TEAM MOTOTRON

2017 SAE FORMULA HYBRID

REPORT V

SENIOR DESIGN II

BY:
Brian Lynn
Nam Nguyen
Objective

The Formula Hybrid competition is part of a collegiate design series where

University students from around the world engineer, design, and fabricate high

performance hybrid vehicles. Students are required to demonstrate their knowledge in

multiple disciplines including mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering. There

are numerous rules and regulations students are expected to follow during the

competition and design phase, however, flexibility in terms of creativity and innovation is

encouraged. This competition challenges students to work together as a cohesive unit

to demonstrate a practical application of project management skills to complete the

project on time and under budget.

Goal

Team MotoTron will represent the University of Houston - Northwest Campus at

the SAE International Formula Hybrid 2017 Competition. The competition allows for a

maximum of 35 teams to compete from the United States and Internationally. Team

MotoTron will be implementing a unique series-parallel drive-train and a regenerative

braking system for additional efficiency. The vehicle’s curb weight will not exceed 600

pounds. The vehicle is expected to be operational in October 2016 and will accelerate a

distance of 75 meters in 5.5 seconds in electric and hybrid mode.

Formula Hybrid Competition

The Formula Hybrid competition is composed of two events: a static and dynamic

component worth 1,000 points combined and as outlined below. Other awards from

competition sponsors are:

 • Fiat Chrysler Innovation Award - $`1000.00

• Fiat Chrysler Industrial Design Award - $100.00

• Fiat Chrysler Gracious Professionalism Award - $1000.00

• General Motors Best-Engineered Hybrid System Awards - $3500.00

• IEEE Engineering the Future Award and Excellence in EV Engineering Award

Appendix A highlights the 2016 competition results.

Static Event

Design:

Students are required to explain their constructive solutions to a panel of experts

from the automotive and motorsport industries in written and verbal formats. The

concept of the design event is to evaluate the engineering effort placed into the design

of the vehicle and how the engineering meets the intent of the market. The car that

demonstrates the best use of engineering to meet the design goals and includes the

best understanding of the design by the team members will prevail in the design event.

Presentation:

The objective of the presentation event is for teams to convince a review board

that their project has been carefully planned and effectively executed. Constrained by

scope, time, and budget, students will develop a project management plan which

demonstrates the skills and techniques necessary to execute the project. The Project

Management component consists of three parts: submission of a written project plan

and a written interim report followed by a final oral presentation to be delivered before a

review board at the competition.

 For the Dynamic Event component the team will demonstrate their vehicle’s

performance and durability. The challenge is to create a vehicle that is road-worthy and

prevails over other team’s designs. Events are scored based on presentation and

vehicle performance.

Dynamic Event

Acceleration:

Vehicles are evaluated based on their acceleration ability from a stopped position

over a straight line distance of 75 meters. The acceleration event is performed in

electric only mode and hybrid mode. The maximum score for each acceleration activity

is 75 points.

Autocross:

In the Autocross event, the objective is to evaluate the car’s maneuverability and

handling qualities on a tight course without the hindrance of competing cars. The course

will combine the performance features of acceleration, braking, and cornering into one

event. The results of the Autocross scores determine the starting order for the

endurance event. The autocross has a value of 150 points.

Endurance:

Over a distance of 44 kilometers teams will prove their durability under long range

conditions. Acceleration, speed, handling, dynamics, fuel economy, and reliability

contribute to the vehicle’s performance. The endurance event is relocated to the sports

road course and includes a one kilometer hill section to offer elevation changes – two

climbs per lap totaling more than seventy-two feet. These climbs enhance the ability to

incorporate the use of regenerative braking.

 The endurance event is the most challenging. All vehicles begin with fully charged

accumulators (batteries or capacitors). Hybrids are then given an additional allocation of

liquid fuel so that all hybrid vehicles start with the same amount of energy. Electric-only

vehicles must complete the endurance challenge with the energy contained in their

accumulators.

Each team attempts to complete the 44-kilometer event as fast as possible to

achieve a maximum event score of 400 points. Speed isn’t the only factor, the team that

utilizes all the allotted energy in the most efficient manner wins. This requires both an

efficient vehicle and careful energy management.

Hybrid Vehicles

The most basic definition of hybrid is something that is made by combining two

different elements or objects. In the case of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) an electric

motor and internal combustion engine are combined to provide the basis of a hybrid

design. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) typically utilize one of three types of hybrid drive-

trains:

1) Series

2) Parallel

3) Series-Parallel (also known as power splitting hybrid)

Series

With a Series Hybrid System, an electric motor is responsible for providing the

tractive force to the wheels for propulsion. Its primary energy supply is from an

accumulator which could be comprised of batteries or capacitors. An internal

combustion engine (ICE) is utilized as the motive force for a generator that converts

mechanical energy of the ICE to electrical energy to replenish the accumulator and/or

provide power to the motor.

Series Advantages:

● The engine operates at a single speed and torque to allow for the optimization of

efficiency, emission control, and power. With some electric motors, a fixed gear

ratio can be used, and the resulting weight savings can offset the added weight

of other electric machines.

● The engine is not coupled to the wheels

● Motors are more efficient than Internal Combustion Engines (I.C.E.)

● Electricity provides the motive force

● An electric motor can enable regenerative braking for additional efficiency and

battery charging.

● Simple drive train

Series Disadvantages:

● Requires two electric machines (motor and generator); with the motor sized to

be able to deliver the full peak propulsion power required and the generator sized

for average power. Tractive power is provided by the electric motor exclusively.

● Energy conversion leads to decreased efficiency

● Not as efficient at high speeds when compared to parallel hybrids

Parallel
For hybrids with parallel drive-trains, the electric motor and internal combustion engine

can provide mechanical power simultaneously.

Parallel Advantages:

● More efficient power output

● Can meet instantaneous power needs

● Allows for a smaller electrical system

Parallel Disadvantages:

● Engine is not always at its most efficient speed

● Often requires complex mechanical couplings or clutches

Series/Parallel

Series/parallel drive-trains merge the advantages and complications of the

parallel and series drive-trains. By combining the two designs, the engine can drive the

wheels in conjunction with the motor or be effectively disconnected, with only the

electric motor providing tractive force.

As a true hybrid vehicle, the engine can operate at optimum efficiency to

supplement the electric motor. At lower speeds the vehicle will operate more as a series

vehicle, but when a greater power demand is required, where the series drive-train is

less efficient, the ICE engages to supplement the electric motor.

This type of system has historically been more expensive than a parallel hybrid

since it requires a motor/generator, a larger accumulator, and more computing power to

control the dual system. However, its efficiencies mean that the series/parallel drive-
train offers superior performance and better fuel efficiency than either the series or

parallel systems alone.

Series-Parallel Advantages:

● Engine and motor can provide power independently or in conjunction with one

another.

● Engine can supplement the motor when additional power is required

● Increased vehicle range

Series-Parallel Disadvantages:

● Complicated control scheme and programming

● Increased cost

While cost and complexity is increased with a series-parallel hybrid design the

implementation of it can be simplified with the use of a device known as a power-

splitter. This type of device is the basis for Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive system and

will also be used as the basis for Team Mototron’s Formula Hybrid car.

Power Split Device (PSD)

The heart of the Power Split Device (PSD) is a planetary gear system as shown in

Figure 1 and consists of a ring gear, a planetary gear set, and a sun gear.
 Figure 1 – Diagrammatic representation of the PSD and how it is inter-
connected between the IC engine and motor generators.

From Figure 1 it is seen that the outer “ring” gear is attached to Motor/Generator

2(MG2) which is the main tractive motor. As a generator, it can be harnessed to take

advantage of regenerative braking when the vehicle is decelerating. The planetary

carrier gear is coupled with the IC engine and the inner “sun” gear is connected to MG1

which acts as a starter for the IC and also serves as a generator to recharge batteries

depending on the mode of operation. The normal mode of operation is for MG2 to

power the vehicle. When more power than the motor can provide is required, the IC

engine can assist. When called upon by the control system the IC engine will be started

by MG1 to supplement MG2. In order for the IC engine to assist MG2, MG1 has to be
“electrically” held so that the IC and MG2 are coupled to transmit power to the wheels

together. Additionally, MG2 can provide power to the wheels and operate independently

of the IC engine when performing charging duties much like a series hybrid

arrangement. While not easy to visualize, there is an interactive animation at:

http://eahart.com/prius/psd/ that provides a clearer picture of how the components are

integrated and operated in various modes together and independently.

The PSD is a simplistic mechanism for the development of a series-parallel

hybrid drive-train. One advantage of an epicyclic gear arrangement is that the need for

complex gear boxes and clutch arrangements that are common in parallel systems are

eliminated. Additionally, the behavior of the gear arrangement mimics that of a

Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) offering a nearly infinite range of speed

ratios. This allows for the elimination of conventional transmissions that are limited by

the number of speed ratios according to gearing. The CVT attributes of the PSD provide

for improved overall fuel economy since the IC engine can be operated within its most

efficient speed/torque range.

From Modeling and Control of a Power Split Hybrid Vehicle the speed ratios of

the gearing of the PSD are related by the angular velocities and radii of the gears as

shown in EQ-1

ωsRs + ωrRr = ωc (Rr + Rs) EQ-1

where the subscripts s, r, and c represent the sun, ring, and planetary carrier gears

respectively. The resulting speed constraints can be related by a lever diagram to aid in

analysis as shown in Figure 2 (Liu and Peng).

 Figure 2 – Gear relationships and lever diagram
for dynamic analysis and speed constraint definition
of PSD. The arrow lengths of the lever diagram indicate
magnitude of speed and direction indicates its sense.
From: Modeling and Control of a Power Split Hybrid Vehicle

According to the Encyclopedia of Tribology, speed constraints as mentioned above

refers to the fact that the final ratio of the epicyclic gear train is dependent on which

component has its rotation controlled or otherwise constrained. The simplest method of

defining the speed ratio for a gear train is as a ratio of the input speed to the output

speed ignoring any intermediate gearing. However, with epicyclic gear mechanisms,

any one of the gears can be independently controlled thus reiterating the fact the PSD

can be considered a continuously variable transmission.

Because the number of teeth on a gear and the gear’s radius are related, EQ-1

can be re-written as:

Nsωs + Npωp – (Ns + Np)ωc = 0 EQ-2A

Or as

Nrωr - Npωp – (Nr - Np)ωc = 0 EQ-2B

Equating EQ-2A and 2B and assuming that ωr ≠ ωc and also assuming that the tooth

count of the gears satisfies EQ-3 where:

 Nr = Ns + 2Np EQ-3

the gear ratio can be defined by:

nωs + (2 + n)ωr – 2(1 + n)ωc = 0 EQ-4

where n is the ratio Ns:Np.

Consider the following examples where one gear is constrained such that its angular
velocity is zero and applying EQ-1:

Speed Constraint ωc = 0 ωr = 0 ωs = 0
Speed / Gear
ωs / ωr = -(Nr / Ns) ωs / ωc = (1+ Nr / Ns) ωr / ωc = (1 + Ns/ Nr)
Ratio (R=)
R= -2.10 3.10 1.48

Table 1 – Comparison of speed restraints and resulting planetary gear ratios where ω =
angular velocity, subscripts c, r, and s refer to the Carrier, Ring, and Sun gears
respectively and N is the number of teeth per gear. For the case of Mototron’s planetary
gearset, Nr = 61, Np = 16, and Ns = 29.

Just as there is a relationship between speed and gear tooth count, similar

correlations can be made between torque and tooth count. The following equations can

be used to determine gear torque if the torque of one gear is known. Note: these

equations do not account for any losses such as friction.

𝑁
𝑇𝑟 = 𝑇𝑠 (𝑁𝑟) EQ-5
𝑠

𝑁𝑟
𝑇𝑟 = 𝑇𝑐 (𝑁 ) EQ-6
𝑟 + 𝑁𝑠

Equation 5 and 6 follow the relations of the speed/gear ratios in Table 1 and can easily

be used to determine the increase of decrease in torque depending on what is being

driven as well as restrained. If the maximum torque of the vehicles IC engine is ~13.5 ft-

lb (Subaru EX21 Power Curve – Appendix A) and applied through the sun gear with the

planet carrier restrained there will be a torque increase of 2.1X so the final torque at the
 ring gear is 28.4 ft-lb. Likewise torque

could also be reduced by the same

amount if it is applied from the ring to the

sun gear. For the PSD, Team Mototron is

re-purposing a planetary gear set from a

Dodge A670 automatic transmission as

shown in the photograph (left). The gear-

set consists of an interior ring gear with a tooth count of 61. Four planetary gears have

16 teeth each, and the sun gear includes 29 teeth which satisfies EQ-3 above. All gears

are helical with pitches in the range of 18-20. The initial design for the PSD was to

implement a combined housing for the PSD and the output drive of the IC engine. This

housing would incorporate a tensioning device for the chain coupling the IC engine and

PSD. The tractive motor and generator were to be coupled to the PSD opposite of one

another and perpendicular to the IC engine. The current generation of PSD design will

include housing for the planetary gears but will no longer be rigidly coupled to the IC

engine.

Budget, schedule, and design development have led to an alternative PSD

design which will only couple the tractive motor and IC engine. The PSD will have a

shaft connected to the ring gear for the drive motor and another attached to the sun

gear for the generator. This PSD design will continue to implement an internal splash

lubricating system and be fully sealed and gasketed to prevent leakages. Tapered roller

bearings are being utilized for the PSD housing design to minimize radial thrust loads.

Tapered bearings offer the additional advantage of withstanding high axial thrust loads
that are encountered with helical cut gears. Fabrication drawings are in development in

conjunction with FEA optimization for additional weight reduction. An initial rendering of

the proposed design is shown in the image below.

An example of a detailed design drawing and bill of materials for the PSD can be seen

in Appendix B.

Differentials

A differential is a component of a vehicle that transmits power and torque

generated by the motor and engine to the wheels causing the vehicle to move. Its

primary function however is to allow the inside wheel to spin slower than the outside

wheel during turns or cornering. If not for this feature a vehicle’s steering and handling

capabilities would unacceptable for safe driving. The most common differential found on

production vehicles is the open type. This differential utilizes a simple design where the

geared ends of the axles inside the differential are coupled by two differential pinion
gears as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Section view of a conventional differential (open)

Courtesy of: http://www.grandmarq.net/gmn/tech/drivetrain2.html

When a vehicle is moving in a straight line both wheels are traveling at the same speed

and there is no rotation of the differential pinions. In a turn or corner the differential

gears rotate to allow the inside wheel to spin slower than the outer wheel. A major

disadvantage with an open differential is when a wheel begins to slip all of the torque is

applied to the slipping wheel and the opposite wheel will not rotate. Open differentials

are adequate for normal driving conditions in commuter vehicles but in high

performance applications something more substantial is required.

 Differentials used in racing applications will have the ability to “lock” the

differential when wheel slippage is sensed so that equal power and torque is always

transmitted to both wheels. In Formula SAE and Formula Hybrid the two most common

types of differential in use are the limited slip differential (LSD) and torque biasing. The

LSD design is also common on commercially available production vehicles particularly

in sports cars and four-wheel drive trucks. When wheel slippage occurs the differential

gears begin to spin considerably faster causing an increase in the tangential force at the

edge of the gears forcing the gears to move outward. The mesh of the gears is

designed with an amount of backlash so that the pinions can separate slightly but still

be engaged. As the differential gears move outward they force a series of friction plates

that effectively couple both axles so that power is equally transmitted to each wheel and

spin can be overcome. Springs are also common features of this type of differential.

Figure 4 – Isometric section view of a Limited Slip Differential (LSD)

that uses friction clutches to maintain a balance of torque and
power between drive wheels.
Courtesy of: http://www.grandmarq.net/gmn/tech/drivetrain2.html
 Torque biasing differentials perform the same function as a LSD but instead of

friction plates and springs, gears are used exclusively. The pinion gears at the ends of

the axles are replaced by worm gears. Transverse worm wheels are located around the

worm gears and the worm wheels are interconnected with pinion gears (refer to Figure

5). The principal of operation with a torque biasing differential is that the worm gear can

turn the worm wheels but the worm wheels cannot turn the worm gear.

Figure 5 – Isometric section view of a Torque Biasing Differential

that uses gears exclusively to balance of torque and power between drive
wheels.
Courtesy of http://www.grandmarq.net/gmn/tech/drivetrain2.html
Appendix B includes drawings and technical information for one of the more popular

differentials used in Formula SAE known as the TORSEN “University Special”. This is a

torque biasing differential based on the original design from 1958.

Motors

Motors in hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) are the primary source for motive force

except when being supplemented by the ICE. Therefore, they need to be adequately

sized for the vehicle they are powering and provide high performance while at the same

time having a high efficiency and reduced requirement for energy. Unfortunately, there

is always a compromise as cost and weight are important factors to consider for motor

selection. From “Comparison of Different Motor Design Drives for Hybrid Electric

Vehicles” motors currently installed on production HEV’s tend to be one of the following

types:

1) Interior Permanent Magnet (IPM)

2) Copper cage induction machine (IM) – also known as squirrel cage induction

machines

3) Switched Reluctance Machine

An IPM is a type of AC synchronous motor which means that the speed of

rotation is synchronous with the frequency of the supplied current to the motor. IPM

motors are advantageous for HEV utilization because they tend to provide a constant

power output over varying speed ranges (Lewotsky). These types of motors offer an

additional benefit in that they can also operate as a generator of electricity. An IPM

produces torque via two mechanisms. One relies on the permanent magnet torque
created by the field of flux between the permanent magnet rotor field and the

electromagnetic field created by the stator. A second torque, known as reluctance

torque, is generated due to the rotor design which tries to achieve alignment with the

stator coils causing an additional torque. The result of the stator being energized

sequentially (frequency) creates alternating north and south poles which the rotor is

constantly trying to align with.

The copper cage induction machine is a fanciful name for the common AC

induction motor. Research has indicated that this is the most prevalent type of motor

used in the Formula Hybrid competition. AC induction motors can be considered as

workhorses in industrial applications due to their prevalence, cost, and durability. An AC

induction motor is simplistic in that there is a conductive coil (rotor) housed in a “fixed”

stator. AC current applied to the stator creates a rotating magnetic field whose induction

creates a magnetic field within the conductive rotor. As a result, the fields “chase” each

other which results in rotation of the rotor. Faraday’s and Lenz’s law both apply to the

theory of operation of an induction motor.

Switched Reluctance Machine (SRM) types of motors are a form of stepper

motor and like the IPM utilize reluctance torque as part of the operation. The major

difference is that these motors use DC current instead of AC. Typical DC motors apply

current to the rotor but SRM’s apply it to the stator like other AC motors. Switched

reluctance machines can also be used as stepper motors. Just as the ICM these motors

have the added benefit of the ability to act as a motor or generator.

The motor selected for this application is the AC-12 motor manufactured by High

Performance Electric Vehicles. This motor is an AC 3-phase induction motor with

nameplate data indicating a maximum horsepower of 30 hp and a voltage rating of 72

volts. Power and torque of the motor will be variable depending on the applied voltage

and current as indicated by equations 7 and 8 however Appendix B includes power and

torque curves based on a selected current of 300 amps.

1.73∗𝑉∗𝐼∗𝑒𝑓𝑓.∗𝑃.𝐹.
𝐻𝑃 = EQ-7
746

5250∗𝐻𝑃
𝑇= EQ-8
𝑛

Due to the nature of the design of the hybrid drive train which incorporates a PSD, a

second motor is required which will also function as a generator.

As mentioned in the PSD section above, design development due to budget

constraints have led Team Mototron in a different direction. Initially the design called for

the utilization of an additional AC-12 motor and controller to function as a starter for the

IC engine and operating under IC power as a generator by utilizing its regenerative

feature since AC motors tend to be as efficient when generating as they are motoring.

The AC-12 motor manufacturer advised the motor can easily be controlled as both a

motor and generator by with additional modifications of the controller’s program which in

turn adds cost. Other considerations involved the use of Permanent Magnet AC (PMAC)

motors because they tend to be lighter, more compact, and more competitively priced

than a standard AC induction motors. Permanent Magnet DC (PMDC) motors have also

been considered due to their suitability for regenerative braking and use as a

Motor/Generator (MG). PMDC motors are also simple to convert from a stand-alone

motor to a generator since no external field excitation is required and they tend to be
light weight and compact however a DC motor would require the purchase of a new

controller, a DC-DC converter, and possibly a charge controller for the accumulators.

The current generator design will consist of a 110 Volt, 1.2kVA generator

powered directly from the IC engine in conjunction with an on-board charger that will

provide 72 volts at 12 amps to the accumulators when demanded. The use of an on-

board charger will offer additional flexibility for accumulator charging from any standard

110V source.

Motor Controllers

With an HEV the requirements of the motor are demanding because power

requirements are not constant. Additionally, the motors most often utilized are AC

machines powered by DC accumulators. DC power for an AC machine sounds

counterintuitive but the integration of a proper motor controller alleviates the issue while

adding a layer of protection to the electrical system of an HEV. One function of the

motor controller is to invert the DC power supplied by an accumulator to AC power for

the motor. However, the primary function of the controller is to manage the speed and

power output of the motor. Several manufacturers Such as WarP, Sevcon, and Curtis

provide AC motor controllers that cover a broad spectrum of applications for automotive

and heavy industrial uses. The WarP and Curtis controllers are the most comparable

and best suited for use in Formula Hybrid. These controllers receive signals from

throttle and brakes to operate the motor as efficiently as possible and permit

regenerative braking to harness energy for the batteries that would otherwise be lost as

heat. They are also programmable so that power and torque output can be customized

for a specific application. Carrier Area Network (CANbus) capabilities and I/O allow

further integration of the control into a complete distributed system allowing

communication with other devices and controllers. Safety and reliability are built into the

controllers by providing thermal monitoring and shutdown protection. Other safety

features are reverse polarity checks, and short circuit protection of drivers. Team

MotoTron has selected the Curtis 1238-7601 as the controller for the high voltage

tractive motor based on its cost and functionality when compared to the other controllers

evaluated. The Curtis controller has been factory tuned specifically for use with the

HPEVS AC-12 motor.

Accumulators

For the Formula Hybrid competition, the accumulator is defined as all the

batteries or capacitors used to store electrical energy used by the tractive system. Most

batteries and capacitors are permitted for use in the competition except for molten salt,

thermal, atomic and mechanical batteries and fuel cells. Formula Hybrid rules limit the

maximum accumulator voltage to 300 V. Lead acid batteries are commonly used in

automotive applications for starting, but as a primary source of energy for a HEV they

are heavy when compared to Lithium-Ion batteries that can provide more electrical

energy with lower weight and size. This is important because the vehicle should have a

higher power to weight ratio to achieve the performance goal. The accumulators are

required to be housed in an enclosure attached to the vehicle therefore consideration

must be given to the frame and chassis design to support the accumulators. Batteries of

lithium-ion batteries chemistries such as LiFePo4 appear to be the most prevalent

battery used in the competition. These batteries offer an increase in charge/discharge

cycles, can withstand higher temperatures, and can provide high discharge current. The

enclosures for the accumulators need to be segmented in a way they can be electrically
isolated during maintenance activities and limit each segment to 120 V and 1,667 W-h.

The accumulator(s) are to be fused to protect other accumulator and tractive system

components and also are required to have a visible analog voltage meter to verify

voltage present. Other required safety features that have to be incorporated into the

accumulator design are insulation monitoring, and thermal protection which are

incorporated with the aid of an accumulator management system (Battery Management

System, BMS).

Presently the High Voltage Tractive System (HVTS) is set up for bench testing

using lead-acid batteries. For the test bench six 12V batteries are wired in series for a

total pack voltage of 72V. For the competition vehicle, the original goal was to

implement lithium-polymer (Li-Po) cells with each battery rated for 45V at 4.5 Ah with a

discharge rating of 20C. To achieve the desired voltage for the AC-12 motor, the

batteries would need to be arranged such that 12 batteries are divided into 6 groups

wired in parallel with each group containing 2 batteries in series (2S6P). This

arrangement will allow the accumulator to provide 90V at 27 Ah. However, due to

budget constraints, the Lithium-ion battery option became less attractive and

accumulator options were re-evaluated.

Because the name-plate rating of the motor is 72V, the lead-acid battery option is

simple to implement. Unfortunately the compromise with the reduced budget is

increased weight. Fortunately the newly sourced on-board charger is programmable for

different battery styles so battery options are not limited. The present configuration is to

utilize six 12 Volt Absorbent Glass Mat (AGM) batteries in series. These batteries are

similar in chemistry to lead acid batteries but are lighter, can be configured in multiple
positions, and can provide more discharge current. The batteries to be sourced will be

configured to provide 72 Volts with a 31 Amp-Hour rating over 10 hours. Peak discharge

current is expected to be in excess of 400 amps and is more than adequate for the

acceleration requirements since they are based on motor performance at 300 amps and

72 volts.

Accumulator Management

Accumulator Management Systems (AMS),) or more commonly known as BMS

monitor and manage the health of the batteries. Types of BMS range from miniature

systems that attach to each cell for monitoring up to more complex systems where one

unit can manage an entire bank of batteries from 12 to 108 cells. Manufacturers such as

Orion and Elithion offer BMS that are suitably sized and configured for used in Formula

Hybrid. Some of the key features of these BMS are:

• They are field programmable and CANbus enabled

• Compatible with most all Li-Ion batteries

• Manage charge/discharge

• Performs data logging of temperature and current events per cycle

• I/O capable for temperature monitoring and control

In case of a fault such as critical temperature or voltage detection, the AMS is required

to open accumulator isolation relays, and shut down the drive system. The

accumulators and tractive system remain disconnected until manually reset. The AMS

must also have a test connection to measure cell voltages. The AMS interface with the

HVTS, accumulators, and emergency shutdown system can be seen in Drawing ELEC-

0001 in Appendix C. Other options for BMS are smaller and easier to implement such
as the MiniBMS which is an economical alternative for lithium type batteries. Because of

the design change with the accumulator selection the MiniBMS is attractive but not

practical due to the lower voltages they are made for monitoring. Some of the common

features required of an AMS are built into the on-board charger, but cell temperature

monitoring is still required by the Formula Hybrid Competition. The Manzanita Micro

MkIII AMS is a suitable option for lead-acid batteries as it provides temperature

monitoring as well as measurement for voltage transients that could require a system

shutdown.

Programmable Controllers

Many AMS and motor controllers are programmable and can communicate with

one another via CANbus, but they may not have functionality for control outside of the

electrical system. Because the vehicle is a hybrid there has to be some control feature

for the internal Combustion Engine (ICE) as well as a control scheme and logic for the

interaction of the ICE with the motor and/or generator. The ICE has dual functions of

generating electricity to charge the batteries and to supplement the electric drive motor

when additional power or torque is required. An onboard microprocessor with I/O

capabilities is best suited for this application.

There are numerous controllers available that are well suited for imbedded

control. They range from the modestly priced BeagleBoneBlack (BBB) to the more

expensive offerings by National Instruments. Considering functionality and price, the

BBB is probably the most suitable for the Formula Hybrid application. Some teams and

researchers have had much success using National Instruments CompactRIO but its

cost makes it less attractive as does its size. The myRIO and BBB units are small and

meet the requirements established by the competition rules. Other features and
advantages of the myRIO and BBB is the ability to graphically develop programs and

algorithms for control with LabView© software. Also available are a full line of

accessories such as LCD’s, sensors, and servos that accentuate the capabilities of the

controller. Because there is more support and development available for LabView©

applications on the myRIO as opposed to the BBB the myRIO is the controller being

implemented for control.

The embedded control system of the vehicle is only required for hybrid

operations and not necessary for the car in electric only mode. The control philosophy in

hybrid mode is based upon the power and torque capabilities of the drive motor.

Primary vehicle power is from the electric motor. If one is to note the motor curve in

Appendix B it is seen the motor’s peak torque and power occur at a speed of

approximately 3,300 RPM. From 0 to 3,300 RPM the torque is fairly linear and then

drops off rapidly as does the power. By using a hall effect speed sensor wired to the

myRIO, motor speed will be monitored and measured. At a specified set-point (3,000

RPM), the myRIO will send a digital signal to the IC engine’s ignition relay allowing it to

start up and provide supplemental power to the motor. In order to do this a signal will

also be sent to a solenoid actuator that will constrain the planet carrier of the PSD to

couple the IC engine and motor. Since the IC engine and generator are coupled

anytime the engine is running, the batteries are being charged. Another controlling case

is based on battery capacity. In this instance the battery condition is monitored and at a

specified set-point the batteries will require charging. The myRIO will again send a

signal to an engine control relay to start it but it won’t be necessary to control the PSD

solenoid for charging only.

Material Selection

In the formula hybrid competition there are a variety of materials that the SAE

allows teams to use for chassis construction. Steel, aluminum, and composite materials

are allowed. The consideration factors that will influence the design are cost, weight,

tensile strength, workability, and feasibility.

The first material considered is aluminum. It is the most cost effective material in

terms of cost per length. Another benefit is that it has a low density in comparison to

steel. The disadvantage is that it has a low tensile strength out of the three. Aluminum

may also result in a heavier build because in order to achieve the strength desired,

either more material must be used or heat treatment of the alloy is required. Also

aluminum is also difficult to weld compared to steel.

The next material in consideration is carbon fiber. Carbon Fiber is the strongest

material and is extremely lightweight. The tensile strength of carbon fiber is stronger

than aluminum and steel. Carbon fiber requires a long time to assemble and needs to

be precisely done. With the high cost and special working procedures, utilizing carbon

fiber is less practical.

The last material is steel. Steel is also cost effective when compared to the other

materials. There are many variations of steel and some types can be more expensive.

Steel has a tensile strength three times stronger than aluminum. With steel it is easy to

fabricate and weld. The biggest downside in using steel is it is the densest out of the

three. Overall, the consideration of steel is most feasible compared to the others.

Final Frame Design

 The team designed the final frame that is constructed from steel. This design has

been developed for structural rigidity, vertical, lateral and torsional bending. Torsion

loads result from applied loads acting on oppositely opposed corners of the car. The

frame can be visualized as a torsion spring connecting the two ends where the

suspension loads act. Torsional loading and the resulting deformation of the frame can

affect the performance of the car. The resistance to torsional deformation is often

measured as stiffness in foot-pounds per degree. This is accepted to be the main factor

of frame performance for a Formula Hybrid racecar. The structural requirements set out

in the FSAE Hybrid rules specify the Main Roll Hoop, Front Bulk Head and Side Impact

Bracing specifications. In order to compete in the competition the frame must be in

compliance with these requirements.

Analytical Solutions:

Torsional Rigidity

Torsional rigidity is calculated by using the torque applied to the frame and dividing by

the angular deflection. The actual calculation is done shown in the image below:
Since the method above can be difficult to surmise via experimental methods the

preferred method is as noted in the figure below, that the lever arm is a tube clamped to

the frame at points A and B with a weight being hung from the end of the frame tube.

The frame is supported on its centerline by a roller at point c. The torque acting on the

car and resisted at the clamped rear bulkhead is simply the force, P, times the lever

arm, L2. The angle of twist can be simply calculated from the average deflection and

substituted into the previous equations.

Finite Elemental Analysis

Main Hoop Analysis

This type of test is to simulate what would happen in case of a roll over. Would the main

hoop be able to withstand the loading applied? A Fixed support is applied to the bottom

of the main hoop and roll bars. The load applied is 12kN to the top most edge of the roll

bars. This deformation must not exceed 25mm and the Von Misses Stress may not

exceed 360MPa.

Results
Front Impact Analysis

This analysis is to simulate a head on collision. The Rear Bulkhead is fixed and a force

applied of 120kN directly to the midpoint of the vehicle.

Side Impact

Analysis is to simulate a side collision on frame. A fixed support is applied to the bottom

of the main hoop and roll bars. Force of 7kN is applied on each side member.
Torsional Rigidity

Convergence:

A convergence test was conducted on the frame to find the most optimizable mesh size

to use. Only the convergence of mesh size was applied because the line bodies were

assigned a cross section of area and treated as beam members as opposed to being

extruded as individual members. This was done because when extruding sketches, the

beam members do not combine properly therefore changing the mesh shape is not

needed in this application. From the results of the convergence graph a mesh size of 7

mm was selected because it provides a sufficient number of nodes and the deformation

does not vary much from the smaller mesh sizes.

Table of Convergence of For Main Hoop

Element Size Number of Nodes Total Deformation (mm)

50 1372 6.5078

25.4 2626 6.5079

20 3372 6.535

15 4478 6.569

14 4790 6.565

12.7 5246 6.5701

10 6692 6.5697

9 7410 6.571

8 8374 6.57

7 9546 6.5714

Graph of Convergence

Total Deformation vs Number of Nodes

6.58

6.57

6.56

6.55

6.54

6.53

6.52

6.51

6.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Optimization:

In the front impact analysis all members of the frame are engaged. With this analysis we

are able to view which members undergo the most stress. An optimization of tube cross

sections was selected based on this analysis. The outer cross sectional diameter is

held constant of 1 inch according to the rules and regulations. The parameters we will

be optimizing will be the thickness of the tubing. The internal radius was selected as the

parameter to be optimized. This range of inner tube diameter was selected from a list of

available cross sections on the market .5, .6, .7, and .8 inches.

Results from Front Impact Analysis Optimization

Maximum Combine Stress

Direct Stress

Total Deformation

Inner Diameter
Results of Optimization:

Starting with the internal diameter of .25” resulted in the lowest Von Misses

Stress and Direct stress. The Von Misses Stress was below the maximum allowable

stress for .7” internal diameter resulted in the best results in terms of weight to stress

ratio. According to the optimization the most efficient thickness to use resulted in .7

inches internal diameter.

Discussion of Results:

Comparing the results of the analytical solution to the finite element analysis

show the results obtained from the numerical model are reasonable and compatible.

The combined data from the analytical solution and the FEA both show that the current

design is valid. However, if time allowed further refinement and optimization could be

undertaken. Under the loading conditions required per the Formula Hybrid series rules,

the frame meets all design specifications. It would be reasonable to conclude more data

is needed to more accurately depict the real world scenario, as well as consideration

should be taken for the impact energy. Perhaps a new material should be selected, one

that decreases the overall weight but that have higher strength materiel properties.

Conclusion:

Although there are numerous ways to design a hybrid racecar frame, this

iterative design process greatly benefited from design optimization carried out in

ANSYS. Analytical and numerical finite element analyses greatly improve the efficacy of

mechanical engineering design. Finite element analysis in software such as ANSYS

Workbench greatly increase the speed at which valid engineering design solutions can

be obtained, thus saving valuable resources such as time and money. In addition, FEA
software allows the verification of analytical solutions and allows for a mechanical

system to be modeled, tested and verified numerically without the added expenses of

manufacturing numerous prototypes. Ultimately analyses such as this greatly reduce

the chances for failure in real world applications.

Frame Construction

The image above shows the final assembly of the frame. For the construction of

the car frame the team went with ERW hot rolled steel round tubing for the main body

and 1045 DOM steel round tubing for the front and main hoops. The joining process

used in welding the frame was tig welding using 1/16 ER70S2 filler rod. This allowed for

more aesthetic joints and control on how the frame was put together. However, during

construction the team ran into a problem with porosity in the welds. The team concluded

that this was a result from corroded filler rods even when switching to a cleaner rod

there was not enough filler material to cover over the porous welds. The team ended up
switching to a larger diameter wire with a different material content, size 3/32 and

ER70S6 filler. There were also slight modifications to the driver cell and main hoop

itself. The driver cell was increased 6” longer and 4” wider. This was in order for each

team member to fit inside the vehicle without being confined to the side impact braces.

The original bend in the Creo model had a 6” radius bend. However, upon construction

the largest tube die the team could acquire was a 4”in radius. So the team had to make

slight modifications to the main hoop and go with a smaller radius. ANSYS calculated

the frame to be 66 and the final weight of the frame itself came out to be 68lb. The

percent error in this assembly was approximately 3 percent. The reason the team went

over on the weight is because of poor fitment created on the tubes and the larger filler

rod being used. In some areas of welds the amount of filler used was more than

necessary. Because some coups were not perfect, more filler rod was added in order to

compensate for the poor fitment. This could have been avoided if the team had access

to a more professional notching tool.

Internal Combustion Engine

Description:

The Formula hybrid competition restricts teams to 250 cc displacements for

gasoline engines and 325cc for diesel engines. The internal combustion engine will be

used to provide additional power to the differential or recharge the electrical system

when it is depleted. The engine must also be powered in 4 stroke cycles. The engine

may have modifications that meet regulations and are open to inspections by the judges

at any time. The engine will be rear mounted and driving the car from the rear.
Engine: Ninja 250R
Description: Parallel
twin, four-stroke, liquid
cooled, DOHC
Displacement: 249cc
Weight: 90 lbs.
PoweOutput: 25Hp
Torque: 13.67 ft-lb
Cost: $650
Engine: Grom
Description: Air-cooled
single-cylinder four-stroke
Displacement: 234.9cc
Weight: 35 lbs.
Power Output: 18Hp
Torque: 7.36 ft-lb
Cost: $1700
Engine: CBR250R
Description: Liquid-cooled
single-cylinder four-stroke
Displacement: 249.6cc
Weight: 90 lbs.
Power Output: 25Hp
Torque: 12.7 ft-lb
Cost: $600

For the selection process of the internal combustion engine the team has evaluated the

three types of motorcycle engines. The selection factors of these engines were based

on cost, weight, power output, and torque. The cost will estimate how much the team

will be able to spend on their engine. With the weight it will affect the overall curb weight

of the vehicle. When the engine was selected the team wanted to learn the torques

being outputted to the wheels and differential. The torque is used to determine the

power that will be moving the car and if the final drive gear reduction is large enough.

The larger the gear reduction the more the torque is multiplied but less top end speed

the vehicle will be able to achieve. The team has narrowed the choices down to the

Kawasaki ninja 250r engine. This engine will be placed in the off the vehicle. The

engine is also wide used and common and the team has received a donated engine.
Suspension

Per the SAE Formula Hybrid rules, all vehicles must contain an operational

suspension system. This consists of front and rear suspension with shocks “with usable

wheel travel of at least 50.8 mm, 25.4 mm jounce and 25.4 mm rebound, with driver

seated” (SAE Formula Hybrid Rules). At the very least, there must be a serious attempt

at a suspension system.

Suspension mounting points must be visible at technical inspections. There must

also be an inch (25.4mm) static ground clearance with driver. For the purposes of the

competition, Team Mototron is considering three different types of suspension systems,

frequently seen in production vehicles.

Double Control Arm:

This is also known as a double wishbone or double A-arm suspension system.

Modern double control arm systems consist of arms of unequal length (shorter on top).

This helps keeps the outside tire perpendicular to the road in a turn with roll. This is

beneficial in keeping the tires planted in the autocross portion of the dynamic events.

The unequal control arm also allows the tire to remain perpendicular when vertical

movement of the wheel occurs.

A benefit of this type of suspension is the versatility that it offers. The shock can

be mounted in various positions. An example of this includes a suspension arm, bell

crank and orienting the spring/strut in the horizontal. This is known as a push rod (or

pull rod, if inverted). This is used in many performance cars as it keeps the suspension

parts out of the air flow path.

 A disadvantage is the increased complexity. This increases cost, weight and

resources spent on the design. Our goal is to keep the curb weight under 600lbs.

There is potential that this type of suspension system could adversely affect achieving

this goal.

Courtesy of https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/bkdep2ejmtescjtralc2.jpg

MacPherson Strut:

The MacPherson strut is much like the double control arm system, with one less

control arm. The main advantage of this type of suspension is that it is less complex

than the double control arm. This allows the entire system to weigh less, which is

important when desiring to keep the curb weight low.

The other advantage is that because it contains fewer components, it will cost

less. This is also advantageous when attempting to keep total costs under a specific

budget.

The disadvantages are a direct result of having only a single control arm. Unlike

the double control arm system, vertical movement of the wheel will result in slight

camber adjustment. There is also a lack of negative camber gain in a turn, also due to

the lack of a second, shorter control arm. This means there will be reduction in the tire

contact patch in a turn due to body roll.

 Courtesy of http://cobrasprings.co.nz/system/files/images/macphersonstrut.gif

Beam Axle:

The two previously discussed suspension systems are considered independent.

A load on one wheel does not have an effect on the other wheel. The Beam Axle

suspension type connects both wheels with a single beam. This means that each wheel

does not act independently from each other.

The main benefit of this type of suspension system is that it is robust and

durable. Common applications are trucks and other off-road vehicles which will

experience repeated abuse.

The beam axle is also used in my drag racing applications due to the lack of road

imperfections. An imperfect road would have a large negative affect on a vehicle with a

beam axle because each wheel cannot act independently of one another (each bump or

defect affects both wheels, causing imbalance).

 Courtesy of http://designthedesire.blogspot.com/2015/06/suspension.html

Suspension Design

One of the more challenging aspects of design a Formula Hybrid vehicle is

designing the suspension system. For the purposes of this competition, the team is

opting to use a double wishbone configuration. This achieves two things: increase tire

patch contact in turns, versatile shock placement (either push rod or pull rod variations)

and easy adjustments of chamber changes.

At this time, the total weight of the vehicle is not known so there are many

assumptions that need to be made. For the purposes of the preliminary design, a track

Front and rear track width of 50” and 48” was chosen. Please refer to diagram

constructed below:
 The purpose of this diagram is to illustrate the roll center of both front and rear.

For this design, the lower control arm will remain parallel while the upper (shorter)

control arm can vary in length. The main objective is to reduce the distance between the

center of gravity and the roll center. The roll center is defined as the axis in which the

sprung mass of the vehicle rotates. The further this point is away from the vehicle’s

center of gravity, the longer the moment arm is and thus body roll is increased. In
dynamic events, body roll is not a desirable handling characteristic and therefore shall

be minimized. The roll center is determined by first finding instantaneous center. This is

done by extending the lines projected by the two control arms. These two lines will

intersect at a point in space. From there, a line from the centerline of the wheel must

also intersect at this point. Assuming the vehicle is symmetrical, the roll center will be in

the direct center of the vehicle, at the imaginary line from the wheel centerline to

instantaneous center. The front roll center is determined to be 2.07” from the ground

and 3.54” in the rear.

The kingpin angle, or steering axis inclination, is the angle formed between the

steering axis and the centerline of the wheel. Production vehicles typically use an angle

of 5-10 degrees. The team has selected a 7 degree kingpin angle, very common in

racing application. The scrub radius is the distance from where Kingpin axis and tire

centerline axis intersect ground. Scrub radius should be minimized as a bump applied

to the tire exerts a twisting force about the steering axis which is increased depending

on the scrub radius. Decreasing the radius improves handling and less effort is required

to turn the wheel. This will put less stress on steering components.

Shock Component Selection

The motion ratio of the suspension is spring travel over wheel travel.

This is demonstrated in the attached diagram:

 http://www.worksevo.com/Spring_Rates_1.pdf

As shown, the placement of the shock and the sizing of the control arms are the

controlling factors for determining motion ratio.

Through competition research, it is determined that a motion ratio of 1:2 is ideal.

This is considering that there is a full 2 inches of suspension travel (for both jounce and

rebound). The shocks the team has selected is the YSS Shock and a Mono-shock.

The YSS shock has a spring rating of 185lbs/in and the Mono-shock has a shock rating

of 600lbs/in. For the front suspension setup, the shock will be mounted directly to the

frame to the a-arms. An exploded view of the part assembly is shown below.

Mono-Shock System Design:

 The rear suspension will utilize a push rod set up. The shock will be

mounted inside the frame by the differential and a bell crack to transfer the load.
Upright Design

For the suspension uprights three types of iterations were considered. With the first two

design iterations the material selected was for aluminum and the uprights would be cut

using a CNC machine. Unfortunately, the team was unable to access to the CNC unit so

the team opted to fabricate the uprights from steel. The final design iterations were

modified from the third design iteration. The changes made were to accommodate for

the steering geometry. This is to minimize the amount of bump steer by keeping the

radius of the steering rods similar to the control arms travel.

Front Upright Analysis

The upright is a critical part in the suspension components. The upright attaches the

wheels to the control arms of the vehicle. When analyzing the upright, the load acting

upon it is the normal force of the wheel and the friction force as Illustrated from free

body diagram below. Because the upright is a very high stress component, a fatigue

analysis along with a static structural analysis is performed. The constraints applied to

the upright are a fixed pin joints at the mounting points of the control arms. A force of 2g

is applied to the spindle portion of the upright. Two times the vehicle weight is

approximated to be a 12kN force. This analysis not only tested for the normal stress but

also the life cycles and the alternating stress.

 Results

Normal Stress 100 Mpa

Life Cycle 51872

Total Deformation .15 mm

Equivalent Alternating Stress 165 MPa

As a result, the normal stress in the design was less than the alternating stress. The

total deformation in the part was also insignificant in the design. It also resulted in a

sufficient life cycle for a racing application.

Acceleration Analysis

One of the goals of this project is for the vehicle to accelerate over a

distance of 246 feet (75m) in 5.5 seconds or less starting from a stopped position. To

verify if this goal is achievable some preliminary analysis is required to determine

selected component suitability as well as investigating design features that can result in

optimized performance. Some of the features to be considered that can affect

acceleration are accumulator power, vehicle weight, final drive ratio(s), and tire

compounds. Accumulator power is important because as seen in the motor charts of

Appendix B, current and voltage have a direct impact on the performance of the motor.

Vehicle weight and tire characteristics are directly related to one another will be seen by

the initial analysis.

 Consider the free body diagram (FBD) below:

Figure 6 – Initial Free Body Diagram (FBD) for the system assuming a 60%:40%
(Rear to front) weight distribution, coefficient of static friction of 0.85, and
coefficient of kinetic friction is 0.7.

Initially it is desired to determine what the required final acceleration of the

vehicle needs to be to meet the established goal. It is certain that acceleration will be

variable but at this point there are too many unknowns to consider a work-energy

relationship of the system. According to Analysis of Acceleration in Passenger Cars and

Heavy Trucks, when displacements are greater than 10 feet and velocity or distance

relationships are of interest then an assumption of constant acceleration can be used.

Considering the equations of motion for constant acceleration where:

𝑣 2 = 𝑣𝑜2 + 2𝑎𝑜 (𝑠 − 𝑠𝑜 ) EQ-9

 1
𝑠= 𝑎𝑜 (𝑡 − 𝑡𝑜 )2 + 𝑣𝑜 (𝑡 − 𝑡𝑜 ) + 𝑠𝑜 EQ-10
2

and knowing that s o, vo = 0, s = 246 ft. and Δt = 5.5 seconds initial values for a o and v

are determined to be 16.3 ft/sec2 and 89.4 ft/sec respectively. If the FBD above is

considered in conjunction with a Mass-Acceleration Diagram (MAD) and applying

Newton’s Second Law the required initial acceleration to overcome static friction is 27.4

ft/sec2 and a minimum of 22.5 ft/sec2 maintains a positive forward acceleration

assuming a vehicle weight with driver to be 800 lbs.

Figure 7 – Free Body Diagram (FBD) on the left and Mass Acceleration Diagram (MAD)
on the right used to determine initial acceleration and torque requirements to confirm
the selected motor can provide the torque required to achieve the acceleration goals.

If the static acceleration is applied to the rear wheels tangential to the tire’s surface and

assuming that the vehicle rolls without slipping on tires that have a radius of 10.5

inches, the angular acceleration of the tire providing forward momentum is 31.33

rad/sec2. Assuming a wheel/tire mass of 0.6262 slug per set and both wheels applying

power through the torque bias ability of the differential, the required torque to be applied

is 16.33 ft-lb (EQ-11).

1
𝑇= ∗ 𝑚 ∗ 𝑟2 ∗ 𝛼 EQ-11
2
EQ-11 is based on pure rotation of a rigid body where the wheel-tire combination is

treated as a solid disc for application of the mass moment of inertia.

Based on the motor torque curves (Appendix B) the AC-12 motor can provide

approximately 45 ft-lbs of locked rotor torque with 350 amps which exceeds the

estimated torque require to achieve the proposed acceleration goal. Additionally, the

torque applied by the motor to the wheels will be transmitted via a chain and sprocket

assembly through the differential. Utilizing a 3” diameter motor sprocket and 21”

diameter wheels a motor to wheel torque ratio of 1:7 can be expected. This is based on

a relationship between torque transmitted through gears and the gear radiuses as

shown in equation 12.

𝑇1 𝑟2
𝑇2 = EQ-12
𝑟1

Electrical Design

The electrical design of the vehicle will be comprised of the High Voltage Tractive

System (HVTS) which includes the accumulators, motor(s), generator(s), AMS, and

motor controllers. A secondary Grounded Low Voltage System (GLVS) is implemented

to provide low provide low voltage (<30 VDC) power for supporting functions such as

emergency shutdown control and to provide auxiliary power for I/O control. The two

systems are segregated from one another by galvanic isolation as well as being routed

in separate conduits.

The initial bench test arrangement utilized six 12V lead acid batteries wired in

series to provide 72V with 190 Cold-Cranking Amps (CCA) cumulatively. Batteries with

a rating in Watt-Hours would be more suitable to determine instantaneous power ratings

and rates of discharge. The cold-cranking amperage is a rating specified for automotive

type uses where the battery is used for short, high amp bursts such as when starting the

vehicle and is subsequently re-charged so there is no significant state of deep

discharge such as that exhibited by deep cycle lead acid batteries which are designed

for considerable states of discharge and charge cycles. These (deep cycle) batteries

are typically rated by watt-hours since they provide continuous electric power in

applications where states of charge can become low before charging is necessary.

Design development and budget constraints have led Team Mototron to select six

Absorbent Glass Mat (AGM) batteries. These are similar to conventional lead-acid

batteries so there is some compromise in relation to power and weight when compared

to alternative accumulators such as lithium-ion and lithium polymer types. However,

they do provide the benefit of simplifying the electrical design with regards to Formula

Hybrid Rules and tend to be safer since they require less monitoring and are less prone

to overheating hazards. The selected accumulators will provide 72 volts with each

battery rated for 35 amp-hours (Ah). The battery data sheet for HR 12-33 batteries

shown in Appendix “B” indicate a maximum discharge rate of 350 amps which is more

than adequate based on the motor-torque diagram shown for 300 amps which will allow

for a slight margin considering the team’s established acceleration goal.

The bench test arrangement as mentioned in the accumulator section and above

is beneficial by providing a real time interface for accumulator evaluation and also

allowing for experimentation with the myRIO programmable controller for programming

and de-bugging. To implement the proposed parallel/series drivetrain, careful

consideration must be given to the implementation and program integration of a

controller (PLC).

According to the AC-12 motor curve for 300 amps, the maximum horsepower

occurs at approximately 3,300 RPM. The average torque is linear at a constant 42 ft-lb

up to 3,300 RPM before it begins to drop. Knowing this information, a separate

tachometer is programmed using LabVIEW. Using a Hall-Effect speed sensor and

magnet, a digital signal is sent to the myRIO and processed using a combination of

timers and shift registers to achieve a certain frequency (RPM). The calculated motor

speed can then be compared to a constant of 3,300 RPM to determine when to send a

digital signal to the IC engine’s ignition relay. This will allow the IC engine to supplement

the electric motor when additional power and torque is needed. . Additional input will

rely on accumulator State of Charge (SOC) and throttle input. This algorithm will be

dependent on mode selection, i.e. electric only or full hybrid. The initial HVTS

arrangement in conjunction with the safety interlock/shutdown system can be seen in

Appendix C. This diagram outlines the major tractive system components and GLVS

shutdowns to meet the requirements of SAE Formula Hybrid.

Schedule Summary
WBS
Work Packages

Below is an example work package, based on the WBS. The WBS subdivides the parent stages into tasks, or work

packages. MS Project scheduling is used to develop and track work tasks. The WBS is developed and maintained from

an .XML file created in MS Project

Budget

Initial Estimate - Revised Cost - Revised Cost -

Components
3/2/2016 5/7/2016 11/14/2016
Chassis Materials $1,000 $1,000 $258
Internal Combustion Engine $1,100 Donated $25
Drive Motor $1,100 Donated -
Generator $1,300 $1,300 $300
Motor Controller $1,250 - -
Charger Contingency $140 $450
Display $100 $104 $104
Accumulator Monitoring System $1,000 Donated $128
MicroController w/ acc. $500 $500 Donated
Accumulators $1,200 $1,200 $360
Suspension $1,000 $1,000 $360
Brake Sys Contingency $500 $952
Steering $400 $100 $25
Wheels $1,000 Donated -
Differential $500 Donated -
Tires $720 Donated -
Transponder $520 $520 $520
Ground Fault Monitor $25 $25 $25
Fire Extinguishers $150 $150 $150
Registration Fee $2,200 $2,200 $2,250
Electrical Components Contingency $60 $150
Seat Contingency Contingency $93
Safety Harness Contingency Contingency $50
Race Suit Contingency Contingency $200
Power Splitter Contingency $40 $443
Chain/Sprockets Contingency Contingency $130
Welding/Fab. Consumables Contingency Contingency $260
Subtotal $15,065 $8,839 $7,233
Contingency 25% 15% 5%
Total Cost $18,831 $10,165 $7,595
Budget $0 $3,010 $8,010
Deficit -$18,831 -$7,155 $415
Risk Matrix
 Appendices

Appendix A – 2016 Formula Hybrid Summary Score Sheet

Appendix B – Manufacturer’s Data Sheets and Information

Appendix C – Team Mototron Design Drawings

Appendix A
Appendix B – Manufacturer’s Data Sheets & Information
Appendix C- Design Drawings
References

Dorrel, David G., et al. “Comparison of Different Motor Design Drives for Hybrid

Electric Vehicles.” Plenary Session, IEEE ECCE conference, Atlanta,

September 12 – 16, 2010. Print.

Handschuh, Robert F. Encyclopedia of Tribology.” New York: Springer, 2013. Print.

Levotsky, Kristin. “Interior Permanent Magnet Motors Power Traction Motor

Applications.” Motion Control Online, June 29, 2012. Web. February 27, 2016

Liu, Jinning and Huei Peng. “Modeling and Control of a Power-Split Hybrid

Vehicle.” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. Vol. 16,

No. 6, November 2008.

Mims, Forrest M. III. Electronic Formulas, Symbols, & Circuits. Master Publishing, Niles,

Illinois, 2007.

Oberg, Erik, Jones, F.D., and H.L. Horton. Machinery’s Handbook. ed. 23. Industrial

Press, New York, 1990.

Proctor, C., Grimes, W., Fournier, D., Rigol, J. et al., "Analysis of Acceleration in

Passenger Cars and Heavy Trucks," SAE Technical Paper 950136, 1995,

doi:10.4271/950136.

Adams, Herb. “Chassis Engineering.” Los Angeles: HP, 1993. Print.

2017 Formula Hybrid Rules. Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth
https://gr8autotech.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/power-split-device-1.gif
http://www.greencardesign.com
http://www.hybrid-autos.info/stories

http://www.uhreddevils.com/wp-content

http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca

http://www.trident-metals.com

http://www.chenrysteel.com

http://www.kawasaki-cp.khi.co.jp/mcy/street

http://www.rubbersideup.com/honda-grom-msx125-msx-125

http://topspeed.com
http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html
https://racingnews.co/2016/02/21/2016-haas-f1-car-vf-16-photos/
http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/roll_center.html
http://www.worksevo.com/Spring_Rates_1.pdf