James Madison University

Road to Capstone Design Portfolio

Engineering Design 1 & 2

Fall 2018 and Spring 2019

Raymond Benner, Christian Bowman, Connor Feit, Erik Idrizi, Cailyn Lager, Bre McLaughlin,
Tyrees Swift-Josey, Ashley Vayo, and Jack Williams

Dr. Robert Nagel

 Road to Capstone 1

For the past 10 years the James Madison Engineering Department has challenged
sophomore engineering students with building a human powered vehicle (HPV) for a person in
the Harrisonburg community. The project started with Dr. Tom Moran, a JMU Kinesiology
Professor, expanding inclusion for people with disabilities in the Harrisonburg community so
they could learn ride bikes. The first client the sophomores worked with was Dr. Moran himself.
Dr. Moran has spastic diplegia cerebral palsy, meaning his muscles are constantly contracting
and releasing, limiting mobility throughout his body. The first set of sophomores made an HPV
resembling an elliptical, mainly for exercise use. From then on usually, the client was a child or
teen. The new semester started, and the Engineering Department decided that due to all Dr.
Moran’s work, he should receive another human powered vehicle, since his previous HPV is 10
years old and he and his wife, Dr. Danette Gibbs, recently had a baby. Building this HPV holds
significance since it will allow him and his daughter, Danilyn, to connect as Dr. Moran teaches
her how to ride a bike, while riding alongside her.

The year long project started in ENGR 231, Design 1. In this class we met our client, Dr.
Moran, and started to learn his strengths and weaknesses, then utilized those to brainstorm HPV
ideas. In Design 1, there were many teams of mainly four people. In every group, students
conducted research on spastic diplegia cerebral palsy, as well as, conversed with Dr. Moran to
develop a persona. The personas helped focus on Dr. Moran as an individual rather than another
assignment that needed to be completed. The personas helped humanize Dr. Moran by focusing
on the bigger purpose for this project. Additionally, each team learned the different parts of a
traditional bicycle, as well as, how to tear down a build a traditional bicycle from a bike
specialist in Harrisonburg, Les Welch. We used the bike knowledge we gained in Design 2, in
the construction phases of our prototypes. In Design 1 we also used methods such as a
morphological matrix, pugh chart, and a decision matrix to narrow into a final design that would
be presented in a gallery walk at the end of the fall semester. In the gallery walk all groups
presented the ideas they’ve been working on with engineering drawings, metrics, and some
prototype models.

In Design 2, the following semester, we were put into new teams of nine, doubling the
size of teams we were used to in Design 1. This meant team management had a more prominent
role during the semester than before. Because of this, the first task we completed as a newly
formed team was create a team code of conduct based on what we already knew from ENGR
231. As a team, we put together rules and established functions within the group by discussing
topics such as attendance, agenda keeping, strikes, and accountability. This successfully kept
everyone on our team on track during the project and we stayed like minded in our goals for the
semester. The Code of Conduct can be seen in Appendix C, Memo 1.

After a common code was established, each member gave a small pitch their previous
group’s top design. We received feedback on our conceptual designs at the gallery walk at the
 Road to Capstone 2

end of Design 1 and incorporated this feedback into the pitches that we gave, discussing what we
thought was good in our designs and needed to be changed or iterated. Some of the ideas
consisted of using arm propulsion and leg propulsion, involving two chains and sets of gears. As
well as, using a pedal system that utilizes handcart styles to propel or a rowing style. After
listening to everyone discuss their previous work leading up to Design 2, we were able to
complete a redesign brief with our new team. We decided to continue with a traditional method
of propulsion due to having two the lack of knowledge in setting up two chains and the
practicality of the handcart system being low. Furthermore, we all agreed that the HPV needed
safety features such as mirrors, 2 sets of brakes, and foot straps.

In our redesign brief we explained our methods, results and justifications, and design
decisions that were made in our first week as a group. The method we used was taking the best
design objectives from each Design 1 group to form the design objectives for our team. The list
of design objectives that we formed along with the pitches of everyone's top design allowed us to
start conceptualizing what would become our groups HPV. We had an open discussion about
potential concepts for each sub-system. Once we had concepts for each sub-system, we had to
begin to think of the HPV as a system to conceptualize how the sub-systems would work
together. One idea that we all agreed that we liked at this first meeting was an electric-assist.
Jack Williams was very familiar with how the battery and motor could function due to prior
experience. This gave us confidence as a group that we would be able to accomplish an
electric-assisted HPV for Dr. Moran early on in the design process. As a group, we supported the
idea of the electric-assist with Dr. Moran and his family in mind. We knew that Dr. Moran
wanted to use the HPV to go on bike rides with his daughter and teach her to ride a bike. This is
something that we knew, as a father, he is looking forward to very much. For him to get the most
enjoyment he can from going on bike rides with his daughter, we wanted to ensure that he
wouldn’t have to be working too hard just to propel the bike over the hilly terrains of
Harrisonburg. The goal of the electric assist was to help give him more of a power output when
riding uphills, so he has more energy to simply enjoy the ride with his daughter. Our design
decisions, such as this one, will be discussed further throughout this portfolio.

Once the group conceptualized a design for the full HPV system, then we moved into
analyzing and setting dimensions of a frame. We researched what kinds of tubing was used in
common bicycles and assumed some dimensions that we thought were reasonable for our frame.
By utilizing mathematical calculations, our group was able to find where in the frame the center
of mass would be, disregarding the wheels and the passenger. Finding the center of mass creates
a safety concern; if the center of mass is too high above the ground then the frame will want to
rotate once on a incline, therefore, being dangerous to the passenger. Under further analysis, our
group was able to find a range of angles that will be allowable during operation before tipping,
considering the user’s weight. Data for this can be found in Appendix A, Calculations 1, 2, and
 Road to Capstone 3

3. In this moment we did not change our frame design since we had confidence that the tipping
angle required to tip our frame was not realistic in the Harrisonburg area. Therefore, it was not a
safety concern we had for our client.

After crunching numbers and analyzing data, it was time to conduct some physical tests
involving our client. Proof of Concept (POC) Iterations were the next phase in the design
process. A proof of concept is making something that can be tested with the client and used to
gather information from those tests to further the design. Our group of nine was split into three
groups to look at and test three different subsystems for a HPV. These teams consisted of
propulsion, frame, and seating.

For the first POC, the propulsion team made a string and lego model, the frame team
made a straw model, and the seating team made a 3D printed model. However, these models
represented mock-up prototypes rather than proof of concepts. While we had a physical idea of
what our subsystems would look like, we had no way of knowing if the systems would actually
work. This helped us learn what a proof of concept entails, and from here we figured out where
to go next for our second POC, which will be discussed below.

After creating our first POC, or in our team’s case, mock-up prototypes, it was time to
model our HPV in SolidWorks. We delegated parts to each person in order to model the whole
system. Each individual was given two systems to model and these were eventually put together
as a whole system so that we could visualize what our final HPV might look like. Making these
CAD models helped us realize what might be implausible based on the amount of frame space
available. For example, the step that we had originally planned to include on our HPV had little
to no place to attach to the frame, so we tried to look for another way of enabling Dr. Moran to
mount and dismount easily from the HPV. Additionally, by having a CAD model for our custom
parts, it made 3D printing and machining these parts easier due to the already specified
dimensions. A picture of the full assembly can be seen in Appendix B, Figure 1.

Once we had our final HPV modeled in SolidWorks, we were able to turn it into a
compilation of engineering drawings. This was fairly simple to do, as the 3D model can easily be
turned into drawings through SolidWorks 2015. We created drawings for only customized parts
such as: the battery box, the seating system, motor mount, and cane clip. Engineering drawings
for HPV can be found in Appendix B, Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. Initially, the frame was going to be
custom built made and welded from steel hollow tubing. However, after weighing the cost,
weight, and time benefits, we decided it would be beneficial to buy a frame that resembled our
drawings, which we found from Sears. By buying a premade frame, we would have more time to
focus on the adaptations needed for our client to enjoy his HPV.
 Road to Capstone 4

Additionally, we were also able to link our Bill of Materials to our engineering drawings
in SolidWorks. We started thinking about what materials we would use and looked at different
sources to see where they were available for purchase. We were under the restrictions that we
could not order anything from Ebay, Amazon, Nashbar, or WalMart.com. We made our
preliminary bill of materials that can be seen in Appendix C, Table 1. Some of the items we had
already chosen were from WalMart.com, therefore, the Engineering Department would not be
allowed to purchase those parts. However, we asked our bike professional Les Welch to buy
those parts, then have the Engineering Department reimburse him. Our professor, Dr. Robert
Nagel, informed us it has been done in the past and is allowable. Therefore, we were able to get
pedal straps, memory foam, and handlebar mirrors from Les Welch.

We later found out that the trike we were interested in wasn’t available from Sears, so we
decided to purchase a very similar, but slightly more expensive trike from Walmart per Scott
Padgett’s recommendation. This change was reflected in our final bill of materials, while
everything else from the preliminary bill of materials seemed to stay consistent. Final Bill of
Materials can bee seen in Appendix C Table 2.

The next step in our design process was Frame Analysis. The calculations for the Frame
Analysis can be found in the Appendix A, Calculation 4 and 5. In frame analysis, we conducted
similar calculations when finding the center of mass. By using static frame analysis, the forces
on each tube could be calculated given where our client’s weight would be acting. By using these
numbers we could assess if a tub needed to be reinforced or made of stronger tubing. Specifically
for this analysis, our team could not use the dimensions from the planned Sears trike, due to the
sellers not having all specific dimensions of the tricycle. Therefore, we used the similar
dimensions from our previous CAD model to analyze.

When it came time for our second proof of concept, we divided into the same three
subgroups as before, and focused on the same subsystems. This time, we strayed away from the
traditional mock-up prototypes that we had been used to, and we modeled our systems in a way
that informed success and failure. We learned what would work for our design, and what needed
to be iterated for our third and final proof of concept, in order to create the best design for our
alpha prototype. The main takeaway for our group from the second round of proof of concepts
was that we needed to get more input from Dr. Moran himself. We were informed that our
designs seemed to be coming from what we thought was best, rather than asking Dr. Moran for
his opinion on what he was most interested in. To prepare for our third proof of concept, each
subgroup took their second POC to Dr. Moran and got his feedback, in order to move on to the
third proof of concept. After returning from spring break, we presented our final proof of
concepts. Here our team learned that we might be making our design to complicated than
necessary or even possible in order to complete our Alpha Prototype on time. We consulted with
 Road to Capstone 5

Dr. Nagel, and Dr. Moran to see what could be changed in order to be successful for our first full
testable system.

With three proof of concepts and lots of feedback under our belts, we were ready to
create a prototyping plan in order to bring our whole HPV together. As a team, we had a meeting
where we brainstormed prototyping ideas and made a schedule of when these prototypes needed
to be completed. We were given a table that broke down the project week by week, so we
developed a plan for prototyping based on importance and amount of time needed. This can be
seen in Appendix C, Table 3.

After making a prototyping schedule, we started constructing our Alpha Prototype, the
first full system prototype that would be used for testing and feedback in order to reach a final
Beta Prototype by the end of the year. Our alpha prototype was graded as a pass/fail for each
subsystem: structure, stability, propulsion, seating, braking, and steering. To prepare for this, we
had a lot to put together for our HPV to be completed. The first step in creating our Alpha was to
construct the frame. Since we bought a premade frame, all we had to do was put it together based
on the instructions given in the box. The basket that came with the trike was unstable, so we had
to find zip ties in order to keep it together. Our next step once the frame was together was to
weld the front chest support. We bought zinc coated metal, so this had to be sanded in order for
the welding to be possible. Our attachment for the front chest support wasn’t very stable because
the GoPro stand we had broke under the pressure, so this is the only part of our alpha that didn’t
pass for safety reasons. Lastly, for our alpha we had to make sure the motor worked, as it was
part of the propulsion system. Dr. Nagel gave us a controller and a wheel with a motor in it, so
all we have to do was get batteries and hook everything up. We bought lithium ion batteries,
which we put in pvc pipe that held the batteries snug. We put four batteries per pvc pipe and
made four pvc pipe batteries. We put caps on both ends with wires that connected all the pipes to
each other and we hooked up the batteries to a voltmeter, and made sure they read the same
voltage as they were capable of putting off. Once this was tested successfully, the batteries and
motor were hooked up to the HPV, where we were able to test the function all together. There
were some complications at first, but we were able to realize our mistakes and make the motor
run smoothly. Additionally, since we are using this battery pack, we realized we needed some
sort of casing so these would be protected and not out in the open. This was something we
decided we would wait and implement for our Beta, since it wasn’t a major concern for the
alpha.

All of this preparation was for the annual Madison Engineering XChange. This is a very
large expo where all engineering student present their semester or yearly projects. Freshman
present the designs they’ve built for ENGR 112, sophomores present alphas for their HPV
 Road to Capstone 6

projects, Juniors present the beginnings of their capstone 2 year projects, and Seniors present
their capstones. At this expo Dr. Moran could walk around and see all the progress on the HPVs.

After the Madison XChange we had to test our functions more specifically with more
specific metrics. This led to developing a Testing and Refinement Plan that can be seen in
Appendix C, Table 4. By specifying tests and getting results we could change our design
accordingly. We refined our design by deciding to purchase a step stool that will assist Dr.
Moran mounting our HPV instead of “reinventing the wheel” and developing our own step. We
figured this route was better for our group given the time and materials available. Additionally,
the step purchased will already be certified to hold a certain amount of weight and would have
been tested by the manufacturers.

Furthermore, our seating system did not pass the alpha prototype stage due to being too
loose. Les Welch suggested that we use a bike seat tube instead of the 1 inch square tubing we
had. The seat tube fit a lot better in the 1.25 inch square tubing that was welded to our frame
acting as a frontwards chest rest. Since this solution made the seating more stable we drilled a
hole into the seat tube to allow a pin to connect the square tubing to the seat tube. Additionally,
the seat cushion was fixed to have a adjustable angle, making the seating more customizable for
Dr. Moran. We also guided the chain to do a figure eight for propulsion. We tested Dr. Moran
riding the bike by pedaling forward many times, changing the pedal length or the position of the
pedals. After repeated failure of pedaling forward Dr. Moran thought of the idea to pedal
backwards and go forwards. He believed this would work because his quads are stronger than his
hamstrings and pedalling backwards is more of a quad workout. So now if you pedal the bike
backwards it moves forward with how the chain is now configured.

For our beta prototype our team had to put the controller and batteries and open wires in a
water tight box, make custom parts on top of the pedals, fix the front rest, make another battery
pack, make a parking brake, and get a charger for the batteries. Fixing the front rest was a quick
fix for our team because Les came up with the idea to get a seat tube, and the metal under a
normal bike seat and connect that to our cushion, instead of having the GoPro mount. We drilled
a hole in the seat tube so a pin could go through it and drilled the seat metal to our seat cushion
and attached it to the seat tube. This worked perfectly as a front rest because now it isn’t as
flimsy as before and it is stronger so it shouldn’t break. What we did for the petals was 3D print
a 7’’ by 3’’ by 1’’ rectangle to put on top of our existing pedals. We did this because it helped
with Dr. Moran's comfort and so his heel would stop hitting the bike frame. We made another
battery system as before that also had an output of 48 volts. To waterproof the batteries,
controller and wires, we put them all in a plastic box and cut a whole in the side of the box and
feed all the wires through it. We then put caulk to cover up the hole. We choose a plastic box
because it is an insulator instead of using a metal box. We then tied the box to the basket so it
wouldn't move. Finally for the parking brake, we bought a ring clip and put it on the handlebars.
 Road to Capstone 7

So when he wants the parking brake on he moves the ring to the outside of the handlebar, pulls
the brake then puts the ring over the brake.

For future work the bike will need a more permanent solution to not letting the chain
grind on itself. Since it is is the figure eight position there is one contact point on the chain and
for the beta prototype we are putting something in between so the chain. But that is only a
temporary solution, there should be something that doesn’t let the chain drag on itself. Changing
the battery packs from pvc pipes to something else isn’t necessary but it would look better if all
the batteries were in a box. The pvc pipes are waterproof and very durable so that doesn’t have to
be changed. The back brake only tops one of the back tires, so if it is deemed necessary maybe it
can be both wheels to stop both so braking distance decreases. Also connect the second battery
pack that we made extra. Put different pedals what are similar dimensions to the pedals we have.
Another thing would be do something to protect the wires that go from the motor to the battery
box at the end. Over the summer, a team of engineers will be working on breaking down all
current HPV’s in order to make a final HPV to handoff to Dr. Moran.

On Thursday, May 2nd, 2019, all sophomores will pitch their HPV to our client, other
stakeholders, and the Engineering faculty. Finally, Team Accountability reports can be found in
Appendix D and Individual Reflections in Appendix E.
 Road to Capstone 8

Appendix A

Calculations

All mathematical calculations will be provided below. This may include scannings of
paper documents, MatLab code, and excerpts from previous memos.

Center of Mass and Determining Vehicle Weight

By utilizing MatLab script is developed that will calculate the weight of the current design in
pounds and the mass in kilograms, as well as, taking all major subsystems into account. This
includes frame, basket, handel bars, pedals and more below. In addition, hand calculations were
done to find the center of mass utilizing the MatLab data for only the frame. Wheels, basket,
handel bars, and more were excluded.

Calculation 1​. MatLab Code for Center of Mass without Dr. Moran
clear all; %known frame dimensions based on frame
clc; %Calculation for mass by part% conceptual design%
Basket = [1.36078 3.0]; %[kg lbs]% Lo = [29 25 15 28 32 35 27.5 18]; %[p1 p2
BM = [1.131 2.5]; p3 p4]%
WS = [2.90299 6.4]; Ro = [.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7];
Seat = [0.437 0.96342]; Li = [29 25 15 28 32 35 27.5 18];
Brakes = [1.0433 2.3]; Ri = [.6375 .6375 .6375 .6375 .6375 .6375
Hbars = [0.0567 0.125]; .6375 .6375];
Mirrors = [1.730 3.8]; %known constituent centers of mass based
Pedal = [0.43559 1.0]; on frame dimensions%
Cassette = [0.411 0.9061]; x_bar = [12.5 12.5 25 35 35 65 0.7 46.3];
Chain = [0.257 0.567]; y_bar = [7.5 0 7.5 7.5 5 17.5 0 36];
Fshift = [0.122 0.269]; %calculations to calculate center of mass of
Fder = [0.134 0.295]; bike frame%
Rshift = [0.122 0.269]; n=size(Lo);
Rder = [0.271 0.597]; for i=1:n
Frame = [10.033 22.12]; V=Lo.*Ro.*Ro.*pi - Li.*Ri.*Ri.*pi;
W=rho.*V;
Mass = cm_x=x_bar.*W;
Basket+BM+WS+Seat+Brakes+Hbars+Mirr cm_y=y_bar.*W;
ors+Pedal+Cassette+Chain+Fshift+Fder+Rs X_bar = sum(cm_x)/sum(W)
hift+Rder+Frame Y_bar = sum(cm_y)/sum(W)
rho = 0.283; %lbf/in3% end
 Road to Capstone 9

Calculation 2​. MatLab Code for Center of Mass with Dr. Moran

clear all; Ro = [.7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7];

Clc; %Calculation for mass by part% Li = [29 25 15 28 32 35 27.5 18];
Basket = [1.36078 3.0]; %[kg lbs]% Ri = [.6375 .6375 .6375 .6375 .6375 .6375
BM = [1.131 2.5]; .6375 .6375];
WS = [2.90299 6.4];
Seat = [0.437 0.96342]; %known constituent centers of mass based
Brakes = [1.0433 2.3]; on frame dimensions%
Hbars = [0.0567 0.125]; x_bar = [12.5 12.5 25 35 35 65 0.7 46.3 25];
Mirrors = [1.730 3.8]; %last value is Dr.Moran CoM
Pedal = [0.43559 1.0]; y_bar = [7.5 0 7.5 7.5 5 17.5 0 36 15]; %last
Cassette = [0.411 0.9061]; value is Dr.Moran CoM
Chain = [0.257 0.567];
Fshift = [0.122 0.269]; %calculations to calculate center of mass of
Fder = [0.134 0.295]; bike frame%
Rshift = [0.122 0.269]; n=size(Lo);
Rder = [0.271 0.597]; for i=1:n
Frame = [10.033 22.12]; V=Lo.*Ro.*Ro.*pi - Li.*Ri.*Ri.*pi;
Mass = W=rho.*V;
Basket+BM+WS+Seat+Brakes+Hbars+Mirr W=[W 137]
ors+Pedal+Cassette+Chain+Fshift+Fder+Rs cm_x=x_bar.*W;
hift+Rder+Frame cm_y=y_bar.*W;
rho = 0.283; %lbf/in3% X_bar = sum(cm_x)/sum(W)
%known frame dimensions based on frame Y_bar = sum(cm_y)/sum(W)
conceptual design% end
Lo = [29 25 15 28 32 35 27.5 18]; %[p1 p2
p3 p4]%
 Road to Capstone 10

Calculation 3​. Paper Calculations for Center of Mass Only Utilizing Frame
Road to Capstone 11
 Road to Capstone 12

Calculation 4. ​MatLab Code for Static Frame Analysis

a=[ 0 0 0.95 0.6018 -0.3090 0.8090 0 0 0;

0 0 0.3090 0.7986 -0.9511 0.5878 -1 0 1;
0 0 0 0 -16.5959 15.4505 26.2860 0 0;
0 0 0 0 0 0.8090 0 0.8090 0;
0 0 0 0 0 0.5878 -1 0.5878 0;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.8090 0;
0.1736 0 0 0 0 -0.8090 0 -0.8090 0;
-0.9848 1 0 0 0 0.9848 0 0.8090 0;
0 0 0 0 0 13 0 3.99 0];
b=[0; 141; 2460; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0;];
a(:,10)=b;
A=rref(a);
x = A(:,end);
X = x'
%De, Hn, Ac, Ab, Bc, Ce, Ff, Fg, An%
 Road to Capstone 13

Calculation 5. ​Paper Calculations for Static Frame Analysis

Road to Capstone 14
 Road to Capstone 15

Appendix B

Pictures and Graphs

All pictures and graphs will be provided below. This may include isometric snapshots,
engineering drawings, CAD Models, and exploded view drawings.

CAD Model for Human Powered Vehicle

A full assembly of an anticipated Human Powered Vehicle system. Specifically, emphasizing on

customized parts. Parts that will be bought online are in less detail and not to specific
dimensions.

Figure 1. ​Full SolidWorks Model

Engineering Drawings for Human Powered Vehicle

A portfolio of engineering drawings for the HPV where every part that is anticipated to be
modified or constructed, as well as, key assemblies have corresponding engineering drawing.
Engineering drawings of single components are drawn following ANSI orthographic standards
and assemblies are drawn as auxiliary views with annotations denote key fabrication features.
 Road to Capstone 16

Figure 2. ​Battery Box Drawing

Figure 3. ​Motor Mount Drawing

 Road to Capstone 17

Figure 4. ​Seating with Platform Drawing

Figure 5.​ Cane Clip Drawing

 Road to Capstone 18

Appendix C

Tables and Written Documents

Tables and other important written documents will be displayed below, including Bill of
Materials, Prototype Testing Plans, Testing results, Code of Conduct and more.

Code of Conduct

A Code of Conduct is a written agreement that established team dynamics, rules, and procedures
for the group. As well as, consequences for breaking any other established rules. Each member
must sign the document that will establish accountability and ownership of the said agreements.

Memo 1. ​Team Code of Conduct

Team Members & Contact Information  

Cailyn Lager​: ​lagercj@dukes.jmu.edu​ 703-624-3373 
Bre McLaughlin:​ ​mclaugbv@dukes.jmu.edu​ 757-234-9421 
Christian Bowman:​ b​ owmancs@dukes.jmu.edu​ 540-209-2433 
Ashley Vayo: v​ ayoae@dukes.jmu.edu​ 703-727-6236 
Tyrees Swift-Josey: ​swiftjts@dukes.jmu.edu​ ​610-233-5649 
Connor Feit: f​ eitcd@dukes.jmu.edu​ 5​ 16-660-6486 
Jack Williams: w ​ illi6jt@dukes.jmu.edu​ ​804-972-5184 
Erik Idrizi: ​idriziex@dukes.jmu.edu​ 540-621-8558 
Raymond Benner: ​bennerrj@dukes.jmu.edu​ 757-759-4564 
  
Team Roles  
Cailyn Lager - Team manager:​ A ​ s team manager I will conduct team meetings and send reminders to 
the group. I will keep minutes on meetings and conduct attendance. As well as, designate tasks to 
other group members.  
Bre McLaughlin - Editor:​ I will review each assignment while in progress and again before it is 
turned in and revise whatever is needed. I will also turn in team assignments.  
Christian Bowman - Builder: ​I will work with the team and the other builders in order to make the 
design our team creates. 
Ashley Vayo - Safety:​ Throughout the project, I will ensure everything that we do as a group adheres 
to safety standards. I will also do the final check at the end of the semester to make sure we are able 
to hand off our vehicle to Dr. Moran.  
Tyrees Swift-Josey - Communicator:​ I​ will talk to Dr. Moran and keep him update on our process. 
Find out any concerns he has on the design and relay the information back to the group. As well as, 
present our designs to the community.  
 Road to Capstone 19

​ nalysis​: ​Complete the needed analysis for the bike and do the math needed to ensure 
Connor Feit -​ A
our design will work. 
Jack Williams - Builder: I​ will work with the team and the other builders in order to make the 
design our team creates. 
Raymond Benner - Researcher​: Conducting necessary research for team on the necessary topics for 
the specific assignment.  
Erik Idrizi - Designer:​ I will help with designing the bike. Getting everyone’s opinion of different 
designs, and also help make the CAD model of the bike. Help make the bike come together as a 
whole.  
 
Team Procedures 
1. Meetings will be held in Engeo 1003 on Sundays at 7PM and Tuesdays at 5PM as needed. If 
there is a conflict with the meeting time, this should be communicated to Cailyn, the team manager.  
 
2. Preferred method of communication is a group chat that will inform each other of team 
meetings, announcements, updates, reminders of due dates.  
 
3. Decision-making policy: When making decisions for the group there will be a debate of all sides 
then a vote. If there is a tie between votes the Project Manager will break the tie. 
 
4. Meeting times will be sent in the group chat and group members will be reminded of meeting 
times on the day of the meeting by the team manager. The team manager will make an agenda and 
objectives for each meeting. Each team member is expected to come to the meeting with prepared 
materials posted in the group chat. Team manager will also keep group on task.  
 
5. Minutes will be kept in a shared Google Drive folder and a Google Drive document called 
Agenda. Any member can write notes and keep minutes in the agenda document that can be 
referred to later.  
 
Team Expectations 
Work Quality 
1. ​Project standards​: All group work should adhere to the respective rubric to the best of the 
group’s ability. Every group member should be well acquainted with the finished product and 
prepared to present. 
 
2. ​ Strategies to fulfill these standards​: The group should meet twice weekly, as needed, to 
allow for a more spread out approach to assignments which will prevent rushed work and help with 
time management. Everyone should come prepared to meetings so that they can be productive.  
 
 Road to Capstone 20

Team Participation 
1. ​Strategies to ensure cooperation and equal distribution of tasks: T ​ eam Manager will 
assign different tasks to each member so every member knows what they are responsible for to 
ensure cooperation and equal distribution of tasks. Team Manager will also make sure everyone’s 
ideas and opinions are heard and taken into consideration. 
 
2. ​Strategies for encouraging/including ideas from all team members ​(team maintenance): 
Allowing everyone have a voice in the team’s decisions for the project. Keep an open mind on the 
ideas shared among the group.  
 
3. ​ Strategies for keeping on task​ (task maintenance): Team manager will keep the group on 
task, however, any other member may point out being off task. If the problem persists, a strike will 
be given to the responsible members. Team manager will also keep an updated agenda to remind 
group of daily meeting tasks. 
4. ​Preferences for leadership​: There will be shared leadership, with ties being resolved by Team 
Manager. 
 
Personal Accountability 
1. ​Expected individual attendance, punctuality, and participation at all team meetings​: 
All group members are expected to attend all meetings, participate fully by contributing ideas and 
feedback to the discussion, and arrive at least 10 minutes within the set start time, unless they notify 
the group at least an hour before the designated start time. A member can miss a meeting if they 
inform the rest of the group 24 hours before the meeting starts (if possible), and they must have an 
excuse that the rest of the team deems valid. Unacceptable excuses include oversleeping, social 
engagements, laziness, and other non-mandatory engagements.  
 
2. ​ Expected level of responsibility for fulfilling team assignments, timelines, and 
deadlines: ​Members are expected to fully accomplish their tasks the night before the assignment is 
due. This leaves time for each part to be put together and for the editor to revise and submit.  
 
3. ​Expected level of communication with other team members: M ​ embers are expected to 
respond to text messages addressed to them or the group within three hours M-F 9am-9pm, 
Sat-Sun 10am-10pm. If a member can not make a meeting for any reason they are expected to 
notify the group as soon as they know. 
 
4. ​Expected level of commitment to team decisions and tasks: ​All members are expected to 
voice their opinions in team decisions. For every team task, members should contribute and make 
sure they are content with the finished product.  
 Road to Capstone 21

 
Consequences for Failing to Follow Procedures and Fulfill Expectations 
1. For the first infraction conducted by a member, said member will be notified through text 
message. For the second infraction, that member will be given a verbal in person warning. For the 
third infraction there will be a group meeting held discussing the group member’s behavior and 
how it must be improved. If group member fails to come to the third infraction meeting or makes a 
fourth infraction, that group member will be removed from the group and all further group 
assignments.  
 
2. Examples of Infractions: 
❏ Missing a meeting without notifying the group. 
❏ Failing to do assigned part in an team assignment. 
❏ Submitting an assignment late or not at all.  
❏ Failure to participate/communicate.  
❏ Failure to stay on task during meetings. 
*************************************************************************** 
a) I participated in formulating the standards, roles, and procedures as stated in this 
contract. 
b) I understand that I am obligated to abide by these terms and conditions. 
c) I understand that if I do not abide by these terms and conditions, I will suffer the 
consequences as stated in this contract. 
 
 
1) ​Cailyn Lager ​ date ​1/21/19 
2) ​Christian Bowman​ date 1​ /21/19 
3) ​Tyrees Swift-Josey ​ date ​1/21/19 
4) ​Jack Williams  date ​1/21/19 
5) ​Ashley Vayo   date ​ 1/21/19 
6) ​Bre McLaughlin  date ​1/21/19 
7) ​Erik Idrizi​ date ​1/21/19 
8) ​Connor Feit​ date ​ 1/21/19 
9) ​Raymond Benner​ date ​1/21/19 

Bill of Materials

A list of specified parts that will be purchased by the Engineering Department with a maximum
budget of $400. Bill of materials include: a part number associated with an engineering drawing,
the quantity needed to be purchased, a description of the part, and the source it will be bought
 Road to Capstone 22

from. As well as, the person responsible for the part, unit cost, tax and shipping cost, total cost,
an area to specify if the part has been received.

Table 1. ​Preliminary Bill of Materials

Refer to the Final Bill of Materials using VEVOR 7-Speed 24" 3-Wheel Adult Tricycle Bicycle
Trike Cruise Bike W/ large Basket from Sears in place of Bike Frame:
https://www.sears.com/vevor-7-speed-24inch-3-wheel-adult-tricycle/p-A030074769?plpSellerId
=popularitemstore&prdNo=2&blockNo=2&blockType=G2#Imagezoom

Table 2​. Final Bill of Materials

Purchased Materials
Person Tax/
Respons- Unit Shippin Total
Part # Quantity Description Source ible Cost g Cost Obtained
Les Welch will
buy
https://www.wal
mart.com/ip/2-pa
ck-360-Rotatable
-Flexible-Handle
bar-Rearview-Mi
rror-for-Bike-MT
1 in Full B-Bicycle-Cyclin
CAD g-Mirror-Accesso Connor (Do not
model 1 mirrors ries/559285947 Feit $9.00 $0.00 $9.00 order)
https://www.hom
edepot.com/p/Eve
rbilt-1-1-4-in-x-3
6-in-Zinc-Plated-
Punched-Square-
1-1/4 in. x Tube-803047/206
36 in. 939537?MERCH
Zinc-Plated =REC-_-PIPHori
4 in Seat Punched zontal2_rr-_-206
with Square 939549-_-206939 Cailyn Pick up
Platform 1 (36 in) Tube 537-_-N Lager $15.98 in Store $15.98
 Road to Capstone 23

https://www.hom
1 in. x 36 edepot.com/p/Eve
in. rbilt-1-in-x-36-in-
Zinc-Plated Zinc-Plated-Punc
6 in Seat Punched hed-Square-Tube
with Square -803037/2069395 Cailyn Pick up
Platform 1 (36 in) Tube 49 Lager $13.98 in Store $13.98
https://www.hom
1/4 in. x 2 edepot.com/p/Eve
in. rbilt-1-4-in-x-2-in
Zinc-Plated -Zinc-Plated-Rou
Round nd-Head-Wire-Lo
Head Wire ck-Pin-807468/20 Cailyn Pick up
1 Lock Pin 4276210 Lager $3.20 in Store $3.20
https://www.wal
mart.com/ip/Roya
l-London-Adult-
Tricycle-3-Wheel
ed-Trike-Bicycle-
with-Wire-Shopp
1 in Full Bike ing-Basket/31763
CAD Frame 1224?selected=tr Cailyn
model 1 (Blue) ue Lager $229.99 $0.00 $229.99
Les Welch will
buy
14 in Pure Fix http://www.jbi.bi
Full Pro ke/site/product_d
CAD Footstrap etails.php?part_n Connor (Do not
model 2 (black) umber=97700 Feit $15.00 $0.00 $15.00 order)
 Road to Capstone 24

Machined Materials
Part Person Labor Material Total
Number Quantity Description Source Responsible Cost Cost Cost Obtained
3D Jack
12 1 battery rack printing Williams $0.00 $0.00
3D
7 1 cane clip printing Cailyn Lager $0.00 $0.00
Labor Costs
Pay
Rate / FICA Benefit
Team Member Estimated Hours Worked Hour Taxes s Total Cost
Bre McLaughlin 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Cailyn Lager 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Christian Bowman 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Ashley Vayo 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Raymond Benner 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Connor Feit 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Tyrees Swift-Josey 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Erick Idrizi 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Jack Williams 25 $40.17 7.65% 15.00% $1,004.32
Material Cost: $287.15

Labor Costs: $9,038.91

Indirect Costs: $4,248.29

Total Costs: $13,574.35

Prototype Development Plan

Details including materials required for each deliverable that will lead to the alpha and beta
prototype. As well as, fabrication steps required and people responsible for each step in
developing the alpha.
 Road to Capstone 25

Table 3. ​Prototype Development Plan

Week March 18-23

● Meet with Les to get Parts - Jack
● Prototype pedal style with Dr. Moran - Tyrees
● Find power supply 48V - All
● Contact Nagel with money complaints - Cailyn
● Make a model for seat with measurements - Cailyn
● Get light bar mounts - Jack
● Writing Memo - Bre, Christian, Ashley

Week of March 25 - 30
● Mounting electrical components and testing motor - Jack, Bre, Ashley
● Cut metal for seating - Cailyn
● 3d Battery Pack - Jack
● Meet with Dr. Moran for handle bars - Erik WED
● Model extra pedal adaptor - Tyrees
● Print pedal adapter - Jack
● Attach brakes to motor and handlebars - Connor and Christian

Week of April 1 - 11th

● Weld Metal for seating - Cailyn, Connor (Ask Wild)
● Safety Check - Ashley
● Attach Battery hub - Jack
● Mounting seat with all attachments - Cailyn, Connor

Prototype Testing Plan

A table specifying which subsystems will be tested and how, along with criteria for success or
fail. By having the plan by week it is an indicator of the team’s progress through alpha and beta
development.
 Road to Capstone 26

Table 4.​ Prototype Testing Plan by Week

# Test Objective System/ Method of Methodology and Criteria for

Date Sub Strategy analysis Success

1 Week Test the Motor Supply 48V to Bench Test the Output
of functionality of and electronic output power to power
3/24 wheel motor electron speed display how much provides
and get force ics controller. power motor will bike to move
output. supply forwards.

2 Week Test braking Braking Have bike Record distance If stopping

of distance. moving 5 required to come to distance is
3/31 mph,10 mph, a complete stop. In equivalent or
and 15 mph. feet. less than 5
feet for 5
mph, 10 ft
for 10 mph,
and 15 ft for
15 mph.

3 Week Test if Dr. Step Take to Dr. This will be pass or Successful
of Moran can Moran after wail. Passing if he when Dr.
3/24 mount the bike step is can step over, fail Moran is
easily using the completely. if he cannot. If able to easily
step failed adjustments and
will be made comfortably
mount the
bike.

4 Week Test if Dr. Seating Take the bike If he can not reach Successful if
of Moran can to Dr. Moran the pedals, measure and only if
3/24 reach the and see if he is it in inches and his feet are
pedals with about to reach change height of able to reach
current seat the pedals seat. the pedals
height for a
comfortable
rotation.

5 Week Test if the bike Steering Have the bike Record the radius Bike can
of can turn move between of turns the bike is turn at least
3/24 without tipping 5-15 mph and able to successfully 60 degrees
record. turn without any to either side
tipping without
tipping
 Road to Capstone 27

6 Week Test if the Wheels Let Dr. Moran If he feels unstable Wheels are
of 4/7 wheels are operate at low wheels need to be fully
stable and speeds to make adjusted. Measured functional,
functional sure he feels in Dr. Moran's stable, and
under high stable. satisfaction level turning when
speeds 1-10. bike is going
5mph, 10
mph, and
15mph

7 Week Test the “kill Motor Use kill switch Will be tested as If motor
of switch” throttle and see if pass or fail. It shuts off
3/31 motor turns either works or 9/10 times
off. does not and will consecutivel
be fixed y
accordingly

8 Week Test the Motor After motor is This will be pass or Will be
of throttle to hooked up. fail. Pass if throttle successful
3/31 make sure Test the works, fail if it when the
motor is in throttle to does not. If fails throttle
proper working make sure it is we will fix the works 19/20
order. working. issue times
consecutivel
y.

9 Week Test how much Step Place various Will not be maxed Will be
of weight the step weights on the out until it breaks successful
3/24 can hold. step to make but rather where when step
sure step will the team is can support
hold comfortable with well over Dr.
the weight Moran's
weight.

10 Week Test how much Pedal Apply forces to Team will consider Will be
of force can be the custom a maxed out force successful
3/31 applied to the pedal when we are when pedal
right pedal comfortable will is able to
the force input with withstand
respect to Dr. 150% of Dr.
Moran's force Moran’s
input. force input.
 Road to Capstone 28

Appendix D
Accountability Report
Accountability reports should take the form of the table shown below. The percentage of
effort performed by each person for each task completed and related to the course project should
be added to the following table. The sum of effort per task across all team members should
equal 100%. All team members must sign off on the accountability report for the team. This
accountability report will not be used to assess individual team scores for the course, but rather,
as a mechanism for individuals in a team to have a dialog around team performance.
Project Redesign Brief Team Code of Conduct Determining Vehicle
Erik: 10 Erik: 7 Weight and COM
Tyrees: 10 Tyrees: 8 Erik: 12
Connor: 5 Connor: 7 Tyrees: 9
Cailyn: 15 Cailyn: 29 Connor: 9
Bre: 20 Bre: 10 Cailyn: 13
Christian: 10 Christian: 5 Bre:9
Ashley: 0 Ashley: 9 Christian: 13
Jack: 20 Jack: 5 Ashley:11
Raymond: 10 Raymond: 20 Jack:13
TOTAL:100 TOTAL: 100 Raymond:11
TOTAL: 100

Static Analysis CAD Model for HPV Engineering Drawings for

Erik: 15 Erik: 10 HPV
Tyrees: 0 Tyrees: 9.1 Erik: 10
Connor: 10 Connor: 10 Tyrees: 10
Cailyn: 20 Cailyn: 48 Connor: 10
Bre: 20 Bre: 8.9 Cailyn: 20
Christian: 10 Christian: 2 Bre: 10
Ashley: 5 Ashley: 3 Christian: 10
Jack: 20 Jack: 8 Ashley: 10
Raymond: 0 Raymond:1 Jack: 10
TOTAL: 100 TOTAL: 100 Raymond: 10
TOTAL: 100
 Road to Capstone 29

Prelim BOM Final BOM Prototype Development

Erik: 2 Erik: 5 Plan:
Tyrees: 2 Tyrees: 5 Erik: 5
Connor: 10 Connor: 5 Tyrees: 5
Cailyn: 50 Cailyn: 20 Connor: 15
Bre: 20 Bre: 30 Cailyn: 10
Christian: 2 Christian: 5 Bre: 15
Ashley: 2 Ashley: 20 Christian: 20
Jack: 10 Jack: 5 Ashley: 20
Raymond: 2 Raymond: 5 Jack: 5
TOTAL: 100 TOTAL: 100 Raymond: 5
TOTAL: 100

Prototype Testing Plan Alpha prototype Beta Prototype

Erik: 3 Erik: 20 Erik: 25
Tyrees: 4 Tyrees: 10 Tyrees: 15
Connor: 30 Connor: 10 Connor: 10
Cailyn: 16 Cailyn: 15 Cailyn: 10
Bre: 16 Bre: 5 Bre: 5
Christian: 20 Christian: 5 Christian: 5
Ashley: 5 Ashley: 5 Ashley: 5
Jack: 3 Jack: 15 Jack: 15
Raymond: 3 Raymond: 15 Raymond: 10
TOTAL: 100 TOTAL: 100 TOTAL: 100
 Road to Capstone 30

I acknowledge that the accountability report above is accurate to the level I contributed to the
team, Road to Capstone in Spring 2019.
 Road to Capstone 31

Appendix E
Individual Reflection

Reflection for Team Member: Cailyn Lager

Being in Design 2 has developed my leadership skills and I’ve realized new aspects of
my work ethics. I’ve learned how to conduct a group of nine people to work together to make
such an impactful project. It’s also been really beneficial being a project manager and being
involved in the Madison Engineering Leadership Development (MELD) program at the same
time. By learning about leadership styles with MELD I was able to see how my leadership earlier
in the semester was flawed and tried to bettered my leadership towards the end. I realized that
some people in the engineering department focus on what will pass and only doing that.
However, I feel that I strive farther than that, wanting a design to excel and be better than
passing. I believe everyone in my group wanted to excel however, our definitions of excelling
are different. Therefore, at times it was difficult to delegate tasks to people within the group
because in the back of my mind I didn’t know if that individual would excel to my personal
expectations. As a leader I learned when to step down and let someone more knowledgeable take
control. I also learned to delegate tasks instead of taking on the work for myself.
Furthermore, I appreciated how Design involved hard calculations, such as, frame
analysis and center of mass from Statics and Dynamics, it helped me use outside of Design
knowledge, leading to all engineering classes being connected. Students are really good at
sectioning parts of their brain for specific classes, and by incorporating other class’s material it
helps break down some of those mental walls.
This project is also great experience into what engineering is and what each step of the
engineering process is. By being able to talk about this project to future employers gives a
background of experience that engineering major from other schools may not have.
The only recommendation I have for the course is to minimize or eliminate memorization
testing. Almost the entire course is based on project and physical work, therefore, testing
students on how much they can memorize is not an adequate way to see how much the student
has learned.