5711 BOARDMAN HALL

DEPARTMENT OF ORONO, ME 04469-5711

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TEL: 207 581-
2120 FAX: 207 581-2379

Maines Land Grant and Sea Grant University
A member of the University of Maine System


ASME Human Powered Vehicle Challenge
Capstone Group


End of Semester Report










December 21, 2012


Group Leader:
J effrey Whittier

Members:
J effrey Whittier
Terran Siladi
Kevin Tracy


1

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2
The Design Process ................................................................................................................................... 2
Factors that Impact Design ....................................................................................................................... 3
Initial Design Choices ............................................................................................................................... 4
Pre-design Calculations ............................................................................................................................ 4
Design Choices ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Second Design Iteration ............................................................................................................................ 7
Competition Venue ................................................................................................................................... 8
Recumbent Testing ................................................................................................................................... 9
Third Design Iteration ............................................................................................................................... 9
Computational Fluid Dynamics .............................................................................................................. 10
CFD Verification .................................................................................................................................... 11
Verification Methods .............................................................................................................................. 11
Verification with Temples HPV Fairing Design ................................................................................... 12
Fairing Iterations and CFD Analysis ...................................................................................................... 12
Fairing and Frame Integration ................................................................................................................ 14
Moving Forward ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Final Thoughts ........................................................................................................................................ 16
References ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix A: Performance Calculations ................................................................................................. 18
Appendix B: Parts List and Budget Proposal ......................................................................................... 21



2

Introduction

This capstone project is aimed at designing and building a human powered vehicle to compete in the
ASME Human Powered Vehicle Challenge. From the ASME HPVC rule book, the objective for this
competition is:

To provide an opportunity for engineering students to demonstrate application of sound engineering
principles toward the development of fast, efficient, sustainable, and practical human-powered vehicles.

During the competition, the team will be scored on the design of the human powered vehicle, innovation in
the area of human-powered transport, reliability of performance, speed, and practicality of the overall
design.

As part of this challenge, we need to be able to develop a vehicle capable of coping with the everyday tasks
that any other fossil-fuel-powered vehicle would encounter. We have to design a vehicle that is capable of:
o Coming to a complete stop while maintaining complete stability of the vehicle.
o Accommodating small parcels.
o Clearing road debris/obstacles such as a speed bump, rocks, or branches.
o Turning within a 25 foot radius and completing a pre-determined obstacle course.
o Completing all tasks listed above while maintaining driver safety and vehicle control.

Our group has decided to make a faired recumbent vehicle to compete in the ASME competition. Since this
will be the universitys first HPV team in over 7 years, we have decided to concentrate our vehicle design
toward the speed and endurance events of the competition. We may be a small, new team to the
competition, but by focusing on these two aspects, we hope to ensure that an individual event title is within
our grasp.



The Design Process

The design process is a set of steps to be followed when trying to design something to solve a specific
problem. It is an iterative approach that uses a system of refinement to choose the most appropriate ideas
and solutions. One begins by identifying a problem. Once the problem is identified, the next step is to
layout design requirements and initial ideas. In-depth investigation follows. After a satisfactory amount of
knowledge has been acquired regarding the problem, possible solutions are identified. The next step in this
process is to choose the best solution from those you have gathered. Once this has been completed,
development of the solution will begin. Each possible solution must be implemented and tested to
determine its effectiveness at solving the problem at hand. The experimental findings are reported, and any
issues with the chosen solutions are identified. At this point, any problems with the chosen solution are
identified, and successive design iterations begin.

For every design decision in the fabrication of the human powered vehicle, the design process is used. This
process ensures that each of our intermediate designs is focused on solving the problem at hand, and the
step-by-step nature of the design cycle eliminates the chance for mistakes and oversights in the production
of our final product.




3

Factors that Impact Design

In order to identify the best solution for the problem at hand, we first had to complete some research on the
workings of conventional and recumbent bicycles. The biggest influences for the design of our faired
recumbent bicycle were bicycle dynamics and aerodynamics. The aerodynamic portion of the bicycle was
the first influence that was considered for our design, and helped to constrain the variables that affected the
overall layout of our human powered vehicle.

Without knowing the details of the frame, only conceptual aerodynamics of the vehicle were considered.
Any aerodynamic drag enacted on the vehicle is due solely to the coefficient of drag and the frontal area of
the vehicle. The coefficient of drag is a product of the fairing shape, which can be thought of as
independent of frame design. Considering frontal area plays a large role in bike design. Frontal area is a
coupled issue where frame design will directly affect the drag forces seen by the vehicle. A bike design is
begun with the primary constraint being minimizing frontal area. In an attempt to reduce frontal area, a
two-wheeled recumbent bike was chosen. Two wheels allows for the bike to be significantly narrower than
an equivalent design with more wheels. Additionally, the choice of a recumbent bike allowed for an overall
vehicle height ranging from 6-28 inches shorter than a conventional diamond-frame bicycle.

When starting our research, no one on the team had any previous experience with recumbent bicycles. We
were all familiar with the way diamond-frame bicycles react to various rider inputs, but the dynamics of
recumbent bicycles were unknown to us. The four critical characteristics that affect bicycle dynamics are
shown below in Figure 1:


Figure 1 Schematic of upright bicycle detailing key terms for control system.

Each of the following items has a significant effect on the handling characteristics of the vehicle:
Wheelbase: the distance between the two points of where the wheels contact the ground
Head angle: the angle measured between the fork and the horizontal
Trail: the distance between the front tires point of contact and the intersection with the axis of the
steering mechanisms axis.
Rake: an offset built into a front fork, which is used to diminish trail.

4

These components combine to create an unstable system, which is only stabilized by adding a human rider.
Whether we know it or not whenever we ride a bike we are performing many complex micro adjustments
to the bike as we move. These adjustments are actions such as rotating the handlebars a small amount, or
shifting our weight a little to one side, forward, or backward. Considering all of these effects with the fact
that recumbent bicycles are lower to the ground, with a lower center of gravity, culminates in the fact that
recumbents are less stable then their upright cousins. Because of this, it is especially important to consider
the factors presented above such as rake, head angle, and wheelbase when designing our humans powered
vehicle.



Initial Design Choices

Once we had completed enough research to begin designing our human powered vehicle, we made a few
critical design choices that would influence the rest of our recumbent vehicle. In order to finish near the top
of the ranks in the endurance and speed events in the competition, we decided that having a high top speed
would be an important characteristic in our vehicle. As such, our first design choice was to make the
vehicle capable of reaching 55mph under only human power, without the assistance of a downhill slope or
a tailwind. This design choice influenced many of the successive design choices due to the fact that not all
choices would allow for such a speed to be reached.

In order to achieve these high speeds, a very aerodynamic vehicle would be needed. In order to decrease
the overall height of the bike, it was decided that we would use 20 inch wheels. This reduction in height
would significantly reduce the projected area of the vehicle, and as a result, the resistive drag forces would
be decreased.

Once the decision had been made to reach such high speeds, we had to determine how to stop the vehicle
safely and effectively. Stopping a recumbent bike poses many stability issues. The competition states that
all vehicles must be able to start and stop without assistance. A fully faired, two-wheeled recumbent cant
do this without tipping over. Accordingly, we decided that a stability system would be required. To include
a stability system without affecting the aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle it was determined that the
system should be deployable and retractable.



Pre-Design Calculations

After our initial design choices we made, the first task was to design a gear system that would allow us to
reach the 55mph goal. In order to design this system, some geartrain calculations had to be performed.
When the vehicle is travelling at a speed of 55 mph, the 20 inch drive wheel on the bike will be rotating
approximately 1000 times per mile, with a circular speed of approximately 925 rpm. Under normal
pedaling conditions, a cyclist pedals at a cadence of 90-110 rpm. In a sprint, however; the cadence can be
increased up to 130 rpm. For the purposes of our calculations, a cadence of 120 rpm was used. Under these
riding conditions, the mechanical advantage, or gear ratio, required to obtain various maximum speed were
calculated and plotted for drive wheels of varying diameters. The results of these calculations are shown
below in Figure 2:

5


Figure 2 Required gear ratio vs. drive wheel diameter for various top speeds.


For a 20 inch drive wheel, it was found that a mechanical advantage of 7.70:1 would be required to reach a
maximum speed of 55 mph. On diamond-frame race bikes with front and rear derailleurs, the maximum
gear ratio is around 5:1. Accordingly, in order to reach our desired speed, we would have to forgo having a
front derailleur on our vehicle, and use a single, large chainwheel. With such a system, a minimum gear
ratio of 2.5:1 is required, while most conventional road bikes have a minimum gear ratio of 1.33:1.
Although a large chainwheel would remedy the top speed problem, we were worried that this system would
affect the low-speed performance of the vehicle. As such, we decided that larger wheels would be required,
and selected a 700C (27 inch) rear drive-wheel instead.

With a 700C wheel, a mechanical advantage of only 5.71:1 would be required for a maximum speed of
55mph. While this is still gear ratio is still higher than those found on road bikes, it is one that could be
more easily obtained. However, it was unknown how this change in wheel size and gear ratio would affect
the amount of force that the rider would need to exert on the pedals in order to produce the required 55mph
top speed. To determine this, a gear train analysis was performed.

Starting with the angular velocity of the rear wheel, the torque transferred through each component of the
gear train was determined. Finally, the input force needed to produce the required torque was determined.
Through the calculations, it was found that regardless of wheel size, as long as the gearing ratio produced a
tangential velocity at the rear wheel of 55mph at a pedaling cadence of 120 rpm, the required input force
would remain constant. In other words, the pedal force is independent of drive wheel size. Now that the
sizing of the rear wheel had been verified, we had to determine whether a speed of 55mph could be
achieved by our vehicle.

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
16 20 24 26 27 28 29
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

Tire Diameter (in)
Required Mechanical Advantage vs. Tire Diameter
Mech. Adv. 45
Mech. Adv. 50
Mech. Adv. 55
Mech. Adv. 60
Mech. Adv. 65
6

In our research on recumbent bicycles, we found multiple equations governing the drag force seen by a
faired recumbent bicycle. Many factors such as the wind speed, the rolling resistance of the tires, the
drivetrain efficiency, and the ground speed of the vehicle affect the amount of drag, and further, the top
speed of the vehicle. Using an approximate projected area determined from other faired recumbent
vehicles, it was determined that for a ground speed of 55mph, with a head wind of 10mph, a vehicle with a
drivetrain efficiency of 0.85 would require an input force of 140lbf and a power input of about 1000 watts.
This amount of power is within the physical capabilities of an average human, and as such, helped validate
that our top speed could be achieved. Additionally, through further drag calculations, it was found that at
45mph, a faired recumbent bicycle sees the same drag force as a conventional diamond-frame bike
travelling at 15mph a 30mph difference! Tabular aerodynamic and gearing calculations are found in
Appendix A of this document. With these calculations favoring our initial design choices, we started to
design our recumbent bike.


Design Choices

Based on our research on bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and human powered vehicles, our team began
completing the rest of the design choices required to fully define our vehicle. To determine the frame
layout, we had to determine the wheelbase length, driver position, steering type, adjustability options, etc.
which would allow us to build the vehicle we had envisioned. A complete list of our design choices is
shown below in Figure 3.


Figure 3 Initial design choices for human powered vehicle.
Items Possible Design Options Design Choices
Driver Orientation Forward Facing, Recumbent Recumbent
Drive Type Front Drive, Rear Drive Rear Drive
Drive Wheel Size 29, 27, 26, 24, 20 20
Coaster Wheel Size 29, 27, 26, 24, 20 20
Top Speed 45-65 55 @ 110rpm
Steering Type Front Steer, Rear Steer Front
Steering location Driver Front, Under Seat, Center Driver Front
Fairing Access Removable sections, "doors" Removable Sections
Storage Location Front, Behind Driver, Under Driver Behind Driver Back (Behind Driver Head)
Stability Aid Feet, Deployable Wheels, Mono-wheel, Three-wheeled vehicle 2 Deployable wheels
Deployment Mechanism Button, Push Lever, Pull Level, Spring-actuated, Automatic Pull Lever with automatic return
# of Roll Bars 1,2,3 1 with triangle, 2
Roll Bar Locations Driver, Feet, Midspan Driver,Midspan
Roll Bar Material Composite, Aluminum, Steel, Wood, Titanium Aluminium
Fairing Material E-glass, Carbon, Kevlar, Plastic E-glass, Kevlar
Fairing Mounting Bolt, Velcro, Slot Bolt
Remoable Fairing Hinge at Front, Hinge Back, Velcro, Slide Hinge
Frame Material Composite, Aluminum, Steel, Wood, Titanium Aluminium
Windshield Heat Formed Bubble, None, Clear Panel Heat Formed
Clearance 1-12", 13-24", 25-36" 5"
Number of Wheels 0,2,3,4 2 (3)
Height Adjustment Moveable Seat, Movable Pedals Moveable Seat
Pedal Location In front of front wheel, behind front wheel, at wheels In Front of Front Wheel
Pedal Type Platform, clipless, basket Clipless
Ventilation Molded Ventillation Ports, Windows Molded Ports
Restraint Type 3, 4, 5 point 3 Point Harness
Gear System Simple, Compound, Planetary Compound
Seat Material Solid Foam, Fabric, Composite Hard back and Foam
Overall Goal Design, Speed, Endurance, Overall Speed/Endurance
Optional Systems Camera Vision NA
7

Overall, we decided to build a short wheelbase, recumbent mid-racer. It would have a 27 inch drive wheel
and a 20 inch steering wheel. It would have driver-front steering and two deployable, lever actuated wheels
for slow-speed stability of the vehicle. It will feature a fiberglass fairing with a steel roll bar and a 3 point
harness if a rollover should occur during competition. Additionally, a compound geartrain would be used
with the pedals located in front of the steering wheel.



Second Design Iteration

Now that our design choices had been solidified, it was time to begin our second frame and geartrain
iteration. To start, a detailed drawing of the frame was made by hand. The frame was sized to fit a 20 inch
front wheel and a 700C rear wheel with a 10-speed cassette. Based on these critical dimensions, the rest of
the frame was dimensioned around the driver, allowing for proper rider ergonomics while maintaining our
chosen short-wheelbase design. Once the entire frame had been dimensioned, stress calculations were
performed along the length of the frame to determine the required wall thickness. It was determined that for
the main sections of our frame, a wall thickness of .089 inches was required. With this in mind all of the
dimensions for the frame were passed along for CAD modeling.

While the CAD modeling was being completed, we began designing the gear train that would allow us to
reach the desired 55mph top speed of the bike. In order to give us a wide range of gear ratios, allowing for
top speed riding and starting from a stop on a hill, a compound gear train was required. A conventional
3x10 gearing system was desired for our project, but due to the required 5.71:1 gear ratio, the gearing
system would need to be modified to allow for the higher gear ratio.

To increase the gear ration from the available 4.18:1 to the required 5.71:1, two pass-through locations
were added to the frame, with an increase in gear ratio at each location. Using shaft mounted sprockets, the
power generated at the cranks was passed along the frame until reaching the rear drive wheel. By allowing
the power to be transferred across the frame, we were able to balance the bending stresses along the left and
right sides of the frame, reducing the stress concentrations at each of the pass-through locations. Once the
geartrain had been designed, the rest of the frame sizing calculations were completed, and material was
specified for the remaining portions of the frame. Finally, all dimensions were passed along for CAD
modeling. The frame design is shown below in Figure 4:


Figure 4 Second iteration frame design.
8

After the frame had been fully modeled in SolidWorks, finite element analysis (FEA) was performed on the
frame to determine the locations of maximum stress and the factor of safety of the frame. To construct the
frame, we planned to use square and rectangular steel tubing with a wall thickness of 0.089 inches.
According to the FEA results, for 1020 steel with a wall thickness of 0.089 inches, the minimum factor of
safety of the was approximately 10. As such, the strength of our frame was more than adequate. Although a
high factor of safety is beneficial in terms of reliability, it represents and overdesigned frame and excessive
weight. As such, it is desired to decrease the wall thickness to 0.065 inches.

Once all the FEA testing of the frame was completed, an assembly of the recumbent bike was created to
determine the required size of our fairing. When the entire bike had been assembled, we realized that some
oversights had been made in terms of our gearing system. While the rear derailleur on the bike accounted
for any chain slack in the rear-most chain section, there was no way to maintain chain tension in the front-
most portion of our gear system. Without a method of maintaining chain tension, the chain could easily
bounce when going over bumps, causing the chain to fall off the chainrings. As such, a method of
managing chain slack needed to be devised.



Competition Venue

Around the same time that the issues with chain management arouse, the venue for our ASME competition
was released to the public. The competition will be held at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan,
and the endurance event will take place on the campus loop as shown below in Figure 5.


Figure 5 Course layout for endurance event.

After seeing the track configuration, we analyzed the track using Google Earth to determine what type of
riding environments we would encounter. Unlike Maine, the terrain in Michigan is very flat. Any hills we
would encounter during the endurance race were shallowly sloping, and as such, the lower gear ratios that
we had believed would be required for the hills needed to be reassessed. In order to know for sure though,
we had to complete some real-world tests to determine the minimum required gear ratio to start from a stop
on a hill.
9

Recumbent Testing

During our schools Thanksgiving break the team acquired a recumbent bike that could be used as a test unit
for our geartrain analysis. In addition to providing us with a platform to test our gearing system, the
recumbent bicycle also allowed each member to become familiar with the anticipated handling
characteristics and dynamics of our human powered vehicle. After riding the bike around The Mall and
Cloke Plaza, the team headed over to the hill by the Student Recreation Center to test hill performance of
the bicycle. It was found that in order to start from a stop on the steepest hill on campus, a minimum gear
ratio of only 3:1 was required.

With our previous gearing system, we had a three-stage, multi-side power transmission setup. The gearing
system had thirty unique gear ratios ranging from 1.11:1 to 5.72:1. However, if a minimum gear ratio of
3:1 ratio was all that was required for any of the hills that we would encounter, the gear train could be
simplified dramatically. Rather than using a multistage gearing system, it was decided to use 1x10 gearing
system to simplify drivetrain construction and chain routing. With this new setup all chain slack could be
managed using chain pulleys and a rear derailleur, and any possibility for the chain to become unbound was
greatly reduced.

Not only did our real world testing simplify our gearing system, but it also simplified our drivetrain as well.
Our teams initial decision to use a 700C rear wheel due to the inability to create the required gear ratios
from a conventional bicycle drivetrain. However, since a small gear ratio was no longer needed, we could
now return to our initial choice of using 20 inch wheels in the front and rear of the vehicle. Additionally,
we could now use a single, large chainwheel to produce the required gear ratio. By using the largest
available chainwheel for recumbent bicycles, an 80 tooth chainwheel, we were able to increase our
maximum gear ratio to 7.27:1, yielding a maximum speed of 52 mph at a 120rpm pedaling cadence.

When using a 700C rear wheel, the riders seat angle, and consequently the height of the vehicle, was
limited by the diameter of the rear wheel. By switching to the use of a 20 inch rear wheel, the overall height
of the vehicle could be reduced by up to 10 inches, allowing for a smaller projected frontal area and greater
aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle.

Considering these new design choices, as well as the results from our second frame design iteration, the
third iteration of the frame design was started.



Third Design Iteration

To start our third frame iteration, we modeled the frame in SolidWorks using the new tubing wall thickness
of 0.065inches. In order to simplify construction and welding of the frame, we redesigned the frame to
feature fewer angular joints and more square joints between members. We shortened each of the stays to
accommodate the smaller rear wheel and lengthened the main frame section to maintain a constant vehicle
wheelbase. After that, a roll bar and fairing support were specified and added to the frame.

Once the frame had been fully modeled in SolidWorks, another FEA analysis was performed. According to
the FEA results, for 1020 steel with a wall thickness of 0.065 inches, the minimum factor of safety was
approximately 2. As such, the strength of our frame was more appropriately designed then earlier iterations,
with little over engineering. By reducing the frame wall thickness to 0.065 inches, we were able to decrease
the overall frame weight by approximately 30 percent. Additionally, our roll bar held up to the applied
10

loads specified in the ASME HPVC rule book, ensuring that in the event of a rollover, complete driver
safety would be maintained. Our final frame design is shown below in Figure 6:


Figure 6 Final frame design for human powered vehicle.

Our frame now met all specified criteria and effectively accommodated each of our design choices. As
such, this frame design iteration proved to be our final iteration, and is the frame design we have selected to
produce for our human powered vehicle.



Computational Fluid Dynamics

In addition to designing the frame and geartrain for our human powered vehicle, we have been working on
designing an aerodynamic fairing throughout the entire semester. The fairing is essentially an aerodynamic
shell, much like the outside of a car, that will be bolted to the frame to allow for better air flow around the
vehicle and that allows for higher top speeds of the vehicle.

As a requirement of the human powered vehicle competition, the aerodynamics of the vehicle must be
verified using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) program. For our project, we decided to use a CFD
program called Fluent, an ANSYS product. Fluent was chosen because it is one of the most common CFD
programs used in industry, and it has been used by winning teams of the Human Powered Vehicle
Competition in previous years. Additionally, it is a common CFD program used in the aerospace industry.
These factors show that Fluent is a reliable and respected CFD program, and would provide valuable results
for our aerodynamic analysis.

11

CFD Verification

Any time a computational technique is used, such as in a CFD program or finite element analysis,
numerical verification must be performed using a simplified case to ensure that the program can accurately
perform the task, and that the program is being used properly to perform the task. Since we had no previous
experience with Fluent we put extra emphasis on the verification of the flow analysis.

For verification a sphere was used. Since it is a geometric shape with well documented results for drag
coefficients and flow stagnation points, it was the perfect candidate for our first verification analysis.



Verification Methods

Following ANSYS Fluent tutorials, the sphere was created in an outside modeling program and imported
into the ANSYS Workbench. Due to our familiarity with SolidWorks it was chosen to be used for all of our
3D CAD modeling. After importing the sphere geometry into the program, the ANSYS Geometry tool was
used to create the wind tunnel. In Fluent, the wind tunnel is created as a large box surrounding the sphere.
The geometry of the sphere is then subtracted out of the wind tunnel volume, leaving a void in the shape of
a sphere. A plane is then created, halving the sphere and the wind tunnel. Since Fluent can account for
geometric symmetries, including the other half of the sphere would result in redundant computations being
performed.

Once the geometry and wind tunnel environment are created, it needed to be meshed. For verification, the
standard ANSYS mesh for CFD is used. Within the ANSYS meshing application, each of the planes is
named. The name symmetry is given to all planes of symmetry and to the walls of the wind tunnel that
are to be modeled without shear. For the verification, all walls are modeled without shear. The end of the
wind tunnel that is to be the entrance of the wind tunnel is titled, velocity inlet. Fluent will recognize
this name as a fluid flow inlet. The exit of the wind tunnel is titled, pressure outlet. Fluent will recognize
this as a pressure relief. The hollowed out half of the sphere is titled as sphere so that is can be easily
recognized later.

Once the geometry has been meshed, it is imported into Fluent. Many fluid properties were tested based
upon ANSYS official tutorials and documentation, graduate theses, and unofficial Fluent tutorials. The
parameters shown below were the most recommended parameter settings for similar applications, and
yielded the most reasonable results based upon model verification.

To gain insight into to the causes of drag, post-processing must be completed to see areas of approximately
zero velocity, areas of high pressure, and areas of high velocity and low pressure. To do this, the sphere
model was used again, because this simple geometry once again had widely known results for the
approximate pressure and velocity field. Output techniques were modified until these results were clearly
displayed.








12

Verification with Temples HPV Fairing Design

Further data verification was done using a design posted by the HPV team from Temple University.
Using their geometric model and running it through a Fluent analysis, a coefficient of drag value obtained
was 0.23706423. From their design report, the final coefficient of drag that they present is 0.227. The
value obtained from our analysis is within 5% of their reported value.



Fairing Iterations and CFD Analysis

Our initial fairing design was based on covering the vehicle with as simple a fairing as possible. The fairing
came to a point at the front end of the vehicle, with an upward inflection as the fairing moves toward the
riders head. After the rider, the curvature of the fairing slopes downward, coming to a round rear section of
the vehicle. This resulted in an improvement over an unfaired recumbent bike, but still had a very high
coefficient of drag. The first fairing iteration is shown below in figure 7:


Figure 7 First fairing design iteration.

The second iteration, shown below in Figure 8, improved the aerodynamics by removing the reverse
curvature between the nose and riders head. The coefficient of drag was reduced from 0.23367802 to
0.19177467 or approximately 22% improvement in drag coefficient, without changing the frontal area.



Figure 8 Second fairing design iteration.
13


The third iteration was aimed to further investigate the effect of curvature on the drag. The fairing was
remodeled to have a downward facing concavity along the entire top portion of the fairing. In doing this,
the coefficient of drag was increased to 0.2878286. From further aerodynamic analysis, it was determined
that the upward curvature seen in the second iteration resulted in flow separation toward the front of the
vehicle. The third iteration decreased the flow separation, and as such increased the pressure related drag
on the front face of the vehicle. As such, we decided to turn our focus toward the second fairing iteration to
further investigate the effects of flow separation on the coefficient of drag.

A point of interest was identified within the second iteration at the location of the pedals. The height
restriction of the pedals created a small deviation from a natural curve within the fairing. Removing the
small bump required by having the pedals at a certain height increased the coefficient of drag to
0.29550767. This increase in drag was accompanied by a decrease in frontal area. The net result was an
overall higher coefficient of drag area. The bump associated with the pedals may have created a small
amount of turbulent flow which has higher energy and doesnt result in flow separation as easily. By
removing the bump, the flow transitioned into a more laminar flow and had more flow separation at the rear
of the vehicle.

The fifth iteration explored the effect of trailing edge. In the fifth iteration, the fairing length was extended
and gradually tapered to a point at the trailing edge. This resulted in a small decrease in the coefficient of
drag.

When the time came to start the sixth fairing iteration, the team had just begun the third frame iteration,
featuring a 20 inch rear drive wheel. Since each of the previous fairing iterations were completed using a
700C rear wheel, the best of the first five fairing iterations was used as a basis for the sixth fairing iteration.
Design 6 was based off of the fifth fairing iteration, but with a decreased height because the rider sits lower
in the new frame. As a result of the smaller rear wheel, the frontal area of the fairing was decreased from
0.2956009 square meters to 0.2500504 square meters, and a more streamlined and bullet-like shape was
achieved. For this iteration, the coefficient of drag was lowered to 0.19539463.

The final design iteration was based off of design 6 but with a rounded trailing edge instead of one that
tapered to a point. The frontal area increased to 0.270299 square meters, and the coefficient of drag
increased to 0.27500393. The difference in frontal area can be attributed to slight variances in frontal
geometry. The majority of difference in coefficient of drag is due to the trailing edge. The large difference
between design 6 and 7 shows the importance of having an optimized trailing edge. The final fairing design
chosen for our human powered vehicle is shown below in Figure 9:


Figure 9 Final fairing design for human powered vehicle.
14

To ensure problem-free construction of our aerodynamic fairing, the sixth design iteration was chosen to be
the final fairing design. Up until this point, each of the fairings had been analyzed without wheels using
only first order methods. This simplified analysis is enough to gain a comparative analysis of the
differences between fairing designs, but it cannot accurately put a numerical value on the resistive drag
forces that will be seen. To accurately compute the real-world drag forces, wheel volumes were added to
sixth fairing iteration. In the Fluent analysis, after the initial solution convergence, turbulence viscosity was
changed to 0.95. Momentum, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent dissipation rate were changed from
first order to second order solution methods. The Fluent analysis was continued using these new parameters
until convergence was reached again. The final frontal area and coefficient of drag are 0.2497132 square
meters and 0.14969557, respectively. The final Cd*A is 0.037381. The Cd*A for a standard upright bicycle
is 0.632. Our fairing produces an amazing 94.1% reduction in drag related forces.



Fairing and Frame Integration

Now that the final design selection has been completed for both the frame and the fairing, we are ready to
start construction of our vehicle. Although the vehicle was broken up into two sections during the design
process, careful procedures have been used to ensure that both the frame and the fairing can be easily
integrated to create the final form of our human powered vehicle.

Throughout the entire frame and faring design process, we have been using our SolidWorks frame and
fairing models to ensure that each system can be fully integrated with the other. In order to ensure that the
frame will fit inside of the constructed fairing, each fairing iteration was designed around the most recent
frame assembly. Critical dimensions were pulled from the assembly and our own ergonomic measurements
in order to determine fitment of the fairing around the rider and recumbent bike frame itself. Using these
dimensions, each fairing design was lofted to create the most aerodynamically efficient fairing shape. Then,
once each fairing was modeled, the fairing was placed around the vehicle assembly to ensure clearance of
all rotating and stationary components.

By following this procedure with each successive frame and fairing iteration, we have ensured that the
frame and roll bar will fit inside of the fairing without any clearance issues.



Moving Forward

Although the team has been working as separate units during the course of the semester, in these final
weeks, the group has come back together and worked as a single entity, combining each of our results into
a completed product. As we now move into the spring semester, we should be in excellent shape to begin
construction of our faired recumbent vehicle.

Throughout the entire semester, along with designing our frame and our fairing, we have been creating a
list of materials and component required for the construction of our human powered vehicle. For each
design iteration the required bicycle components and material stock have been updated to reflect the most
up-to-date iteration of the frame and fairing designs. A complete listing of our required materials and
proposed budget is found in Appendix B of this document.

15

With the design process complete for each of the major components of our human powered vehicle, we are
ready to begin construction of our aerodynamic fairing. Over the winter break, we plan to start construction
of our fairing plug, and if time allows, finish laying down all composite layers for our aerodynamic fairing.

To construct our fairing, we are going to use a method commonly used to build fairings for human powered
vehicle and velomobiles. Using the fairing that we have modeled in SolidWorks, 2-inch-thick cross
sections will be inserted every 8 inches along the length of the fairing. Each cross section will then be cut
so that it takes the exact shape of the fairing at that cross section. Once each section is plotted, the sections
will be printed and glued onto 2 inch polyurethane foam blocks. Then, each foam block will be cut to take
the shape of the contour printout. Once all sections have been formed and cut, they will be assembled to
create a skeleton of our fairing. A skeleton section from another human powered vehicle is shown below in
Figure 10 to exhibit the construction method we will be using to create our fairing:


Figure 10 Skeleton structure for fairing construction.

Following that, thin strips of polyurethane foam will be laid over the skeleton to produce a solid skin for
the fairing plug. Next, the entire plug will be sanded and formed until the desired shape for our fairing has
been achieved. At this point, we will be able to being laying the composite layers over the plug, creating
the finished fairing product. A finished plug for the aforementioned human powered vehicle using the
construction method described above is shown below in Figure 11:


Figure 11 Finished plug with skeleton structure for fairing construction.
16


Once the composite has cured, the fairing can then be cut into top and bottom sections, and the foam
framework used to construct the plug can be removed. Finally, the top and bottom sections will be cut to
allow for the wheels to pass through the fairing, and a smaller, removable section will be created to allow
the driver to enter the vehicle on their own accord.

Upon our return to school in the spring semester, our group will begin to order the bicycle components and
metal stock required to build the recumbent bicycle housed inside of our composite fairing. Like in the
design process, each component will be constructed independent of each other, and when completed, the
fairing and the frame will be integrated to create our human powered vehicle.



Final Thoughts

This project has been an intense learning experience for all involved. Many long afternoons stretching into
evenings have been spent sitting hunched over our laptops trying to figure out why SolidWorks is refusing
to rebuild, or if it really makes more sense to use 20 inch wheels instead of 700C wheels, or if the
differences even matter for what we are doing. We have used our local resources to the best of abilities,
such as going out into the community and talking to bicycle shops such as Roses in downtown Orono, in
the hopes that they could explain to us the intricacies of head tube sizing and bottom bracket spacing, as
well as speaking with professors on campus about different design aspects of our project. We have been
making our project known in the community, and we are very gracious to have received sponsorship from
several companies such as PTC, Dassault Systems, and Stuart Marine.

Teamwork has been an integral part of this process, because none of us could have done even a fraction of
this project without the help of the others. When all you want to do is throw your computer out the window
on the second floor of the library because something isnt working, sometimes all it takes is a teammate
looking over your shoulder and pointing out a simple mistake that you overlooked. We have managed to
keep each other on track, even in the presence of ever-looming midterms, finals, and the hundreds of other
things that try to steal your attention on a college campus.

We have succeeded in developing our engineering knowledge from the almost purely theoretical that is
taught in the classroom, to realizing how the concepts we have learned can be applied to real world
situations, as well as the fact that most things cant be solved by integrating, or simply solving for X. We
have learned that it takes many factors to produce an engineering design, many that are trivial and not at all
exciting, and some that are downright frustrating. But in the end, being able to step back and look at what
you have created gives a sense of satisfaction that cannot be paralleled by many things in this world.



17

References

[1] Accelerating CFD Solutions. ANSYS Advantage. J anuary 2011.

[2] ANSYS Fluent for Vehicle Aerodynamics. Eoescipy. Online Tutorial Series. Youtube.com.

[3] Manan Desai, S.A. Channiwala, H.J . Nagarsheth. Experimental and Computational
Aerodynamic Investigations of a Car. Mechanical Engineering Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat,INDIA

[4] Marco Lanfrit. Best Practice Guidelines for HandlingAutomotive External Aerodynamics with
FLUENT. Fluent Deutschland GmbHBirkenweg 14a64295 Darmstadt/Germany. 2/9/2005

[5] Wilson, David Gordon, J im Papadopoulos, and Frank Rowland. Whitt. Bicycling Science.
Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2004. Print.


18

Appendix A: Performance Calculations



Comparative Drag Forces



Aerodynamic Drag Force (lbf)
Speed (mph) Faired Recumbent Recumbent Road Bike Conventional Bike
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.41 1.62 1.96 3.65
10 1.62 6.49 7.84 14.61
15 3.65 14.61 17.65 32.86
20 6.49 25.97 31.38 58.42
25 10.14 40.57 49.03 91.29
30 14.61 58.42 70.60 131.46
35 19.88 79.52 96.09 178.92
40 25.97 103.87 125.50 233.70
45 32.86 131.46 158.84 295.77
50 40.57 162.29 196.10 365.15
55 49.09 196.37 237.28 441.83
60 58.42 233.70 282.38 525.82
65 68.57 274.27 331.41 617.11




0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
D
r
a
g

F
o
r
c
e

(
l
b
)

Speed (mph)
Drag Force vs. Cruising Speed
Faired Recumbent
Recumbent
Road Bike
Conventional Bike
19

Power Calculations


Ka
Wind Speed
(mph)
Wind Speed
(m/s) Ground Speed (mph) Ground Speed (m/s)
Drag Power
(W)
Rolling Drag
Coefficient
0.05 10 4.4704 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 5 2.2352 5.0253 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 10 4.4704 17.8677 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 15 6.7056 41.8775 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 20 8.9408 80.4047 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 25 11.1760 136.7997 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 30 13.4112 214.4126 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 35 15.6464 316.5937 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 40 17.8816 446.6930 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 45 20.1168 608.0609 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 50 22.3520 804.0474 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 55 24.5872 1038.0029 0.0020
0.05 10 4.4704 60 26.8224 1313.2775 0.0020

Rolling Drag
(W) Slope Resistance Total Power
Required Input Torque
(Nm)
Required Pedal Force
(lbf) Efficiency Total Force (lbf)
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8500 0.0000
3.0689 0.0000 8.0942 0.7030 0.9031 0.8500 1.0625
6.1378 0.0000 24.0055 2.0850 2.6784 0.8500 3.1510
9.2067 0.0000 51.0841 4.4368 5.6996 0.8500 6.7055
12.2755 0.0000 92.6803 8.0496 10.3407 0.8500 12.1655
15.3444 0.0000 152.1442 13.2142 16.9753 0.8500 19.9709
18.4133 0.0000 232.8260 20.2217 25.9772 0.8500 30.5614
21.4822 0.0000 338.0759 29.3629 37.7203 0.8500 44.3768
24.5511 0.0000 471.2441 40.9290 52.5783 0.8500 61.8569
27.6200 0.0000 635.6808 55.2109 70.9251 0.8500 83.4413
30.6888 0.0000 834.7363 72.4995 93.1344 0.8500 109.5699
33.7577 0.0000 1071.7606 93.0858 119.5801 0.8500 140.6824
36.8266 0.0000 1350.1041 117.2608 150.6358 0.8500 177.2186
20

Gearing Calculations

Outside Diameter Circumference Mile (inches) Rev/Mile Cadence (rpm) RPM at 45mph Mech. Adv. 45
16 50.26548246 63360 1260.507149 120 945.38 7.88
20 62.83185307 63360 1008.405719 120 756.30 6.30
24 75.39822369 63360 840.3380995 120 630.25 5.25
26 81.68140899 63360 775.6967073 120 581.77 4.85
27 84.82300165 63360 746.9671996 120 560.23 4.67
28 87.9645943 63360 720.2897996 120 540.22 4.50
29 91.10618695 63360 695.4522203 120 521.59 4.35

RPM at 50 Mech. Adv. 50 RPM at 55 Mech. Adv. 55 RPM at 60 Mech. Adv. 60 RPM at 65 Mech. Adv. 65
1050.42 8.75 1155.46 9.63 1260.51 10.50 1365.55 11.38
840.34 7.00 924.37 7.70 1008.41 8.40 1092.44 9.10
700.28 5.84 770.31 6.42 840.34 7.00 910.37 7.59
646.41 5.39 711.06 5.93 775.70 6.46 840.34 7.00
622.47 5.19 684.72 5.71 746.97 6.22 809.21 6.74
600.24 5.00 660.27 5.50 720.29 6.00 780.31 6.50
579.54 4.83 637.50 5.31 695.45 5.80 753.41 6.28


0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
16 20 24 26 27 28 29
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

Tire Diameter (in)
Required Mechanical Advantage vs. Tire Diameter
Mech. Adv. 45
Mech. Adv. 50
Mech. Adv. 55
Mech. Adv. 60
Mech. Adv. 65
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
16 20 24 26 27 28 29
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e

Tire Diameter (in)
Required Mechanical Advantage vs. Tire Diameter
Mech. Adv. 45
Mech. Adv. 50
Mech. Adv. 55
Mech. Adv. 60
Mech. Adv. 65