ME 450 Winter 2008: Project 13

Design of Hydraulic-Electric Hybrid Vehicle

Doug Lambert
Rob Lawrance
Hyo Jong Lee
Kyle Martin
Ian Murphy

April 15, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... iv
1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivation ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Winter 2008 Goals ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Potential Impact of a Successful Design ....................................................................................... 2
2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS.................................................................... 2
2.1 Customer Requirements ................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Engineering Specifications ........................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Quality Function Diagram (QFD) ................................................................................................. 4
3 CONCEPT GENERATION .................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 FAST Diagram .............................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Morphological Chart ..................................................................................................................... 5
4 CONCEPT SELECTION...................................................................................................................... 7
5 ENGINEERING DESIGN PARAMETER ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 8
5.1 Hydraulic Motor ........................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 Gear Reduction ............................................................................................................................. 8
5.3 Slow-fill Pump ............................................................................................................................... 8
5.4 Total amount of hydraulic fluid required with air drag effect ...................................................... 9
5. 5 Maximum Flow Rate of the Hydraulic fluid.................................................................................. 9
5. 6 Time to charge high pressure accumulator .................................................................................. 9
5. 7 Electrical energy required to recharge the high pressure accumulator with slow-fill pump ..... 10
5. 8 Electrical energy to accelerate 0 to 27 mph with stock electric motor ....................................... 10
5. 9 Comparison between hydraulic system with slow-fill pump and stock electric motor ............... 10
5.10 Material selection of drive shaft, sprocket and chain, supporting frame, and bearings............. 11
6 FINAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 12
7 FABRICATION PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 16
7.1 Driveshaft .................................................................................................................................... 16
7.2 Driveshaft Bearing Supports ....................................................................................................... 16
7.3 Driveshaft Gearbox Coupler ....................................................................................................... 17

i
 7.4 Sprockets ..................................................................................................................................... 17
7.5 Hydraulic pump mounting plates ................................................................................................ 17
7.6 Assembly..................................................................................................................................... 17
7.7 Mass production considerations .................................................................................................. 17
8 VALIDATION PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 17
9 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 18
10 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 19
11 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................. 20
12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 20
13 INFORMATION SOURCES .......................................................................................................... 20
13.1 Technical Benchmarks ................................................................................................................ 21
13.2 Patent Search ............................................................................................................................... 21
13.3 Information Gaps ........................................................................................................................ 21
14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 22
15 TEAMMATE BIOGRAPHIES....................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A – Bill of Materials................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix B – Engineering Change Notice ................................................................................................. 26
Appendix C.2 – Design for Assembly ........................................................................................................ 28
Appendix C.3 – Design for Environmental Sustainability.......................................................................... 29
Appendix C.4 – Design for Safety .............................................................................................................. 33
Appendix C.5 – Manufacturing Process Selection ..................................................................................... 36
Appendix D – Quality Function Diagram (QFD) ....................................................................................... 37
Appendix E – Preliminary Calculations...................................................................................................... 38
Appendix F – Brake Force Calculations ..................................................................................................... 39
Appendix G – Simulink Model ................................................................................................................... 40
Appendix H – Vehicle Response Without Road Loads or Tire Slip........................................................... 41
Appendix I – Vehicle Response With Road Loads and Tire Slip ............................................................... 42
Appendix J – Sensor/Valve Circuit Diagrams ............................................................................................ 43
Appendix K – Hydraulic Motor Specification (see 0230 model) ............................................................... 44
Appendix L – Performance curves for Monarch 72 Volt DC hydraulic pump (model 17-190) ................. 45
Appendix M – Electric Battery Efficiencies and Potential Improvements From Hydraulics ..................... 46

ii
ABSTRACT

The University of Michigan has purchased a 3-wheeled electric vehicle called the Xebra. The
Environmental Protection Agency is sponsoring the conversion of the Xebra into a hydraulic-electric
hybrid. Acceleration demands of city traffic drops the efficiency of an electric vehicle from 90% to 60%.
The addition of hydraulics to the electric vehicle will allow for efficient energy use during acceleration,
dramatically improving the range of the Xebra. This project is currently spanning several semesters. The
focus of this term was to re-work the hydraulic system’s layout, to couple the hydraulic system to the
drive shaft, and to integrate the electric, hydraulic, and mechanical components. The ultimate goal for
this term was to have a working hydraulic-electric hybrid vehicle for display at the end term Design Expo.

iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project 13 is sponsored by the EPA. The goal of the project is to create the world’s first hydraulic-electric
hybrid vehicle. This term’s goal was to deliver a working hydraulic-electric hybrid vehicle by the end of
the semester. This project is a continuation of previous semesters’ work. Therefore, some key
components of the system have already been purchased and installed.

Design Problem

Electric vehicles experience extreme inefficiency under heavy loading due to both motors and batteries
becoming less efficient with high current use. The goal of the Xebra hydraulic- electric hybrid is to
accelerate the vehicle at low speeds using hydraulic power, thus reducing the load on the electric driveline
during the times when the largest amount of power is needed. Due to the scope of the project, and the
desire to have a working concept at the end of the semester, a regenerative braking system will not be
included in the current design iteration. This feature, which should dramatically increase the efficiency of
the hybrid system, will be designed and implemented in future semesters.

Specifications

The primary goal of our sponsors at the EPA was to have a running hybrid at the Design Expo. In
addition, a target speed of 27 mph was set for the hydraulic drive system and an acceleration goal was set.
Our primary task is therefore to integrate the hydraulic components into the Xebra vehicle with a gear
reduction that closely meets the performance criteria.

Concept Generation

Initially, we brainstormed ideas on how to integrate the mechanical reduction into the hydraulic system.
After narrowing down the choices to ones that could be implemented onto the Xebra vehicle, we used
Pugh charts to determine which main reduction system we would utilize. Additionally, we were able to
select individual components of the system like clutches and pumps utilizing Morphological charts.
Designs considered included gear, sprocket, and belt reduction. Different mounting locations, including a
hydraulic bike style front wheel, were considered.

Final Design

Our design utilizes a sprocket reduction that is integrated into the input shaft of the existing Xebra
differential. Thus, it utilizes the existing reduction, reducing the parts count and weight of our system.
One sprocket will be pressed onto a one-way bearing, which will in turn be adapted to fit the output shaft
of the hydraulic motor. The other sprocket will be keyed onto the driveshaft that is splined on one end to
mate with the differential. Additional members will be added to the chassis to support the driveshaft and
hydraulic motor.

Conclusion

After a semester of work, we successfully designed and built a working hydraulic-electric hybrid. Due to
the desire for an emergency shutoff at the high pressure reservoirs and a limit on power at the Design
Expo, only one of the reservoirs was used, limiting the top speed and average acceleration of the vehicle.
However using these parameters the Simulink model we developed closely matched the performance of
the Xebra, indicating that at full capacity the top speed should meet the 27 mph goal of our sponsor.

iv
1 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This section will introduce the project by providing background information, our sponsor’s motivation,
and the goals for this term.

1.1 Background
The sponsor for our project is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA was
established in 1970 to protect human health and the environment. Part of the EPA’s Office of
Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) is the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
(NVFEL). The OTAQ works to advance clean fuels technology while the NVFEL carries out laws to
control air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and their fuels. Our team is working directly with
David Swain, an engineer at the NVFEL, which is located in Ann Arbor, MI [1]. The EPA has sponsored
several design projects at the University of Michigan, dating back to the fall of 2004. The EPA has
sponsored previous projects for the Xebra, a hydraulic-electric hybrid vehicle. Most of their work with
the University, however, has been involved in the development of a regenerative braking system for
bicycles. The EPA has future plans for the implementation of this regenerative braking scheme on the
Xebra.

The University of Michigan purchased a Xebra (Figure 1) – a three-wheeled truck that was made in China
by ZAP (Zero Air Pollution). It is legally classified as a motorcycle and meets federal requirements for
use on public streets. The Xebra was built to serve as a utility or maintenance vehicle, for example, in a
closed community.

Since the concept of this project is based on previous ME 450 projects, a great deal of background
information and data analysis were readily available for us. The hydraulic system implanted on the Xebra
during last semester is a large-scale version of the hydraulic system used in a bicycle regenerative braking
system, another ongoing ME 450 project. An exception to this is the use of an additional slow-fill pump
powered by electricity to recharge the high pressure accumulator consistently. More detailed information
and help were also available from David Swain of the EPA, and two U of M students, Alex Lagina and
Jason Moore who worked on the regenerative braking bicycle project for several semesters.

Figure 1: ZAP’s Xebra Electric Truck

1.2 Motivation
The current design of the Xebra utilizes an electric motor to power the truck. The range of the Xebra is
only 25 miles per charge of the electric motor. This is due to the fact that the electric motor is only about
60% efficient under heavy loads, such as accelerations seen from city traffic. However, the electric motor
is about 90% efficient when powering a vehicle to maintain a constant speed. Our team, in collaboration

1
with David Swain of the EPA, plans to utilize a hydraulic motor to power the Xebra under these heavy
loads. While hydraulic motors are approximately 85% efficient under all loads, hydraulics are not as
effective when powering a vehicle at a high velocity. Hydraulic power at high velocities requires a
greater amount of hydraulic fluid, which in turn requires a larger system, ultimately increasing the weight
of the system. Therefore, the hydraulic motor will accelerate the vehicle up to 27 mph while the electric
motor will accelerate the vehicle above 27 mph and maintain any cruising speeds. We see the concept of
a hydraulic-electric hybrid vehicle being consistent with the mission of the EPA.

1.3 Winter 2008 Goals

The overall goal for our team this semester will be to accelerate the Xebra from 0 to 27 mph using the
hydraulic motor. To achieve this goal, we first plan to implement a new efficient layout of the hydraulic
and electric components. This layout will account for the future implementation of a regenerative braking
system, which is planned to be a project for next semester. The installation of the hydraulic system will
require us to couple a motor, pump, and slow-fill pump to the drive shaft.

1.4 Potential Impact of a Successful Design

A successful design of the world’s first hydraulic-electric hybrid vehicle could have a great impact on
several things. Mass producing this vehicle could revolutionize the automobile industry, causing major
automakers to possibly develop their own hydraulic-electric hybrids due to market demands. If the sale
of these vehicles were great enough, the oil industry could take a large hit due to a great decrease in
gasoline sales. Also, if many consumers were to purchase a vehicle of this type, the environment would
see a great improvement due to the use of these vehicles since they do not produce any type of air
pollution. These hybrids are also much quieter than an average car running on gasoline, which would
decrease the noise level on streets and highways.

2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This section explains the customer’s project requirements and technical specifications, both used to form
a Quality Function Diagram (QFD).

2.1 Customer Requirements

After meeting with David Swain, our sponsor, we were able to determine what the customer’s
requirements were for Xebra. Table 1 on p. 3 shows a complete list of the requirements, along with a
description of what each requirement entails.

2
 Table 1: Customer Requirements

Customer Requirement Description

Transferable to future semesters Thorough documentation; layout designed with future

goals in mind

Comfortable feel during acceleration Smooth acceleration; natural feel to driver

Sufficient acceleration to top speed Hydraulic motor able to accelerate vehicle to 27 MPH

Efficiency in plumbing Minimal frictional loses by avoiding unnecessary bends

Lightweight Components need to be as light as possible

Reliable components Components should not fail

Aesthetics Vehicle needs to be pleasing to the eye; professional

look

Safety Vehicle is safe to drive under normal conditions

Easy to use Use and feel should be familiar to a common car

Easy to service All components must be accessible

Maintains vehicle function Passenger and load amounts remain unchanged

The customer requirements that the EPA put the most emphasis on were: aesthetics, sufficient
acceleration to top speed, and that the vehicle maintained its function.

2.2 Engineering Specifications

After receiving the customer requirements from our sponsor, we were able to determine the engineering
specifications needed to complete the project. Table 2 on p. 4 shows the specifications we came up with,
along with the target values and units for which they were associated with. The target values have been
slightly modified throughout the semester as we developed a better understanding of the system and the
requirements needed to meet our goals.

3
 Table 2: Engineering Specifications

Engineering Specifications Target Value Units

Flow rate of slow-fill pump 0.04 – 0.05 L/s

Gear ratio from the motor and pump to the drive shaft 7.9:1 n/a

High-side accumulator pressure 15 - 30 MPa

Side loading on pump 0–5 N

Side loading on motor 0–5 N

Strength of materials for gears 400 – 1000 MPa

Pressure loss through geometry of fittings 0 – 20% %

Working temperature of the fluid 275 – 325 K

Size of hydraulic fittings 8 – 24 mm

Space for all the components (layout) 0.2 – 0.4 m3

Compatible components Yes Yes/No

The engineering specifications were created through interpreting the customer requirements and regular
discussion with our sponsor. Also, a number of specifications were made that were required for our
system to have a reasonable chance of working. For example, two constraints are the amount of space for
all components and the necessary strength of materials. These basic requirements have caused us to focus
on designs that take the least room and are made using parts or materials that can handle the desired loads.

2.3 Quality Function Diagram (QFD)

After determining the customer requirements and engineering specifications, we were able to create a
QFD for our project (Appendix D). First, the weight percentage for each of the customer requirements
was found by comparing each requirement to every other requirement. Next, the correlation matrix was
created, showing how much each specification influences the customer requirements. We were then able
to determine which customer requirements and engineering specifications ranked the highest for our
design. For the customer requirements, the three items that ranked most important were safety,
maintaining vehicle function, and transferability of the project to future semesters. The three engineering
specifications ranked most important were space for all of the components, ability to achieve high-side
accumulator pressure, and strength of the material for the gears.

3 CONCEPT GENERATION
In this section, the concept generation process is discussed, and several different concept designs are
introduced.

4
3.1 FAST Diagram
Since it is very important for our concept design to meet all the customer requirements, we to develop a
FAST (Function Analysis System Technique) diagram for our project. The FAST diagram takes the main
function, or “functive,” of the product and breaks it down into specific sub-functions that are needed to
describe the main function. These sub-functions are then used as guidelines for generating design
concepts. The FAST diagram of out project is shown in Figure 2.

We determined that the main “functive” of this project was to improve performance of the electric
vehicle. This was then broke down into the subcategories of assist launch, captures energy, assures safety,
assure convenient, assure reliability, please senses, and enhance the product.

Then next two columns specify the methods used to achieve the goals listed in subcategories. For
example, vehicle launch is assisted using the hydraulic motor driven by fluid released from high pressure
accumulator. Energy is captured as a pressurized fluid in high pressure accumulator by using regenerative
brake or slow-fill pump. To assure safety, we can use a pressure release valve as a type of emergency
switch. The rest of the diagram can be interpreted same way.

Assist Launch Drives Motor Release Pressure

Convert Energy Use Regenerative Brakes

Capture Energy
Pressurize Fluid Store High-pressure Fluid

Use Slow-fill Pump

Improve Assure Safety Accessible Emergency Switches Pressure Release Valve

Performance
Enclose Components

Maintains Function Access Spare Tire

Assure Convenience
Preserves Serviceability
Controls System
Sense Input

Assure Reliability Compatible Materials Store Low-pressure Fluid

Pleases senses Maintains Aesthetics

Increase Acceleration Reduces Battery Load

Increase Efficiency Recycle Energy

Enhance Product Saves Environment Reduce Emission

Figure 2: FAST Diagram

3.2 Morphological Chart

A Morphological chart was created to generate high-level concepts within the main design parameters of
the project. Since previous group already mounted the hydraulic system on the electric vehicle, our main

5
 design parameters are focused on the concept reduction box design. Table 3 shows the complete
morphological chart of the project.

Table 3: Morphological Chart

Design
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4
Parameters

Reduction
Type

Spur gears Bike Hub Wheel Chain and Sprockets Belt and pulleys

Clutch
selection

Overrunning clutch One way bearing Ratchet and Pawl

Reduction
Box
Placement
Extended Shaft Welded to Transmission Motor drives Rear Axle

Based on the FAST diagram, three main design parameters were generated; reduction type, clutch
selection, and reduction box placement. Some of the design parameters from the FAST diagram are
omitted because those are already determined and installed on the vehicle by the group from last semester.
In addition, regenerative braking concepts will be reserved for future semesters.

The concept designs for each design parameter were generated from brainstorming, taking apart the
vehicle’s main components such as transmission and suspensions (reverse engineering), and reviewing
customer requirements in the QFD.

For the reduction type, we have four concept designs: spur gear, bike hub wheel, chain and sprockets, and
belt and pulleys. Each reduction type works in a similar way, with the exception of the bike hub wheel –
one side mounted to hydraulic motor, and another side mounted to spline shaft. However, bike hub wheel
has to be installed as a front wheel of the vehicle. The overall design would stay the same for the bike hub
wheel, but the pump and motor displacement and accumulator size will be different.

There are three possible choices for one-way clutch that meets the customer requirements. Essentially the
overrunning clutch (Concept 1) and one-way bearing (Concept 2) are very similar, with the bearing being
cheaper and simpler. Ratchet and pawl (Concept 3) also locks one way and runs freely the other way.
For the reduction box placement, we found three possible locations around the transmission. Concept 1
uses an extended shaft mating with the shaft for the gear in the transmission box. For Concept 2,
reduction box is welded to existing transmission box. Concept 3 uses rear axle to be coupled to the
hydraulic motor.

6
 4 CONCEPT SELECTION
After we generated the Morphological chart, we evaluated and selected a final concept design. The
selected concept designs are shaded in light green and shown in Table 3. The reduction type was selected
using Pugh chart and discussed in the next section. For the clutch selection, we chose the one-way bearing
(Concept 2) because of its compact size, manufacturability, and low price. This bearing meets all of our
technical requirements such as max torque (193 Nm) and max speed (4000 RPM). The reduction box is
determined to be placed on an extended shaft mating one of the transmission gears (Concept 1). Concept
2 for the reduction box placement requires complicated machining, which is not feasible with limited time
and machineries to access. Concept 3 for the reduction box has potential problem associated with a
differential. Because of the existing differential in the transmission box, torque cannot be applied to one
of the rear axle directly. Therefore, concept 3 had to be avoided.

To create more objective selection process, a Pugh chart is developed and shown in Table 4. A Pugh chart
helped evaluate several concept designs by setting up a list of customer requirements and rating each
design in terms of the individual criteria. Each customer requirements is given a weight (%) based on the
importance relative to each other. Then each concept design is given a rating of 0 to 5 based on its affect
on the customer requirements, with 5 having the most affect. The weight for each customer requirement is
multiplied to the rating for each design, and these weighted values are added to produce the weighted total
for each design, with the highest weight being the best. The Pugh chart determined that sprocket and belt
reduction are the two best concept designs. After we researched on the sprocket and belt, we determined
that chain and sprocket reduction would be the best selection for our project because we have a significant
amount of torque produced from the hydraulic motor and belt reduction type could slip under the high
torque.

Table 4: Pugh chart

Hydraulic Bike Sprocket
Weight Wheel Gear Reduction Reduction Belt Reduction
(%)
Rating Weighted Rating Weighted Rating Weighted Rating Weighted
Acceleration 9 4 36 5 45 5 45 5 45
Acceleration Jerk 3 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12
Lightweight 7 2 14 2 14 4 28 3 21
Reliability of components 5 3 15 5 25 3 15 3 15
Aesthetics 2 5 10 3 6 3 6 3 6
Stability 5 2 10 5 25 5 25 5 25
Safety 10 2 20 5 50 5 50 5 50
Easy to use 3 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15
Easy to service 7 3 21 3 21 5 35 4 28
Maintains Vehicle function 8 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 40
Final drive ratio 9 5 45 5 45 5 45 5 45
Strength of material for
reduction 4 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16
Component Layout 8 2 16 3 24 4 32 3 24
Prototype manufacturability 20 3 60 3 60 5 100 5 100

TOTAL: 5 334 3 402 1 464 2 442

7
5 ENGINEERING DESIGN PARAMETER ANALYSIS
In this section, the key engineering parameters of the final design are evaluated. These calculations will
ensure that all the components meet our specifications. We have created a model in Simulink that is able
to predict the response of the vehicle under different hydraulic drive parameters. In particular, we are
able to vary drive ratio, maximum pressure, pre-charge pressure, accumulator volume and motor
displacement, to evaluate the differences in the vehicle response. The model can be seen in Appendix G.
The model allows us to analyze the fluid required, maximum motor RPM, vehicle acceleration, vehicle
speed, motor torque, and accumulator pressure. Additionally, tire and road load models are included to
predict a more accurate response. The model is used to optimize the hydraulic drive system with the
components that are available to us.

The material and manufacturing process selection were evaluated with CES software and provided in
Appendix C.1. We selected drive shaft and motor mount to be analyzed with this software. Then the
Design For Assembly (DFA) chart are created, and the design efficiency is evaluated. The old design had
an efficiency of 32%. Then we redesigned it and evaluated in the DFA chart, and the efficiency of the
design increased to 48%. We basically modified the sprocket from sprocket and flange mounted with
bolts and nuts to A type sprocket with hub. To see the impact of the material (aluminum and steel) on the
environment, we found materials from SimaPro and evaluated them. The result showed that aluminum is
likely to have more impact on the environment. However, after we calculated the Ecoindicator point
values, we found that steel is likely to have a bigger impact when the life cycle of the whole product is
considered. We determined that the production volume of our project to be 1000. Then the
manufacturing process of the drive shaft and motor mount was determined to be machining such as
milling and lathing.

5.1 Hydraulic Motor

For the motor we determined to use 23cc Parker PGM 517 hydraulic motor (Appendix K). As the
displacement of the hydraulic motor increases, the maximum speed of the motor decreases, and this is
shown in Appendix I. To meet the sponsor requirement with medium range of gear reduction and
acceleration, the displacement of the motor is determined to be 23cc , which has 3300rpm of maximum
speed and 3988psi of maximum pressure. Also, its compact size compared to the larger displacement
motors gave a good reason to select this motor. The biggest reason to use Parker hydraulic motor was that
our sponsor has been used this motor and could get a discount on this. The flow rate using this motor is
calculated and presented in the section 5.5. In addition, the gear reduction required to reach 27mph is
evaluated in the next section.

5.2 Gear Reduction

For the vehicle to reach 27mph with hydraulic motor selected, approximately 7.272 : 1 reduction is
required. With 20 in diameter tire (0.508 m), the vehicle travels 1.59593 m per revolution. Therefore,
when the vehicle reached 27mph (12.07 m/s), the drive shaft should be rotating 453.783rpm.

1.59593 m * 453.783 rpm = 12.07 m/s = 27 mph

Given the maximum speed of hydraulic motor of 3300rpm, which is likely happen in our system with
4000psi inlet and the atmospheric pressure in the outlet, the reduction is then calculated to be 7.272. We
chose the reduction to be 7:1 in our final design due to the limited availability of the number of teeth on
sprockets. Therefore, this reduction ensures the vehicle to reach the speed of 27 mph. The material
selection analysis of the sprockets can be found in the section 5.10.

5.3 Slow-fill Pump

Since the slow-fill pump is not the main component to recharge the high pressure accumulator, it is only
required to pressurize up to 3500 psi. After few weeks of search, we finally found one company,

8
Monarch, that still produce 72V DC hydraulic pump. Since Xebra uses 72V DC, it is required to use 72V
DC hydraulic pump to avoid using an electric converter, which adds more weight and complexity to the
vehicle. The maximum pressure and flow rate of the pump was determined by the sponsor, and the
electric energy usage of this specific pump was then evaluated and shown in the section 5.7.

5.4 Total amount of hydraulic fluid required with air drag effect
The hydraulic system accelerates the Xebra from 0 to 27mph, or vss = 12.1 m/s. Since the drag force is a
function of the velocity in our case, the maximum drag force is generated at the maximum speed. Using
the Bosch handbook for calculations [7], the energy due to drag on the vehicle was interpolated to be 1.60
kW/m2 using a vehicle frontal area of 2.07 m2. Therefore, the maximum power to overcome due to the
drag was found to be Pd = 1.65 kW. Then the average acceleration of the vehicle was determined to be,
aavr. = 1.92 m/s2, with an acceleration time of t = 6.19 seconds by using Eq. 1 and 2.

6Er 2 Pd
a avr . = − Eq. 1
MπD Mv ss
v
t = ss Eq. 2
a avr .

As a result, using Eq.3, the total energy loss due to drag, Ed, was calculated to be 10.40 kJ. Then the
energy required from hydraulic system is determined to be 94.14 kJ by using Eq.4. Thus it requires a
volume of 4.57 L of hydraulic fluid for accelerating from 0 to 27mph. This volume is 23% larger than
that of our preliminary calculations which did not include the air drag.

E d = Pd t Eq. 3
SE d
Eh = Eq. 4
πD / 6
5. 5 Maximum Flow Rate of the Hydraulic fluid
The Flow rate of the hydraulic fluid during acceleration reaches its maximum when the vehicle traveling
at 27 mph (velocity, or vvehicle). At this speed, the hydraulic motor rotates at ωm =3176 rpm calculated
using Eq.5 given the tire radius of 10 inches (rtire) and total gear reduction of 7:1. Using 23 cc hydraulic
motor running at 3176 rpm, the volumetric flow rate was determined to be 19.3 gallons per minute.

7vvehicle
ωm = Eq. 5
rtire

5. 6 Time to charge high pressure accumulator

From the performance graph of Monarch 72V 17-190 DC motor (Appendix L), the average flow rate of
the motor to charge from 2500 psi to 3500 psi is determined to be 0.0379 liter/s. The performance graph
of our slow-fill pump is shown in Appendix L. The amount of hydraulic fluid needed to accelerate from 0
to 27mph was determined to be 4.57 liters in previous section. Therefore, time to charge high pressure
accumulator from 2500 psi to 35 psi is determined to be 120.58 s = 2.01 min using Eq.6.

Eq.6

9
5. 7 Electrical energy required to recharge the high pressure accumulator with slow-fill pump
From the performance graph of Monarch 72v DC motor, the power consumption graph is produced and
shown in Figure 3. Then we integrated this to get the total energy to charge the high pressure
accumulator. The total electric energy consumed during recharging was determined to be 159.82 kJ.

Figure 3: Slow-fill pump power consumption graph

5. 8 Electrical energy to accelerate 0 to 27 mph with stock electric motor

From the HOT 505 test performed in the previous semester, the average power consumed to accelerate 0
to 27mph was determined to be 129.62 kJ. This was done by integrating HOT 505 test data during the
vehicle accelerating from 0 to 27mph. We repeated integration at several different locations of HOT 505
test data and averaged them to determine average power consumption of the stock electric motor. The test
data is not included in this report, but it is available upon request.

5. 9 Comparison between hydraulic system with slow-fill pump and stock electric motor
In conclusion, the hydraulic system with only slow fill pump installed consumes slightly more energy
(23.3%), but overall performance improved so much. Therefore, when we account all the improvements
we achieved, we concluded that using hydraulic system with slow fill pump is a lot more efficient than
using the stock electric motor. The results are shown in Table 5. The motive for this increase in energy
consumption was to achieve the acceleration requirement of the EPA. While the vehicle does consume
23.3% more energy using the hydraulics compared to the electric motor, the implementation of
regenerative breaking in a future term will greatly reduce the amount of energy consumption to maintain
the same acceleration.

Table 5: Various performance factors are compared

0-27mph Energy Power Average Acceleration

Electric Motor 12.7s 129.62 kJ 13.67 HP 1.08 m/s2

Hydraulic system 6.19s 159.82 kJ 34.62 HP 1.92 m/s2

%change 51.3% faster 23.3% increase 153.3% increase 77.8% increase

Appendix M displays efficiency curves for our electric battery and the potential improvements utilizing
hydraulics. The plots will show where inefficiencies occur using electric batteries with a electric motor,
and how hydraulics can assist the electric components, allowing for an improvement in overall efficiency.

10
5.10 Material selection of drive shaft, sprocket and chain, supporting frame, and bearings
In order to determine the material for the extended shaft, we performed Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
using Unigraphics NX 5.0. This analysis showed that we have the maximum stress at the edge of spline,
and this value was determined to be 57MPa. Therefore, we chose 1117 low carbon steel rod which has
400MPa yield strength giving us safety factor of 7. The FEA of the splined shaft is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of the splined shaft

The sprocket and chain are chosen based on the load calculation. The maximum torque created from the
hydraulic motor is 71 ft lb. Thus, the maximum load on the chain can be calculated by dividing the
maximum torque by the radius of one of the sprocket, and it was determined to be 543lb. We chose the
single strained ANSI 40 roller chain, which has breaking point load of 3934 lb and working load of 437
lb. The number of teeth on the sprockets is determined based on the gear reduction we needs, and the
material is chosen to be the same as the chain since the sprocket does not fail before chain does. The bore
size (5/8”) of the sprocket was chosen to be smaller than the diameter of the motor shaft (7/8”) so that it
could be bored out to the size of the motor shaft.

The supporting frame for the shaft and the motor are chosen to be the same as the Xebra frame made of.
This frame is made of mild steel, which has at least 240Mpa yield strength. However, the stress on the
frame due to the gear components is almost negligible compared to the load on the frame during the
normal operation of the vehicle. Thus, it does not require further analysis.
The bearings and one-way bearing were chosen based on the working speed and the load. First, the ball
bearings to support both motor and drive shaft will run at maximum rotational speed of 3300 rpm. The
spec of the bearings we chose has maximum rpm of 9000 rpm and maximum load of 2271 lb, which gives
us about safety factor of 2.7. Once again, the load on the bearing will be so much smaller than 2271 lb, so
it does not require further analysis.

We also have spacer on the motor shaft since the bore of one-way bearing was larger than the diameter of
the motor shaft. We also did the FEA using Unigraphics NX5.0, and the result is shown in Figure 5 on p.
12. The stress on the key way of the spacer was determined to be 38MPa. The yield strength of 1117 low
carbon steel is 400MPa, and it gives us a safety factor of 10.5. A complete bill of materials can be found
in Appendix A.

11
 Figure 5: The Finite Element Analysis of the motor shaft spacer

6 FINAL DESIGN DESCRIPTION

Hydraulic drivetrains can be used to quickly and efficiently store and release great amounts of energy,
making them particularly attractive for vehicle applications that entail a significant amount of stop-and-go
driving. A hydraulic hybrid vehicle can capture and use a large percentage of the energy normally lost in
vehicle braking. Hydraulic hybrid technology can increase fuel economy as well as vehicle acceleration
performance. The hydraulic launch system will store energy via the hydraulic pump during braking of the
vehicle. This energy is later released through the hydraulic motor, accelerating the vehicle. With the
addition of a hydraulic launch system for vehicle acceleration, the electric batteries will not be burdened
during accelerations and the overall efficiency and range of the Xebra will be improved. The main goal
of our design is to allow the hydraulics to accelerate the vehicle. The addition of regenerative braking in
future semesters will ultimately improve the efficiency.

During accelerations, after flowing through the hydraulic motor, the hydraulic fluid loses its pressure and
is stored in a low-side accumulator (Figure 6). When the hydraulics are not being utilized for vehicle
acceleration, the slow-fill pump will re-charge the high-side accumulators. Future terms implementing
regenerative braking will allow the slow-fill pump in conjunction with the regenerative brake pump to re-
pressurize the two high-side accumulators until it is needed for acceleration. When the vehicle is using
the electric motor (while cruising), valves are configured such that the fluid is freely circulating in the
system without flowing through the pump or motor. For the Design Expo, an emergency-stop valve was
directly connected at the end of one of the high pressure accumulators and the second high pressure
accumulator was capped off for safety purposes. Engaging the emergency-stop valve will disallow the
high pressure accumulator to release fluid. This can be utilized if a leak occurs while the accumulator is
filled.

12
Figure 6: Schematic of Hydraulic Plumbing

The final hydraulic layout can be seen in Figure 7 on p. 14. “A” marks the slow-fill pump, “B marks the
low-side accumulator, “C” marks the high-side accumulators, “D” marks the three way valves, “E” marks
the pressure gauges, “F” marks a filter for the hydraulic fluid, “G” marks a flow meter, and “H” marks the
emergency-stop valve.

13
 C H

E
A
D
D
E

F
G

Figure 7: Final Hydraulic Layout of the Xebra

The final design assembly can be seen in Figures 8 and 9 on p. 15-16. The final concept is very similar to
that of the initially selected concept, using chain and sprockets reduction type. The only deviation from
the initial concept is a modified layout of several components. A one-way bearing was pressed into the
small sprocket, and the large sprocket was mounted on the spline shaft. The spline shaft was mated to
one of the gears in the differential.

The major modifications to the initial layout at the beginning of the semester and the initial selected
concept are the relocation of the hydraulic motor, slow-fill pump, and low pressure reservoir to give
enough space for the hydraulic motor and reduction box. It will also provide easier access to the motor
and reduction box, which preserves the serviceability. The hydraulic motor will be mounted onto the
extended frame, and the shaft of the motor will be supported by two bearings to avoid side loading on the
motor shaft. Hydraulic hoses and fittings will be used to connect all of the components of the hydraulic
system. The layout of all the components leaves space around the reduction box allowing future
semesters to add regenerative braking to the vehicle.

The large sprocket is mounted on the spline shaft by bolting onto a flange with an internal spline, and the
shaft is also be supported by two bearings to prevent failure of the bearings due to bending loads. The

14
bearings to be used for our design will be all radial bearings, which cannot withstand bending. The chain
will stand up to 1000 lb of load, which is selected with the safety factor of 2.

As mentioned in DR2, the slow-fill pump will be replaced since the old pump could only pressurize up to
1500 psi [4]. As previously mentioned, the new model, a Monarch 08174 DC motor, can pressurize up to
3500 psi with average flow rate of 0.037 L/s [5].

The hydraulic motor, high and low pressure accumulators were pre-selected by the previous group. The
flow meter, pressure sensor and gauge, and oil filter were provided from the EPA and were installed
during assembly.

Figure 8: Final CAD Model of the Xebra’s Component Layout

15
Figure 9: Final Assembled Design of the Xebra

7 FABRICATION PLAN
The entire design has been completed so that all components can be machined using the available lathes,
mills, and saws. No CNC machining is required. Below is a breakdown of the particular machining
concerns for each major component of the final design. A complete parts list can be found in Appendix
A.

7.1 Driveshaft
The driveshaft is the most complex part of the finalized design. The shaft is 17” in total length, and has
two bearings pressed onto it for support. Due to the difficulty of supporting the center section of such a
long shaft during lathing, all bearings were designed to be pressed onto the ends of the shafts, allowing
tolerances of less than 0.001” for bearing seats. Additionally, the shaft is mated to an existing spline in
the gearbox, and has 2 keyways to transmit torque from the hydraulic system. The driveshaft required 7
minutes on a manual lathe at 1700 RPM and a feed of 0.005” per revolution feed. Also, 5 minutes on a
manual mill were required to cut the keyways.

7.2 Driveshaft Bearing Supports

The bearing supports consist of two pieces, a support and a plate. The supports were cut on a band saw
according to CAD. Then, the supports were tacked together, and onto the existing frame, prior to fully
welding them. This reduced the gaps between the components, allowing for easier manufacturability.
The plate is made of 6061 aluminum and was made in one milling operation. The only critical dimension
is that of the bearing bore. For assembly, the plate was located by truing the driveshaft to the existing
gearbox to minimize oscillations. Then, the mounting holes were drilled to ensure they are placed

16
correctly relative to the gearbox. The plate required 15 minutes to machine on a manual lathe at 2000
RPM at a feed of 22 inches per minute.

7.3 Driveshaft Gearbox Coupler

The driveshaft-gearbox coupler is made of 7075-T6 aluminum. It was lathed and parted to the correct
length, with the critical dimension once again being the bearing bore. After lathing, a bolt circle was
milled to match the one existing on the gearbox. The part required 8 minutes on a manual lathe at 2000
RPM and 15 inches per minute feed. Also, two minutes on a mill were required to drill the bolt circle.

7.4 Sprockets
The 18 tooth sprocket was turned to length and bored to the correct inner diameter to house the one-way
locking bearing. This was done at 625 RPM and .004” per revolution feed, and took 10 minutes.

7.5 Hydraulic pump mounting plates

Similar to the driveshaft bearing plate, these two plates each house a bearing and are made of aluminum.
Each required one milling operation. These were completed at the same feeds and speeds as the
driveshaft bearing supports, and required 12 minutes each. Additionally, 4 aluminum spacers were
fabricated on the lathe to ensure that the two plates are held parallel to one another, eliminating side load
on the hydraulic pump. These each took 1 minute at 600 RPM, as the only needed to be drilled and
parted to length.

7.6 Assembly
The design allows for all bearings to be installed on a press, prior to locating the sub-assemblies onto the
vehicle. Once the hydraulic motor assembly and the driveshaft assembly were installed onto the vehicle,
the connecting link of the chain was secured, and installation was complete.

7.7 Mass production considerations

For mass production, a few components would be constructed in different ways. First, all aluminum
plates would be cast, and bearing bores would be final machined. Second, jigs would be made in order to
place all supports that were welded to the existing frame. Third, the sprockets would be custom ordered
to the correct inner diameter and length. Finally, a spline adapter would be utilized to match the existing
spline in the gearbox, rather than having each driveshaft custom ground.

8 VALIDATION PLAN
With the main goal for this semester being to utilize a hydraulic motor to accelerate our vehicle, the
validation plan will be simple. Upon completion of fabrication and reassembly of the components, we
will test the vehicle to insure that all of the components are working properly. First, we will reattach the
battery terminals in order to give power to the vehicle. Next, we will check that all of the components are
receiving power when they are supposed to. For the valves that feed the pump and motor, we will make
sure that one is turned on when the accelerator is engaged, and the other is turned on when the brake
pedal is engaged. Also, we will make sure that the slow fill pump receives power when the brake pedal is
engaged. Once we are assured that everything is wired correctly, we will check to make sure that the
hydraulics are being used to accelerate the car. This will be done by activating the pressure sensor on the
accelerator without actually engaging the pedal. If the tires spin, we are assured that the hydraulic system

17
is indeed working. As a backup, we will take readings from the hydraulic pressure gauges and flow meter
to verify that there is hydraulic fluid moving through the system.

Since this project spans over many semesters, we are unable to validate if the acceleration requirements
have indeed been met. Once the regenerative braking is implemented in future semesters, the car will be
sent out to be run on an EPA HOT505 test. The results from this test will then be compared to the
baseline testing that was done in previous semesters. From these results, they will be able to determine
whether or not the overall design specifications were met. They will be able to calculate acceleration,
energy usage, power, etc. Please see section 10 for recommendations on validation testing.

9 DISCUSSION
The selection of the clutch, reduction type, and reduction location were chosen very carefully. For the
scope and focus of our project, all selections proved to work well for our system.

After re-working the layout of the hydraulic components, we feel that we have more efficiently utilized
the system’s components and constraints. During the testing phase of the hydraulics, a few modifications
were necessary. This forced us to use several fittings and valves that were not originally installed by the
Hose Doctor, causing the hydraulic plumbing to be slightly less efficient. The Hose Doctor is a
representative from Exotic Automation. He can be reached through Exotic Automation and Supply (248-
477-2122). The next team should have the Hose Doctor re-install pipes that do not fit quiet as well due to
the addition of the two check valves. The Hose Doctor should also provide more efficient fittings where
our team had to use several connected fittings in series or fittings smaller than that desired due to limited
time and resources. A few examples of this would be the fittings coming out of the slow-fill pump to the
filter, which should be replaced with a longer hose and fewer fittings, and the emergency shutoff valve at
the high pressure accumulator, which should be larger and duplicated on the other high side. Future
teams should ensure that all hydraulic lines installed are rated at a sufficient pressure (note that not all
lines experience high pressure). It is also recommended that all fittings are JIC with swivel head fittings.

Regarding safety, our team ensured that the hydraulic plumbing was properly installed to avoid any
broken lines, fittings, etc. Our team also attached cable support grips to the hydraulic lines that
experience high pressure to prevent these lines from being a potential danger if they were to break.
Another safety addition to the Xebra was that of a emergency-stop check valve for the high pressure
accumulators. Pressing the button for this valve prevents the high pressure accumulators from releasing
pressure. This can be utilized if a line were to break, preventing any additional pressure in the
accumulators from being released. Since this emergency-stop button is located in the back of the truck,
there should be an additional button located inside the cab of the Xebra so that a driver could press it
without having to exit the vehicle. This additional button can be simply connected in series with the other
button. The Xebra already had another emergency-stop button located under the driver’s seat, which
shuts off the electrical components. Note that pressing this button would also turn off the hydraulic
pumps.

Our design sufficiently accounted for the future implementation of regenerative braking. In order to
accomplish this, we would recommend utilizing another sprocket reduction from the driveshaft to the
regenerative motor. Unlike the drive we installed, though, a one way bearing will not be appropriate, and
a more sophisticated clutch mechanism will be required.

18
The aforementioned validation plan will provide performance data on the Xebra that can be used to
determine exactly how well the hydraulics work, which can provide guidance for further modifications
and additions.

10 RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several possibilities for future modifications and additions. The re-installation of several
hydraulic lines and fittings and the addition of another emergency-stop were discussed in the previous
section.

Instead of using two high pressure accumulators, a single large accumulator could be used. This can
possibly improve the efficiency of the hydraulic plumbing; however, there are several downsides to this
approach. With the two current high pressure accumulators being located on each side of the rear, their
weight is balanced. One large accumulator placed on either side of the rear could shift the center of
gravity in an undesirable manner. To avoid this, it could be placed toward the center of the rear; however,
this will cause complications with the current layout of the hydraulic components and it may be difficult
to re-arrange the components accordingly.

The possibility of using a pressurized low-side accumulator could possibly improve the performance of
the system. This would be a complicated task, however, since safety controls would need to be integrated
so that the low-side accumulator does not get over-pressurized.

A variable displacement hydraulic motor could pose some advantages, but the implementation of this
would not be needed until a later stage. It should be noted that very low and high speeds are not desirable
since they can cause leakage and volumetric loses, respectively. Also at a later stage, the design for
different levels of accelerations and braking would improve the usability of the Xebra.

The need for one of the hydraulic components (pump or motor) could be eliminated by utilizing a four-
way valve. This would also improve the efficiency of the plumbing by removing a pump/motor and all of
the associated plumbing complications associated with it. These hydraulic components can act as both a
pump and a motor. There are a couple issues with this design, though. In typical city driving, a person
may need to switch from pressing the accelerator to pressing the brake. If the component being used as
both a pump and a motor were to lock in the sense that its function did not switch, this situation could be
hazardous. The pump is actuated by the brake and the motor is actuated by the accelerator. The driver
could potentially need to brake and the motor may continue to drive the vehicle. In our current design,
the locking of the motor is accounted for. The combination of the slow-fill pump and the regenerative
brake pump will overpower the motor in this case, ensuring that the vehicle will decelerate if the brake is
applied. The other major issue with this design is the need for controls to actuate the four-way valve.

As discussed in the Validation Plan section, the Xebra’s performance needs to be determined. The
preliminary baseline performance test was performed at Lotus Engineering, therefore it is important to
perform the final test here as well. You can contact Don Apple or Pat Barker for more information (734-
995-2544). To quantify the improvements of the Xebra, perform as many HOT505 city driving tests that
the vehicle can handle. Also, a current and voltage reader will need to be provided for the data analysis.

19
Before the baseline test can be performed, it is necessary to complete a coast-down test. The data from
this will be used on the dynamometer at Lotus to provide more realistic data. The first test was performed
at the Chrysler Proving Grounds with the help of Larry Webster from Car and Driver magazine. You will
need to run the tests according the SAE Standard J2263, however, do not warm up the vehicle before the
tests and take the data starting at the maximum speed of the Xebra vehicle. Note that the speedometer
reads the top line in kilometers per hour.

11 CONCLUSIONS
This semester our group has successfully added a hydraulic drive to the electric Xebra vehicle. While this
satisfies the short term goals of our sponsor, there remains much work to do. Among the tasks for future
terms, a regenerative braking system should be added, the plumbing should be redone to minimize
pressure drops and increase efficiency, and further measures should be taken to develop the controls.

In our implementation we have left room for a regenerative hydraulic pump to be mounted, using the
same driveshaft that we installed for acceleration. In order to accomplish this, we would recommend
utilizing another sprocket reduction from the driveshaft to the regenerative motor. Unlike the drive we
installed, though, a one way bearing will not be appropriate, and a more sophisticated clutch mechanism
will be required.

12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people and organizations that we would like to thank. First, we would like to thank our
two major sponsors: the University of Michigan Mechanical Engineering Department and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. From the Mechanical Engineering Department, we would like
to thank Professor Steven Skerlos, Professor Albert Shih, Professor Guru Dinda, Professor Jyotirmoy
Mazumder for their guidance and support. Also from the University of Michigan, we would like to thank
Bob Coury and Marvin Cressey of the GG Brown Machine Shop, and Jessica Boria, Christine Vladu, and
Mark Scott for their efforts toward planning the Design Expo. From the EPA, we would like to thank our
sponsor David Swain, who was in constant contact with our team throughout the semester providing the
vision for our project along with supervision, support, and necessary resources.

We would also like to give a thanks to the companies that our team and the last team had worked with:
Ann Arbor Machine; ASAP Source; Batteries Plus; Butech; DC Hydraulics, Inc.; ETI; Exotic
Automation; Federal Fluid Power; Ford Motor Company; Golden Customs; Great Lakes Cycling &
Fitness; Hoffman Enclosures; Hydac; Light Electric Vehicle Technologies, Inc.; Lotus Engineering;
Marzocchi USA; McAuliffe Co.; Parker Hydraulics; Rockwell Automation; Sem Cycle; Shupan
Aluminum; Tsubaki; UM IP Technology Transfer Dept.; and ZAP.

13 INFORMATION SOURCES
This section will discuss the information collected during research of similar systems and previous ME
450 projects at the University of Michigan. There were no relevant or useful articles found when
conducting a literature search.

20
13.1 Technical Benchmarks
Hydraulic-electric hybrid systems are still an unfamiliar concept on today’s market, and there are
currently no vehicles using this system. Therefore, instead of benchmarking this system against other
products, we will benchmark against the technical specifications of this project. To improve the efficiency
of the current electric system on Xebra, hydraulic motor will accelerate the vehicle from 0 to 27mph and
then electric motor will power the vehicle during higher accelerations and cruising.

13.2 Patent Search

The regenerative braking technology applied to the ME 450 bicycle project has been filed as a patent
(Patent #. 20070126284) by the University of Michigan in December 2006. We have also received
information from the ME 450 Xebra team from Fall 2007 term. This information includes calculations, a
list of materials purchased, performance data from the HOT505 test (EPA standard test that simulates city
driving), and several other resources that we may utilize in the future.

In addition to the University of Michigan’s regenerative braking patent, there also are some other patents
related to our project:

- Hydraulically driven electrically powered vehicle with energy, 1991 (Patent #. 5064013):

This system generates electric energy with a generator linked to a hydraulic rotor during braking
of the vehicle. That energy is captured in a storage device and is used to drive the vehicle. This
system shares the concept of capturing the kinetic energy of the vehicle and using it to drive the
vehicle. However, this system stores the energy captured during the deceleration in the form of
electric energy, but our system stores energy in a high pressure accumulator. Also, our system has
a hydraulic motor to deliver the power to the vehicle not the electric motor. [2]

- Hydraulic assist propulsion apparatus for vehicle drive, 1996 (Patent #. 5542335):

An electric motor driven hydraulic pump feeds the hydraulic fluid to a piston cylinder under
pressure. Then a control system energizes the motion of a piston to a shaft providing power to
drive the vehicle. This system is very similar to the system mounted on Xebra, but our system
will also have the regenerative braking system to pressurize the hydraulic fluid. [3]

13.3 Information Gaps

The greatest lack of useful information for our system comes with the fact that there are currently no
products on the market that utilize hydraulics and electric motors in the same fashion as we plan to. At
the completion of Design Review 1, we were lacking information regarding supplied parts and
components. Since then, we have acquired necessary information on many of the components supplied to
us at the beginning of the term. The most notable information is technical and performance information
for our hydraulic motor [6]. We also acquired information regarding the slow-fill pump supplied to us,
leading us to discover that it was not adequate for our application.

21
14 REFERENCES

[1] http://www.epa.gov/

[2] http://www.google.com/patents?id=wuAgAAAAEBAJ&dq=hydraulic-electric%2bvehicle

[3] http://www.google.com/patents?id=LkkkAAAAEBAJ&dq=hydraulic+assist+propulsion+apparatus

[4] http://www.marzocchi.com/pompe/pompe.asp?LN=UK&sito=usa-pompe

[5] http://www.monarchhyd.com/index.htm

[6] http://www.parker.com/

[7] Bosch. Automotive Handbook 4th Edition. SAE, 1996

22
15 TEAMMATE BIOGRAPHIES

Doug Lambert

I am originally from Novi, MI, where I was on my high school’s FIRST robotics
team. After coming to UM, I joined the Solar Car team and have won a national
championship with them and placed third and seventh in the World Solar
Challenge in Australia. I’m hoping to graduate next December, and work on
hybrid vehicles for whatever company will take me.

Rob Lawrance

I am a senior engineer at the University of Michigan. I will graduate in

December 2008 with two BSE’s: Mechanical Engineering and Industrial
and Operations Engineering. I grew up in Livonia, MI attending both
public and private schools before coming to U of M. I love trying and
learning about new things. I have competitively played many sports, with
my favorites being ice hockey and football. I was a member of two
Division I state championship high school football teams. I spent the
summer of 2006 studying abroad in Shanghai, China. I took two
engineering courses and also served a one month internship for SKF. In
the summer of 2007 I interned for Caterpillar in Peoria, IL. During my internship at Caterpillar, I
received training as a Six Sigma Green Belt. I currently work part-time as a Peer Advisor for the
Engineering Career Resource Center. I have little experience working with cars. I selected this project
because, as I had mentioned before, I love trying new things.

Hyo Jong Lee (Jimmy)

I was born and raised in Seoul, Korea. I came to the US about 5 years ago and
went to community college in California. I transferred to University of
Michigan in Fall 2006. I am 4th year senior in mechanical engineering, and I
am planning to start graduate study from this Fall at U of M. I served as a
Marine in Korea for 26 months and I worked in my dad’s iron casting
company for a year. I also worked in a company making tuning parts for radio
control cars in Korea. I am good at calculations/analysis and fabrication (not
very good, though). I am fascinated in cars, so I like to work on learn about
cars. I like fishing and playing with my R/C cars. I also like martial arts, and I used to be a Taekwondo
and Hapkido instructor. And I am married.

23
 Kyle Martin

I am a 5th year Senior, and 5th year member of the SAE Baja team. This is my
first year as team leader. I am the shop trainer for the mill and lathe at the
Wilson Student Center, and have extensive experience machining and
fabricating. After spending two years as an intern at Toyota Motor
Engineering and Manufacturing North America, I have accepted a full time
offer at John Deere in their construction and forestry division. I have
experience designing drivetrain, including a custom CVT secondary that I
designed last year, along with multiple gear reduction boxes for use on the
Baja car.

Ian Murphy

I am a senior at the University of Michigan. I was born and raised in New City,
New York, about 40 minutes northwest of Manhattan. I plan to finish out my
undergraduate career here and graduate with a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical
Engineering. I hope to get a job in automotive design, as I have a deep interest
in cars. I also plan to get a master’s in business administration at NYU. I am a
volunteer fireman for the New City Fire Department and have been since I was
16. When I’m home in NY I spend a lot of my time at the firehouse, both
hanging out and going on calls. Things I like to do for fun include bowling,
working out, and listening to music.

24
Appendix A – Bill of Materials

Item Description Supplier Part Number Quantity Price (each) Total Price

1117 low carbon steel rod, 1" diameter, 3' length McMaster Carr 8290T183 1 $18.83 $18.83

Steel needle roller clutch, 30mm shaft diameter, 37mm OD, 20mm width McMaster Carr 6392K32 1 $29.24 $29.24

Steel machinable-bore sprocket, for #40 chain, 1/2" pitch, 18 teeth, 5/8" min bore McMaster Carr 6793K149 1 $12.97 $12.97

Steel ball bearing ABEC-1, open bearing #R14 for 7/8" shaft diameter, 1-7/8" OD McMaster Carr 60355K18 2 $7.57 $15.14

Steel ball bearing ABEC-1, double sealed #R14 for 7/8" shaft diameter, 1-7/8" OD McMaster Carr 60355K39 1 $10.43 $10.43

Steel ball bearing ABEC-1, open bearing #R12 for 3/4" shaft diameter, 1-5/8" OD McMaster Carr 60355K38 1 $8.35 $8.35

Standard ANSI roller chain, #40, single strand, 1/2' pitch, .312" diameter, 4' length McMaster Carr 6261K444 1 $12.28 $12.28

Connecting link for #40 standard ANSI roller chain McMaster Carr 6261K193 2 $0.68 $1.36

Roller chain idler sprocket, steel w/ ball bearing for #40 chain, 18 teeth, 5/8" bore McMaster Carr 6663K42 1 $21.51 $21.51

12 gauge electrical wire Advance auto Parts 85710L11212 5 $4.88 $24.40

60 Amp fuse Advance auto Parts BPAGU60GP 1 $3.97 $3.97

Plastic wire-protecting tube Advance auto Parts 86651 2 $3.77 $7.54

81 peace terminal kit Radio Shack 6403098 1 $9.99 $9.99

Electrical tape Radio Shack 6402375 1 $3.99 $3.99

60 Amp fuse holder Mr.Tunes Ann Arbor SPD5101 1 $15.95 $15.95

72 volt DC hydraulic motor DC Hydraulics M326-190-8174-2000 1 $595.80 $595.80

Hydraulic pressure guage DC Hydraulics 1790 1 $10.00 $10.00

SAE 75w-90 gear oil AutoZone 373225 15901 2 $4.79 $9.58

CV boot AutoZone 580339 614-001 1 $11.99 $11.99

Stalube CV grease Murray's Discount Auto Stores 15112 1 $3.99 $3.99

Automatic transmission fluid (1 gal) Meijer n/a 6 $10.49 $62.94

1117 steel shaft Vertical Machining n/a 1 $100.00 $100.00

2 way hydraulic valve Federal Fluid Power DDL12 / 30102359 1 n/a n/a

Emergency shut off switch EPA n/a 1 n/a n/a

6061 aluminum, 3" x 6" x 0.5" Alro Metals Plus n/a 1 $10.89 $10.89

6061 aluminum, 6.625" x 6.875" x 0.5" Alro Metals Plus n/a 2 $13.73 $27.46

6061 aluminum, 1.75" x 0.5" round Alro Metals Plus n/a 4 $2.19 $8.76

6061 aluminum, 0.5" x 3" round Alro Metals Plus n/a 1 $10.46 $10.46

1117 steel, 1" x 1.25" round Alro Metals Plus n/a 1 $8.69 $8.69

1117 steel (rectangular tube, 0.125 thickness), 1.5" x 2.25" x 6" Alro Metals Plus n/a 4 $6.97 $27.88

*Various parts and tools used for fastening devices were provided by Bob Coury's shop

** All hydraulic hoses and fittings were provided by Exotic Automation/Federal Fluid Power/ EPA

*** All other parts were either supplied to us by our sponsors or purchased in previous semestrers

25
Appendix B – Engineering Change Notice

There were no mechanical design modifications made to our original design. The only modifications
made were slight changes to the location of several of the hydraulic components for packaging purposes.
From the system analysis of last semester and analysis done by our team, including extensive CAD
modeling, calculations, and system simulation modeling in Simulink, our alpha design did not require any
modifications.

26
Appendix C.1 – Material Selection

Shaft:
Function: Transmit torque
Objective: Durable, able to transmit needed torque
Constraints: Torque, price, length, diameter
Material Indices:

Top Materials: All carbon steels:

• 1015
• 1020
• 1117
• 1022
• 1118

We chose to use 1117 Carbon Steel for our shaft. This decision was made due to the fact that all
of the top materials listed above are very similar, and 1117 was available in the size and quantity
needed for the shaft. Also, although price was one of our constraints, all of the materials cost
about the same price per pound so this didn’t factor into our final selection.

Motor Mount:
Function: Support motor weight and hold bearing
Objective: Easily machineable, minimal mass
Constraints: Thickness, length, width
Top Materials: Cast magnesium alloy AS21
Wrought magnesium alloy Z6
Wrought aluminum alloy 6061
Wrought aluminum alloy 2024
Cast aluminum alloy A356

We chose to use wrought aluminum alloy 6061 for our motor mount. This decision was made
based on the availability of the material, as well as the ease of machineability. Also, for safety
issues, we did not use magnesium as it is highly flammable and requires special fire extinguishers
if it catches on fire.

27
Appendix C.2 – Design for Assembly
A. Original Design had 32 % Design of efficiency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Name of Assembly

Minimum number of parts needed

two degit manual handling code

two digit manual insertion code

Manual handling time per part

Manual insertion time per part

Operation time in seconds

Resistance to insertion

Motor mount (reduction box)

Operation cost
Parts ID No.

10 1 20 2 2 5 12 4.8 1 Motor mount plate

9 0 5 1 4 3 13 5.2 4 Spacers
8 1 20 2 2 5 12 4.8 1 Shaft supporting plate
7 2 7 1.2 12 8 36 14 6 Screws
6 1.5 15 1.8 0 10 10 4 2 Mount bars
5 0.5 11 1.4 10 6 8 3.2 1 Sprocket without hub
4 0 1 0.8 8 2 8 3.2 4 Washers
3 2 13 0.9 14 15 60 17 4 bolts and nuts
2 0.5 17 1.6 14 5 50 20 1 Flange for the sprocket
1 2.5 3 1.1 6 15 30 12 2 Bearings

Design of Efficiency
219 77 29 0.32
B. New Design has 49% Design of efficiency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Name of Assembly
Minimum number of parts needed
two degit manual handling code

two digit manual insertion code

Manual handling time per part

Manual insertion time per part

Operation time in seconds

Resistance to insertion

Motor mount (reduction

box)
Operation cost
Parts ID No.

10 1 20 2 2 5 12 4.8 1 Motor mount plate

9 0 5 1 4 3 13 5.2 4 Spacers
8 1 20 2 2 5 12 4.8 1 Shaft supporting plate
7 2 7 1.2 12 8 36 14 6 Screws
6 1.5 15 1.8 0 10 10 4 2 Mount bars
5 0.5 11 1.6 10 6 8 3.2 1 A type Sprocket with hub
4 0 1 0.8 8 2 8 3.2 4 Washers
1 2.5 3 1.1 6 15 30 12 2 Bearings

Design of Efficiency
129 52 21 0.49
28
Appendix C.3 – Design for Environmental Sustainability

Total Emissions:
Material Mass Raw Emissions Air Emissions Water Emissions Waste Emissions
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
6061 Aluminum 0.645 121.8 6.275 0.09 1.5
1117 Steel 1.209 4.6 3.4 0.001 0.015

Values too small to be seen on graph

29
EcoIndicator 99 Damage Classifications:

30
31
Based on the graph shown above, the aluminum appears to have more impact on the environment than the
steel. However, steel gets higher ecoindicator 99 point values, so this is likely to have a bigger impact
when the life cycle of the whole product is considered.

32
Appendix C.4 – Design for Safety

Ri s k El ectrocuti on Sha rp edges Hi gh pres s ure fl ui d Projecti l e fi tti ng Bed fa l l i ng Throttl e s tuck Cha i n
Severi ty 1 2 5 5 3 4 5
Li kl i hood 4 4 1 1 3 2 2
Score 4 8 5 5 9 8 10

The most major risks are sharp edges within the system causing cuts, the hydraulic motor switch
becoming stuck, the bed of the truck falling on someone during maintenance, and someone getting caught
in the chain. For the most part, these dangers apply to people doing maintenance on the vehicle, with
bystanders and the driver being relatively safe.

The results of an analysis using DesignSafe software is shown on the next two pages. While none of the
hazards found in this analysis are surprising, it is much more detailed than the Risk Analysis performed
above.

The difference between Risk Analysis and FMEA is that Risk Analysis is more of a brainstorming based,
subjective method of discovering all of the possible hazards inherent in a system. FMEA on the other
hand is much more formalized and attempts to produce a quantitative output of what is most likely to fail,
how it will happen, and how bad the results will be.

Zero risk does not exist in the real world. Acceptable risk is as low a risk as is reasonably possible. This
plays into our project as displayed in the DesignSafe analysis. All of our risks are low or moderate, but
given the tasks our system has to perform the hazards themselves are inevitable. All action possible has
been taken to minimize the likelihood and severity of these risks, but they can never be completely
eliminated.

33
Figure C.4.1 – DesignSafe Analysis for the Xebra

34
Figure C.4.2 – Continued DesignSafe Analysis for the Xebra

35
Appendix C.5 – Manufacturing Process Selection
This project can be applied to any motorized vehicle. Therefore, our potential real world production
volume can be hundreds of thousands. However, there can be many other professors and students who try
similar projects. Therefore, we decided out production volume as 1000.

Both shaft and motor mount can be manufactured by machining due to its tolerances. Because of the
spline mating and shaft alignment, the shaft has very small tolerances in its dimension. In addition, since
the bearing is pressed into the motor mount, the dimensions are critical in the motor mount. Therefore,
these parts have to be machined with mill and lathe.

36
Appendix D – Quality Function Diagram (QFD)

37
Appendix E – Preliminary Calculations

• The vehicle is 1800 lbs unloaded. With the estimated 500 lbs payload, the vehicle is 2300 lbs
(1043 kg). The energy required to accelerate the vehicle from 0 to 27 mph (12.1m/s). Using the kinetic
energy equation (7)
1
E= ⋅ M ⋅ v2 Eq. 7
2

substituting the mass and velocity yields E = 76.4 kJ.

• The volume of fluid at 3000 psi (20700 kPa) required for the acceleration was calculated using
Bernoulli equation (8) for incompressible fluid
P1 v2 P v2
+ 1 + Z1 = 2 + 2 + Z 2 Eq. 8
ρ1 g 2 ⋅ g ρ2 g 2 ⋅ g

P1 − P2 v 22
With V1=0, Z1 = 0, and Z2 = 0, = was obtained.
ρ 2

m ⋅ v 22
Since ρ = M V ; where V is volume. The equation becomes: V ⋅ ( P1 − P2 ) =
2

Finally, Eq. 9 was derived.

E
V = Eq. 9
( P1 − P2 )

For the vehicle, we plan to use atmospheric pressure (101 kPa) at the low-end accumulator. With the
energy found above, the volume of fluid needed is 0.00371m3, or 3.71 liters.

• Vehicle acceleration, a, for a fixed displacement hydraulic motor at 23cc/rev (2.2·10-5 m3)
From Eq. 4, we get E = V ⋅ ( P1 − P2 ) ; thus the energy provided by the motor on a revolution was found
to be 0.453 kJ.

From energy equation E = F ⋅ s and Newton’s second law F = Ma , we obtained Eq. 10

E
a= Eq. 10
M ⋅s

For one revolution of the motor, the wheels turn 1:10 revolution. As the result, the vehicle moves the
πD
distance s= where D is the wheel’s diameter. Finally, we found the vehicle acceleration, a = 2.72
10
m/s2.

38
Appendix F – Brake Force Calculations

The total braking force on the rear axle can be determined by using the torque on the motor and the gear
reduction through Eq. 11:

τ
F= Eq. 11
r
Where: τ = torque on the motor

r = radius of the larger gear

With τ = 850 in-lb and r = 3.15 in, the braking force was calculated to be 281 lbs.

The maximum brake force that can be applied to the rear wheels without lock-up is defined by Eq. 12:

μ ⋅ Fr ,s
Fmax =
⎛h ⎞ Eq. 12
1 + μ ⎜ CG ⎟
⎝ L ⎠

Where: μ = coefficient of friction between the tires and the road

Fr,s = static force on the rear axle

hCG = vertical height of the center of gravity

L = Wheelbase

With μ = 0.8, Fr,s = 1622 lbs , hCG = 23.62 in , L = 95 in, we determined the maximum breaking force
that can be applied without lockup to be 1082 lb. Therefore, our design will not cause rear lock-up with a
factor of safety of about 4.

39
Appendix G – Simulink Model

40
Appendix H – Vehicle Response Without Road Loads or Tire Slip

41
Appendix I – Vehicle Response With Road Loads and Tire Slip

42
Appendix J – Sensor/Valve Circuit Diagrams
The following shows the circuit diagrams for the hydraulic actuation system in the Xebra.

Figure J-1: Circuit Diagram for Motor Valve, Accelerator Pedal Sensor and Relay

Figure J-2: Circuit Diagram for Pump Valve, Slow-fill Pump, Brake Pedal Sensor, Relay and Car
Starter Solenoid

43
Appendix K – Hydraulic Motor Specification (see 0230 model)

44
Appendix L – Performance curves for Monarch 72 Volt DC hydraulic pump (model 17-190)

45
Appendix M – Electric Battery Efficiencies and Potential Improvements From Hydraulics

*232amps measured in Ann Arbor on HOT505 max acceleration, 82.9amps at steady-state 35mph

Figure M.1 – Battery efficiency extrapolated using Pukert’s Law

46
Figure M.2 – Comparable Electric Permanent Magnet Efficiency Curves

Path of Heavy
Acceleration

Figure M.3 – Inefficiencies of Electric Batteries and Motors under Heavy Acceleration

47
Path of Heavy
Acceleration

Figure M.4 – Hydraulic Assist Allows the Electric Batteries and Motor to Operate More Efficiently

48