2011 ASME Human Powered Vehicle Challenge

California State University, Northridge

Design Report

Vehicle Number: Pending

Table of Contents
Section

Page

Abstract.3
Introduction..4
Design Description5
Analysis.12
Testing...22
Safety.27
Cost Analysis28
References.....30
Attachment #1Form 6 and 3-View Drawings........31

Page 2 of 33

Abstract
A Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) is an efficient, highly engineered vehicle that runs on
human muscle power. It can have everyday applicationsfrom commuting to work, to carrying
goods to market. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers International Human Powered
Vehicle Challenge (HPVC) provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate the application
of sound engineering design principles in the development of sustainable and practical
transportation alternatives. The mission statement of the California State University, Northridge
(CSUN) Human Powered Vehicle team is as follows: To design and manufacture a Human
Powered Vehicle that is practical, high performing, and furthers the art of HPV design. The
design goals were safety, speed, weight reduction, comfort, and ease of use.
The CSUN Human Powered Vehicle team has designed a tadpole recumbent vehicle.
The vehicle configuration is a fully faired recumbent tricycle, with two wheels in the front that
will provide steering and one single wheel in the rear that will provide forward motion. The
vehicle has been designed to be lightweight and very stable.
The primary material that was used to fabricate the body of the HPV was carbon fiber.
Compared to traditional materials such as, Aluminum 6061 and 302 Stainless Steel, carbon fiber
is lighter, more rigid and can have a yield strength that is comparable to steel when fabricated
correctly. Due to its high strength to weight ratio, it was an ideal choice of material to
manufacture a vehicle that will be powered by a human. Carbon fiber, which is stiff in both
tensile and compressive directions, due to its fiber weave orientation, acts as the reinforcement to
a structure when coated with epoxy resin.
Aerodynamic considerations were critical in designing the vehicle. To reduce the
aerodynamic drag force on the HPV, the team designed a full fairing with an integrated visor and
disc wheel covers. Two different configurations will be used for the sprint event and the
endurance event. In the sprint event, a low drag coefficient is of paramount interest; therefore,
the visor will be used in the vehicle configuration completely enclosing the rider and bicycle.
During the endurance event, the vehicle and rider are required to perform on a course with other
riders and sloping terrain for an extended period of time. Accordingly, heat removal, weight,
and visibility become prime considerations. The visor will be removed for this event allowing
forced convective heat transfer, visibility all around the rider, and a lowered system mass.
Multiple software packages were used to design and analyze the vehicle. The SolidWorks
CAD and Simulation package was the primary design and analysis tool used. It was used to
create a solid model of the entire vehicle assembly and perform Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis. In addition to the SolidWorks Simulation
package, NEiWorks was used to analyze the structural belly-pan, which was complemented with
physical testing.
Various physical tests were performed to ensure the structural strength and safety of the
vehicle and to verify FEA. The tests that were performed were top and side load safety tests of
the roll bar, tensile testing of various layers of carbon fiber, abrasive testing and an adhesive
strength test to decide on the best adhesive to bond cured carbon to cured carbon.

Page 3 of 33

Introduction
A Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) is an efficient, highly engineered vehicle that runs on
human muscle power. It can have everyday applicationsfrom commuting to work, to carrying
goods to market. Furthermore, human powered transportation is often the only type available in
underdeveloped or inaccessible parts of the world. Well designed vehicles can be a valuable
form of sustainable transportation. By increasing mechanical advantage, human powered
vehicles afford the rider the benefits of increased range and shorter travel times.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers International Human Powered Vehicle
Challenge (HPVC) provides an opportunity for students to demonstrate the application of sound
engineering design principles in the development of sustainable and practical transportation
alternatives. The 2010-2011 California State University, Northridge (CSUN) Human Powered
Vehicle team has designed a tadpole recumbent vehicle. The vehicle configuration is a fully
faired recumbent tricycle, with two wheels in the front that will provide steering and one single
wheel in the rear that will provide forward motion. The vehicle has been designed to be
lightweight as well as very stable and can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. Multiple software
packages as well as physical testing were used to design and analyze the vehicle. The
SolidWorks CAD and Simulation package was the primary design and analysis tool used. It was
used to create a solid model of the entire vehicle assembly and perform Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis. In addition to the SolidWorks
Simulation package, NEiWorks was used to analyze the structural belly-pan, which was
complemented with physical testing.

Figure 1: Vehicle CAD Model with Fairing

Figure 2: Vehicle CAD Model without Fairing

Page 4 of 33

Design Description
The mission statement of the 2010-2011 CSUN HPV team is as follows: To design and
manufacture a Human Powered Vehicle that is practical, high performing, and furthers the art of
HPV design. The design goals were safety, speed, weight reduction, comfort, and ease of use.
These criteria were used when deciding between recumbent and upright vehicle designs. Table I
displays the decision matrix created to evaluate the design concepts. The design goals were
assigned weights and the design alternatives were graded on a scale from 0 to 10, 10 being
excellent and 0 being failure. The recumbent 3 wheel design came up with the highest total
score, 7.3 out of a possible 10. The 3 wheel tadpole design allows for greater stability for the
rider. This design scores high marks for safety, comfort, and ease of use. This makes the vehicle
a viable choice for personal transportation.

Table I. Overall Design Concept Decision Matrix

Design Goals
Safety
Design
Alternatives

Speed

Weight

Comfort

Weighting Factors
0.30
0.20
0.15
7
9
4

Ease
of Use

0.10
9

TOTAL
1

Upright

0.25
6

Recumbent
(2 Wheel)

7.15

Recumbent
(3 Wheel)

10

10

7.3

6.9

The primary material that was used to fabricate the body of the HPV was carbon fiber.
Compared to traditional materials such as, Aluminum 6061 and 302 Stainless Steel, carbon fiber
is lighter, more rigid and can have a yield strength that is comparable to steel when fabricated
correctly. Due to its high strength to weight ratio, it was an ideal choice of material to
manufacture a vehicle that will be powered by a human. Carbon fiber, which is stiff in both
tensile and compressive directions, due to its fiber weave orientation, acts as the reinforcement to
a structure when coated with epoxy resin. Some of the general properties for each material
considered are listed in Table II.

Table II. Material Property Comparison

6061 Aluminum
Density
(lb/in3)
Tensile Strength (psi)
Yield Strength (psi)
0.0975
45000
40000

Brinell Hardness
95

Page 5 of 33

302 Stainless Steel

Density
(lb/in3)
0.29

Tensile Strength (psi)

90000

Density
(lb/in3)
0.0636

Plain Weave Carbon Fiber

Tensile Failure Stress
Compress Failure Stress
(psi)
(psi)
511983
222000

Yield Strength (psi)

40000

Brinell Hardness
150

Tensile Modulus
(psi)
33358679

There were three main structural components of the vehicle that were fabricated: the
belly pan, the frame, and the roll bar. Both the frame and roll bar were constructed by machining
out a mold from pink extruded foam as shown below in Figure 3. The molds purpose was to
create the geometry needed for each part and remained within the structure of the carbon fiber.

Figure 3: Pink Foam Mold of Frame

Figure 4: Belly Pan Vacuum Bag Process

The fibers in the carbon fiber weave are oriented a specific way to allow for maximum
strength to occur in the direction of the fibers. Structural strength of the carbon became
maximized by following this pattern of orientation. Curing techniques for the carbon were the
most intricate part of the fabricating process. Both the roll bar and frame were cured using a
vacuum bagging technique. Figure 4 shows the belly pan vacuum bag process.
A structural belly pan was fabricated to provide a flat mounting platform to attach
components. The strength and ease of manufacturing made this design ideal. The belly pan was
constructed by sandwiching an aramid honeycomb core between 8 layers of carbon fiber
composites. This was one more layer than FEA recommended in order to maximize the
structures overall strength. The honeycomb core increased the compressive strength of the belly
pan while adding only minimal weight.
The dynamic components of the vehicle were broken down into two categories: standard
bicycle parts, and original manufactured components. The parts that were produced for this
project were the steering system, front wheel mounts, rear dropout brackets, and drive train path.
The decision matrix that assisted in determining the chosen designs for each category is shown in
Table III. Great emphasis was placed on manufacturability and how well parts would perform in
competition settings. The design goals were assigned weights and the design alternatives were
graded on a scale from 0 to 10, 10 being excellent and 0 being failure.
Page 6 of 33

Table III. Manufactured Parts Decision Matrix

Design Goals

Weight
Design Alternatives

0.25

Ease of
Manufacture Aesthetics Cost
Weighting Factors
0.30

Performance
TOTAL

0.10

0.10

0.25

Steering
Wheel with Cable

5.1

Wheel with Shaft

4.85

Steering Levers

7.95

Cross-Pivot Levers

6.45

Wheel Mounting
Dual Headset

6.8

Hub and Spindle

7.35

Chain Path
Through Frame
Axle

6.75

Off-set axle

6.3

One Chain

6.15

When it came to sizing all of the manufactured parts, there were several parameters
considered. All of the parts had to have a minimum factor of safety of 2. Also, many of the parts
had to be designed to be compatible with other standard bicycle parts. To simplify the assembly
process, all of the bolts that assemble the manufactured parts are all the same. This allows team
members to use the same tools on all of the components of the vehicle. The primary material that
was used was 6061-T6 Aluminum. 6061- T6 Aluminum was chosen for its strength, low weight,
price, and availability.
While the axles were able to be made on a lathe, many of the custom parts had to be
made on mill or CNC machine. For some of the more simple parts, a Bridgeport 2 axis Accurate
Control mill was used. The complex parts that required more detail were cut on a Haas VF2, 3
axis CNC mill. The CNC parts were programmed using Mastercam which converts SolidWorks
part files into machine code. Most, if not all of these more complicated parts which would
normally take hours to machine could be produced in less than an hour. Overall, the total
machining time is extremely low considering the amount of machined parts being produced.
The steering system consists of steering levers attached to a hub and spindle setup. The
levers are able to rotate opposite each other and attach underneath the riders seat on an axle that
is mounted through the frame. The levers will then attach to a push-pull mechanism that serves
as the steering linkage. The movement of the push-pull mechanism is channeled to the spindle
through a bell-crank located at the center of the vehicle. The purpose of the bell-crank is to
convert the linear motion of the steering levers into rotational movement of the front wheels. The
Page 7 of 33

handlebars are made with 7/8 inch OD aluminum tubing; each side is bent to two 45 degree
angles, the first near the linkage system which connects to the steering rods located on the
underside of the HPV. The tubes are bent twice at 45 degrees instead of a single 90 degree bend
so that the tubes will not collapse; this will allow the aluminum steering arms to be much
stronger than if the tubes were to be bent with a single 90 degree bend. The steering handlebar
assembly is pictured in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Steering Handlebar Assembly

The front wheel hub and spindle design has a built in 10 of caster and 4 of camber in
order to give the vehicle excellent handling. Figure 6 shows the front wheel mounts. The edge of
the frame is used as a brace to prevent any displacement of the front wheels from the hub. The
spindle is a C-shaped design that fits around the hub similar to most vehicles. The camber and
caster work together to change the angle of the wheel when the vehicle is turned. These wheel
mounts were designed and built in-house, providing the ability for a custom design not
available in stores.
The rear dropout brackets shown in Figure 7 are another unique feature of the vehicle.
Most bicycles have the rear dropouts permanently fixed to the frame. This vehicle utilizes a two
piece rear dropout design. An aluminum plug with two tapped holes on both sides of the frame
remains permanently fixed. The actual dropout is a separate piece that is custom built and bolts
onto the permanent plugs.

Figure 6: Front Wheel Mounts

Figure 7: Rear Dropout

For the drive chain path, a two-chain system was the best choice to meet the design
criteria. The two chains are connected with a transfer hub that mounts to an axle attached to the
frame (Figure 8). This design takes advantage of the carbon fiber frame by eliminating the need
for a separate structure that would be bulky and heavy. It also allows the chain to travel very
close to the frame. The transfer hub consists of a cassette mount designed for a regular rear
bicycle wheel. Instead of mounting the full 13 gear cassette, there is a 15 tooth, and two 20 tooth
gears that act as a power transfer between the front pedals and the rear wheel. The 15 tooth gear
Page 8 of 33

is intended for use in the sprint event. The 20-20 gear combination will provide a lower gear
ratio for use during the endurance event. A 10 speed cassette is used at the rear wheel to provide
a range of overall gear ratios for the most efficient power transmission from the rider to the rear
wheel.

Figure 8: Transfer Hub

The parts that were purchased were all parts common to bicycles that are readily
available from stores and would be impractical to manufacture. It was determined that the
purchase of these parts would make the project more time efficient and economical. Parts that
were designated for purchase include: the rear wheel, 10 speed cassette, tires, tubes, transfer hub,
and the front wheels. The front and rear wheels were custom made and laced by hand.
Air resistance can approach 90% of the total retarding force on a bicycle. Consequently,
aerodynamic considerations were critical in designing the vehicle, particularly for the sprint
event. The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag increases with velocity cubed,
limiting a riders top speed. Three principal ways of decreasing wind resistance applied to the
design of the aerodynamic include: decreasing the frontal area, streamlining bicycle components,
and smoothing the surfaces of the fairing, roll bar, and rider.
To reduce the aerodynamic drag force on the HPV, the team designed a full fairing with
an integrated visor and disc wheel covers. Design alternatives were evaluated by means of a
design matrix given below in Table IV. The design goals were assigned weights and the design
alternatives were graded on a scale from 0 to 10, 10 being excellent and 0 being failure.
Table IV. Aerodynamics Design Concept Decision Matrix
Design Goals
Frontal
Area

Low Drag
Coefficient

Heat
Dissipation

Rigidity/Weight

Weighting Factors
0.20
0.15

Cost

0.05

TOTAL
1

Design Alternatives

0.35

0.20

Exposed rider, roll bar, &

enclosed rear wheel

10

10

10

10

10

8.7

10

6.2

10

10

10

Enclosed front wheels/Exposed

rider & roll bar
Enclosed rider & Roll
bar/Exposed disc wheels, event
specific

0.05

Ease of
Manufacture

Page 9 of 33

With a score of 9 out of a possible 10, the best choice was determined to be an event
specific design. The sprint configuration shown below in Figure 9 (left) completely encloses the
rider and major vehicle components. This configuration will lead to an optimal drag coefficient.
The endurance configuration shown in Figure 9 (right) will not incorporate the canopy, leading
to a lowered system weight, increased ventilation and visibility.

Figure 9: Sprint configuration (left) and Endurance configuration without canopy (right)
For correctly streamlined fairing geometries, pressure drag is minimized. In order to
minimize boundary layer separation over the surface, a long profile of 103 inches was modeled
using the NACA 0015 profile generated in Excel and imported as guide curves within the
SolidWorks environment (Figure 10). Using curvature combs, the computed airfoil data was
modified to meet rider geometry and vehicle dimensions. Particularly, the widest point moved
back towards the rear of the vehicle.
Figure 10: Surface geometries governing
frontal area reduction

To facilitate the fabrication of the fairing skin, visor and stiffeners, a male plug was
fabricated out of a 2ft x 4 ft x 8 ft solid block of 1 lb density expanded polystyrene foam (EPS).
An initial rough cut, shown in Figure 11, formed by using a hot wire 3-axis CNC machine, was
followed by hand carving to produce the streamlined shape of the fairing. Final symmetry was
checked using cross sectional area templates. Areas of concern, in particular the pedal box,
shoulder, and head clearance were checked for conformance. Surface filling followed by surface
sealing stages were then applied to the foam sculpture. A joint compound was applied to the
entire surface to fill in all gaps and surface voids then sanded as shown in Figure 12. Two coats
of a water based primer (StyroPrime) followed by several coats (3-4) of a liquid plastic
(StyroSpray) supplied by Industrial Polymers were applied to the foam surface. This barrier
allowed for the application of a polyprimer (PLC). The entire surface was then sanded, cleaned,
and sprayed with an epoxy resin. A mold release was then applied (5 layers) in preparation for a
wet layup.
Page 10 of 33

Figure 11: Rough cut foam block shown with inch routed carving templates (left), hand
carving to final shape (right)

Figure 12: Filling in all gaps and surface voids (left), surface sealing stage (right)

The wet layup consisted primarily of an inner carbon fiber layer and an outer hybrid
carbon/Kevlar layer. Once the initial shell had cured, additional hybrid fiber reinforcement
layers were bonded into the tub and canopy components at specified locations, near the rider,
interfacing with the road during rollover. A framing rib structure layup consisting of two layers
of carbon fiber and Lantor Soric XF foam was fabricated. The layup components were chosen to
increase stiffness and reduce overall weight, due to lower resin retention, when compared with
equivalent all fiber lay-ups. Following alignment of the tub and canopy skins, the ribbing
structure was bonded to the inner surfaces of each.
A female fiberglass tool was fabricated to drape form lexan for a canopy visor. The tool
was build with a shoulder to allow the lexan to be formed with a corresponding shoulder to
ensure a flush mate between the visor and canopy skin when bonded. Aluminum sheet metal
brackets were fabricated and bonded to the inner surface of the tub at specified locations to
mount the tub to the frame.
Page 11 of 33

Analysis
The rollover/side protection component of the design (Roll bar) consists of a single,
continuous carbon fiber feature which sweeps around the riders seat and head (Figure 13). The
roll bar is rigidly and directly attached to the main body of the vehicle (frame-belly pan) on the
mounting faces. The integrated design of the belly pan, frame and roll bar has provided a single
solid and strong base structure for mounting the rest of the components such as wheels, crank,
seat, etc.
Since the strength of the roll bar is of paramount importance in any roll over scenario,
extensive finite element analyses (FEA) have been
conducted to ensure the integrity of the structure in these
situations. Using NEiWorks composite capabilities and
through an iterative design optimization process, different
carbon fiber layups have been examined and optimized to
achieve minimum weight, minimum material waste and
maximum strength based on ASME requirements.
First, in a series of static analyses the roll bar has
been subjected to 800 lb top (12 degrees from vertical) and
500 lb side loads with the objective of finding the optimal
layup as stated above. With the roll bar held fixed on the
mounting faces, the experimentally obtained material
properties, the Hill composite failure criterion and the
allowable bond shear stress of 1000 psi (determined by
numerous testing samples) were used to define the boundary
conditions and computational constraints of the analyses.

Mounting faces

Figure 13: Integrated components of the vehicle

including the roll bar, frame, and belly pan

Figure 14 presents the optimized carbon fiber layup obtained with the static analyses.
This optimized layup (left in Figure 14) is an 8 layers carbon fiber sandwich consisting of uni
and plain weave fibers with a horizontal wrap direction (right in Figure 14) following the shown
stack up layup.

Wrap direction

Figure 14: The optimized carbon fiber layup of the roll bar (left) along with the wrap direction (right)

Page 12 of 33

The displacement and composite status of the optimized model for the two load scenarios
are shown in Figures 15 and 16. The maximum displacements obtained with the optimal layup
were 0.96 inch and 0.87
inch for the side and top
loads, respectively.
Furthermore, the composite
failure indexes reported in
both cases indicated the
healthy status of the
structure.
The static analyses
have then been extended to
dynamic (impact) analyses
for further examinations in
order to account for a more
realistic roll over scenario.

Figure 15: 800 lb top load displacement

results

Figure 16: 500 lb side load displacement

results

Since it is expected that in the case of a roll over the roll bar would initially come in
contact with the ground on its sides, a side collision has been considered for the impact analysis.
To simulate this side impact in the software (Figure 18) the roll bar has been carefully shot with
initial velocity of 25 miles/hr in a straight line trajectory from a distance of 1 ft to hit a plane
which is simulating the ground.
Upon examining Figure 17 and Figure 18 it can be seen that the obtained optimal layup
has brought about not only a healthy
structure (failure indices less than one) but
also an acceptable (ASME rule) side
deflection in case of the real impact. The
magnitude of this deflection at the roll bars
shoulder (denoted by node 628) was 0.93
inch.

Figure 17: The Roll bar side impact displacement results of node 628

Figure 18: The roll bar side impact composite max failure
index results

Page 13 of 33

The frame-belly pan is an assembly of two components which are manufactured

separately but are bound together to form the base skeleton of the vehicle. The frame itself is
holding the crank housing on the front while supporting the back wheels directly on its rear
handles. The belly pan on the other hand serves as a mounting structure for the front wheels
while acting as a stress reliever for the frame. The geometry (Figure 19) has been designed as
narrow as possible to decrease the surface area and reduce excessive flexing in X and Y
directions. Following a roll bar-like approach, an efficient carbon fiber layup was developed
through a system of static and dynamic analyses
while taking into account the stress-generated
Back Wheel Supports
failures that may occur in the critical segments of
the two components.
Following this procedure the analyses were
resolved into crank housing, structure flexing and
wheel supports.

Seat Location
Crank Housing

The crank housing, which involves the

frame only (Figure 20), has been manufactured by
inserting the crank insert (an Aluminum tube) into
the pre-cut opening in front of the frame which has
then been wrapped and positioned with multiple
layers of carbon fiber. This analysis was concerned
with determining the sufficient amount carbon fiber
layers required to secure the crank in place and
avoid any failure.
Figure 19: Frame-belly pan assembly with critical segments

The failures may occur due to the coupled

loads that are exerted during the pedaling.
Following the EN 14766 (European Mountain Bicycles
Committee) recommendations, the crank housing should
withstand a 400 lb couple load (Figure 20). The frame
boundaries were fixed sufficiently far from the crank
housing to provide a valid solution in the region of interest.
After several iterations, the analyses have
determined that 8 layers of plain carbon fiber with a layup
schedule of (0/+45/0/0/0/+45/0/0) would be capable of
capturing stress disturbances in the crank housing. The
simulation results of the segmental body of the frame
Figure 20: The crank housing
(Figure 20) showing total displacement and composite
failure indexes are presented in Figures 21 and 22. They were determined by implementing the
optimized layup stated above.
From Figure 21, it is seen that the total displacement reported is 0.005 inch illustrating the
strength and rigidity of the crank housing. As for the composite failure index result, it also
indicates a healthy status for the crank housing.

Page 14 of 33

Figure 21: The displacement results of the crank housing

Figure 22: The composite failure index result of the crank

housing

Once the optimal layup for the crank housing was determined, the same layup was
applied to the entire frame to quantify the amount of flexing present in the X and Y directions.
To avoid boundary condition related inaccuracies, the belly pan was rigidly connected to the
frame, constituting a single continues model. Consequently the analysis has also aimed to define
an optimal layup for the belly pan to help the frame in increasing the overall vehicle rigidity. The
structural flexing can occur either due to the static loading of the riders weight or the dynamic
loading of a rough surface contact (such as a bump), along with the cyclic pedaling loads at the
cranks.
To simulate the effect of these three loads simultaneously while reducing the
computational resources, a procedure presented in Figures 23a-23e has been followed to
efficiently replace the complexity of a dynamic analysis with a conservative static analysis. To
initiate this approximation, a separate static analysis (including only the riders weight) was
performed. Next using the resulting displacements, an equivalent stiffness (Keq) has been
calculated for the frame and belly pan combined. At this point the frame-belly pan assembly has
been mathematically modeled by a single mass at the center of gravity attached to the equivalent
spring (Figure 23a). Using this simplified model, an arbitrary load (representing the surface
bump) has been approximated with a conservative static load (P0) as shown in Figure 23b. The
value of this conservative static load was determined based on a scenario where the vehicle
experiences a 3 inch high bump. It can be seen from Figure 23c that the spring will be displaced
by less than 3 inches at the top of the bump. Assuming the worst case scenario of the full 3
inches displacement of the spring, P0 was determined (using the Keq and displacement) to be
1.5xWrider where Wrider is the average riders weight. Now that a single known static equivalent
load is determined to approximate the dynamic loads of the road the frequency spectra chart
(Figure 23d) was used to take into account the impulse (short period) nature of this load. It can
be seen from the chart (shown in red) that this conversion can be done by multiplying the P0 by
the magnification factor of two. Collectively it could be said that: P0dyn = 3x Wrider = 700 lb.
Applying the obtained force at the CG and accompanying that with the 400 lb pedaling force (as
discussed in the crank housing analysis) a full loading scenario of the structure was achieved. In
addition the structure was fixed at the wheel locations (front and back) as shown in Figure 23e.

Page 15 of 33

Figure 23b
Figure 23a

Figure 23e
Figure 23c

Figure 23d

Figures 23a through 23e show the process of defining the dynamic loading of the belly pan and frame

The displacement and composite status results obtained from these analyses showed that
the same layup schedule introduced in the crank housing could be extended to the entire body of
the frame. Furthermore it was determined that the optimal layup for the belly pan includes a 0.75
inch Nomex honey comb core which is sandwiched between 7 layers of plain weave carbon
fiber. Figures 24 and 25 summarize the belly pan and frame final layup schedule along with their
zero angle (wrapping) directions.

Figure 24: The layup schedule (left) and the wrap direction (right) of the belly pan

Figure 25: The layup schedule (left) and the wrap direction (right) of the frame

Page 16 of 33

The simulation predictions of the

deflection of the frame-belly pan assembly in Y (up
and down) and X (side to side) directions
performed with the optimized layups are presented
in Figure 26 and Figure 27. From the displacement
results in Y and X (0.09 inch and 0.10 inch,
respectively) it is seen that the profile flexing of the
structure is nearly negligible.
To further investigate the results obtained
for the frame optimized layup, a separate
simulation was employed on the end segment of
the frame whose rear supports are holding the back
wheel.
Unlike the previous analysis (see Figure 23e)
where the rear supports were held fixed, this time
they were loaded directly by two vertical forces
(same on each support) whose magnitudes were
determined by taking into account the reaction
forces produced by P0dyn (see Figure 23e).

Figure 26: The displacement results of the structure in Y

direction

It has been determined that approximately

2/3 of this load (400 lb) is transferred to the rear
supports (Figure 28). By changing the boundary
conditions to include the roll bar in the analysis, and
fixing the structure far from the rear supports, each
component was assigned with its previously
obtained optimal layup.
The first round of analysis indicated a small
de-lamination at the area near the end of the right
support based on the reported composite failure
indices (Figure 29).
Figure 27: The displacement results of the structure in X direction
Figure 28: Shows the
rear support FEA model
along with 200 lb loads on
each support

Figure 29: Shows the small de-lamination at the right handle

Page 17 of 33

To solve the problem the original frame layup was locally improved via adding two extra
layers of carbon fiber. The subsequent analysis presented in Figure 30 confirmed the effect of the
imposed correction.

Figure 30: Shows the healthy status of the handles after addition of extra layers

Page 18 of 33

Using SolidWorks flow simulation to perform

flow analysis on the solid model of the fairing, the
design team optimized the fairing geometry. The flow
simulations have aimed at predicting the fairing (and
eventually the full model) drag coefficient, defined as:

Where F is the fairing drag force, A is the

fairing frontal area; is the air density and V is the
vehicle velocity.
To set up these simulations, an incoming
uniform air flow of 40 mile/hr, temperature of 59F,
and turbulence intensity of 1% have been specified
at the boundaries of the computational domain.
This computational domain have further been
equipped with robust mesh refinement and
extended end tail (Figure 31) to increase the
accuracy of the results.
Through an iterative design optimization
process the fairing geometries have been
improved at each step with the objective of
achieving a streamlined (low pressure drag)
shape. Figure 32 and 33 present the 6th and 8th
(final) iterations along with their flow patterns and
pressure fields. The rise- drop- rise of the pressure
fields at the nose-shoulder -tail of the models are
in full accordance with the theoretical
expectations of a streamlined shape. However the
steady stream of the flow over and past the final
design has formed a more moderate nose-tail
pressure gradient resulting in a lower drag
coefficient of 0.06. This pressure gradient is
shown in detail with a pressure profile graph
extending from the tip to the back of the fairing
(Figure 34). It is seen that the nose-tail pressure
drop governing the fluid flow for the final fairing
becomes nearly recovered (0.014 psi), reducing
the pressure drag to a great extend. In fact an
approximate 57% improvement in drag
coefficient from iteration 6 to the final iteration 8
was realized as tabulated below in Table V.

Figure 31: The computational extended region and mesh refinement

Figure 32: 6th iteration along with its flow trajectory and pressure field

Figure 33: 8th iteration (final) along with its flow trajectory and pressure field

Figure 34: The pressure gradient profile of final fairing

Page 19 of 33

Table V. Aerodynamic Drag Data

Configuration
Iteration 6Sprint
Configuration
Iteration 7Sprint
Configuration
Iteration 8Sprint
Configuration
Iteration 8Sprint
Configuration
(Full Model)
Iteration 8Endurance
Configuration
(Full Model)

Drag Coefficient -Cd

Drag Force (lb)
Analysis of Fairing ONLY

Frontal Area-AF (in2)

0.094

2.24

841.35

0.064

1.72

945.69

0.06

1.44
Analysis of Full Model

906.73

0.073

1.44

1035.9

0.209

5.64

948.36

Finally to achieve the true magnitude of the drag coefficient for the final fairing, a full
model simulation was considered by including all the exposed components of the vehicle.
Results for the full model analysis are tabulated in Table V. From sprint configuration in Figure
35 (left), it can be seen that the frontal area has increased to 1035.9 in2 and the drag coefficient
has also increased to 0.073. These values are still smaller when compared to the other shapes
considered. Figure 35 (right) shows the endurance configuration which has a drag coefficient of
0.209 and a frontal area of 948.36 in2.

Figure 35: Flow trajectory and pressure field for sprint configuration (left) and endurance configuration (right)

Page 20 of 33

To substantiate the effectiveness of the fairing design, a rough evaluation of the expected
performance at constant velocity, no winds, level ground, a conservative rolling resistance
coefficient of 0.008, overall drag coefficient of 0.073, negligible transmission loss, and typical
system mass of 88 kg (based on expected vehicle mass of 27 kg and rider mass of 61 kg) was
input to the Power equation given below.

: projected frontal area, (m)

: aerodynamic drag coefficient
: rolling resistance, typically .003 <
< .006 at 10 m/s
G: grade, percent divided by 100 (zero for this case)
M: total system mass (kg)
P: cyclist power, (W)
t: time, (s)
V: velocity, (m/s)
: wind velocity, head or tail winds (zero for this case), (m/s)
: acceleration of the vehicle, (zero for this case)
W: weight of the system, cyclist and machine, (N)
: air density, (kg/m) at standard conditions
Based on the idealized model, it can be noted that for a stipulated top speed goal of 40
mph, the power input required is 376 Watts using the fully enclosed sprint fairing configuration.
Under the same parameter values, using the endurance fairing configuration, not including pit
stops, the team can expect an average velocity of 25 mph corresponding to 62 miles of distance
covered for the 2.5 hour duration of the endurance event based on the measured average rider
power input of 206 watts.
To maximize performance during the endurance event, research has shown that the rider
must release three units of heat for every unit of power input to the pedals. With an expected
power input of 200 watts, 600 watts of heat must be removed to avoid rider discomfort and
significant reduction in efficiency. Due to the riders head being exposed to air flow, it was
calculated that 100 watts may be removed by convective heat transfer. The calculated radiative
heat loss through the fairing was 100 watts. To facilitate heat loss due to sweat evaporation and
natural convection over the remainder of the riders body, a NACA duct was fabricated and
installed in front of the visor.

Refer to page 28 for a detailed cost analysis of the vehicle.

Page 21 of 33

Testing
Various physical tests were performed to ensure the structural strength and safety of the
vehicle and to verify FEA. The tests that were performed were top and side load safety tests of
the roll bar, tensile testing of various layers of carbon fiber, abrasive testing and an adhesive
strength test to decide on the best adhesive to bond cured carbon to cured carbon.
The roll bar test was performed to ensure that the impact of a possible crash would not
endanger the safety of the rider. The structural strength of the roll bar, specified by ASME,
should have a top load requirement that can with withstand a 600 lb load at an angle of 12
degrees with respect to the vertical axis and a deflection of less than 2.0 inches. The test setup,
shown in Figure 36, mounted the roll bar to a metal frame with heavy duty straps. The top of the
roll bar was pulled at an angle downward of 12 degrees from the vertical by a hoist. The hoist
was attached to a scale at the other end, which digitally read the tensile force in pounds. At a
force of 670 lb with a minimal and non-measurable deflection, the top load test passed the test
requirement. When compared to FEA, the deflection was less than the predicted value of 0.87
inches at an 800 lb load.

Figure 36: Top load roll bar test setup

The side load test, shown in Figure 37 and Figure 38, was setup by applying heavy duty
straps and clamps to the bottom of the roll bar to restrain it from movement. A second set of
straps were tied to the side of the roll bar, at shoulder height, and attached to a hoist. The other
end of the hoist was attached to a scale which read the tensile force as the roll bar was pulled
horizontally to the side. The ASME rules specify that the roll bar should withstand a minimum
force of 300 lb to the side of the roll bar at shoulder height with a deflection less than 1.5 inches.
The side load test passed its specification requirement with a load of 306 lb and a deflection of
1.1 inches. However, this deflection was slightly higher than the FEA prediction of 0.96 inches.

Page 22 of 33

Figure 37: Side Roll Bar Setup

Figure 38: Side Roll Bar Result

Tensile tests were performed on various samples of carbon fiber, each with a specific
number of layers. This testing was conducted to verify the material strength properties of the
carbon fiber used in FEA. Each sample was layered at a zero and forty-five degree fiber
orientation to mimic the same process performed when fabricating each component of the
vehicle. The test setup consisted of creating carbon samples with a known neck length and
clamped into a tensile machine fixture as shown in Figure 39 and Figure 40. The results and data
for each sample are outlined in Table VI below.

Figure 39: Tensile Test Setup

Figure 40: Tensile Samples after Test

Page 23 of 33

Table VI. Tensile Testing Final Results

Tensile Testing
# of Carbon
Layers
1
3
4
6
8

Gauge Length
(in)
1.5
2.75
3
5.75
6

Peak Load
(lb)
257.11
676.04
1604.84
2499.61
3499.45

Width
(in)
1
1
1.25
1.25
1.25

Thickness
(in)
0.012
0.035
0.048
0.053
0.070

Area
(in2)
0.012
0.035
0.060
0.066
0.088

Stress
(psi)
21425.83
19315.43
26747.33
37729.96
39993.71

It was shown that as the number of layers of carbon increase, the peak stress prior to
failure increases as expected. At 8 layers, as shown in Table VI, there is sufficient strength to
handle an ultimate yield stress of 39,993.71 psi. The stress values found matched closely with the
material properties used for the carbon fiber for FEA.
Abrasion testing was performed to experimentally determine the best possible fairing
material to resist abrasion in case of a vehicle roll over. Two procedures were performed in
order to experimentally determine the best possible material. In the first procedure, a special
fixture, shown in Figure 41, was built and four test samples were attached to the apparatus shown
in Figure 42.

Figure 41: Abrasion Fixture

Figure 42: Abrasion Test Setup

The test samples were subjected to abrasion by dragging the test sample for 100 ft from
rest against asphalt, in order to determine the change in mass after abrasion. The material with
the lowest change in mass after this abrasive process was considered best. The second procedure
was called a skid test, consisting of replicating an initial velocity of 20 mph, with the fixture
shown in Figure 41. The samples were released with this initial velocity and the distance they
traveled before coming to a complete stop was measured. The material with the lowest stopping
distance was deemed as being best because the sliding distance after a rollover would be
minimized.
Table VII shows the results from the abrasion test. It can be seen that the carbon/Kevlar
samples had the lowest change in mass of 0.0519 g, 0.0634 g, and 0.0486 g, respectively, before
and after the experiment.

Page 24 of 33

Table VII. Abrasion Test Results--Dragged for 100 ft from rest at 20 mph
Test
#

Material/Configuration

Plain weave Carbon Fiber 0o

masso
(g)

massf
(g)

m
(g)

l
(in)

w
(in)

Area
(in2)

40.9651 40.8523 0.1128

2.5

2.5

6.25

Plain weave Carbon Fiber 0o

41.6812 41.5924 0.0888

2.5

2.5

6.25

Plain weave Carbon Fiber 45o

39.4177 39.3147

0.103

2.5

2.5

6.25

Plain weave Carbon Fiber 45o

41.2423 41.1422 0.1001

2.5

2.5

6.25

Kevlar plain weave #549

39.986

39.9057 0.0803

2.5

2.5

6.25

Kevlar plain weave #549

40.4099 40.3357 0.0742

2.5

2.5

6.25

Kevlar plain weave #2469 (smaller fibers)

40.3965

40.326

0.0705

2.5

2.5

6.25

Kevlar plain weave #2469 (smaller fibers)

41.6584

41.544

0.1144

2.5

2.5

6.25

Kevlar Twill weave

40.1187 40.0434 0.0753

2.5

2.5

6.25

10

Kevlar Twill weave

40.5889 40.5183 0.0706

2.5

2.5

6.25

11

Carbon/Kevlar hybrid (Kevlar direction of travel)

40.5306 40.4469 0.0837

2.5

2.5

6.25

12

Carbon/Kevlar hybrid (Kevlar direction of travel)

42.0082 41.9596 0.0486

2.5

2.5

6.25

13

Carbon/Kevlar hybrid (Carbon in direction of travel)

40.3251 40.2732 0.0519

2.5

2.5

6.25

14

Carbon/Kevlar hybrid (Carbon in direction of travel)

42.3793 42.3159 0.0634

2.5

2.5

6.25

Table VIII shows the results from the skid test. It was shown that the plain weave carbon
orientated at 45 degrees stopped with the shortest distance of 15.25 ft. However, the
carbon/Kevlar samples also performed well on this test. Based on the results of both tests, the
carbon/Kevlar was chosen for the fairing.
Table VIII. Skid Test Results--Initial velocity from 20 mph to a complete stop
Material/Configuration
Plain weave Carbon Fiber 0

Stopping Distance (ft)

o
o

18.917

Plain weave Carbon Fiber 45

Kevlar plain weave #549
Kevlar plain weave #2469 (smaller fibers)
Kevlar Twill weave
Carbon/Kevlar hybrid (Kevlar in direction of travel)

15.250
17.250
16.208
17.875
16.167

Carbon/Kevlar hybrid (Carbon in direction of travel)

17.667

Adhesive testing was performed to experimentally determine the best adhesive to use for
bonding cured carbon to cured carbon. This was performed during fabrication when bonding the
roll bar to the frame and the frame to the belly pan. The ideal material needed to be able to
withstand maximum force without experiencing shear failure. A total of nine test samples,
shown in Figure 43, Figure 44, and Figure 45, of carbon fiber were created and bonded with
three different types of adhesives: epoxy resin, Hysol, and 3M DP-420.
Page 25 of 33

Figure 43: Epoxy Sample

Figure 44: Hysol Sample

Figure 45: DP-420 Sample

A tensile testing machine was used to accurately determine the peak load prior to shear
failure. The ultimate stress before failure for each sample was determined by using the peak load
and dividing it by the measured bond cure area. A total of three samples were used to find the
average peak load per adhesive. The average peak stress for DP-420, epoxy resin, and Hysol
were calculated to be 1852 psi, 1376 psi, and 2583 psi, respectively. These results are tabulated
in Table IX. Ultimately, Hysol was chosen due to its high stress tolerance.

Table IX. Adhesive Test Results

Sample
DP-420
DP-420
DP-421

Run
1
2
3

Length (in)
0.562
0.573
0.530

Width (in)
0.598
0.563
0.649

Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy

1
2
3

0.507
0.534
0.528

0.592
0.576
0.580

Hysol
Hysol
Hysol

1
2
3

0.708
0.665
0.678

0.594
0.579
0.582

Area (in2)
0.336
0.323
0.344
Average
Std Dev
0.300
0.308
0.306
Average
Std Dev
0.421
0.385
0.395
Average
Std Dev

Peak Load (lb)

436
652.3
770
619.333
169.275
544
310
463.78
439.26
118.911
1006
1108.475
978.006
1057.188
72.531

Peak Stress (psi)

1297
2022
2238
1852
493
1812
1008
1307
1376
407
2392
2879
2478
2583
260

Page 26 of 33

Safety
A recumbent vehicle design provides many safety benefits to the rider. Greater safety is
possible because of the near impossibility of taking a header over the front wheel or of
catching a foot or pedal on the ground when cornering. There is far greater comfort in an almost
complete absence of pain or trauma in the riders hands and wrists, or back and neck, or crotch.
This design also allows better visibility forward and to the side for the rider compared with that
for a diamond-framed bicycle with dropped handlebars. For safety purposes, the vehicles
canopy was designed to give the rider at least 180 degrees of visibility during the sprint event.
During the endurance event, the canopy will be removed, thus giving the rider an even greater
range of visibility.
As the case with any vehicle, certain precautions need to be taken to ensure that all of the
riders of the recumbent vehicle and other competitors are safe. First and foremost is having a
seatbelt since the vehicle requires the rider to lie in a reclining position. The design incorporates
a simple lap belt that will wrap around the frame and secure the ride comfortably within the seat.
Brakes are required on any vehicle to prevent any unwanted contact with surrounding
vehicles or obstructions. The vehicle incorporates two different brake systems. The front brakes
are cable driven and are to be used by the rider while riding. The rear brake will be used as a
parking brake that will assist the rider while getting in and out of the vehicle. Recumbent
vehicles can be difficult to get in and out of and this will make driver changes safer, quicker, and
more efficient.
All nuts and bolts will be checked prior to each event in order to maintain their security.
Safety wire and Loctite are two of the most common fastener security techniques and will be
utilized to ensure that no mechanical parts become loose. Since many of the vehicle parts will be
custom made out of aluminum, it is important that there are no sharp edges or loose chips. Each
machined part has been cleaned up using files and deburring tools. Similarly, all open end tubes
are capped using either plastic plugs or Delrin plugs. Certain areas with a high potential for
pinching, such as the chain and gears, must be evaluated for safety. Most of the pinch points are
behind or below the rider so they are of minimal concern. The key area is the chain that runs
down between the riders legs. A chain guard is incorporated to prevent any leg contact.

Page 27 of 33

Cost Analysis
This section provides a summary of cost analysis for this project. In order to properly
illustrate the overall cost of a single quantity production of a human powered vehicle, each and
every component of the vehicle must be properly tabulated to have a detailed cost analysis. Mass
production costs for this vehicle will also be included in this section since this method is more
cost efficient. The tables below provide the division of labor cost, material cost, and overhead
equipment cost. The cost for the utilities and production facility was not included in this analysis
since this varies with location.

Table X. Labor Cost Estimate

Quantity
3

Hourly
Rate
$28.00

Hours per
Week
40

Cost per
Week
$3,360.00

Cost per
Month
$13,440.00

Project Supervisor

$36.00

40

$1,440.00

$5,760.00

Carbon Fiber Team

$15.00

40

$1,800.00

$7,200.00

Machinist

$20.00

40

$800.00

$3,200.00

Welder

$18.00

40

$720.00

$2,880.00

Assembly Team

$15.00

40

$1,800.00

$7,200.00

$9,920.00

$39,680.00

Labor
Design Engineer

Total Cost

Table XI. Material Cost Estimate

Individual Vehicle Cost
Materials
Carbon Fiber (1/32'')

Quantity
14

Unit Cost
$65.00

10 Vehicles Cost

Total
Quantity
$910.00
140

Total
$9,100.00

G-10

$85.00

$85.00

10

$850.00

Fairing Mold Foam

$350.00

$350.00

$350.00

Aluminum

$700.00 $2,100.00

30

$21,000.00

Composite Supplies

$120.00

$120.00

10

$1,200.00

Epoxy Resin

$95.00

$95.00

10

$950.00

Adhesive

$80.00

$80.00

10

$800.00

Nomex Honeycomb

$650.00

$650.00

10

$6,500.00

$1,200.00 $1,200.00
$5,590.00

10

$12,000.00
$52,750.00

Subsystem Components
1
Total Cost

Page 28 of 33

Table XII. Overhead Equipment Cost

Manufacturing Equipment
Quantity
Cost
TL-2 CNC Lathe
1
$27,000.00
Vacuum Bagging Pump
1
$470.00
Computer/Software
3
$1,000.00
Welding Machine
1
$3,200.00
CNC Milling Machine
1
$22,000.00
Tools
1
$1,500.00
Total Cost

Total
$27,000.00
$470.00
$3,000.00
$3,200.00
$22,000.00
$1,500.00
$57,170.00

Table XIII. Cost Analysis Summary

Materials
Labor
Overhead Equipment
Total Cost
Total Cost Per
Vehicle

Cost of Single Vehicle

6 Year Production-10 Vehicles Per Month
$5,590.00
$4,024,800.00
$9,920.00
$7,142,400.00
$57,170.00
$57,170.00
$72,680.00
$11,224,370.00
$72,680.00

$15,589.40

As Table XIII shows, the cost per vehicle is greatly reduced as the number of vehicles
being produced increases. This is a direct result of the high cost of overhead equipment. For a
production run of 6 years, assuming 10 vehicles a month are produced, the total cost per vehicle
is $15,589.40. However, if only one vehicle is produced, the cost is $72,680.00. It should be
noted that the vehicle presented at competition does not cost nearly this much. All overhead
equipment was provided and the students were not paid for their labor. Therefore, the only costs
incurred were the material costs.

Page 29 of 33

References
"ASME - Human Powered Vehicle Challenge (HPVC)." ASME - Home. Web.
<http://www.asme.org/events/competitions/human-powered-vehicle-challenge-(hpvc)>.
CyclesPublished Standards. European Committee for Standardization. 2005. Web.
<http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommit
tees/Pages/Standards.aspx?param=6314&title=Cycles>.
Kyle, M. W. "Aerodynamics of Human-Powered Vehicles." Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineer. Part A, Journal of Power and Energy (2004): 141-54. Print.
Ryan, R. "Fluid Dynamics." Dec. 2011. Lecture.
Salary.com - Salary Information, Job Search, Education Opportunities and Career Advice.
Web. <http://www.salary.com/>.
Shields, D. "Sculptor/Propmaker Teaching Session." Personal interview. 31 Dec. 2011.
Wilson, David Gordon, Jim Papadopoulos, and Frank Rowland. Whitt. Bicycling Science.
Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2004. Print

Page 30 of 33

2011 Human Powered Vehicle Challenge West

Sponsored by ASME and Montana State University
Form 6: Vehicle Description
Due April 11, 2011
(Dimensions in inches, pounds)
Competition Location:

Montana State University

School name:

California State University, Northridge

Vehicle name:
Vehicle number :

Bicycle Engineering @ Northridge (BE@N)

Unknown

Vehicle type

Unrestricted

Speed__X_____

Vehicle configuration
Upright

Semi-recumbent

Prone

Other (specify)

Frame material

Carbon fiber composite

Fairing material(s)

Carbon fiber with Kevlar fabric sandwiched

Number of wheels

Vehicle Dimensions
Length

103.08 in

Width

Height

53.28 in

Wheelbase 37.56 in

Weight Distribution

Front

60%

Wheel Size

Front

20 in

Frontal area

Sprint Configuration: 1035.9 in2 and Endurance Configuration: 948.36 in2

Steering
Braking

Front

_X

Front

Estimated Cd

Rear

40%

37.56 in

Total

100%

Rear 27.5 in

Rear
Rear

Both __X

0.073

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

This vehicle is a clean sheet design and has not competed in any event.

Page 31 of 33

Attachment 1Figure 1: 3-View Drawing Without Fairing (dimensions shown in feet)

Page 32 of 33

Attachment 1Figure 2: 3-View Drawing With Fairing (dimensions shown in feet)

Page 33 of 33