ASME Report Cover Page & Vehicle Description

Form
Human Powered Vehicle Challenge
Competition Location: VIT, Vellore
Competition Date: February 1-3, 2019

This required document for all teams is to be incorporated in to your Design Report.

Please Observe Your Due Dates; see the ASME HPVC website and rules for due dates.

Vehicle Description
School name: Thakur College of Engineering & Technology, Mumbai
Vehicle name: Philip

Vehicle number: 9

Vehicle configuration:

Upright Semi-recumbent _X_

Prone Other (specify) ______

Frame material: ___AISI 4130___

Fairing material(s): __Lexan Polycarbonate__

Number of wheels: __2__

Vehicle Dimensions (m)

Length: 2.18 m Height: 1.16 m

Width: 0.58 m Wheelbase: 1.18 m

Weight Distribution (kg)

Front: TBD Rear: TBD Total Weight (kg): TBD

Wheel Size (m)

Front: 0.5080 m Rear: 0.6604 m

Frontal area (m2): 0.301 m2

Steering (Front or Rear): __Front__ Braking (Front, Rear, or Both): __Both__

Estimated Coefficient of Drag: 0.59

Vehicle history (e.g., has it competed before? where? when?):

Philip has been manufactured and tested exclusively to compete in ASME HPVC Asia Pacific-2019.
The vehicle has never competed in any competition before.
 Design Report
Team Photon
Thakur College of Engineering & Technology

Team Photon
Presents

“Philip”
Vehicle number – 09
Team Advisor
Prof. Mahendra Shelar
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
mahendra.tcet@gmail.com

Team Members
Kalpesh Maurya (Captain) Ashfaque Khan (Vice Captain)
mauryakalpesh98@gmail.com ashfaquekhan07@gmail.com

Mir Shabahat Vishal Tiwari Kashyap Desai

Shivani Velapure Yash Kulkarni Vaibhav Rane
Ayush Yadav Vishal Pandav Kapil Shah
Rounak Munoyat Vikrant Pal Shubham Mishra
Aditya More Nitish Singh Akshat Sanghvi
Anuj Rawool Tejas Sharma Abhinav Rai
Jatin Sharma Aditya Chauhan Suryapratap Singh
Ruchi Pourana Sumedh Hatiskar Aahana Tiwari
Four View Drawing of Vehicle
Abstract

The road to success is paved with mistakes but never regret. We as a team have learned from
every decision, action and result that we have made in the last two years, which helped
conceive this year’s vehicle "Philip”. This year we went to the basics and designed a vehicle,
which could hold up to the objectives we had in mind when we first entered this competition.
The design has drawn inspiration from our personal experience of travelling on Indian roads
and being privy to Indian climate.
Philip is an FWD semi-recumbent bike with a short wheelbase and all of these characteristics
were selected after conducting meticulous research and deliberations on even the most trivial
aspects of the vehicle. Philip has a partial fairing instead of a full one.
Therefore, for ease of machinability, structural integrity, economic viability and
recommendation of the judges of the last year’s competition AISI 4130 was selected as the
frame material.
We decided to go with FWD drive train configuration to reduce drive train power loses and
transmission complexity which accompany a long drivetrain.
The vehicle was designed to accommodate the varying physique of our riders, which was
accomplished collecting anthropometric data of all of our riders and verifying it during
developmental testing using a physical wooden model representing our vehicle. The model
was also used to determine optimum positions of the handle, lower bracket. The seat was
designed for rider comfort and dexterity, which was accomplished by providing the upper
body with appropriate supports at various points.
Philip due to the combination of these feature shows immense promise and we firmly believe
all of our hard work will come to fruition in this year's competition.

i
Table of Contents

1 Design.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Objectives................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Background Research.............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Prior work................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Organizational timeline ........................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Design Specifications .............................................................................................................. 3
1.5.1 Design Constraints .......................................................................................................... 3
1.5.2 House of Quality.............................................................................................................. 4
1.6 Concept Development and Evaluation ................................................................................... 5
1.6.1 Vehicle Configuration...................................................................................................... 5
1.6.2 Material Selection ........................................................................................................... 6
1.6.3 Drive Train ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.6.4 Main Braking Options ..................................................................................................... 7
1.6.5 Seat Material ................................................................................................................... 7
1.6.6 Fairing Configuration....................................................................................................... 8
1.6.7 Fairing material ............................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Vehicle Description ................................................................................................................. 9
1.7.1 Frame .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.7.2 Roll Over Protection System ......................................................................................... 10
1.7.3 Drive train ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.7.4 Seat ............................................................................................................................... 10
1.7.5 Fairing............................................................................................................................ 10
1.7.6 Other Components........................................................................................................ 11
2 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Roll Over Protection System Analysis ................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Top Load Analysis .......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Side Load Analysis ......................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Structural analysis ................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Body Weight Analysis .................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2 Seat mounts Analysis .................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Bottom Bracket Analysis ............................................................................................... 15
2.2.4 Bump Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Aerodynamic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 18

ii
 2.4 Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Other Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Centre of Mass Analysis ................................................................................................ 19
2.5.2 Turning Radius Analysis................................................................................................. 20
3 Testing ........................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Developmental Testing ......................................................................................................... 21
3.1.1 Anthropometrics and Ergonomics ................................................................................ 21
3.1.2 Drive train configuration testing ................................................................................... 23
3.1.3 Roll over Protection Development Testing ................................................................... 24
3.1.4 Seat Development Test ................................................................................................. 24
4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Comparison ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 26

iii
1 Design

1.1 Objectives
Team Photon’s Philip has been designed and developed keeping the following goals in mind-

‘To develop an efficient and economically feasible vehicle, which can be used as a viable
transportation alternative to automobiles and at the same time provide all team members
with hands on experience of all applicable engineering principles in real life projects.’

Specific Design Objectives:

• To build a vehicle, which can be used to comfortably travel sizeable distances with
minimum effort from the rider.

• Develop a design that is suitable for the humid, warm climate of Mumbai and most of
Southern India.

• To strike a balance between speed, weight and maneuverability of the vehicle such
that it becomes a viable option for intra-city transportation.

• Develop an aesthetically appealing vehicle which is economically affordable at the

same time to render it marketable.

1.2 Background Research

Our primary aim, this year, was to start on a solid footing and to complete all the prerequisites
of designing a vehicle to avoid being backed into a corner at any point during the actual
fabrication process. Team initiated research by reviewing the team’s previous designs which
was followed by a meeting with previous members to gain an insight into the critical factors
to adhere to while designing and fabricating the vehicle.

To accomplish the objective of designing a sustainable and comfortable vehicle the team went
through the basics of bicycle design, sifted through abundant information on all aspects of
the topic, and found Mark Archibald’s Design of Human Powered Vehicles and David Gordon
Wilsons’ Bicycling Science more pertinent to our overall goals. We also used jetrike.com for
guidance regarding ergonomics.

A localized research was carried out by the team members on college campus to understand
the basic consumer demands and requirements from a recumbent cycle since it is not a
mainstream phenomenon here.

A group of members carried out the material study and review of general materials used in
the HPV fabrication process. Our faculty adviser, Mr. Mahendra Shelar, being well versed in
the field of materials provided us with valuable assistance in the process. Dedicated forums
for material science like azom.com were found helpful to review and evaluate the relative
pros and cons of shortlisted materials. Also, the previous material selection decision of our
team and other teams was reviewed to understand the selection criterion.

1
An observational study was carried out to understand the transportation conditions in the
city, road conditions and preferred choice of mode of transportation of a general commuter
under different scenarios. Also, a note was made of the climatic conditions around the year.
The observations helped the team to set design goals which are explained later.

Availability of the reviewed materials and correspondingly required fabrication and

processing facilities was checked by carrying out market survey. This helped the team later to
select the most suitable material which could help accomplish the objective of designing an
economically feasible vehicle. Various vehicle configurations were reviewed on
recumbents.com to understand their relative pros and cons. The study of aerodynamic
devices was carried out referring to the published materials and the aforementioned forums.

1.3 Prior work

Prior to the start of the 2018-2019 academic year, there was no design, fabrication, or testing
completed on the current vehicle. The team’s design of previous years was reviewed to
analyze the general flaws but since due to drastic change in current vehicle design
configuration and materials, no previous data or component was feasible to be incorporated
in the current design.

1.4 Organizational timeline

To complete the vehicle design, analysis, fabrication and testing of the vehicle at the earliest
adhering to the competition and personal. In order to accomplish this, the team planned and
prepared a work timeline taking into consideration various factors such as examination period
of members, the competition deadlines, and amount of work to be done. The schedule is
being updated on a weekly basis at team meetings to take into consideration the work
progress and delays. The Gantt Chart displayed below represents the planned work timeline
of the team with every activity until the competition.

Figure 1.1: Organizational Timeline

2
1.5 Design Specifications

1.5.1 Design Constraints

During the design development phase, the design criteria and constraints set up by ASME
were strictly taken into consideration and are tabulated for better refence as follows:

ASME HPVC Design Constraints

• The vehicle travelling at a speed of 25 km/hr must come to a

stop within a distance of 6 m.

• Maximum turning radius of the vehicle should be 8 m

Performance Safety
• Stability of vehicle at a speed of 5 to 8 km/hr in a straight line
for at least 30 m.

Braking Safety Requirement • Use of properly designed front brakes at least.

General

• Absorbing sufficient energy due to impact in case of accident

without failure of the RPS.
• Prevent body contact from the ground in event of an accident.

Roll over protection

Load Cases

• Deformation allowance has to be not more than 5.1 cm on

application of 2670 N of top load at an angle of 12ᵒ from the
vertical.
• Deformation allowance has to be not more than 3.8 cm on
application 1330 N of side load.

Safety Harness • Use of 4- or 5-point safety harness attached to the RPS.

Table 1.1: Design constraints as imposed by ASME

In addition to these constraints, the team found it crucial to set up a few constraints for
ourselves in order to manufacture a vehicle that is capable to fulfill its objectives.

3
 Team Design Constraints

Parameters Rationale

Minimum Vehicle Weight Maintaining minimum weight of the vehicle in order to achieve maximum
speed and proper vehicle stability.

Maintaining minimum To achieve a minimum turning radius of 4m the wheelbase has to be kept
wheelbase of 45 inches as short as possible.

Efficient and reliable To settle upon a drive train which requires less starting torque and also
drivetrain offers a comfortable and effortless ride for different terrain conditions.

Considering the presence of other vehicles, the field of view should be

At least 180ᵒ unrestricted
kept as wide as possible to ensure proper view at any instant for road
field of view for the rider.
conditions and nearby vehicles.

To ensure safe and comfortable rider seating and position for a long-
Ergonomic rider positioning
distance travel.

Braking distance within 5m To ensure proper installation and efficient working of breaks, especially
from a speed of 25 km/hr. considering the urban road scenarios.

Streamlined frame layout To enhance the aerodynamic performance of the vehicle.

Manufacture the vehicle To make the vehicle an affordable alternative for the consumer.
within a budget of ₹50,000

To improve low light riding experience and enhance the visibility of vehicle
Provision and isolation of
on roads. The electrical circuits should be isolated from the rider to avoid
electrical peripheral
any accidents.

Provision of a carriage To comply with the day-to-day luggage transportation needs.

carrying a maximum load of
10 Kg.

Table 1.2: Design constraints as imposed by the team

1.5.2 House of Quality

The use of a Quality Deployment Matrix was made in order to refer the correlation between
the needs of the customer and the functional requirements of the vehicle taking the
technical aspects into consideration.

4
 Figure 1.2: House of Quality

1.6 Concept Development and Evaluation

The team had many alternate concepts at hand to select from during the initial design
phase, so, in order to make effective decisions keeping in mind the established design goals,
the team therefore made use of Decision matrices for the same. Each matrix consisted of
the relevant criteria weighted on the basis of their importance pertaining to our objectives.
The possible scores for each criterion ranged from 1 being the least desirable to 5 being the
most desirable. The option which scored the highest is highlighted and implemented in the
design.

1.6.1 Vehicle Configuration

The frame is an important part of the vehicle and was designed by keeping safety of rider and
comfort in mind. Weight and performance were emphasized on to optimize racing
performance.

5
 Weight 2 Wheels 3 Wheels

Criteria Upright Prone Recumbent Delta Tadpole

Safety (3) 3 2 3 4 4

Riders comfort (3) 2 1 4 4 4

Complexity (1) 4 2 3 2 2

Performance (2) 3 3 4 4 4

Weight (2) 4 4 4 2 2

Cost (1) 3 3 3 2 2

Total 36 28 43 40 40

Table 1.3: Decision matrix for vehicle configuration

While the delta and tadpole designs provide much better safety, as a two-wheel recumbent
is better in overall comparison of performance, weight, was hence chosen.

1.6.2 Material Selection

Material selection is a key part for the success of any HPV. While the material might have the
best properties, it will not perform properly if the machining is poor. The material for Philip
was selected on the basis of machinability as the primary objective along with cost and
availability.

Criteria Weight Aluminum 6061 T6 Steel AISI 4130 Carbon Fibre

Machinability (3) 4 5 2

Weight Density (2) 4 2 5

Cost (3) 3 4 2

Strength to (2) 3 4 5
Weight ratio

Availability (2) 4 5 2

Total 43 49 36

Table 1.4: Decision matrix for selection of frame material

Three materials were shortlisted. The machinability and availability of AISI 4130 was better
than the other two materials. According to the overall scoring criteria of the decision matrix,
AISI 4130 was selected to manufacture Phillip.

6
1.6.3 Drive Train
To make a short wheelbase possible the bottom bracket had to be shifted in front of the front
wheel. The criteria for choosing this option was maintenance, cost and a minimum chance of
failure.

Criteria Weight Front Wheel Drive Rear wheel drive

Complexity (3) 3 4

Weight (2) 4 3

Chances of error (2) 4 3

Maintenance (2) 3 3

Cost (1) 4 3

Total 35 33

Table 1.5: Decision matrix for selection of drive train

1.6.4 Main Braking Options

Braking options considered were drum, disc and rim brakes. Among these, disc brakes will be
used based on their performance and overall scores in the decision matrix. Mechanical
configuration was selected for the disc brakes based on cost and performance.

Criteria Weight Drum Disc Rim Mechanical Hydraulic

Cost (3) 4 3 4 4 3

Weight (2) 3 4 4 4 3

Performance (3) 2 5 3 3 4

Maintenance (2) 4 4 4 4 2

Total 32 40 37 37 31

Table 1.6: Decision matrix for selection of method of braking

1.6.5 Seat Material

The seat should have minimum weight to reduce the overall weight of the vehicle but at the
same time it should be strong enough to provide support to the rider. The three materials
short listed for seat manufacturing are carbon fibre, fibreglass and aluminum.

7
 Criteria Weight Carbon fibre Fibre Glass Aluminum sheet

Weight (3) 4 3 2

Strength (3) 4 3 3

Availability (2) 2 4 4

Cost (2) 2 4 4

Total 32 34 31

Table 1.7: Decision matrix for selection of seat material

1.6.6 Fairing Configuration

The main expectations from fairing is that it should provide aerodynamic advantage to the
vehicle while weighing as less as possible. The team wanted to incorporate an aerodynamic
device but at the same time cut down the ingress/egress time from the vehicle. Considering
the climatic condition of the city for which the vehicle is designed combined with the above
conditions made it evident that a partial fairing is the most suitable option.

Criteria Weight No fairing Partial Fairing Full fairing

Aerodynamics (3) 2 4 5

Weight (2) 5 4 3

Visibility (2) 5 4 3

Ease of ingress (1) 4 3 2

Rider’s comfort (2) 4 4 2

Total 38 39 33

Table 1.8: Decision matrix for fairing configuration

1.6.7 Fairing material

The weight of the fairing is clearly a property of the material chosen. The material used in
the fairing was expected to be as light in weight as possible along with it being economic for
manufacturing the same.

Lexan
Criteria Weight Carbon Fibre Fibre glass
Polycarbonate

Field of vision (3) 3 3 5

Cost (2) 3 4 5

Availability (2) 3 4 4

8
 Manufacturability (1) 2 2 3

Total 23 27 36

Table 1.9: Decision matrix for fairing material

Due to low cost and the ease in manufacturing, Lexan polycarbonate was finalized as the
material for the fairing.

1.7 Vehicle Description

The vehicle was designed in view of the choices made in the above-mentioned Pugh’s
selection method. Our vehicle is a two-wheeled, FWD, Semi-Recumbent HPV with a short
wheelbase. Our design is pivoted around rider comfort, safety and synergy with the vehicle,
which will be accomplished by collecting and analyzing anthropometric data of our riders and
thus determining optimum posture and position of the rider for a comfortable riding
experience. Hence, the aforementioned design parameters were researched and selected to
facilitate easy maneuverability, unobstructed field of vision and efficient pedaling. We have
designed a vehicle, which will perform well and be viable for the unpredictable, treacherous
roads and climate of an urban Indian city.

Figure 1.3: Team Photon’s Phillip

1.7.1 Frame
The final frame is designed for two-wheeled, FWD, Semi-Recumbent HPV with a short
wheelbase. The whole structure was made using square tubes of AISI 4130 Steel. While
designing the frame, detailed research was conducted to select the frame geometry.
Anthropometric data of the riders was collected and the optimum values were selected using
developmental testing. Square tube of the mentioned material are used to construct the
frame, the reason being the ease of manufacturability pertaining with square tubes. An Initial
2-D layout was prepared on SolidWorks (Refer appendix 2.1) then it was analyzed and
discussed within the team and modified accordingly. (Refer appendix 2.2 & 2.3)

9
1.7.2 Roll Over Protection System
The rollover protection system plays an important role in the human-powered vehicle, which
protects the riders' body during an accident. The main objectives of an RPS are:

• To prevent any contact between the rider’s body and the ground.
• To reduce the impact jerk when rollover occurs.
• To reduce abrasion in case of skidding.

Thus, RPS is a very important component of an HPV in terms of safety. RPS is generally
integrated with the frame of the HPV to provide it with proper support. The RPS was designed
according to the constraints set by ASME HPVC. To make the RPS safer and reliable we
prepared several designs and the best one was selected after numerous tests and analysis.
Circular tubes of AISI 4130 were used to construct the roll-bar, the reason being the better
impact load sustainability of the circular tubes. (Refer appendix 2.4)

1.7.3 Drive train

There are several power losses in rear wheel drive recumbents as the power is transferred
from front to rear wheel through several additional
pulleys. Acknowledging this we decided to use a Twist chain FWD mechanism with 54 T
chainring, 7 speed Shimano cassette and two pulleys with outer diameter 4.5 inches (114.3
mm) and 3 inches (76.2 mm). This mechanism provides better power transmission
efficiency. Also, FWDs have many advantages over rear wheel drive in case of recumbents.

Thus, using 54T chainring and 7 speed cassette offers the rider to have a choice from various
gear ratio and rider can manipulate the gear ratio according to the train power usage and
other factor. (Refer appendix 2.5 & 2.6)

1.7.4 Seat
Practicality of an HPV hinges on rider comfort, in lieu of this the seat was designed such that
it would provide adequate support to all the regions of the upper body of the rider without
compromising rider dexterity. To achieve this, a suitable profile was given at appropriate
angles to support the lumbar, lumbar to shoulder region and head of the rider. The widths of
these supporting sections were set such that sufficient support would be provided while
maintaining decent maneuverability. As fibre glass is light weight and has adequte strength,
it will be used for seat fabrication. (Refer appendix 2.7)

1.7.5 Fairing
The fairing was designed with the primary objective of countering the resistive effect of
aerodynamic drag to the vehicle motion. The other considerations while designing fairing
were to provide an effective solution for comfortable ride in monsoon weather conditions
which is a concern in the team’s city of Mumbai and, the other concern was to design a fairing
which would act as a safety component, in the eventuality of head on collision, by absorbing
the impact forces. Hence, to accomplish the aforementioned objectives a partial fairing
configuration was designed for the vehicle in adherence with the aerodynamic principles.

10
Partial fairing configuration was selected and developed to strike a balance in between
aerodynamic capability, minimum fairing weight and the cost. Partial fairing design developed
would help to minimize the ingress/egress time which was a desirable feature for day to day
transportation. Lexan Polycarbonate was selected as the fairing material after considering
various factors like availability, cost and ease of processing.

The final fairing design of Philip is shown in the following figure:

Figure 1.4: Lexan Polycarbonate Fairing Model

1.7.6 Other Components

Most of the vehicle components such as fork, fork housing, front and rear axle mounts were
custom fabricated by the team as our design requirements are different and would not have
been compatible with the standard parts available in the market.

In our HPV, we have used a 20 inches front wheel and 26 inches rear wheel. The 26 inches
rear wheel was used so that the ground clearance and center of gravity can be maintained at
the optimum level. The 20 inches front wheel was used to reduce rolling resistance, hill strike
and to improve visibility.

We will also use a speedometer, indicators, rear view mirrors, headlight, tail light, reflectors,
bell, etc. to improve the overall experience and safety.

2 Analysis

2.1 Roll Over Protection System Analysis

As per ASME HPVC rules requirement the RPS was analyzed for top as well as side loading
condition in case of a roll over.

2.1.1 Top Load Analysis

To ensure the safety of the rider in case of roll-over accident involving an
Objectives
inverted vehicle.

11
 RPS was analyzed by applying a load of 2670 N directly above the rider’s
Methodology head directed downward at an angle of 12ᵒ from vertical representing an
accident involving an inverted vehicle.

Harness Attachment points

Figure 2.1: Top Load (Maximum Elastic Deformation) Figure 2.2: Top Load (Load Path)

• The maximum elastic deformation was found to be 0.21 cm which lies

under 5.1 cm.
• There was no permanent deformation and no fracture found on the roll
Results
bar and vehicle.
• In case of roll over, there would be no contact between the head of the
tallest rider and the ground.

2.1.2 Side Load Analysis

To ensure rider safety in case of a roll-over scenario involving an accident in
Objectives
which the vehicle has fallen on its side.

A load of 1330 N was applied at shoulder height simulating a side roll over
Methodology
situation representing an accident involving a vehicle fallen on its side.

12
 Harness Attachment points

Figure 2.3: Side Load (Maximum Elastic Deformation) Figure 2.4: Side Load (Load Path)

• The maximum elastic deformation was formed to be 1.9 cm which is less

than 3.8 cm
• There was no permanent deformation and no fracture was found on the
Results
roll bar and vehicle.
• In case of roll over, there would be no contact between the rider and the
ground.

2.2 Structural analysis

2.2.1 Body Weight Analysis

To calculate the deformation and stress that occur when a rider is sitting on the
Objectives
vehicle without taking any support with ground.

Methodology The analysis was done by simulating the loads on ANSYS.

This test was performed in Ansys by applying a load of 800N(80kg) the weight of our
heaviest rider on the main frame member on which seat is placed.

The load was distributed in following configuration which is based on the distribution on
rider weight in a recumbent position:

1. 75% load on main frame.

2. 25% on the back-rest angle.

13
 Figure 2.5: Body Weight Analysis

Results The maximum elastic deformation was found to be 1.34 mm.

Conclusion:

The vehicle can withstand the weight of heaviest member with a high factor of safety
without going under permanent deformation or fracture.

2.2.2 Seat mounts Analysis

The seat mounts will be subjected to many forces while riding the vehicle. The
objective of this analysis is to check whether the mounts will be able to withstand
the forces acting on them while under maximum possible peddling force-
Objectives
• Case 1 - Normal riding condition
• Case 2 - When a speed bump is encountered

The forces acting on the seat are assumed to be uniformly distributed over its
entire area. The maximum weight of the rider is 80 kg. The maximum pedaling
force is assumed to be half the rider’s weight, that is 392.4 N. the pedaling force
exerted by the rider will act on the bottom bracket at an angle of 45o to the
Methodology horizontal, measured in clockwise direction. This will cause a reaction, which will
be exerted on the seat at an angle of 225o from the horizontal, measured in
anticlockwise direction. It is assumed that 75% of the net force acing on the seat
acts on the bottom of the seat and 25% on the backrest. The load is symmetrically
distributed on the mounts.

1. Case 1

The maximum weight of the rider is 80 kg, therefore a force of 784.8 N will act vertically downwards
under normal riding conditions, taking the value of acceleration due to gravity as 9.81 m/s2. The
resultant force will be the vector addition of the rider’s weight and reaction of pedaling force. Its

14
value is computed and found to be 1097.9 N. It is assumed that 75% of this force acts on the bottom
of the seat and 25% on the backrest. Therefore, 823.4 N acts on the bottom mounts and 274.4 N on
the rear mounts. Since there are 2 bottom mounts and 2 rear mounts. The force acting on each
bottom mount and each rear mount is 411.7 N and 137.2 N, respectively.

2. Case 2

It is assumed that during a bump, the rider exerts a vertically downwards acting 3G force on the
seat, which is 2354.4 N. The resultant of the pedaling reaction force and 3G force is calculated to be
2646.4 N. Forces acting on the bottom portion of the seat and backrest are 1984.8 N and 661.6 N.
Therefore, each bottom mount and each rear mount is subjected to a force of 992.4 N and 330.8 N,
respectively.

Figure 2.6: Seat Mounts Analysis

• The maximum elastic deformation as tested for when a bump is

encountered is 0.065 cm and stress was found to be 49.115 MPa with a
factor of safety of 8.86
• The design was rightly chosen as it showed optimum values of deflection
Results
and a decent FOS.
• Since the structure would survive comparatively larger forces when a
bump is encountered it would also survive the forces during the normal
riding conditions.

2.2.3 Bottom Bracket Analysis

To analyze the structural integrity of bottom bracket when maximum

Objectives
pedaling force is applied on the same.

The analysis of the bottom bracket was conducted by using a simulated pedaling
Methodology
force on ANSYS.

15
The load applied on the bottom bracket is the maximum possible load that is exerted on the pedal
by our heaviest rider. The heaviest rider weighs 80 kg (800 N) and the corresponding stress and
elastic deformation was analyed.

Figure 2.7: Bottom Bracket Analysis

Maximum elastic deformation at the bottom bracket is 0.17 mm with a maximum

Results
stress of 48.78 MPa.

2.2.4 Bump Impact Analysis

To evaluate the structural integrity of the frame under various loading
Objectives conditions i.e. normal riding and extreme load during outlying scenarios,
pilot load and make necessary modifications warranted by the results.

Methodology The analysis of the bump impact was conducted by using a simulated load.

The load applied was the maximum possible load that can be imparted on the vehicle by our
heaviest rider. The heaviest rider of our teams weighs 80kg (800N) and all the static load conditions
were analyzed using that value or its multiple as required by the possible scenario i.e.

1. While traversing a bump (x3 = 2400N).

2. The rider lurching on the vehicle (x2 =1600N).
3. The combination of the other two forces to simulate the case in which the ride lurches on
the seat while traversing a bump (x5 =4000).

16
 Figure 2.8: Bump Analysis while traversing bump (x2)

Figure 2.9: Bump Analysis while traversing bump and lurching of rider (x5)

It was ensured that the structural integrity of the frame is maintained for all the mentioned
scenarios. All these forces were applied on the member under the seat.

• It is observed that the maximum elastic deformation while traversing the

bump is 4.03 mm.
Results • In case of the combined effect of the rider lurching on the vehicle while
traversing a bump the maximum elastic deformation that is analyzed is
6.73 mm.

17
2.3 Aerodynamic Analysis

• To analyze the aerodynamic behavior of vehicle in motion.

Objectives • To determine the drag area of fairing designed.
• To calculate co-efficient of drag.

Aerodynamic behavior of vehicle was determined using Computational Fluid

Methodology
Dynamics by using the ANSYS CFX software.

Various research paper and books were referred to build up a basic model layout according
to our vehicle requirement. According to the research, CAD model of the fairing was
developed. Simulated analysis i.e. computational fluid dynamics was performed on the
model to analyze the aerodynamic behavior of vehicle. Front flow analysis was done using
CFD in Ansys CFX; front flow analysis is used to determine aerodynamic behavior of the
vehicle while it is in motion. The geometry was enclosed according to a suitable dimension
and further it was appropriately meshed. The inlet for air flow was given on one face of the
enclosure while the other face was given as wall condition. The CFD was simulated at
atmospheric temperature (25 degrees Celsius) and at 1 atmospheric pressure

The result obtained from CFD was then interpreted.

Figure 2.10: Path Lines Figure 2.11: Velocity Contours

Results The coefficient of drag was found to be 0.59.

Conclusion:

Although the co efficient of drag was bit more than the expected value but it is within range
to strike a balance between the fairing condition, vehicle design, weight and other factors.

2.4 Cost Analysis

• To reduce the overall cost of the HPV by selecting good source for
Objectives component purchase and cutting cost on unnecessary components.
• To compare with team’s budget constraints.

18
 A list of required components was made. The cost data for various
components were gathered. An excel sheet was made to compare
Methodology component’s cost from various sources. Good quality and budget friendly
sources were chosen. Finally using these cost values, the estimation was
done.

Cost analysis is done to predict an approximate budget for designing and fabrication of an
HPV. In cost analysis the cost of components, outsourced work, safety equipment, etc. are
used to estimate the budget excluding student labor cost. The cost analysis for our design is
presented as follows. (For detailed bill of materials refer to Appendix 2.15)

Part Total Cost

Frame and RPS ₹6240/-

Fairing ₹10500/-

Drive Train ₹9464/-

Steering mechanism ₹700/-

Brakes ₹1694/-

Wheels ₹2400/-

Seat ₹4500/-

Safety ₹6974/-

Electrical Peripherals ₹1075/-

Miscellaneous ₹1540/-

Total ₹45087/-

Table 2.1: Cost Analysis for one vehicle (Excl usive of student labour cost)

The estimated budget was found to be ₹45087/- which is within the team’s
Results budget constraint. The final expense may vary as the fabrication is under
process which would be presented during the design presentation.

2.5 Other Analysis

2.5.1 Centre of Mass Analysis

To locate the center of mass of the vehicle relative to ground and

Objectives
accordingly analyze the vehicle stability.

19
 The anallysis was done on SolidWorks by modelling the full assembly with
Methodology corresponding constraints, material conditions and a block of 80 Kg was
added at the rider’s seating position to simulate static loading condition.

Team’s primary moto while designing was to ensure comfortable yet efficient riding
experience. Hence, it was critical to ensure the design had optimum dynamic stability which
in turn is influenced by the center of mass of vehicle. So, the following analysis was carried
out to determine the position of center of mass of the vehicle and ensuring that it was an
appropriate level adhering to predetermined dynamic stability.

Figure 2.12: Centre of Mass Analysis

• The center of mass was found to be 17.99 inches (0.46 m) relative to

Results the ground and 19.74 inches (0.5 m) from the front axis.
• Vehicle was found to be stable.
2.5.2 Turning Radius Analysis

Objectives To determine minimum turning radius of vehicle.

Formulating trigonometric equations with vehicle design parameters by

Methodology simulating the vehicle position along curved path and hence, determining
the turning radius.

To ensure the turning radius of the vehicle was compliant with the pre-planned design
standards and ASME HPVC’s rules, the following mathematical analysis was carried out of the
design, wherein the instantaneous position of the vehicle along a curved path was used to
formulate trigonometric relations in between design specifications and turning radius which
are elaborated below.

20
 Figure 2.13.1: Vehicle turning radius geometry

Wheel Base, W = 46 inches = 1.1684m

Maximum Possible Steering Angle, α = 30°

Then,
sinα = W/R
i.e., R = W/sinα
R = 1.1684/sin30
R = 2.3368 m.

Figure 2.13.2: Vehicle turning radius geometry

Minimum turning radius is found to be 2.3368 m which satisfies the team’s

Results
pre-planned standard as well as the ASME HPVC’s standard.

3 Testing

3.1 Developmental Testing

3.1.1 Anthropometrics and Ergonomics

To assist the team in design of an ergonomic and comfortable vehicle

which would be suitable for the varying rider height of our team, the
following parameters were determined:
Objectives
• Height of bottom Bracket (BB) from hip joint.
• Horizontal distance of BB from hip joint.
• Optimum Backrest Angle.

To carry out the test a wooden set up was built to simulate the vehicle
Methodology
configuration.

21
To construct the mock-up two hinges were used, one connecting the backrest to the back of
the saddle, to vary the backrest angle and one at the front of the saddle to vary the distance
of the BB. The BB was moved along the length of the inclined plank, which was attached to
the front of seat saddle, and clamped by using two U-clamps. The anthropometric data of all
the riders was measured and noted. The shortest and the tallest riders were made to sit on
the saddle and the BB position which was optimum for both was selected for the final design.
Three values of the backrest angle were tested- 40o, 45o and 55o. Out of these 45⁰ was found
to strike the ideal balance between comfort and visibility.

Figure 3.1: Wooden Developmental Testing Mod el

Results and Discussion:

Horizontal distance Vertical distance Distance between bb

between bb and hip joint (in between bb and hip and hip joint (in
Iteration inches) joint (in inches) inches)

1 31 10.5 32.73

2 32 11 33.83

3 33 11.5 34.95

4 34 12 36

When the BB to hip-joint distance was increased beyond 34.96 inches the shortest rider was
unable to pedal a complete circle. Hence, the third iteration was found to be optimum for
both the shortest and the tallest rider.

Conclusion:

To design the frame, the seat was placed at a vertical distance equal to the ground clearance.
Then the bottom bracket was located with respect to the hip joint. From the bottom bracket
point a circle of radius 7 inches was drawn, which would represent the motion of the pedal

22
with clearance. The front wheel was then located on the ground such that it would not
intersect with the circle. The rest of the frame was drawn after the seat, bb and front wheel’s
positions were fixed.

3.1.2 Drive train configuration testing

• To ensure that the twist chain mechanism works properly without

any failure.
• To check the transmission for any interference with vehicle frame
Objectives
and wheels during sharp turns.
• To find the optimum position for the various components of the
drivetrain.

A model of the front part of the vehicle was made to scale and various
permutations of the drivetrain components were tried until the most
Methodology suitable placement for them was determined. Then the pedals were
rotated at a high speed to check for chain slippage and the front wheel
was turned to both extremes to check for interference and obstructions.

Figure 3.2: Front Wheel Twisted Drive Train Prototype

Conclusion:

A pulley with 10mm groove was found unsuitable for the drivetrain and was hence replaced
by one with 12 mm groove. After the drive train passed all these tests and necessary
modifications were made the drive train was found to be highly efficient and better than an
RWD drivetrain.

23
3.1.3 Roll over Protection Development Testing
The RPS was design with the approach that it should fully and continuously enclose the rider
body and it should also prevent contact between rider’s body and ground.

• To measure dimensions including clearance for RPS.

• To determine a better position and angle of RPS.
Objectives
• To check maneuverability and obstruction in steering movement.
• To check if maximum portion of body is covered or not.

To carry out this test a polystyrene cut out was used to check whether the
Methodology
dimensions satisfied the objectives.

According to the tallest rider’s anthropometric data a basic CAD model was designed.
According to CAD model a polystyrene cut-out was made and a rider was placed in it. This cut-
out was used to check if RPS obstructed the steering movement or not. Different combination
of position and angle were analyzed using this cut-out. After gathering all the required data,
different variations in RPS geometry were made to determine the best geometry that will
have a better stress distribution and less deformation.

Figure 3.3: Polystyrene Cut Outs for RPS Develo pment

After many tests with different combination of position and angle of RPS, it
was found that RPS should be mounted on stay to get better
maneuverability and body coverage. The developmental testing also gave
Results
the optimum clearance data that would prevent the contact between the
rider body and ground in case of an accident involving a rollover.
3.1.4 Seat Development Test

Seat plays a great role in rider’s comfort in an HPV. Riding experience greatly varies according
to the seat design. Hence, an ergonomic seat has to be designed to support the posture of

24
the rider. Seat also plays an important role in the weight distribution of the rider throughout
the frame. Considering these features, developmental testing was carried out to design an
aesthetically pleasing and comfortable seat.

• The seat should support the whole upper body of the rider
• It should be able to distribute the rider’s weight evenly on the
frame.
• It should contribute minimum weight to the overall weight of the
vehicle.
Objectives
• It should be durable and should be able to withstand the forces
applied by the rider’s back while pedaling.
• To ensure highest level of rider satisfaction, a comfortable riding
experience has to be provided which can be achieved by an
ergonomic seat.

Different iterations of seat angles were performed using plywood setup to get the
Methodology
optimum seating angle according to the frame.

Research on seat ergonomics was done and a basic layout was formed. After getting a basic
layout and an optimum seat angle, dimensions of different sections of the seat were
determined according to the mean anthropometric data of the riders. For the prototype, an
MS sheet was bent at required angles using a mechanical press brake machine.

Figure 3.4: Ergonomic Rider Position

Figure 3.5: Ergonomic Seat Dimens ion

• The designed seat comfortable and has a proper weight distribution on

the vehicle frame.
Results • The seat fabricated from MS was too heavy. Hence, after changing the
seat material from MS to fiber glass, the weight reduction was found to
be about 63.6%.

25
4 Conclusion

4.1 Comparison

Parameter Target Actual Justification

Cost <₹50,000 ₹45,087 Cost Analysis

Weight <25kg TBD -

Riding Position Comfortable Obtained From analysis

Center of Mass Low 0.46m SolidWorks Mass

analysis

Frame Design Safe Obtained Structural Analysis

Braking Distance <5m Obtained Analysis

Turning Radius <4m 2.3368m Analysis

Table 5.1: Comparison of Targeted and Ac tual Design Specification

4.2 Evaluation
The construction phase of the Philip has not been completed at the time of report
submission. Hence, many of the goals set by the team and PDS could not be fully evaluated.
Objectives, as laid out by ASME, pertaining to design and analysis were accomplished. Also,
the other critical analyses were carried out to ensure unhindered construction of the vehicle
and the team feels confident in manufacturing the proposed design and carrying out physical
testing of structural components and performance analysis are planned to be carried out after
the completion of vehicle fabrication. All the results and findings for the same will be
presented during the Design Presentation.

4.3 Recommendations
Team Photon has not completed the construction phase yet and is compiling lessons in the
ongoing process.

The team has three recommendations as of now to enhance the current design.

1. To review and test other FWD drive train models to further improve the efficiency.
2. To research and design an enhanced fairing which could accomplish team goals up to
a greater extent.
3. To incorporate electrical peripherals in the current design to improve the riding
convenience. Hence, making the vehicle an appealing option for day to day
transportation.

26
References

1. TCET Team Photon, “2017 ASME HPVC Asia Pacific Design Report,” 2017.
2. TCET Team Photon, “2018 ASME HPVC Asia Pacific Design Report,” 2018.
3. Mark Archibald, “Design of Human-Powered Vehicles,” ASME Press, 2016.
4. David Gordon Wilson, “Bicycling Science,” The MIT Press, 2004.
5. http://jetrike.com/ergonomics.html
6. https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6742
7. Apurv Keshav Kedia, “Design of Fairing for Human Powered Vehicles considering
Aerodynamics & Aesthetics,” Department of Industrial Design, NIT Rourkela, May
2014.
8. http://exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics1.html

27
 Appendix 1

Table No. Table heading

1.1 Design Constraints as Imposed by ASME
1.2 Design Constraints as Imposed by Team
1.3 Decision Matrix for Vehicle Configuration
1.4 Decision Matrix for Selection of Frame Material
1.5 Decision Matrix for Selection of Drive Train
1.6 Decision Matrix for Selection of Method of Braking
1.7 Decision Matrix for Selection of Seat Material
1.8 Decision Matrix for Fairing Configuration
1.9 Decision Matrix for Fairing Material
2.1 Cost Analysis
3.1 Results of Developmental Testing
5.1 Comparison of Targeted and Actual Design Specification
Appendix 1.1 Lists of Tables

Figure No. Figure Heading

1.1 Organizational timeline
1.2 House of Quality
1.3 Team Photon’s Phillip
1.4 Lexan Polycarbonate Fairing Model
2.1 Top Load (Maximum Elastic Deformation)
2.2 Top Load (Load Path)
2.3 Side Load (Maximum Elastic deformation)
2.4 Side Load (Load Path)
2.5 Body Weight Analysis
2.6 Seat Mount Analysis
2.7 Bottom bracket Analysis
2.8 Bump Analysis with Traversing Bump(x2)
2.9 Bump Analysis with Traversing Bump and Lurching of Rider(x5)
2.10 Path Line (Aerodynamic Analysis)
2.11 Velocity Contours
2.12 Centre of Mass Analysis
2.13.1 Vehicle Turning Radius Geometry
2.13.2 Vehicle Turning Radius Geometry
3.1 Wooden Developmental Testing Model
3.2 Front Wheel Twist Chain Drive Prototype
3.3 Polystyrene Cut Outs for RPS Development
3.4 Ergonomic Rider Position
3.5 Ergonomic Seat Dimension
Appendix 1.2 Lists of Figures

28
 Appendix 2

2.1 Initial Line Diagram

2.2 Final Line Diagram

29
 2.3 Frame 2.4 RPS

2.5 Drive Train

Chain Ring Cassette Gear Ratio

54 14 3.85
54 16 3.375
54 18 3
54 21 2.571
54 24 2.15
54 28 1.928
54 32 1.6875
2.6 Gear Ratio Table

30
 2.7 Seat

2.8 Top Load Stress Results

31
2.9 Side Load Stress Results

2.10 RPS iteration 1

2.11 RPS iteration 2

32
2.12 Body Weight 3G Analysis

2.13 Body Weight 5G Analysis

33
2.14 Bottom bracket stress Analysis

34
Part Cost per part Quantity Total

Frame and RPS

Square tube 25x25-1.6mm thick ₹360 per kg 5kg ₹1800

(frame)

Round tube 25.4 mm O.D &1.5 ₹360 per kg 4kg ₹1440

mm thickness (RPS)

Outsourcing cost ₹3000

Fairing

Lexan polycarbonate - - ₹3000

Fairing mould - - ₹7500

Drive Train

54 teeth Crank Set ₹800 1 ₹800

Pedals (Alloy) ₹450 1 ₹450

Chain ₹650 1 ₹650

Idler Pulley ₹ (175+120) 2 ₹295

Bottom bracket ₹540 1 ₹540

Shimano Tourney Front Derailleur ₹1200 1 ₹1200

Shimano Tourney Rear Derailleur ₹1500 1 ₹1500

Shifter Set ₹1300 1 ₹1300

Shimano 7 speed cassette ₹2729 1 ₹2729

35
Steering mechanism

Axle mounts (Laser cut) ₹200 - ₹200

Steering handle ₹350 1 ₹350

Cup set & bearings ₹150 1 ₹150

Brakes

Disc Brake set ₹647 2 ₹1294

Brake cables ₹200 2 ₹400

Wheels

Front wheel ₹700 1 ₹700

Rear Wheel ₹900 1 ₹900

Axle ₹400 2 ₹800

Seat

Seat saddle material - - ₹3500

Seat mounts - - ₹500

Cushioning - - ₹500

Safety

Safety Harness ₹2714 1 ₹2714

Bell ₹150 1 ₹150

36
Side view mirrors ₹390 2 ₹780

Helmet, knee and elbow pads ₹1540 2 ₹3080

Reflectors ₹250 2 ₹250

Electrical Peripherals

Speedometer ₹325 1 ₹325

Headlight ₹200 1 ₹200

Tail light ₹250 1 ₹250

Indicators ₹150 1 ₹150

Batteries ₹150 - ₹150

Miscellaneous

Paint ₹135 4 ₹540

Others (Nuts, Bolts, Washers, ₹1000 - ₹1000

sticker sheet etc.)

Total ₹45087

2.15 Detailed Cost Analysis

37