Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ME 599-2003-02
by:
Michael Resciniti
Adi Peshkess
Peter Leonard
Date:
12/15/2003
Abstract
When riding a bicycle, a great amount of kinetic energy is lost when braking, making
start up fairly strenuous. The goal of our project was to develop a product that stores the
energy which is normally lost during braking, and reuses it to help propel the rider when
starting. This was accomplished with a spring and cone system whose parameters were
optimized based on engineering, consumer preference, and manufacturing models. The
resulting product is one which is practical and potentially very profitable in the market
place. A spring (of tension 22,100 N/m) is stretched (at most 37cm) by a wire which
wraps around a cone (of 15 cm large diameter and 2 cm small diameter), while braking.
A clutch is then released and the cone drives the bike’s gears to assist the rider while
starting. The product weighs 14 lbs, will cost $87, and will return 85% of the rider’s
stopping energy when starting up again.
Nomenclature
D = stopping distance - parameter
wr = weight of rider - parameter
wb = weight of bicycle (plus weight of product) - parameter
g = gravitational constant - parameter
µ = coefficient of friction between bicycle tire and asphalt - parameter
α = acceleration of bicycle during stopping - parameter
N = normal force on bicycle tire due to gravitation - parameter
vi = initial velocity of bicycle - parameter
vf = final velocity of bicycle - parameter
rt = radius of bicycle tire - parameter
Ff = force of friction on bicycle tire - parameter
θw = angle of wheel traversed during stopping - parameter
τ = torque on bicycle tire applied by product - variable
rg1 = radius of large gear - variable
rg2 = radius of small gear - variable
rc1 = large radius of “cone” - variable
rc2 = small radius of “cone” - variable
Lc = length of “cone” - variable
θa = angle of “cone” rotation at applied point - variable
θt = total angle of “cone” rotation for complete winding - variable
x = deflection of spring - objective (min)
L1 = initial length of spring - variable
L2 = final length of spring - variable
rs = average radius of spring coil - variable
tw = thickness of spring wire - variable
ks = spring constant - variable
Πs = material of spring - variable
ms = mass of spring - variable
Cs = cost of spring* - objective (min)
mp = mass of product* - objective (min)
C = cost to manufacture product* - objective (min)
S = selling price of product* - objective (max)
P = profit from sale of product* - objective (max)
*
for later optimization of cost and weight. For the purposes of this proposal, we are only
attempting to minimize the necessary length of the spring deflection (x)
1.1 The Product Design Problem
Bicycles have been the heart of human transportation since the dawn of its creation.
Many advances have been made to make the bike more desirable and friendly for the
millions of users throughout the world. In many countries throughout Western Europe, a
very large number of professionals use bicycles to commute to work in their business
suits with their briefcases. It is our goal to design a device that can make their commute
an easily traveled one. The Regenerative Braking System (RBS) is a device that can do
so by reducing the overall energy the day to day business commuter is required to use.
4. Light weight
The importance of having a light weight design is driven by the customer’s desire
to have a bicycle that is more maneuverable and more portable. This is also a
direct trade off with how much energy can be stored in the spring.
9. Profitable
Profit is usually the main motivation for the start of any company, therefore this is
one of the parameters that will be optimized.
10. Reliable
It is important to have a product that is reliable and this requirement will affect
the long term business image and needs to be maintained in high regards.
11. Manufacturability
In order to make anything profitable, it needs to be manufacturability, hence the
important of having a product that can be made easily and cheaply.
13. Modular
Having a device that can be adapted to existing bicycles is essential to sell the
greatest number of units. This also can reduce other types of manufacturing costs.
The main requirements that are used in the analytical model were reduced to price,
weight and capacity (percent of the energy returned). All of the previous design
requirements were used in the engineering model to describe the reduced requirements.
Some of our design decisions are quantifiable, while others are not. The ones that are and
their associated equations are as follows:
From this list, #1, 2, 3, 5, 6 are quantifiable using engineering analysis. They can be
analyzed with equations from physics, dynamics, kinematics, and geometry.
Requirements #4, 7, 8 must be done through mathematical iteration and cost analysis.
2.2 Objective and Constraint Functions
The complete design optimization model in negative null form is as follows:
Objective: min x
rc2
rc1 rg1
Lc
rg2
Attached
to tire
2.3 Optimization Model and Solutions
Two steps were done in order to complete the design optimization model. The first thing
that needed to be done is to find what the optimal stopping distance must be before we
can determine what the shortest spring length should be. This device is only using the
rear brake to slow the bike to a stop. As the bike begins to slow, the weight is transferred
to the front tire, therefore the normal force on the rear tire is reduced, producing less
stopping force than. The excel model in figure 2 shows the maximum stopping force and
therefore the minimal stopping distance. This force is then extracted from the model and
inputted into the optimization model for the minimal spring length. Now knowing the
maximum stopping force, we can calculate the stopping torque and use the solver to find
the minimal spring length as shown in figure 3.
Variables and
Constants Constraint Equations
vi 5 m/s Rf + Rr - W = 0 0
Rf 420.428571 N -Rf(L1) + Rr(L - L1) + f(h) = 0 1E-06
Rr 462.471429 N
W 882.9 N
L 1.5 m Note: Only uses back brake to stop
L1 1.1 m
f 231.2357145 N
u 0.5
h 1.2 m
D 4.865165411 m
Output Parameteres
rw 0.33 m
T 76.30778579 Nm
θ 14.74292549 rad
Energy 1126.147959 J
INFO
m 90 kg
2
a 2.569285717 m/s
t 1.946066164 s
g force 0.261904762 g
Figure 3: Minimize to find the Shortest Feasible Spring Length
Min feasible spring length
Variables
c (gear ratio) 1.136872389
k 25000 N/m
ri #NAME? m
rf #NAME? m
rave #NAME? m
xi 0.046908859 m
xf 0.347061881 m
1
http://www.electricvehiclesnw.com/main/regen.htm
energy.2 However, we have come across no product currently on the market for a purely
mechanical regenerative braking system (RBS)
MIN(spring strength: k)
MIN(spring length: x)
MIN(cost per spring: Ck)
MIN(cone length: L)
MAX(difference of cone radii: rf-ri)
MAX(angle of cone rotation: θ)
MIN(# of parts purchased: N)
MIN(cost of parts purchased: Co)
MAX(selling price: P)
MIN(start-up costs: Cs)
MIN(tooling costs: Ct)
MAX(# units sold per year: n)
MIN(# workers: w)
MIN(salaries: S(wi))
MAX(# years in service: Y)
2
http://www.electricstar.org/motorboard.html
Cost per product: Ck·F(k,x) + Ct·G(L,rf,ri,θ) + Co·N
SOLVED | NOMINAL
Spring length (x) m : 0.1 | 0.3
Spring strength (k) N/m : 5000 | 10000
Cone Length (L) in. : 0.5 | 3
Cone Large Radius (ri) in. : 0.2 | 6
Cone Small Radius (rf) in. : 0.1 | 0.1
Cone Rotation (θ) rad : 6 | 4
Number of parts purchased (N) : 25 | 25
|
Spring Cost (Ck) : $1.00 | $6.00
Tooling Cost (Ct) : $0.03 | $4.58
Purchased-parts Cost (Co) : $12.50 | $12.50
|
Start up Costs (Cs) : $500,000.00 | $500,000.00
Salaries (S) : $1,000,000.00 | $1,000,000.00
|
Selling Price (P) : $85.00 | $85.00
number sold : 100000 | 100000
|
Revenue : $8,500,000.00 | $8,500,000.00
Cost : $2,852,500.00 | $3,807,500.00
|
Profit : $5,647,500.00 | $4,692,500.00
It is estimated that 1.5 billion people own and use a bicycle world wide and 100 – 120
million bicycles are produced every year. (data taken 11/3/2003) The break down of the
countries is as follows:
Standard Electric @Price
China 450 M 1M $300
India 300 M - -
USA 120 M 35,000 $1,500
Japan 70 M 20,000 $750
Brazil 40 M - -
Europe 140 M 65,000 $1,000
From this information we can make some approximation of supply and demand. If the
RBS is sold near 100$, then we can find the corresponding data. An example would look
like this:
China
500000000
400000000
300000000
200000000
100000000
0
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
Therefore, the market in China would be $50 for the bike plus $100 for the RBS would
yield a market near 250 million.
China: 250 M
USA: 110 M
Japan: 60 M
Europe: 120 M
710 Million!
This is an extremely large number, so if it was only 1% of this, then profit margins can
still be incredible.
4.2 Utility
The utility is derived from the characteristics that were prescribed: price, capacity, and
weight. The surveys are used to find this utility in terms of the Beta values. The
following are the Beta values:
Price: -0.0529
Capacity: 0.0512
Weight: -0.2164
These values show that the consumer cares about the weight the most, then price and
capacity. What this is saying is that people want a product that will give back some
energy that is really light and somewhat cheap.
The data was collected, the maximum likelihood formula was applied and the betas were
calculated. The results were discussed under the utility section. The spline interpolation
was applied to find the continuous functions. As shown in figures 4, 5, and 6, these
results can be approximated as linear.
Beta vs w eight
2.500
2.000
y = -0.2164x + 3.2475
1.500 Weight
0.500
0.000
5 10 15
lbs
0.000
75 85 95 105
-0.500
-1.000
Price
-1.500
Linear (Price)
-2.000
-2.500
y = -0.0529x + 2.7567
-3.000
$
2.500
y = 0.0512x - 2.7563
2.000
1.500
Speed
1.000
Linear (Speed)
0.500
0.000
50 70 90 110
-0.500
% Returned
25000
25000
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
profit 30000
Spring 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Deflection (x)
spring deflection (x)
200-220
5000 300- 350
250- 300
180-200 200- 250
10000 10000
160-180
140-160
15000 15000
120-140
Spring
100-120
Constant (k)
20000
20000 80-100
25000
Spring
25000
Cons tant (k )
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Spring
Spring De fle ction (x) Deflection (x)
5000 220-240
yellow: producer-demand
200-220 red: engineering performance
180-200
10000
160-180
Overlay on Producer Model
140-160
15000 120-140
100-120
20000 80-100
Spring
25000
Constant (k)
30000
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
Spring Deflection (x)
Comparing this solution with that found only by optimizing the profit in EXCEL,
we see the following:
EXCEL SOLVER for Profit Analytical Target Cascading
spring deflection (x) 0.37 m 0.58 m
spring stiffness (k) 30,000 N/m 7,500 N/m
Price ($) $99.31 $63.88
Weight (lb.) 16.32 lb. 11.26 lb.
Capacity (% of 1800J) 114% 70%
Profit $32,086,000 $21,118,000
So, the excel solver seems to have created a more profitable outcome. However,
the selling price was determined by increasing the manufacturing cost-per-part by 60%.
Therefore, we can increase our profit by raising the selling price, and our demand curve
indicates that our profit will actually increase almost 30% by an increase to a selling price
of approximately $85 if we increase the capacity to approximately 85%. We can do this
by setting x to 0.37m and k to 22,100 N/m, and this also yields a weight of only 14 lb.
This appears to be the true optimum of our system.
6 Conclusion
The overall goal was to design the Regenerative Braking System while keeping the
engineering, producer and customer models in check. The key design decision was based
on the spring length and the spring constant. The reason why this feature was used more
than all of the other features are because the other features would not have as much effect
on the complete system. By changing the size and spring constant, desirable price,
weight and capacity can be realized.
We used a survey to find out how the price, weight and capacity were scaled. Much was
learned on how to and not to conduct a survey. A preliminary survey should have been
conducted to determine a realistic value of variables. Also many of choices were not
close enough together to get a reasonable cut off value. Therefore the data that was
produced using conjoint analysis was most likely not as accurate as it could have been.
There are some limitations to our model. For the sake of simplicity, the spring was
modeled with the length and the spring constant rather than wire thickness, stress, strain
and all the other complex analysis that would make the solver take too long to process.
By getting a rough idea of what the ranges can be, simple experimentation can be done to
prove or disprove this assumption.
Future work would consist of a redesign of the spring model to see exactly how much
data we may be missing with the assumption that we made with how price, weight and
capacity vary with spring length and spring constant. Despite all the assumptions, we
still have realized that this product can be very marketable and that the demand is
extremely large which means this is a viable design that will yield a high return on an
investment.
References
Papalambros, P.Y., and D.J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design. 2nd Ed.
Cambridge University Press, New Your, NY, 2000.
http://www.electricvehiclesnw.com/main/regen.htm
http://www.electricstar.org/motorboard.html
http://www.hondurasembassy.se/bicycles.pdf
http://www.uspto.gov/
Appendix A
Data
Number Made 100,000
Selling Price $ 87.00
Cost
Description Quantity Cost Total Cost
Investment Cost
Warehouse 3000 m^2 20 $ 200,000 $ 4,000,000
Patent International 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Technology Computers, CAD, CNC 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Tooling Costs CNC lathe machine 8 $ 50,000 $ 416,667
Annual Cost
Aluminum (6"x3" round stock) 100000 $ 5 $ 521,000
springs 100000 $ 15 $ 1,500,000
sprocket 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Materials small sprocket 100000 $ 4 $ 400,000
gears 100000 $ 10 $ 1,000,000
casing 100000 $ 8 $ 800,000
Misc. 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Engineering 5 $ 50,000 $ 250,000
Business 4 $ 40,000 $ 160,000
Labor (yearly
Marketing / Sales 4 $ 42,000 $ 168,000
salaries)
Assembly 17 $ 25,000 $ 416,667
Machinist 3 $ 25,000 $ 69,444
Yearly Annual Cost: $ 6,285,111
Revenue
Location Quantity Sold Price (USD) Total Income
The Netherlands 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Italy 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Germany 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
Spain 25,000 $ 87 $ 2,175,000
No. of Units Sold: 100,000 Yearly Income $ 8,700,000
Profit
=Total Yearly Income - Total Yearly Cost
Yearly Profit: $ 2,414,889
2. Market Analysis
2.1 Overall Market
The projected market size for the RBS is on the order of 700 million people. This
number was estimated by the number of people throughout the world who would possibly
pay over one hundred dollars for a power assisted biking system. Due to market
penetration, this number will be reduced significantly to a value of 100,000 units.
2.500
2.000
y = -0.2164x + 3.2475
1.500 Weight
0.500
0.000
5 10 15
lbs
0.000
75 85 95 105
-0.500
-1.000
Price
-1.500
Linear (Price)
-2.000
-2.500
y = -0.0529x + 2.7567
-3.000
$
2.500
y = 0.0512x - 2.7563
2.000
1.500
Speed
1.000
Linear (Speed)
0.500
0.000
50 70 90 110
-0.500
% Returned
3. Competitive Analysis
3.1 Industry Overview
Despite the trends of modern technology with the automobile, the biking industry is still
thriving, meaning that bicycles will be with us for a long time to come. The Airstream
group of Canada has show that the growth rates of normal bicycles are 10% per year and
surprisingly the growth rate of electric bicycles are 25% per year [2]. This is a very
promising statistic and shows that people are leaning towards a more environmentally
friendly and healthier lifestyle, which ensures a stable market place for the RBS.
4. Product Breakdown
4.1 RBS Optimal Design
The finalized design of the RBS consists of a 25” long compression spring that has a
spring constant of 30K N-m that is attached to a 6”max DIA cone via 1/8” wire. The
cone is inline with a set of 1” beveled gears. There is a shaft that connects through two of
the gears using a clutch that can be engaged when the brakes are being applied. The gear
near the sprocket has a free wheel bearing, which allows the bike to both brake and
accelerate, using a compact gear train. The sprocket, which is aligned with the free
bearing gear, connects to the back sprocket that is mounted on the tire. See Figure 4 for a
detailed model.
Figure 4: Schematic of RBS
Cone
Compression
Spring
Ratchet
Sprocket
Clutch
To
Back
Tire Freewheel
The majority of the focus of this design is optimizing the spring to meet the needs of the
consumer and the producer. Also all other values are so discrete or cannot change and
the only flexibility that can be made to the RBS that has any significant value are the
spring length and the spring constant. These parameters were optimized to find the
spring that can yield the highest profit and yet meet the customer’s needs.
Cost
Description Quantity Cost Total Cost
Investment Cost
Warehouse 3000 m^2 20 $ 200,000 $ 4,000,000
Patent International 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Technology Computers, CAD, CNC 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Tooling Costs CNC lathe machine 8 $ 50,000 $ 416,667
Annual Cost
Aluminum (6"x3" round stock) 100000 $ 5 $ 521,000
springs 100000 $ 15 $ 1,500,000
sprocket 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Materials small sprocket 100000 $ 4 $ 400,000
gears 100000 $ 10 $ 1,000,000
casing 100000 $ 8 $ 800,000
Misc. 100000 $ 5 $ 500,000
Engineering 5 $ 50,000 $ 250,000
Business 4 $ 40,000 $ 160,000
Labor (yearly
Marketing / Sales 4 $ 42,000 $ 168,000
salaries)
Assembly 17 $ 25,000 $ 416,667
Machinist 3 $ 25,000 $ 69,444
Yearly Annual Cost: $ 6,285,111
Mostly all parts of the product are outsourced except for the cone. The cone is
manufactured in house on CNC lathes and operated by machinists. Once those parts are
produced, the assemblers put them together. The total number of workers were
determined by a function of how many units could be produced in a year and how many
units are actually made in a year. Some assumptions made were, one machinist can work
three CNC lathe machines at once and each of those machines could produce one cone
every 20 minutes. The same types of assumptions were made for the assemblers ending
with an end result as shown above.
5.3 Profit
The yearly profit of the RBS is total yearly revenue – the total yearly profit. Again
assuming that all products are sold every year, the net profit for our product will be
$2,414,889. Our product has quite a large mark-up, but with our estimations and before
competition is introduced, $25 mark-up is not too dangerous. After market penetration,
the quantity sold will most likely increase dramatically and other markets will be reached.