Lindsay Davis

Michelle Brown

Design and Analysis of Drive Assembly

December 2012
Submitted to R. Scott Pierce

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................................ 2
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
GEARMOTOR ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
GEARPASS................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
WHEEL SHAFT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
BEARINGS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
SUPPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
DRAWING FILES................................................................................................................................................................ 12
SUPPORT STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................................. 12
WHEEL SHAFT .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
BEARING ASSEMBLY .................................................................................................................................................. 16
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 19
SUPPORT STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................................. 19
WHEEL SHAFT .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
ADDITIONAL IMAGES ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

OVERVIEW
While considering the drive assembly, we analyzed and engineered how it will drive
PED's up the mountain safely and efficiently. The drive assembly needed to use a drive wheel
with the same diameter as the idler wheel and have a drive shaft that transfers torque from the
gear reducer to the wheel. The drive assembly must have bearings that support the wheel and
drive shaft and are mounted into a support structure. The support structure supports all of the
drive components and is within our safety standards. The gear reducer and drive shaft need to
be coupled together. This report will only discuss the drive wheel portion of the slope, not the
idler wheel portion.

GEARMOTOR
Using the Diequa Corporation Catalog we found a helical bevel gearmotor that fit our
previously calculated horsepower. We chose a KUA
136A 251 gearmotor that has a max rpm of 53,
therefore allowing us to adjust accordingly. This
gearbox produces a maximum torque of 144,388 inlbs. This low torque allows us to use a gear pass to
increase the gearmotor's maximum torque to what our drive wheel needs. See below for
images of the gearmotor to gain a better understanding.

GEARPASS
Due to the large size of the slope we are working with, we have a colossal amount of
weight to pull up the hill and gargantuan required torque. The amount of torque we require is
not easily and cheaply found so to reduce costs we added an extra gear pass to multiply the
output torque of the motor.
This will also reduce our
revolutions per minute to
our desired velocity.

The

gear pass is simply a smaller

gear that is attached on to the output shaft of the gearmotor, and then engages a gear a little
more than two times larger than the smaller gear. The larger gear engages the drive shaft and
increases the torque by a little more than double and halves the revolutions per minute. This is
a cost-effective and efficient way of using such a large slope to support more customers.

WHEEL SHAFT
We analyzed the wheel shaft for bending, stress due to
torsion, and shear due to bending. We found Von Mises stress
by analyzing eight stress squares on the surface of the shaft.
The shaft is made of 4130 AISI steel.

We found the factor of safety for the bending to be

We found the factor of safety for the stress due to torsion to be
We found the factor of safety for the shear due to bending to be
We found the factor of safety for the Von Mises stress to be
The hand drawn calculations below explain in depth how we came to these factor of safeties.
(Units are shown separate column)

BEARINGS
Two bearings were chosen to support the bull wheel because one bearing cannot
support a moment alone, and therefore another bearing had to be utilized. The top bearing is
smaller
support

and
and

can
radial

and trust load caused

by the tension in the
cable.

The

bottom

bearing is larger and

supports only a radial
load. It also creates a
force in the opposite
direction as the top bearing, equalizing the forces on the shaft of the wheel. Using the Timken
catalog these bearings were chosen to support the loads required. Each bearing was chosen to
withstand a load greater than what is anticipated. Please see the bearing calculations directly
below, these explain the L10 life and the minimum dynamic load rating need for each bearing.
Reference Appendix Page 16.

SUPPORT STRUCTURE
We analyzed the support structure for buckling because this is the most likely form of
failure for this design. The support structure is made of 4130 AISI steel. The support structure
holds the wheel and wheel
shaft weight off the gear
pass and gearmotor. The
two bearings sit inside the
support structure and allow
the

wheel

to

turn

smoothly. The bearings are

press-fitted

inside

the

structure and have little

risk of falling out.

We found the factor of safety for

the buckling on the support
structure

to be

10

CONCLUSION
This proposal is superior to others because it entails a larger slope, which leads to more
patrons. When more patrons are on your ski lift more profit will be generated. We have a highly
efficient gearmotor at an up to standard price. Our underground cable maximizes safety while
being extremely functional and aesthetically pleasing to your patrons. Overall this design is
exceedingly gainful, eye-catching, and well-designed.

11

APPENDIX
DRAWING FILES
SUPPORT STRUCTURE
BY MICHELLE

12

13

14

WHEEL SHAFT
BY LINDSAY

15

BEARING ASSEMBLY

16

17

18

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

SUPPORT STRUCTURE

19

WHEEL SHAFT
DISPLACEMENT

20

VON MISES

FACTOR OF SAFETY

21

ADDITIONAL IMAGES

22

23

24