TEAM PI-

ACE
HPV DESIGN REPORT

Team Members:
Ahab Zahoor
Khubaib Saqib
Numman Haider
Abdul Moiz
Wajeeh ul Hassan
Usama Qayyum
Hamza Qayyum
Rehan Iqbal
Hamza Nisar
Talha Ajmal.

Team Riders:

Khubaib Saqib
Talha Ajmal
Rehan Iqbal
Wajeeh ul Hassan
 1. Table of Contents
2. Objective : ............................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Background: .......................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Prior work:............................................................................................................................................. 6
5. Design limitations: ................................................................................................................................ 6
ASME Limitations: ..................................................................................................................................... 6
PI-ACE limitations:..................................................................................................................................... 7
6. Chronological Designing Process: ......................................................................................................... 7
a) Initial Design:..................................................................................................................................... 7
i. Turning radius: .............................................................................................................................. 7
ii. Comfortable pedaling: .................................................................................................................. 7
iii. Seat design: ................................................................................................................................... 8
iv. Steering system: ............................................................................................................................ 8
b) Human Model: .................................................................................................................................. 8
c) Seat positioning: ............................................................................................................................... 8
d) Seat angles: ....................................................................................................................................... 8
e) Weight distribution: .......................................................................................................................... 9
f) Fairing design: ................................................................................................................................... 9
g) Wheel base & tire size: ................................................................................................................... 10
h) Drive train: ...................................................................................................................................... 10
i) Pedal assembly:............................................................................................................................... 10
j) Main frame:..................................................................................................................................... 11
k) Steering system: .............................................................................................................................. 11
l) Suspension: ..................................................................................................................................... 12
m) RPS design: .................................................................................................................................. 12
n) Material selection: .......................................................................................................................... 12
7. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 13
a) Cost Analysis: .................................................................................................................................. 13
b) RPS Analysis: ................................................................................................................................... 13

Page | 1
 i. Top load analysis: ........................................................................................................................ 13
ii. Side Load Analysis: ...................................................................................................................... 17
8. SAFETY ................................................................................................................................................. 18
a) Safety Belt: ...................................................................................................................................... 18
b) Unrestrained movement of legs: .................................................................................................... 19
c) No sharp ends or bumps: ................................................................................................................ 19
d) Helmet:............................................................................................................................................ 19
e) Costume: ......................................................................................................................................... 19
9. RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 19
a) Usage of light weight material: ....................................................................................................... 19
b) Manufacturing through molds: ....................................................................................................... 19
c) Time management: ......................................................................................................................... 20
d) Cost effective design: ...................................................................................................................... 20
10. INNOVATION ................................................................................................................................... 21
a) Basic Design: ................................................................................................................................... 21
b) Suspension system: ......................................................................................................................... 21
c) Comfort: .......................................................................................................................................... 21
i. Seat: ............................................................................................................................................ 21
ii. Handle bar:.................................................................................................................................. 21
d) Basic truss design: ........................................................................................................................... 21
e) Pedal Assembly: .............................................................................................................................. 21
11. Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 22
12. QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................. 22
13. TESTING ........................................................................................................................................... 23
a) Top Speed Test: ............................................................................................................................... 23
b) Weight Test: .................................................................................................................................... 23
c) Turning Test: ................................................................................................................................... 23
d) Braking Test:.................................................................................................................................... 24
14. References ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Page | 2
 2. Objective :
This year the Human Powered Vehicle Challenge will be held at NUST H-12 under the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).This is the design report of the vehicle designed and
manufactured by team ‘PI-ACE’ from Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences
(PIEAS).All aspects related to design and manufacturing are discussed in the report.

The objective of HPVC is to use the skills and prior knowledge to build a human powered
vehicle that will be swift, lightweight, economical and efficient for both daily use and
competitions. Keeping these aspects in view the team decided to design and build a vehicle
which will be innovative and will utilize the set of skills and abilities acquired by each individual
in the team.

This struggle of about 3 months proved fruitful as it helped team members to work together as
a unit and use their skills to the fullest. The exposure to real world challenges and practical
application of knowledge is a new experience for all the team members.

Henceforth, the team designed and manufactured “MACHI” which is a accumulation of their
abilities, skills, diligence and planning.

Page | 3
 3. Background:
There has been no participation from PIEAS in the previous events of HPVC, so there was no
background work available on this project as such. Therefore, we decided to start from scratch
even though this was an enormous challenge. We had to opt for the most suitable design,
having an all-round effectual performance.

The journey started with setting up a schedule which will allow the team to head into the right
direction and construct our intended HPV in time. The schedule allowed us to track our
performance throughout the process.

A Schedule was prepared as mentioned thus:

Time Period Phase Description

25th Nov’16-5th Dec’17 Initiation Phase Team development

and design type
selection

8th Dec’16-20th Dec’16 Research Phase Research on

important design
parameters,
Development and
Analysis of various
human models

21st Dec’16-2nd Jan’17 Secondary Phase Sketch of the best

thought design along
with custom
dimensions of the
selected driver

2nd Jan’17-22nd Jan BREAK BREAK

23rd Jan’17-31st Jan’17 Sec. ctd. CAD Modeling and

Analysis of various
parts, Market Survey

1st Feb’17-14th Feb’17 Final Phase Purchase of material,

Fabrication, Assembly

Page | 4
15th Feb’17-23rd Feb’17 Final Phase ctd. Finishing of the
product, Test drive,
Driving practice.

Table 3-1

The very first task was the selection of the most suitable HPV for the event. Upon conducting a
case study of few important designs, each design was marking with respect to different
categories like comfort, agility etc. The points were summed up after which the total aggregate
for each HPV was compared with each other.

Recumbent Recumbent
Up right Recumbent
Attribute Trike Trike Prone Bicycle
Bicycle Bike
(Delta) (Tadpole)

Prior Knowledge 5 3 4 3 0

Comfort 4 5 5 5 2

Weight 5 3 2 2 5

Low Speed 5 1
4 3 5
Stability

High Speed 3 4
3 4 3
Stability

Speed 4 5 3 3 5

Maneuverability 5 3 3 2 2

Economy 5 2 1 1 5

Total 35 28 26 24 24
Table 3-2

From the results it is obvious that upright is the winner. Still, we did not opt for the upright
design as this was conventional and there was limited scope of innovation in this design. There
were other options too like recumbent and delta trike but it was clear from past HPVC events
that most universities choose this type. After conducting meetings over design selection, our
team decided to finalize “SEMI-PRONE” design for various reasons mentioned as follows:

 The design is unique and rare.

 More things to learn in the design and production.
 Prones are swift and light weight. Chances of innovation are also greater than other
designs.
 The design is economical as compared to other designs.

Page | 5
 4. Prior work:
As such there is no prior work done by any team from PIEAS as this is the first time any team
from PIEAS is participating in the event. Due to this, there is scant amount of available on the
design and the production of the HPV is a great challenge that we look forward to facing. The
second important thing is the manufacturing of vehicle according to the rules of HPVC which
put a limit on various parameters.

Another important thing to discuss in this section is that there is no prior work done on PRONE
or SEMI-PRONE even in Pakistan because the design is so rare and is not a triviality to design
and produce. These adverse circumstances were quite intimidating. Undaunted, we explored
the internet and eventually found a prone bike known as “BIRD OF PREY” and studied its design
thoroughly. The team investigated each and every feature of the bike and obtained information
from it. Our team then figured out some modifications to the design of Bird of Prey to get a
better pedaling system and more comfort.

5. Design limitations:
After the selection of the design, it was necessary for us to follow the design specifications and
limitations mentioned in HPVC rule book. The HPV was to be designed according to the features
in the rule book. These are:

ASME Limitations:
 Starts and stops without any assist
 Minimum Clearance Height : 4.5 inches
 Minimum Turning Radius: 9ft 6 inches
 Braking Capability: The vehicle can come to a stop from a speed
of 15 miles per hour in a distance of 20 feet or less.
 Rollover Protection System :
a) Absorb energy in an accident to minimize injury
b) Prevent contact of body with the ground in the event of a fall
c) Provide adequate abrasion resistance to protect against
sliding across the ground
 It meets the following load requirements :
a)Top Load: 601 lb. is sustained without fracture, permanent
deformation or de-lamination of roll bar of frame with maximum
elastic deformation to be less than 2.0 inches
b) Side Load: 300 lb. is sustained horizontally with same
conditions as the top load.
 Safety Harness: Safety belts and shoulder harnesses if required
for the rider.
 No exterior or interior sharp protrusions

Page | 6
  An accessory helmet with safety straps.
 Rider’s field of view: 180° without obstruction

PI-ACE limitations:
 Cost must be less than Rs 15000/-
 Team has very short time to complete the project i.e about 2-3 months.
 No previous work by any team from the university, even from the whole Pakistan.
 Aluminum welding is unavailable due to location and heavy cost.

6. Chronological Designing Process:

The design process was quite slow and steady. The team took its time to study all the possible
designs and selected the one which suited its mentality and approach. The next big challenge
was to modify the design according to the specifications mentioned by HPVC. How the whole
process took place is mentioned below step by step:

a) Initial Design:
The design of bike was a challenge as it was not the same as mentioned on the internet or
other platforms. The most important and difficult task was to mould the design according to
the rules specified by HPVC. The hurdles in the design process were overcome as mentioned
below:

i. Turning radius:
According to ASME rules of HPVC, the MACHI must be able to turn at a radius of
9ft and 6 inches. With our current idea of a semi-prone bike, that turning radius
would require a short wheelbase and a good steer and lean angle. Since there was rear wheel
drive system, we had the flexibility to vary both the steering and lean angle along with the
wheelbase. The turning radius formula was used to compensate all these parameters and the
design process continued.

ii. Comfortable pedaling:

The second most important thing was to prioritize the rider’s comfort and safety above all.
Some modification was done to the original PRONE design and a better SEMI-PRONE design was
evolved. In the new design we moved the pedaling system downward along the gravity so that
pedaling is much better than in the horizontal direction (as in prone design) in which rider has
to exert force against the gravity.

Page | 7
iii. Seat design:
Another major change was the seat design. The conventional prone design involves a seat
which supports the belly of the rider only resulting in a concentrated force on the belly of the
rider which is very uncomfortable situation for the rider. So we tweaked the design and
designed a comfortable and long seat which supported the upper body of the rider and
distributed the force over his body rather than concentrating it on a single point. The result was
a much better seating position and a more comfortable design for the rider.

iv. Steering system:

While steering a bike in prostration requires a better steering system. Therefore the team
designed a steering system in such a way that it doesn’t block rider’s sight and is easy to steer
and handle.

b) Human Model:
The initial most design with the estimated dimensions of an average rider was made. Different
riders having variable figures were used to get an optimum design for the bike. This model was
used to calculate the ideal hip to pedal ratio as per the rider’s comfort so our HPV could
incorporate that distance. It was also later used to find out the ideal position for the steering
arms. The “Solidworks” and “Creo” softwares were used to draw the human model and the
suitable dimensions were mentioned.

c) Seat positioning:
The next important step in designing process was the position of the seat so that the rider’s
upper body was supported and pedaling was assisted. The average distance from the pedals to
the seat was determined from measuring different rider’s physique and then constructing a
table of measurements.

Although in conventional prone design, the sprockets are at the same level of rider’s body in
horizontal direction, it was decided to lower the pedaling system so that gravity assists the
pedaling and the bike runs smoothly. These calculations helped in finding the correct position
of drive train and pedaling assembly thus adding towards the total design of the bike.

d) Seat angles:
Seat angle is an important factor determining the overall aerodynamics, stability and control etc
on the bike. The seat angles alter the bike in the following ways.

With our aim to design a swift bike the seat angle was selected to be less than 30 degrees as it
results in better streamlined design, thus reducing the drag and helps to accelerate further.
The second important factor was the position of pedaling system relative to seat. In order to

Page | 8
increase the grip of rider on the pedals and better power transmission the angle was calculated
to be 10°-15°.

Figure 1

e) Weight distribution:
The stability of bike requires the weight distribution in such a way that more weight is acting on
the driving wheels rather than dragging wheel, so that the driving wheel doesn’t slip or wave
while dragging the other wheel.

In our case the rear wheel was driving wheel so the weight distribution was so adjusted that
more weight was acting in the rear wheel as compared to the front wheel. The weight
distribution was around 55-45 (front-back) in our case. The pedaling system helped a little to
shift the weight to the rear wheel of the HPV. Optimum weight distribution must be 60-40
(driving-dragging) so due to some limitations our HPV design had a little setback.

f) Fairing design:
Fairing is done to ensure less aerodynamic drag on the vehicle as it throttles on high
speeds. This results in assisting driver to accelerate the bike further.

Our design of prone bike is already more streamlined than other designs because of rider’s
position. The drag is also less than as compared to other designs. So after thinking and

Page | 9
discussing this concept thoroughly the team decided not add fairing to the vehicle design due
to following reasons:

 No cost on fairing
 No addition of extra weight
 Design of semi-prone is already more streamlined than other designs
 The design of semi-prone is already attractive and has good aesthetic sense
 Fairing will complex the design of the HPV
 Difficulty in leaning and taking sharper turns

g) Wheel base & tire size:

The driving wheel of semi-prone is the rear wheel which should be larger than front wheel
however the design of semi-prone contradicts this and requires both the wheels of same size
otherwise the design will include flaws.

Rear wheel can’t be smaller than front wheel as it will reduce top speed and also obstructs
rider’s vision. Same is the case with the front wheel size i.e varying the front wheel size will
disturb the design of the semi-prone and will be uncomfortable for driver as well.

The optimum size for front and rear wheels was chosen to be 26 inches and was easily
accessible in the market.

h) Drive train:
The design of conventional prones and semi-prones include rear wheel drive train so the team
decided to go for the rear wheel drive train. The selection was based upon the following
reasons:

 More effective power transmission if rear wheel drive train is selected because the
position of rider on the bike assists this design.
 Rear wheel drive train is comfortable for the rider and assists pedaling in semi-prone
design.

i) Pedal assembly:
An important part of drive train assembly is the crank arm. The position and length of crank arm
is an important parameter in power transmission and torque produced. The position of cranks
was already decided relative to seat position. Two options were available for us: longer crank
arm and shorter crank arm.

Longer crank arm has one big advantage that is greater torque however the longer arm can
result in the stretching of rider’s leg and knee angle greaterthan 165 degree which is an
uncomfortable situation for the rider.

Page | 10
Shorter crank arm on the other hand will produce less torque and will forces the rider to move
pedal at low cadence. However cadence has no effect on power transmission , it only helps to
avoid muscle fatigue.

Keeping all these aspects in view, team decided to go for intermediate crank arm length which
would be effective in our case.

The crank arm was decided to be 7 inches.

j) Main frame:
The concept design of the main frame of the bicycle is shown below.

Figure 2

The main frame incorporated hollow pipes of suitable material which was not too costly and
had enough strength attributes. In order to support pedaling assembly behind the rear wheel a
curved pipe was incorporated. The dimensions of the main frame were based on the previous
calculations done in each section.

k) Steering system:
The design of steering in most uprights and prones is simple and has positive caster angle. A
good caster angle of 10-15 degrees ensures better handling and avoiding any mishap during
bicycle riding. The steering system was attached to front fork at a suitable caster angle. The
front fork was made capable of rotating by the use of ball bearings.

Page | 11
While designing the steering handle the arm length of the rider and the braking system were
decisive factors. The handle was designed so that the rider can easily control and apply brakes
on the bike according to his position.

l) Suspension:
There were many options for the team to design the suspension of the bike. After discussing
about the comfort of the rider and smooth riding the team decided to go for the front and rear
suspension options due to following reasons:

 Most comfortable suspension option available for the rider.

 To avoid wear and tear of joints due to bumps on the road.
 The front and the rear suspension system will absorb the effect of the jerk to maximum
extent.

The suspension system was added to front and the rear fork and design was kept simple like
that found on most uprights and prones.

m) RPS design:
The roll-over protection system is incorporated to ensure the safety of the rider and vehicle to
maximum extent without adding too much material and weight to the vehicle. Ensuring these
safety measures, our team designed the RPS of the bike which was integrated on the main
frame, thus having better overall strength.

n) Material selection:
Material selection was an important factor while designing and building the vehicle because the
material will determine the overall strength of the bike. Since carbon fiber is very expensive and
is also unavailable in the market, we were left with two choices: mild steel or aluminum.

Although mild steel is heavier than aluminum, its cost is very less as compared to the
aluminum. The welding of mild steel is also available in the market at a lower cost than
aluminum. The only drawback is the weight of the mild steel.

On the other hand, aluminum has better strength to weight ratio than steel. However the cost
of aluminum and its welding is costly as compared to that of the mild steel and is sometimes
unavailable due to location limits.

On the basis of the above mentioned properties, mild steel was selected because it was cheap
and easily accessible in the market.

Page | 12
 7. ANALYSIS

a) Cost Analysis:

Item quantity Cost(PKR)

26-inch wheel 2 3000
10ft Round*1”*16SWG 1 330
Suspension fork 2 1800
Handle bar 1 250
Body rest with cushion 1 1000
Centre set with T bush 1 500
Chain 1 500
Miscellaneous 1050
Table 7-1

So the total cost of Infinity came out to be PKR 8430/- only.

b) RPS Analysis:
The analysis was done on ANSYS. Values of the stresses being generated in the
RPS were quite below the yielding.
i. Top load analysis:
Following are the results of the analysis when 2670 N force was applied on the
top of the roll cage in downward direction with 12° inclination with vertical.
The minimum factor of safety was 1.1 and the max deflection was 3.24mm the
max stress was 236.75MPa.

Page | 13
Figure 3

Figure 4

Page | 14
Figure 5

Figure 6

Page | 15
Figure 7

Figure 8

Page | 16
Figure 9

ii. Side Load Analysis:

Side load of 1330N was applied to the side of the roll cage.
max deflection was 0.5mm. Max stress was 103MPa and the minimum factor of
safety is2.4 for this analysis. Results are shown in following snaps.

Figure 10

Page | 17
Figure 11

Figure 12

8. SAFETY

a) Safety Belt:
Safety belt was used for the protection of rider. It was ensured that the
safety belt was not making the ride uncomfortable. We feared that seat belt
should not be added to the design because it may cause difficulty to the rider
in disengaging from the bicycle in case the RPS fails. But as we have tested
our RPS and it is safe so we added this feature to ensure complete safety of
our rider.

Page | 18
b) Unrestrained movement of legs:
Unrestrained movement of legs is provided to the rider so that he can
stabilize himself by using his legs in case the bicycle begins to topple.

c) No sharp ends or bumps:

Sharp ends and bumps were removed through filing and grinding during the
manufacturing process.

d) Helmet:
The rider must wear a helmet to ensure his safety during the ride.

e) Costume:
The rider must avoid wearing lose clothes so that there is no interference
between the chain and rider and potential risk of accidents is minimum.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS
Here are some guidelines regarding Prone design for the teams that would want to participate in
HPV competitions in the future.

a) Usage of light weight material:

Lightweight materials such as Aluminum can be used for manufacturing so that the net
weight of the bicycle can be reduced.

b) Manufacturing through molds:

If Moulds are used for manufacturing the frame of the bicycle as one single unit it will
ensure more fine and strong frame.

Page | 19
c) Time management:
Time must be kept in mind if you want to translate your dream of making an HPV into
reality. Any delay in the research phase about your design will cause the delay in your
other phases such as designing, material choice, manufacturing etc.

d) Cost effective design:

The design must be economical as well as no compromise must be made on the safety
of rider as well as the bicycle. Don’t go for the materials like Titanium and Carbon fiber if
you have financial constraints.

Page | 20
 10. INNOVATION

a) Basic Design:
Our basic design can be seen as a combination of Prone and an Upright bicycle design
and can be categorized as a “Semi Prone design”. Nowadays, almost no work is being
done on Prone or Semi Prone design at our level of study. This is the main reason we
opted for this design.

b) Suspension system:
No external spring or shock has been used; we have tried to complete our suspension
system through suspension forks.

c) Comfort:

i. Seat:
As prone design is known for the difficulty it offers to the rider so our main purpose was
to make the ride as comfortable as possible. We made the seat through the Particle
board (an engineered wood type) and it was cushioned in order to provide complete
rest place for the rider’s chest and belly.

ii. Handle bar:

As the riders of our bicycle were selected so to ensure their maximum comfort, the
length and position of the handle was adjusted per the dimensions of the body of our
riders.

d) Basic truss design:

The design of our bicycle consists of simple truss which completely ensured strength
and least material. Moreover, it was kept in mind that there was no redundant element
in the design.

e) Pedal Assembly:
The choice of proper pedal assembly was an important part of our design. It was
ensured that the pedal assembly which was selected that avoided wobbles and ensured
that no bending occurred during the power transmission process.

Page | 21
 11. Evaluation
We got our “Machi” evaluated by non-members of this project against top speed,
acceleration, weight, design, comfortability, cost and most important of all safety. This
evaluation was done through offering a free test drive to the students of PIEAS,
obtaining their feedback through questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire in question
has been attached in the report. 16 people were made part of this evaluation.
The rating given below is on the scale of 5. Overall, the rating in every category is above
the average and the response of the participants of evaluation was positive. The
questionnaire is provided in next section of this report.

Factors Rating
Top speed 4
Acceleration 4.2
Design 3.6
Comfortability 2.7
Cost 4.8
Safety 2.6
Table 11-1

12. QUESTIONNAIRE

This is part of a feedback session regarding the test drive that nonmembers took on the Semi
Prone Bicycle. “Rate the following aspects of the Bicycle per your experience from 1 to 5. Your
feedback will be highly appreciated.”

Questions Rating Remarks

1. Rate the top speed of the HPV

2. How do you see the

acceleration of this bicycle?

Page | 22
3. Did you like the design?
According to engineering as
well as aesthetic point of view.
4. How comfortable the ride
was?

5. In your opinion is the bicycle

economical

6. How safe did you feel while

riding it?

Table 12-1

13. TESTING

a) Top Speed Test:

Average speed of “Machi” was calculated in a test drive over a measured distance of
100 m. By doing so we got the average speed of 23kph. We were also interested in the
top speed. Top speed was determined by using a mobile app.

b) Weight Test:
Weight test was conducted using a weight machine. Once a member of the team stood
on the balance and the weight was noted and then the same member lifted the bicycle
and again stood on the weighing machine and again a reading was taken. The difference
in the both readings gave us the net weight of “Machi” was determined and it came out
to be 23 kg.

c) Turning Test:
The turning radius was measured using a measuring tape and all the marking was done
using chalks. Both, right as well as the left turning radius were measured. Results are
given below:

Direction Turning radius (m)

Right 2.9
Left 3.1
Table 13-1

Page | 23
d) Braking Test:
The braking test was conducted in order to note the breaking or stoppage time of the
bicycle. The time was to be noted for the deceleration from 20 kph to 0 kph. 3 trails
were conducted on a plane road.
Trial Braking time (s)
1 2.8
2 3.1
3 3.2
Table 13-2

Page | 24
14. References
1. Rule Book – IMEC’ 16 Human Powered Vehicle Contest
2. Turning Radius Calculation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics#Turning
3. Chain Length Calculation
http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/chain-length-sizing#article-section-3
4. Suspension Types, Shapes and Details
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_suspension
5. Tire sizes and guides
http://www.betterbybicycle.com/2014/04/a-simple-guide-on-essentials-of-wheels.html
6. Caster Angle, Trail Explanation and Calculations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry
7. Materials – Strength vs Density
http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/interactive_charts/strength-
density/basic.html
8. PTC – Crea – Tutorials and Guides
http://learningexchange.ptc.com/
9. Solidworks Simulations Tutorials and Guides
https://www.solidworks.com/sw/resources/getting-started-simulation-and-analysis-
tools.htm
10. Rear Wheel Steering, All wheel steer
http://wannee.nl/hpv/abt/e-index.htm
11. Ansys Fluent – Tutorials and Guides
http://www.mece.ualberta.ca/tutorials/ansys/

Page | 25