FINAL PRESENTATION Western Michigan University Advisors: Dr. Alamgir Choudhury Dr. Jorge Rodriguez 4/20/17
Introductions Luis Matthew Adam Andrew
Problem Statement Project Objectives Design & FEA Analysis Drawings Components Test Data Compared to Analysis Cost Analysis Lessons Learned Conclusions
Problem Statement Lower center of mass Reduce amount of hoses/tubes Completely balanced bicycle Components can’t interfere with rider Reduce amount of hoses/tubes Better weight distribution Safety
Objectives Design a safe, low-cost, and energy efficient human powered hydraulic vehicle Develop an environmentally friendly alternative mode of transportation Meet all criteria and rules specified by the NFPA Compete in the national design competition Optimize vehicle performance in all three categories of the competition
Design Process
Design & Analysis - Frame Load: 160 lb (rider) Load: 100 misc lbf (components) Constraints: 4 locations (dropouts) Max VM: 8446.37 psi Max disp: 0.038 in Safety Factor of 4
Design & Analysis - Top bracket Load: 100 misc lbf (components) Constraints: 6 fixed edges (holes of brackets) Max VM: 175.195 psi Max disp: 0.03019 in
Design & Analysis - Pump / Motor Motor Brace Max VM: 464.492 psi Max disp: 1.162*e-04 in Pump Brace Max VM: 769.223 psi Max disp: 1.470*e-04 in
Design & Analysis - Hydraulic Circuit
Manifold Implementation Centralizes all flow control devices in the system Reduces the amount of hoses and fittings, making the system more compact and lightweight
Design & Analysis - Manifold
Manifold Assembly
Drawings - Accumulator Mount
Drawings - Reservoir Brackets
Drawings - Hydraulic Supports
Drawings - Hub, Motor, & Pump Mounts
Fabricating Drawings
Hydraulic Components 1x Proportional Valve 3x Directional Valves 2x Accumulators 2x Pump/Motors
Efficiency of Pump / Motor
Mechanical Components Front Hub: Shimano Alfine 8 Speed, 1 to 0.527-1.615 Rear Hub: Sram I-3 3 Speed, 1 to 0.73-1.33
Drivetrain
Data Comparison Testing was done on pump and motor Verified the system by using the computer simulation to check the function of the system Then testing the bike in all 4 modes Direct drive, charging, discharging, and brake recharging
Cost Analysis - Prototype 266 parts $6,812 cost worth $1,599 labor cost $360 assembly cost $8,771 total cost $618 spent by 2017 team
Cost Analysis - 500 units
Lessons Learned Develop contingency plans early on Backup suppliers Communication among team members Tubes instead of hoses Protection of electrical components
Results
Conclusions Design is technologically advanced and compact thanks to the manifold Easy to fabricate custom made parts Hydraulics and drivetrain are functional, but electronic sensors don’t work as planned Evenly distributed weight of 224 lbs with fluid
Any Questions?