2012/2013 PARKER CHAINLESS CHALLENGE - HYDRAULIC DRIVE SYSTEM

Transcription

1 2012/2013 PARKER CHAINLESS CHALLENGE - HYDRAULIC DRIVE SYSTEM A Baccalaureate thesis submitted to the School of Dynamic Systems College of Engineering and Applied Science University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Technology by CHRIS CLARK April 2013 Thesis Advisor: Dr. Janet Dong

2 University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Sciences Mechanical Engineering Technology 2012/2013 UC CEAS - Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic Drive System Other Team Members: Brandon Randal Breaking, Steering, Project Manager Max Lown Hydraulic Drive System Nick Macaluso Frame

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Parker Hannifin Corporation for sponsorship and holding event Omni Technology for fabrication of parts Cincinnati Sub Zero for fabrication of parts Fairfield Cyclery for supplying all bike components Dr. Carl Olsen For technical information and guidance ii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... II TABLE OF CONTENTS... III LIST OF FIGURES... IV LIST OF TABLES... IV ABSTRACT... V INTRODUCTION... 1 BACKGROUND... 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT... 1 RESEARCH... 2 PREVIOUS COMPETITORS DESIGNS... 2 PRODUCT OBJECTIVES... 4 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS... 5 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT ONE: DRIVE SHAFT... 5 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT TWO: DIRECT DRIVE... 5 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT THREE: GEARBOX... 6 COMPONENT SELECTION... 7 PUMP AND MOTOR SELECTION... 7 ACCUMULATOR AND RESERVOIR SELECTION... 7 COMPONENT ANALYSIS... 8 PUMP AND MOTOR ANALYSIS... 8 BILL OF MATERIALS HYDRAULIC SCHEMATIC MAIN SCHEMATIC DIRECT DRIVE FLOW ACCUMULATOR CHARGING ACCUMULATOR DISCHARGING COASTING FLOW REGENERATIVE BREAKING SCHEDULE BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET LESSONS LEARNED CONCLUSION iii

5 WORKS CITED APPENDIX A - RESEARCH... 1 APPENDIX B PRODUCT OBJECTIVES... 1 APPENDIX C SCHEDULE... 1 APPENDIX D - BUDGET... 1 APPENDIX E FABRICATION DRAWINGS... 1 APPENDIX F COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS... 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Cleveland State Universities Recumbent... 2 Figure 2: Greenspeed Recumbent... 3 Figure 3: University of Michigan... 3 Figure 4: Drive Shaft... 5 Figure 5: Direct Drive... 6 Figure 6: Gearbox... 6 Figure 7: Hydraulic Schematic Figure 8: Direct Drive Flow Figure 9: Accumulator Charging Figure 10: Accumulator Discharging Figure 11: Coasting Flow Figure 12: Regenerative Breaking LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Accumulator Calculation 8 Table 2: System Inputs 8 Table 3: Pump Analysis 9 Table 4: Motor Analysis 9 Table 5: Bill of Materials 10 Table 6: Hose & Fittings 11 Table 7: Simplified Schedule 16 Table 8: Budget 17 Table 9: Total Costs 18 iv

6 ABSTRACT The Parker Chainless Challenge presented many obstacles and taught many lessons. To compete in the competition a basic understanding of hydraulic systems had to be developed. The basic knowledge was converted into a simple practical design that was then transferred to the real life application of a hydraulic bicycle. The competition itself was a test to students to force them to think like a business man and an engineer. This was a real world situation to try and make an inefficient system as efficient as possible. The University of Cincinnati s team Bearcats off the Chain competed in all three of the competition s events while only being successful in the completion of one of them. The slight inclines of the competition course posed a problem for the bicycle. The bike was not able to climb them. Although there were no breakdowns in parts the team opted out of the endurance race because of this issue. The vehicle is a sound design that utilized a simple hydraulic system and utilized no chains or belts and followed all rules and regulations put forth by Parker Hannifin v

7 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In the 2004/2005 academic school year the Parker Chainless Challenge was first initiated (1). This challenge is a competition that is hosted by the Parker Hannifin Corporation. In the competition each team s entry must design a Human Assisted Green Energy Vehicle that is either pneumatic or hydraulic powered. Parker Hannifin hosts the competition to seek out future employees, to stimulate students education in practical hydraulics, pneumatics, and sustainable energy devices for motion control, and to stimulate, develop, and test potential new technologies into vehicle designs. The competition is held in California where the teams vehicles are judged and put through tests such as a sprint race and an endurance race. For the 2012/2013 Parker Chainless Challenge the Mechanical Engineering Technologies, MET for short, program competed with four seniors:, Maxton Lown, Nick Macaluso, and Brandon Randal. Their design included a three-wheel recumbent bike with a hydraulic drive system and regenerative breaking., along with Maxton Lown, was in charge of drive train/hydraulic system. Nick Macaluso was in charge of the frame design. Lastly Brandon Randal was in charge of the steering and regenerative breaking design. PROBLEM STATEMENT The Human Assisted Green Energy Vehicle must be human powered with no external forms of propulsion i.e. combustion engines, electric motors etc. (1). The design must have no chain connections in the drive train system. With the use of only one rider/operator at a time the vehicle must compete in the 2012/2013 Parker Chainless Challenge competition and adhere to all required rules and regulations outlined in the document Specifications for Universities Parker 2012/2013 Chainless Challenge. 1

8 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System RESEARCH PREVIOUS COMPETITORS DESIGNS The competition has been held for a total of five years, the 2012/2013 competition being the sixth. More detail notes on the following research can be found in Appendix A. In the 2011/2012 competition two teams from the University of Cincinnati entered. Both teams had issues with heavy and bulky hydraulic components which led to instability and low efficiencies (2). The recumbent bike has been popular in the past. Figure 1 (3) is a picture of one of Cleveland State Universities entries from a previous year. This design was a three-wheeled recumbent which offered more stability along with more mounting points for components. The design used smaller lightweight components along with high pressures that helped keep efficiencies up and weight down. The pedals were directly driving the pump. Figure 1: Cleveland State Universities Recumbent Greenspeed s entry from a past competition is illustrated in Figure 2 (4). The design was another recumbent three-wheel design. This design used an accumulator to store energy at the rear of the bike and was able to achieve 85% efficiency for RPM input supplied from the crank (4). 2

9 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Figure 2: Greenspeed Recumbent University of Michigan s entry from 2009 is illustrated in Figure 3 (5). Using a standard two-wheel frame this design was unstable. This design also used chains to transfer the input from the pedals to the pump. Using a simple hydraulic system this design was able to compete well (5). Figure 3: University of Michigan 3

10 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System PRODUCT OBJECTIVES The results of the research of previous years experiences and the resource of the competition specifications were used to develop a list of product objectives. The product objectives were the guidelines in the development of the Green Energy Vehicle. The list is comprised of a major heading which is the customer feature. Under the customer feature is a measurable /testable requirement to be able to gauge the final product. The features were arranged in order of important that is noted by the percent. 1. No chain connections 12% a. Alternative method of transferring energy 2. Light-weight 12% a. Less than 175 lbs 3. Human powered 12% a. Human input supplies power to the system 4. Reliable 11% a. Reliability of component life and proper design criteria specified in the following spec sheets: i. Brakes spec sheet ii. Wheel spec sheet iii. Frame spec sheet iv. Hydraulic system spec sheet 5. Stable 10% a. Use 3 wheel recumbent trike b. Low center of gravity 6. Operated by one person 9% a. Design for a single seat application b. Rider with weight less than 220 lbs 7. Conservation energy design 9% a. Incorporate energy storing system b. Regenerative Braking 8. Safe 8% a. Guards that protect the rider from moving components b. Components rated for system pressures and speed c. Design braking for parking, speeds and weight d. Meets all Parker Chainless Challenge competition safety requirements e. Maximum cruise speed range of 45 mph 9. Affordable 7% a. Less than $ Bio-degradable fluid 5% a. Design for a system that utilizes bio-degradable fluids 11. Easy to mount 5% a. Use 3 wheel recumbent trike b. Adjustable seat c. Less than 25 inches from seat to ground 4

11 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS The decision was made early in the design that a recumbent three wheel bike would be used for the platform. The research showed that the two wheeled counterpart was difficult to handle and very unstable. More details on this decision can be found in the report written by Nick Macaluso. Using the recumbent style bike a total of three concepts were developed. The three concepts are very similar in that the only difference in them is the transfer of energy from the rider/operator to the pump differs. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT ONE: DRIVE SHAFT Drive shafts are not prevalent in the design of any type of bicycle. However there is a market for them. The Purpose of the design laid out in Figure 4 was to bring the pump closer to the other components and allow for less hydraulic line. In doing so the efficiencies lost in long distance can be eliminated. The complex set up for mounting a drive shaft made this concept less appealing than others. Drive Shaft Accumulator Pump Figure 4: Drive Shaft Motor Reservoir ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT TWO: DIRECT DRIVE The easiest set up for a pedal powered bike is to allow the pedals to be directly connected to the pump. The pump then could transfer energy to all the functions of the bike. The illustration in Figure 5 shows the simplicity of the design. Upon research of this concept pumps designed for a thru shaft were very hard to come by. The pumps that where available where heavy industrial units used for things such as tractors and farming equipment. This search led to a disapproval of this design 5

12 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Figure 5: Direct Drive ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT THREE: GEARBOX The last concept is a gear box coupled to a standard pump. The gearbox has a thru shaft on the front allowing pedals to be attached from both sides. The pedals are engaged allowing the gearbox to transfer the input motion to the pump. The gearbox was readily available and fairly in expensive and also allows the input rpm to be stepped up. This design offered a middle ground between complexity and simplicity. In the end this was the final concept chosen to design. Figure 6: Gearbox 6

13 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System COMPONENT SELECTION Selecting the components was a crucial step. The four main components, pump, motor, accumulator, reservoir, were decided based on research. Looking at previous design was key in this decision step. PUMP AND MOTOR SELECTION There are many different types of pumps and motors out there for a hydraulic system. Most utilized pumps are gear pumps, vane pumps, piston pumps available in both fixed displacement and variable displacement. Along with those types there are many different factors that go into the selection such as inlet/outlet size, efficiency, and displacement. The past competitors designs showed that a smaller line size with a high pressure, smaller displacement and high efficiencies were most desired. Variable displacement posed a big issue to one of the University of Cincinnati competitors in last year s competition. The displacement would slip without warning and stop virtually all fluid movement. From this take away it was decided early on to go with a fixed displacement style. The gear pumps were looked at first. They allowed for a small footprint which is crucial for the limit space available for mounting. The small footprint however did not outweigh the lower efficiency at lower rpms. Inlet and outlet sizes were available in many different combinations. Overall this was the second choice. Vane pumps are one of the most efficient of pumps at high rpms. At lower rpms the vane pump becomes more and more inefficient due to the fact that centripetal force is at play. Due to this inefficiency it was decided that this was the least desirable of the three. Last the piston pump. Through the research of Parker s pumps and motors the F-series fit the application nicely. The F-series are an axial piston pump that has a larger footprint but it has high efficiencies at lower rpms which is required for the limited human power. Once this was decided the search began to find the right displacements. The displacements directly relate to how fast the bike will be able to go. The choice was made to go with the F for the pump and a smaller F for the motor. The idea is that the high the pump to motor displacement ratio the more pressure that can be built which translates to fast spinning motor. ACCUMULATOR AND RESERVOIR SELECTION The accumulator was a crucial component in the efficiency challenge of the competition. The biggest factor in the selection of an accumulator is capacity. To be able to keep a good efficiency for the challenge the accumulator had to have a small capacity relative to the distance it could make the bike travel. To do this a calculation was needed. A direct calculation of motor displacement, tire circumference, and volume was used. The calculation summary showed in Table 1 displays the estimated achievable distance assuming no losses in efficiency. This combination seemed to give the most efficiency based on the calculation in 7

14 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System outline in the rules of the competition. Accumulator A3N0090D Piston Accumulator Motor Displacement 0.3 in 3 /rev Volume 90 in 3 Tire Circumference (in) 62.8 in Distance (in) in Distance (ft) 1570 ft Table 1: Accumulator Calculation The reservoir is directly related to how much fluid the system can handle. The reservoir was selected based on the volume of the accumulator and estimated line length. The reservoir that was use was a 3 gallon hydraulic reservoir that was redily available from McMaster Carr. COMPONENT ANALYSIS PUMP AND MOTOR ANALYSIS To ensure that the pump and motor that were selected were correct for the application an analysis of the system was done. The calculations were based upon pump and motor specification and the inputs of a desired bike speed and input horsepower, and a max output torque. The desired output speed of 15 mph was found based on a test that was conducted with the factory bike. With the desired speed of 15 mph the output rpm at the motor had to be about 252 rpms. With an estimated input of 120 rpms and 1 horsepower the pump will be able to transfer the fluid to the motor to allow for an output of 263 in-lbs. at 378 rpm. This translate to the ability to achieve about 22 mph. Well above the desired output speed of 15 mph. A summary of the calculations can be found in the tables below. Bike Bike Inputs Wheel Diameter (d) 20 in Wheel Circumference (c) 62.8 in Goal Motor RPM (to reach 15 MPH) RPM Gear Raito (2:1) 2 Table 2: System Inputs 8

15 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Pump F Fixed Displacement Pump Input RPM (n) 120 RPM Input Power (P) 1 HP Input Torque (M) in-lbs Displacement (D) 0.6 in 3 /rev Volumetric Efficiency (ηv) 0.98 Mechanical Efficiency (ηm) 0.9 Flow Rate (q) 0.55 GPM Differential Pressure (psi) psi Total Efficiency (ηt) 0.88 Table 3: Pump Analysis Motor F Fixed Displacement Motor Flow Rate (q) 0.55 GPM Displacement (D) 0.3 in 3 /rev Volumetric Efficiency (ηv) 0.95 Mechanical Efficiency (ηm) 0.94 Output RPM (n) RPM Total Efficiency (ηt) 0.89 Output Power (P) 0.88 Output Torque (M) in-lbs Speed (MPH) MPH Table 4: Motor Analysis 9

16 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System BILL OF MATERIALS A bill of materials list was created to ensure that all components were accounted for. This list is a checklist that aids in the purchasing and assembly processes. Bill of Materials Part Type Vendor Part Number Quantity Est. Price Trike Fairfield Cyclery TerraTrike Rover One 1 $ psi Tires Fairfield Cyclery Maxxis Miracle Tire 4 $ Bike Rack Fairfield Cyclery TerraTrike Rack 1 $59.95 Rebuilt Tire/labor Fairfield Cyclery Labor 2 $ Motor Parker F11-5-HU-V 1 $ Pump Parker F11-10-HU-V 1 $ Accumulator (Piston 3000psi) Parker A3N0090D3KUU 1 $ Electric Valve Parker DSL082NSPD012L-A6T 2 $ Electric Valve Parker DSL083BSPD012L-A6T 1 $ Hydraulic Fluid Parker Mobil Oil - $35.99 Accumulator Charger Parker - 1 $ Medium Pressure Hosing Hose & Fittings - - $ Fittings Hose & Fittings - $ Pressure gage Hose & Fittings J60 1 $21.75 Labor Hose & Fittings Labor $50.00 Needle Valve Hose & Fittings 451St 1 $58.00 Check Valve Hose & Fittings C1020S 5 $ Lock Seal Hose & Fittings $20.03 Nitrogen Tank Eastern Welding Supply UN $93.72 Gearbox Zero Max C $ Bearings McMaster Carr 5967K84 2 $83.94 Coupling McMaster Carr 60845K16 1 $81.74 Pressure Let-off Valve McMaster Carr 4704k32 1 $ Reservoir McMaster Carr 1364k33 1 $ v Battery McMaster Carr 7690k16 3 $41.22 Buttons McMaster Carr 7397k25 3 $18.09 U-bolt Ace Hardware Misc. 3 $17.97 Fasteners Ace Hardware Misc. 59 $32.07 Tie Down Tackle Ace Hardware Misc. 1 $18.99 Bolts/washers Ace Hardware Misc. - $8.20 Zip Ties Ace Hardware $9.49 Tape Ace Hardware $1.79 Drop Cloths Ace Hardware $3.99 Spray Paint Ace Hardware $3.99 Sheet Metal Ace Hardware $9.89 Wire Ace Hardware - - $4.99 Grease Ace Hardware - 1 $19.99 Rear Hub Custom Custom 2 $ Front Assembly Bracket Custom Custom 1 $ Table 5: Bill of Materials 10

17 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Parker Hosing & Fittings Part Type Type Part Number Quantity Price Each Total Hosing 43 Series Assemble (23.5 ft.) Hosing f $22.33 $ Straight Thread Connector 6C50X-S 3 $4.63 $13.89 SAE Run Tee Connector 6AOG5JG5-S 1 $25.12 $ SAE * 1/4 NPT Connector 6-1/4F5OF-S 2 $2.37 $4.74 Check Valve Valve C400S 2 $37.00 $74.00 Male Run Tee Connector 6RTX-S 1 $5.08 $5.08 3/8 Male Elbow Connector 6-6C4OMXS 1 $12.25 $12.25 Straight Thread Connector 6-8F50X-S 2 $1.91 $3.82 Straight Thread Connector 8C5OX-S 2 $5.84 $11.68 Reducer Connector 12-8 F5OG5-S 2 $3.40 $6.80 Straight Thread Connector 6 F5OX-S 1 $1.32 $1.32 Swivel Tee Connector 6S6X-S 1 $5.66 $5.66 Swivel Nut Connector SR6X-S 2 $5.94 $11.88 Male Connector Connector 6-6FTX-S 6 $1.04 $6.24 Needle Valve Valve N600S 1 $58.00 $ SAE * 3/8 NPT Connector 8-3/8F5OF-S 1 $2.99 $2.99 Swivel Nut Elbow Connector 6C6X-S 2 $4.37 $8.74 Straight Swivel 3 Connector 6-6F6X-S 2 $6.81 $13.62 Male Pipe Reducer Connector 1/2X3/8PTR-S 1 $1.56 $1.56 Straight Thread 45 Degree Connector 6V5OX-S 1 $5.16 $5.16 Male Elbow Connector 6-8CTX-S 1 $5.49 $5.49 Male Pipe Reducer Connector 3/4X1/2PTR-S 1 $2.05 $2.05 Female Pipe Elbow Connector 1/4DD-S 1 $3.36 $3.36 Male Pipe Elbow Connector 1/4CR-S 1 $2.69 $2.69 Male 45 Degree Elbow Connector 6VTX-S 1 $3.63 $3.63 Check Valve Valve C600S 3 $43.00 $ Pipe Nipple Connector 3/8FF-S 1 $1.22 $1.22 3/8 Male Tee Connector 3/8MMS-S 1 $6.95 $6.95 Male Elbow Connector 6-6CTX-S 3 $3.70 $11.10 Straight Thread Connector 6F50X-S 1 $1.32 $1.32 Swivel Nut 45 Degree Connector 6V6X-S 1 $4.67 $ psi Gage Gage J60 1 $21.75 $21.75 Loctite seal Sealant $20.03 $20.03 Labor Labor LABOR 50 $1.00 $50.00 Table 6: Hose & Fittings Total $

18 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System HYDRAULIC SCHEMATIC In the design of any hydraulic system a fluid flow schematic is required. The schematic shows the flow of all possible paths for the fluid circuit. The schematic can be read very easily allowing for quick trouble shooting and ease of maintenance. MAIN SCHEMATIC The hydraulic system was comprised of four main components the pump, the motor, the reservoir, and the accumulator. The main components coupled with, the control valves, oneway valves, and the pressure relief valve, a rider/operator can control the system to perform a total of five different functions. The functions include direct drive, accumulator charging, accumulator discharging, coasting, and regenerative breaking. The main schematic, in Figure 7, shows the possible flow path for all the fluid within the system. Figure 7: Hydraulic Schematic DIRECT DRIVE FLOW When in the Direct Drive Flow path the rider/operator applies motion to the pump via the pedals. The Pump pulls excess fluid from the reservoir directing it through the normally open valve. A needle valve on the end of the accumulator will allow all of the energy in the fluid to be transferred to the motor. All valves are open so that the pump can provide a direct flow of fluid to the motor. Once energy is transferred the motor the fluid is then pulled back through the pump and the cycle begins again. The described path can be found in Figure 8 shown in red. 12

19 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Figure 8: Direct Drive Flow ACCUMULATOR CHARGING The accumulator acts as an energy storage device and can be pressurized to a specific setting. When charging the accumulator the rider/operator will engage the pedals again. The pump pulls excess fluid from the reservoir. With the needle valve open on the accumulator the fluid is blocked by the closed normally open valve and enters the accumulator. The described path can be found in Figure 9 shown in red. Figure 9: Accumulator Charging 13

20 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System ACCUMULATOR DISCHARGING The discharging of the accumulator can only happen after the accumulator is charged. Once charged, the normally opened valve allows the stored fluid and energy to flow through the motor. The pressure relief valve allows any excess pressure to be dissipated into the fluid reservoir. The fluid flow can be found in Figure 10 shown in red. During this process the rider applies no energy to the system and the bike is propelled forward. Figure 10: Accumulator Discharging COASTING FLOW In this closed system when no force is being applied at the the motor will try and act as pump. To prevent this a closed cycle had to be put into place. If this was not done the motor will pull all the fluid from the hydraulic lines between the pump and motor and cause the motor to starve for fluid. The coast feature prevents any damage to the motor when the rider/operator is not engaging the pedals. The short cycle path can be found in 14

21 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Figure 11 depicted in red. Figure 11: Coasting Flow REGENERATIVE BREAKING In the final function of the system energy from breaking is stored into the accumulator for future use. Regenerative breaking is no new thing. It is found in many automobiles of today. When the breaks are applied by the rider/operator the motor will turn into a pump drawing fluid from the reservoir. The fluid is transferred to the reservoir for storage to be used during the discharge function. 15

22 Sept Sept Sept 30-Oct 6 Oct 7-13 Oct Oct Oct 28-Nov3 Nov 4-10 Nov Nov Nov 25 - Dec 1 Dec 2-8 Dec 9-15 Dec Dec Dec 30 - Jan 5 Jan 6-12 Jan Jan Jan 27 - Feb 2 Feb 3-9 Feb Feb Feb 24 - Mar 2 Mar 3-9 Mar Mar Mar Mar 31 - Apr 6 Apr 7-13 Apr Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Figure 12: Regenerative Breaking SCHEDULE The simplified schedule is outlined below in Table 7. It began September 16, 2012 with initial design that includes research. The schedule ran up to the Competition and Expo on April 19, The schedule lasted a total of 31 weeks. To see the full outlined schedule refer to Appendix C. TASKS Initial Design 12 Detailed Design 16 Ordering components 26 Fabrication 15 Testing 26 Ship for Competition 27 Competition and Expo 19 Table 7: Simplified Schedule 16

23 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET The budget below in Table 8 was the cost break down of proposed parts. This was the estimated budget for the entire project. The budget can also be found in Appendix D. The team was given a total of $3,000 from Parker for items purchased. Along with that was a surplus from the 2011/2012 MET design team. Costs Component Estimated Cost Actual Cost Bike $ Accumulator $ Pump $ Motor $ Hosing $ Gauges $ Reservoir $ Fittings $ Valves $ Battery $ NewVinci $ Bike Rack $ Misc. $ TOTAL $ 2, Table 8: Budget ACTUAL BUDGET Assuming a cost of $60/hr. for labor, at a scale volume of 500 vehicles, it would cost $3,290 per unit. Each component of the vehicle is listed at its estimated manufacturing value. The high cost of this prototype can be contributive to the few high cost items. 17

24 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System Prototype Cost Component Quantity Price Prototype 500 Manufacture cost 3 Section Frame 1 $ $124, Handle Bars 2 $19.99 $9, Disk Breaks 1 $35.99 $17, Trike Seat 1 $35.99 $17, Rear Hub 1 $75.99 $37, psi Tires 3 $99.99 $49, Bike Rack 1 $59.95 $29, Motor 1 $ $129, Pump 1 $ $114, Accumulator (Piston 3000psi) 1 $ $199, Electric Valve 2 $ $149, Electric Valve 1 $ $99, Hydraulic Fluid 2.5 gal. $15.89 $7, Medium Pressure Hosing (23.5Feet) 13 $ $145, Fittings - $ $91, Pressure gage 1 $21.75 $10, Needle Valve 1 $58.00 $29, Check Valve 3 $ $64, Lock Seal 1 $20.03 $10, Nitrogen 1 $6.99 $3, Gearbox 1 $ $237, Bearings 2 $83.94 $41, Coupling 1 $81.74 $40, Pressure Let-off Valve 1 $ $53, Reservoir 1 $30.99 $15, v Battery 1 $13.74 $6, Buttons 2 $12.06 $6, U-bolt 3 $17.97 $8, Fasteners 59 $32.07 $16, Bolts/washers - $8.20 $4, Zip Ties (20 ties) 20 $3.79 $1, Sheet Metal (20"*16") 1 $4.99 $2, Gage Wire (10 feet) - $2.49 $1, Assembly - - $45, Total Total $3, $1,645, Table 9: Total Costs 18

25 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System LESSONS LEARNED Though the vehicle did not travel as fast as the team anticipated, the overall project worked well with little issues during the manufacturing phase. Over the course of this project, the team has learned a great deal about team work, hydraulic systems, and engineering design. The team learned a lot from the teams last year which lead to a higher rate of success for this year. The team started early on the design and was able to get the parts in a timely fashion. The majority of the build came together in about two days with the help of the staff at Parker hosing and fittings. The biggest problems found on the build were how much weight played into the efficiency of the system. The team knew it was going to play a role because any weight added, the more weight the rider need to push. But it was hard to get around the addition of weight, due to how many of the hydraulic components available are bulky and heavy and intended for industrial use. The other problem the team faced was that some of the check valves did not work as expected; they were intended to have a low force spring for easy opening allowing the check valve to be opened through suction. This was just a small issue that was fixed by implementing a different valve. CONCLUSION The Parker Chainless Challenge presented University of Cincinnati a few challenges and obstacles. With the team having many objectives for the competition, all but two of the objectives where met, that is, a light-weight and an affordable design. Light-weight design is a difficult objective to meet for any hydraulic system. All hydraulic components are very heavy to withstand higher pressures and loads of the systems. With the weight of the vehicle being approximately 150 lbs. the vehicle is very heavy for a single operator to load and unload from a transport vehicle. Not only are the hydraulic components heavy but they are also expensive in small quantities. The goal of the project was to create a vehicle for a price under $2, With high a price on components the price of the prototype was $3, In a production run of 500 the price would go down but not as much because of labor costs. With a $60/hour labor rate at approximately 1.5 hours per unit labor the costs per unit would be $3, This is $ above the goal. The efficiency challenge posts an issue for the heavy vehicle. In a simulation of the efficiency the vehicle traveled the required 200 meters. With everything factored in the vehicle score a for the efficiency score. Overall the idea for hydraulics to power a human assisted vehicle is intriguing. Through the testing and building of the vehicle it is not very practical. To overcome the hurdles of the high cost, heavy hydraulic components many advances would have to be made in the field of hydraulics. On completion of the Chainless Challenge team was successful in designing a human assisted vehicle that replaces standard mechanical practices such as chains with a hydraulic system. 19

26 Parker Chainless Challenge Hydraulic System WORKS CITED 1. Harper, Sandy. Specifications for Universities Parker 2012/2013 Chainless Challenge. Cleveland : Parker Hannifin Corporation, University of Cincinnati, MET & ME Parker Chainless Challenge Competitors. Cincinnati, May 20, First Annual Chainless Challenge: Fluid-Powered Bicycles! [Online] Penton Media, Inc. & Hydraulics & Pneumatics magazine, [Cited: September 9, 2012.] 4. Parker Chainless Challenge. [Online] [Cited: September 8, 2012.] 5. Andrew Berwald, Phillip Bonkoski, Henry Kohring, Chris Levay. BLUElab. [Online] December 15, [Cited: September 13, 2012.] Report%20-%20Project%2014%20-%20Chainless%20Challenge.pdf. 20

27 APPENDIX A - RESEARCH The Chainless Challenge previous year s MET and ME interview Overview In 2012, the MET s and ME s from UC competed in the Parker Chainless Challenge for the first time. Due to this condition, a few design road blocks were expected. By interviewing both teams, we hoped to gain some insight and ultimately overcome the design issues that were faced. Bike Designs Both bikes were hydraulically driven with a pedal pump in front and a motor in back. Both bikes used chains which ran from the pedals to a pump connected to a motor. Due to the fact that there was extra slack in the chains, there was difficulty keeping the chain on the track during competition. However, since chains are strictly outlawed this year, we will have to pursue a different design strategy. Both bikes were extremely heavy due to the large hydraulic machinery. Both bike designs used standard two wheeled bicycles. The MET s used training wheels on their bike for added stability while charging their accumulator. The MET s had a static pressure of 2000 psi, a steady pressure of psi, and a 0.31 horsepower. The ME s used a piston accumulator that could be discarded by an electrical switch. They were able to incorporate regenerative breaking which charged the bikes accumulator when the brakes were applied. Pros & Cons The ME s said that they got their regenerative breaking to work pretty well. Their biggest down fall was excessive weight and lack of stability. The MET s said that their training wheels helped keep the bike stabile. Overall, both teams agreed that excessive weight was the major problem. The weight had a drastic impact on the bikes overall efficiency. This makes sense because the more weight you have, the more work it takes to power it. Our team needs to really take into consideration the weight of all the parts and keep our bikes weight as low as possible. This will serve as a challenge because most hydraulic parts are built for large machinery where weight is irrelevant. Key Takeaways: Keep weight as low as possible. If chains are used, add a tensioner. Use of filters lowers horsepower. Watch out for air leaks. They will lower performance greatly. Order parts early. They took a long time to get in the right part in. Use a big gear at the pedals. Use small hose lines. Appendix A1

28 Previous Competition Research Overview The Parker Chainless Challenge has been an annual event since Over the past seven years, there have been many successful designs. However, each successful design had a few things in common. They all designed a lightweight vehicle with integrated custom parts. Cleveland State University Cleveland State University has competed in this competition since the very beginning. Through designing experience, they have been able to really prove out there design process finding out what works and what doesn t. In some of their newest designs, they have chosen to fabricate their own custom radial pumps and motors. This allows them to have the light weight and efficient design, which is required for a successful bike. With a custom design, they were able to integrate pumps and motors into the bike unlike anything off the shelf. They develop a system using small components with very high pressures. Their system saw pressures of around 5,000 psi on the high end of pedaling. Design Features: Key features of their designs were the radial piston pumps and motors. These allowed the hydraulic fluid to flow at a more even flow rate unlike a piston motor. The even flow allows them to make more efficient power in their design. The system uses small lightweight components with high pressures. Key Takeaways: Radial pumps and motors allow for even and efficient hydraulic fluid flow Small components help in the weight High pressures help with performance and efficiency /p/2 6/9/12 /p/2 9/9/12 Appendix A2

29 2012 Parker Chainless Challenge Competitor Design This is a design from a competitor that competed in the 2012 Parker Chainless Challenge. As a team, their bike design took 2 nd place in the overall competition. Design Features: Greenspeed recumbent trike Energy was stored in an accumulator located at the rear of the bike System achieved approximately 85% efficiency for RPM input supplied from the crank Trike design offers good stability for the rider Low center of gravity Key Takeaways: Using a recumbent trike design will offer good stability when charging the accumulators Design a system that achieves maximum efficiency Large accumulator will be needed to store energy Rear bike rack gives us a place to mount our hardware 9/8/12 Appendix A3

30 2009 Parker Chainless Challenge Competitor Design This bike is from the University of Michigan s team in In conjunction with the hydraulic drive train, a fluid accumulator allows the storage of energy, enabling regenerative braking and the release of energy when assistance in acceleration is needed. The use of regenerative braking gives our design a competitive edge by capturing normally wasted energy. We have emphasized drivetrain efficiency and safe functioning in order to create a fast, reliable bicycle, which are essential characteristics in meeting our goal of winning the competition. Design Features: Two wheeled bike Use of chains, pump, accumulator, motor, and internal gear hub Chain from pedals goes to pump then power is transferred from pump to motor which is then transferred to back wheel using chains. Accumulator is stored above the back tire. Key Takeaways: This bikes design in similar to last year s UC teams Chains are used in this bike which is strictly prohibited this year. The design of power transfer is very simple inal%20report%20-%20project%2014%20-%20chainless%20challenge.pdf 9/13/2012 Appendix A4

31 APPENDIX B PRODUCT OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVES Based on the Parker Chainless Challenge competition requirements and research, a list of factors were generated to produce the most successful design. These features were ranked in a list of importance with weighted percentages. The ranking was determined by a blind ranking by each team member. The correlating percentages will help determine the most important aspects and what should be focused on during the design process. 1. No chain connections 12% b. Alternative method of transferring energy 2. Light-weight 12% b. Less than 175 lbs 3. Human powered 12% b. Human input supplies power to the system 4. Reliable 11% b. Reliability of component life and proper design criteria specified in the following spec sheets: v. Brakes spec sheet vi. Wheel spec sheet vii. Frame spec sheet viii. Hydraulic system spec sheet 5. Stable 10% c. Use 3 wheel recumbent trike d. Low center of gravity 6. Operated by one person 9% c. Design for a single seat application d. Rider with weight less than 220 lbs 7. Conservation energy design 9% c. Incorporate energy storing system d. Regenerative Braking 8. Safe 8% f. Guards that protect the rider from moving components g. Components rated for system pressures and speed h. Design braking for parking, speeds and weight i. Meets all Parker Chainless Challenge competition safety requirements j. Maximum cruise speed range of 45 mph 9. Affordable 7% b. Less than $ Bio-degradable fluid 5% a. Design for a system that utilizes bio-degradable fluids 11. Easy to mount 5% d. Use 3 wheel recumbent trike e. Adjustable seat f. Less than 25 inches from seat to ground Appendix B1

32 Sept Sept Sept 30 - Oct 6 Oct 7-13 Oct Oct Oct 28 - Nov 3 Nov 4-10 Nov Nov Nov 25 - Dec 1 Dec 2-8 Dec 9-15 Dec Dec Dec 30 - Jan 5 Jan 6-12 Jan Jan Jan 27 - Feb 2 Feb 3-9 Feb Feb Feb 24 - Mar 2 Mar 3-9 Mar Mar Mar Mar 31 - Apr 6 Apr 7-13 Apr Apr APPENDIX C SCHEDULE Name(s): Nick Macaluso, Brandon Randall, Max Lown, Project title: Parker Chainless TASKS Challenge Initial Advisor Meeting Proof of Design to advisor 5 5 Concept sketches to advisor 5 5 Bike Purchase 12 3 Kickoff Meeting Solidworks Drawings 2 9 Design hydraulics Re-Build/Design frame Design brakes Order components 30 5 Midway Review 4 4 Design Freeze Winter Break Bill of materials 11 6 Order more components Winter Presentation Report to advisor 8 8 Fabrication Bike testing / adjusting Ship bike Advisor Demonstration 5 4 Final Demonstration - Irvine Oral Faculty 18 Report/Demonstration 18 Spring Final Report Appendix C1

33 APPENDIX D - BUDGET Prototype Cost Component Quantity Price Prototype 500 Manufacture cost 3 Section Frame 1 $ $124, Handle Bars 2 $19.99 $9, Disk Breaks 1 $35.99 $17, Trike Seat 1 $35.99 $17, Rear Hub 1 $75.99 $37, psi Tires 3 $99.99 $49, Bike Rack 1 $59.95 $29, Motor 1 $ $129, Pump 1 $ $114, Accumulator (Piston 3000psi) 1 $ $199, Electric Valve 2 $ $149, Electric Valve 1 $ $99, Hydraulic Fluid 2.5 gal. $15.89 $7, Medium Pressure Hosing (23.5Feet) 13 $ $145, Fittings - $ $91, Pressure gage 1 $21.75 $10, Needle Valve 1 $58.00 $29, Check Valve 3 $ $64, Lock Seal 1 $20.03 $10, Nitrogen 1 $6.99 $3, Gearbox 1 $ $237, Bearings 2 $83.94 $41, Coupling 1 $81.74 $40, Pressure Let-off Valve 1 $ $53, Reservoir 1 $30.99 $15, v Battery 1 $13.74 $6, Buttons 2 $12.06 $6, U-bolt 3 $17.97 $8, Fasteners 59 $32.07 $16, Bolts/washers - $8.20 $4, Zip Ties (20 ties) 20 $3.79 $1, Sheet Metal (20"*16") 1 $4.99 $2, Gage Wire (10 feet) - $2.49 $1, Assembly - - $45, Total Total $3, $1,645, Appendix D1

34 APPENDIX E FABRICATION DRAWINGS Appendix E1

35 Appendix E2

36 APPENDIX F COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS Appendix F1

37 Appendix F2

38 Appendix F3

39 Appendix F4