8 Fairing Ventilation Determination

Inlet will be placed in the high air pressure area, so the air will enter the body and outlet
will be placed in the low-pressure area, so the air will be sucked to the outside.
The air will always stagnate as shown in fig (a) in the front of the body so we will place our
inlet there. The air has the highest speed at the side turning points as shown in fig (b) so it
will have the lowest static pressure and this is where we will place our outlet vents.

1.8 Steering Design

Our design objective was to provide a comfortable ride in presence of good stability and
maneuverability without an excessive motion to allow the vehicle to follow the desired
course. The main design challenge was integrability and compatibility with other systems.

The steering mechanism consists of dual drag link attached to the steering wheel through
a universal joint to transmit the rotational movement to the plan of the steering
trapezoidal. The bell crank attached to the drag link is designed to have the same height
as the control arms to achieve better Ackerman compensation. The Ackerman condition is
achieved by making the extension of the control arms intersect in the center of the back
wheel. Steering trapezoidal represents the Ackerman geometry which provides a
comfortable ride in presence of good stability and maneuverability to allow the vehicle to
follow the desired course without excessive motion or skidding.
2.8.1 Design Steps

1. Choosing system with defined configuration

The main considerations for this step: choosing comfortable system for the rider,
feasibility for manufacturing and the most important thing is to have integrability
with the other systems.

This year we choose over seat steering as it has high integrability with chassis
design and transmission system. It also has lower frontal area than other system
providing improved aerodynamics characteristics.

Last year This year

System configuration Under seat steering
System objectives 1.Compatibility with
transmission pedals
2.Provide comfortable ride
Pros 1.easier to use
2.provide supports for arms
cons 1.place hands dangerously
close to the ground
2. increase frontal area
Over seat steering
1.compatibility with fairing
and transmission
2. lowering frontal area
1.lighter weight
2.allows for narrow wheel
tracks
3.lower frontal area
1.causes arm fatigue

Table 9 Steering system selection

2. Calculations
Calculating maximum inner and outer steer angles and length of steering arm.
Using input data:
-Track width t= 105 cm
-Wheel base L= 141 cm
-Minimum turning radius R = 300 cm
𝐿
𝛿𝑜 (𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒) = tan−1 ( ) = 21.8
𝑅 + 𝑡⁄2
𝐿
𝛿𝑖 (𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒) = tan−1 ( ) = 29.67
𝑅 − 𝑡⁄2
Then determining the value of d (steering arm length) using steering mechanism implicit
equation: (substituting with the initial condition where: ( 𝛿𝑜 = 𝛿𝑖 = 0)

sin(𝛽 + 𝛿𝑖 ) + sin(𝛽 − 𝛿𝑜 )
𝑡 𝑡
= − √( − 2 sin 𝛽 2 ) − (cos(𝛽 − 𝛿𝑜 ) − cos(𝛽 + 𝛿𝑖 ))^2
𝑑 𝑑

‫[؞‬d= 4.9 cm]

𝑡
As 𝛽 = tan 𝐿 = 36.674 °

3. Checking using software model (wolfram)

To guarantee smooth turning with minimum skidding, Ackerman principle was
applied seeking 100% Ackerman percentage. Modified the value of the length to
d = 10 (referring to the graph results).

Figure 9 Steering Software Model

4. Implementing cad model

Figure 10 Steering Cad Model

1.9 Drivetrain Design
When we firstly decided to make this bike, we want it to be more effective and suits all
roads, so we decided to use Rear Wheel Drive (RWD) over Forward Wheel Drive (FWD)
because:
a- It is better in weight distribution.
b- Better traction when climbing up hills off-road.
c- Overall quality of ride is better with a rear drive.

We used a double chain system with chain tubing and one idler gear. This will divide the
one long chain into two small ones. The selection justifications include:
a- Reduction of the centrifugal force due to the small center distance
b- Reduction of the chain slack
c- Increase in the gear ratio
d- Allow for easier tension adjustment

Several energy recovery systems were considered, such as flywheels, solar panels,
piezoelectric recovery systems to absorb dampening from suspension, and other
regenerative braking systems. At the end, the energy recovery concepts were not used
because the amount of energy provided by any one of them was too small relative to the
weight and/or cost of each system.

1.9.1 Approach & Alternatives

Efficiency Safety Manufacturing Cost Total
Importance 5 4 3 3
Single chain with tubing 3 3 3 3 45
Idler gear drivetrain system 4 3 2 2 44
Double chain system 5 4 2 2 53
Table 10 Drivetrain System Alternatives Decision Matrix

Figure 12 Jack Shaft

Figure 11 Double Chain System

1.10 Brake Design
1.10.1 Objectives & Criteria
a- The system is to be designed to stop the vehicle from top speed in a certain distance.
-Top speed: 45.5 Km/h
-Distance: 200 M
b- The weight of the whole braking system must be less than a certain weight
Max weight: 5 kg
c- Corrosion resistance
The brake shoes” discs” should be corrosion resistant in order to enhance performance
and enlarge the lifetime.
d- Hand lever access
The system must meet the requirements of (easy access to the hand lever of both front
and rear axles, the driver’s hand shall not apply more force than 260 N in extreme Cond)
e- Durability
The shoe's material must meet the following requirements:
1) Maximum tensile strength more than 550 N/mm2.
2) Yield stress more than 170 N/mm2.
3) Hardness ‘’Brinell number” more than 195BHN
4) Thermal expansion coefficient about 16 X 10-6 m/ (m.k)

1.10.2 Alternative & Evaluation

Performance Cost Weight Availability Appearance Score
Importance 5 3 3 5 3
Disc 5 1 2 4 3 63
Drum 2 2 1 3 1 37
Rim 2 3 3 5 2 59
Table 11 Brake System Decision Matrix

cost weight durability availability Score

Importance 5 3 4 5
Aluminum 3 2 2 2 39
Stainless-steel 4 1 3 5 59
Cast iron 5 1 1 3 44
Ceramic 1 3 4 1 35
Table 12 Disc Material Selection

1.10.3 Conclusion
In order to achieve the objectives set as to reduce weight and cost, enhance performance
and durability, make the system simpler for the maintenance and give the better
appearance we chose the disc brakes type. The design objectives are to make a more
durable, light and low-cost discs so it’s recommended to choose a stainless-steel disc.
 Chapter 2: Analysis
2.1 Rollover Protection System (RPS)
The purpose of the RPS structure is to protect the driver in case of accident or rollover by
absorbing the energy from an impact to minimize the risk of injury, the RPS has been
designed to withstand the pre-defined top and side loads with a limited permanent
deformation according to ASME rules, and the simulation has been performed to ensure
that and the following results have been obtained using SolidWorks 2016 simulation.

Top Load Analysis Side Load Analysis

Objective A load of 2670 N per Side Load: A load of 1330 N per
driver/stoker shall be applied to driver/stoker shall be applied
the top of the roll bar(s), horizontally to the side of the roll
directed downward and acts bar at shoulder height.
(towards the rear of the vehicle)
at an angle of 12° from the
vertical.

Assumptions It is assumed that in the case of It is assumed that in the case of

accident the top load will be accident the side load will be
transferred through the RPS transferred through the RPS
structural members to the frame structural members to the frame
at its fixation with it. at its fixation with it.

Results Max Von Mises Stress =325.6 mpa. Max Von Mises Stress =325.6 mpa.
Max Displacement =8mm Max Displacement =2.2mm
Min Factor of Safety =1.4 Min Factor of Safety =2.3

(Von Mises Stress plot) (Von Mises Stress plot)

Conclusion The geometry of the RPS and the material AISI 4130 Steel, annealed
at 865c, which has a yield stress of 460mpa; Could withstand safely
the applied loads without any plastic deformation in both cases and
the elastic deformation resulted is within the ASME limit.
Table 13 RPS Analysis
2.2 Structural Analytical Calculations
2.2.1 Analysis Case Definition
Validation procedures were performed using the software default parameters by defining
AISI 4130 Steel annealed at 865 °C as the used material, applying the maximum expected
external loads(rider weight of 1200 N, 400 N; braking force of 1200 N due to deceleration
from 35km/hr to 0 in 6m; pedaling force of 400 N per foot; seat back force of 400 N; chain
forces on the power train second stage of 500 N) and constraints to its geometry,
generating finite element analysis the model, and running the study.

Figure 13 The applied loads and constrains to the meshed geometry of the frame

2.2.2 Results
Initially, the results indicated the weakness of the structure with a minimum factor of
safety less than 2 (according to Von Mises yield Criterion), however, due to fatigue
considerations the geometry should be optimized for ensuring higher values of FOS by
supporting several weak regions of the model.
 Critical points Modifications
A stress concentration indicated at the Two sheet metal gussets have been added
intersection of structural members, the to eliminate the stress concentration.
resulted minimum FOS=1.35.

An extensive stress indicated at the intersection of A little curvature has been addedto the cross-
the cross-tube and the main tube, the resulted min tube in additionto adding a sheet metal to
FOS=1.8. reduce the stress value.

Table 14 The Critical points and the Modifications in structure

Finally, after adding the described modifications the minimum FOS has been improved to 4.3
which can be accepted in addition to a maximum deformation of 0.84 mm.

Figure 14 Structure deformation values across the

frame geometry Figure 15 FOS values distribution across
the frame geometry
2.3 Aerodynamics Analysis
Both models were tested under exactly the same conditions with moderate mesh and the
model that achieved better results (model 1) went through separate simulation with
refined mesh to ensure the results were as accurate as possible.
-Simulation is carried out assuming that a steady state and pressure-based study.
-Turbulence modeling is applied by k-ε model, which is suitable for the present
simulation.

2.3.1 Initial Simulation

Figure 16 Model 1 Initial mesh Figure 17 Model 2 Initial mesh

Model 1 was divided into 2.5 Model 2 was divided into 3

million elements to perform million elements. It has more
the simulation on. meshing elements than the
initial mesh of (model1) because
We didn’t refine the mesh next
it has many more curves but the
to the body because it was just
mesh near the vehicle is almost
initial simulation for selecting
the same.
models.
The initial simulation for
The initial simulation for
(Model 2) went through over
(Model 1) went through over
600 iterations using first then
500 iterations using first then
second order pressure,
second order pressure,
momentum and turbulence
momentum and turbulence
spatial discretization that
spatial discretization that
resulted in a
resulted in a
[CdA = 0.046]
[CdA = 0.032]
2.3.2 Model 1 final simulation
(Model 1) was selected as the current year’s fairing. So, to have more accurate result, the
mesh next to the body was refined using “body of influence “sizing method. It was divided
into 5 million elements and most of them next to the body.

Figure 18 Model 1 refined mesh

The final simulation for (Model 1) went through over 520 iterations using first then second
order pressure, momentum and turbulence spatial discretization that resulted CdA = 0.046.

From velocity streamlines we can observe turbulence of air in the back of the vehicle.
Total pressure distribution is a great tool to observe the severity of pressure drag force.
Fortunately, on this speed the pressure difference between front and back portions of the
vehicle is not massive, thus the drag force is low.

a) Velocity streamlines b) Total pressure (Side view)

Figure 19 Model 1 Final Simulation

2.3.3 Ventilation analysis
To test the ventilation, another separate simulation is performed using ANSYS Fluent on a
mesh of 2.2 million elements. The total CdA = 0.049 it increased slightly from the case of no
vents.
Velocity of the air is concluded from the results as both quantity and vectors. Velocity
vectors are important to visualize the air flow direction in or out of the vehicle.

Inlet

Figure 20 Inlet flow in ventilation

We can observe the air enters the vehicle in moderate speed as it diffuses through the duct,
but it falls down the vehicle, so we still need a small duct to direct the flow the driver.

Outlet
Air flow is sucked out the vehicle through the air outlet duct as desired. However we may
add another vents under the driver to make sure the air will not accumulate in the vehicle

Figure 21 Outlet flow in ventilation

2.4 Drivetrain Calculations
The front crankset utilizes a 52 tooth sprocket which connects directly with a 21 tooth
sprocket on the first side of the jack shaft. The shaft is used to divide our drivetrain
system into two stages. In the second side of the shaft, a 28 tooth sprocket is connected
to a 5-speed system with (11,13,15,19,21) tooth sprockets to perform in different
conditions.

Crankset Sprocket Gear Ratio Usable Gears Gear Ratio

52/21,28/11 6.3026
52 21 2.4761
52/21,28/13 5.3330
52/21,28/15 4.6218
Table 15 Stage 1
52/21,28/19 3.6487
52/21,28/21 3.3013
Sprocket Cassette Gear Ratio
Table 17 Total Gear ratio

11 2.5454 Criteria Value

13 2.1538
Drag Force 4.7 N
28
15 1.8666
Rolling Resistance 4.3 N
19 1.4736
Max. Velocity 47.5 Km/h
21 1.3333

Table 16 Stage 2 Table 18 Important values

2.5 Cost Analysis

2.5.1 Objective
The analysis was conducted to demonstrate budget distribution so we can seek further
iterations to reduce the production cost.
2.5.2 Method
Dividing the production process into three categories (Manufacturing, Purchasing, Tools
and Tooling) and documented the contribution of each subsystem in the following
categories.
2.5.3 Results

MANUFACTURING TOOLING
Frame Fairing Brake Drivetrain Suspension Steering Fairing Frame Suspension Steering

%11 %%
52
%12
%17 %38

%9
%5 %81
%20

PURCHASE Category
Frame Fairing Brake
Drivetrain Suspension Steering

%11
%19
%15

%15 %30

%10

Manufacturing Purchase Tools & Tooling Logisitcs

Figure 22 Cost Analysis

2.5.4 Conclusion
There is a high investment in the production of the fairing, which meets our desired
design outcomes of great aesthetics. In addition, there is proper investing in the material
of the chassis and supports to ensure safety in different situations.
Further recommendations will be reducing the fairing cost by researching different
manufacturing method.
2.6 Product Life Cycle Energy / CO2 Analyses

When comparing the efficiency of the team’s Human Powered Vehicle to everyday
systems of transportation, it can be determined that a Human Powered Vehicle is the
most efficient. Like an upright bike, the Human Powered Vehicle uses the potential
energy in the body, which is produced from the chemical process that occurs when
humans consume nutrients. Upon completion of this chemical process, potential energy
is converted into kinetic energy when a team member pushes on the vehicle's pedals.
An upright bike uses approximately 80 % to 90 % of the energy provided to push the
bike forward .
The team estimated that this year’s HPV uses closer to 95 % of the energy produced.
The team’s vehicle is more efficient than an upright bike because when the resistant
forces of the pedals were measured and recorded, the team found the HPV to have a
less significant loss in energy by comparison. It should be noted that the excess
potential energy in both an upright bike and the team’s HPV is converted to thermal
energy and friction. When the vehicle was compared to an average consumer car, the
team found that the car is significantly less efficient. Cars uses gasoline to kick start a
chemical reaction that moves the pistons in the engine block, which creates torque at
the wheels. By moving through a complicated system of pipes and wires, the potential
energy attributed to gasoline in the car can only convert 14 to 30 percent of its
potential energy to kinetic energy.
The CO2 generated by a HPV is also significantly less than a car, this is because the CO2
created by the vehicle is solely dependent on the human pushing the pedals. According
to studies an average active human exhales three liters of gas with every breath, and
only 5% of the gas we exhale is CO2 . When riding a HPV , the rider will exhale
approximately 40 or 50 breaths per minute, which means the net CO2 exhaled per
minute could be anywhere between 6.75 and 7.5 Liters. When one gallon of E10
gasoline (10 percent fuel ethanol by volume) is burned in a car, 17.5 pounds of CO2 is
created. At normal city speeds of 35 mph, a car will burn 0.01667 gallons per minute
that results in 72 L of CO2 per minute of driving. The driver and passengers are also
breathing during this time, so, while they exert less than a biker breathing moderately
heavy during exercise, it can be found that net CO2 emissions are still 72 L per minute
plus the 2.5 L from each passenger. This is more than ten times greater CO2 footprint
than HPV with its rider. To emphasize reducing the CO2 footprint , the team will try to
utilize any unused materials to design vehicles in the coming years , reuse unused parts
from previous vehicles and minimize waste materials during the building process.
 Chapter 3: Testing

Testing phase has just started but we were not able to document early enough. During the
inspection, we will provide details of every test done and its result.
Below is the ergonomic test shown with figures.

3.1 Ergonomic Testing

3.1.1 Objective
To ensure drivers comfort and seat configurations plus assuring that the RPS is covering
the driver from the top and side.
3.1.2 Method
Full scale (1:1) frame and ergonomic features were manufactured from wood and laser
cutting.
3.1.3 Results

Figure 23 Ergonomic Testing

3.1.4 Conclusion
- The RPS limits the steering bar angles and must be adjust.
- The Pedal is adjusted well.
- Seating angle is comfortable yet can be changed to increase vision.
- The RPS covers the driver from above and from his side to ensure safety.

3.2 RPS & Performance Testing (Will be illustrated in the presentation as required).
References
[1] Whitman, Alexander S. A systematic approach to human powered vehicle design with an
emphasis on providing guidelines for mentoring students. Diss. Clemson University, 2016.
[2] Shigley, Joseph Edward. Shigley's mechanical engineering design. Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, 2011.
[3] Groover, Mikell P. Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials processes, and
systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[4] Mallick, Pankar K. Fiber-reinforced composites: materials, manufacturing, and
design. CRC press, 2007.
[5] Figliola, Richard S., and Donald Beasley. Theory and design for mechanical measurements.
John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
[6] Jazar, Reza N. Vehicle dynamics: theory and application. Springer, 2017.
[7] Hibbeler, R. C. Mechanics of Materials, 8th Edition, Prentice Hall (2011).
[8] www.nasa.gov
[9] http://www.solidworks.com
[10] http://www.ansys.com/Products/Fluids/ANSYS-Fluent
[11] Apurv Keshav Kedia, "Design of Fairing for Human Powered Vehicles Considering
Aerodynamics & Aesthetics", Bachelor Thesis, pp. 1-21, 2014
[12] Alexander S. Whitman. Asystematic Approach to Human Powered Vehicle Design with an
Emphasis on Providing Guidlines for Mentoring Students. All Theses. Paper 2379. pp. 81-87,
2016
[13] Ahmed Farouk AbdelGawad, Tariq Mostafa Al-Sawy. "Computational Investigation of the
Aerodynamics of Formula One Car Model", Conference Paper, 2017.
[14] F. R. Bailey, and H. D. Simon, “Future Directions in Computing and CFD”, AIAA Paper 92-
2734, 1992.
[15] H. Taeyoung, V. Sumantran, C. Harris, T. Kuzmanov, M. Huebler, and T. Zak, “Flow-field
Simulations of Three Simplified Vehicle Shapes and Comparisons with Experimental
Measurements”, SAE Transactions, Vol. 106, pp. 820-835, 1996.
[16] US Energy Information Administration.
[17] US Department of Transportation.