Date post: | 13-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | asaferlich |
View: | 690 times |
Download: | 3 times |
SHELL ECO-MARATHON CHALLENGEELECTRICAL SYSTEM OF SOLAR VEHICLE
ECE TEAM 30
Asaf Erlich, Mingming Liu, Conjee Yeung, Alexey Leontyev, Andrey Shum
OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
STATUS REVIEW
DECISION METHODOLOGY
TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Objective: is to be able to build a vehicle that can travel the
longest distance using the least amount of energy
o Gasoline, Electric, Diesel, Hydrogen, Biofuel , Solar
Key: Efficiency, not speed
Goal: is to apply creativity in designing sustainable
transportation to achieve the highest possible fuel efficiency.
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY
Started in 1939
The winner of the first Eco-Marathon achieved 50 mpg
TODAY
Over 400 students and 70 teams across the United States participate
Last year, the winning team achieved 2,487.5 mpg! Record was 10,705 mpg (2003, UK)
http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/americas/for_participants/faqs/
TEAM GOAL
Design and Build a Solar Powered Vehicle to compete in The Shell
Eco-Marathon Competition
Collaborating with two Mechanical Engineer Mechanics (MEM)
Teams to design and construct the vehicle
MEM Team 1 (Structural) are responsible for chassis design,
analysis, and construction
MEM Team 2 (Aerodynamics) are responsible for body design,
analysis, construction, paint and touch ups
ECE Team (Electrical) are responsible for power train design,
testing, and evaluation of all required electrical components
INTRODUCTION
Changes from Proposal
The primary goal of the project is to design, test and evaluate
the electrical system for a solar vehicle. Meeting the race
constraints will no longer be our deliverable.
New alternative of motor is used instead of the one that was
described in the proposal.
INTRODUCTION
Competition Overview
Shell Eco-Marathon is an annual competition to determine the most fuel efficient vehicle.
Held in Houston, Texas.
Date: April 14-17.
Divided into two vehicle groups: Prototype (3-Wheel) and Urban Concept (Four-Wheel).
Further divided into classes based on fuel type: Diesel, petrol, LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), electric, hydrogen, ethanol, Biofuels, gas to liquids, and Solar.
Requirement: Vehicles must be capable of running a 10 mile track at a minimum average speed of 15 mph.
Fuel will be measured at the beginning and at the end of the race.
INTRODUCTION
http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/americas/for_participants/americas_rules/
Electrical Power Constraints of Solar Powered Vehicle:
Must have two joule meters to measure generated and
consumed power (provided by competition).
Supply voltage must not exceed 48 volts.
Supply Current must not exceed 50 Amperes continuous and
150 Amperes Peak.
Battery Monitoring System (BMS) must be equipped.
Vehicle without driver must not exceed 140 kg (309 lbs)
Vehicle must be capable of seating 1 person
Shell Eco-Marathon Guidelines
INTRODUCTION
http://www-static.shell.com/static/ecomarathon/downloads/2011/global/SEM_Rules_2011_Final.pdf
Electrical Component Requirements:
Two front headlights.
Two rear red lights.
Two front/rear red brake lights.
Front/rear turn signals.
Emergency/Hazard lights.
Horn (purchased through Shell).
Emergency shutdown mechanism to isolate battery and motor.
Electrical components must be fused in transparent box.
Eco-Shell Marathon Guidelines
INTRODUCTION
http://www-static.shell.com/static/ecomarathon/downloads/2011/global/SEM_Rules_2011_Final.pdf
Objective of the Electrical Team is to build a powertrain that
includes:
An Array Of Solar Panels/Cells used to charge the battery.
An Accumulator (Battery/Capacitor) to power the motor,
controller, and other electrical components of the vehicle.
A Motor Controller to drive the electric motor.
An Electric Motor to provide mechanical power and propel the
vehicle.
INTRODUCTION
STATUS REVIEW
Top three options:
Solar arrays
Electric Motor
Battery
Simulation:
General Simulink Model of the powertrain
Basic PSpice circuit diagram
SWOT Analysis for Solar Cell
DECISION METHODOLOGY
Strength Weakness
Much Less Expensive
DurabilityLess Efficient
Most Commonly
UsedWeather Conditions
Fragile
Opportunities Threats
Polycrystalline
Strength Weakness
Most Efficient
DurabilityExpensive
Most Commonly
Used
Most Experienced
Weather Conditions
Fragile
Opportunities Threats
Monocrystalline
Brand Model TypeTotal Weight
(lbs)
Total Power Output
(W)Total Cost ($)
ALPS ALPS-85 Polycrystalline 88.18 426.3 $2,200.00
BP Solar BP3125J Polycrystalline 105.82 501.12 $2,296.00
ALPS ALPS-123 Polycrystalline 104.06 495.36 $2,540.00
Suntech SunTech65 Polycrystalline 109.35 520.128 $3,248.00
BP Solar BP3115J Polycrystalline 105.82 458.28 $2,136.00
Suntech SunTech80 Polycrystalline 123.46 559.776 $2,926.00
Suntech SunTech45 Polycrystalline 119.05 540.672 $3,048.00
Power Film P7.2-150 Amorphous Flexible 11.40 69.12 $5,755.20
Power Film PT15-75 Amorphous Flexible 12.86 143.99 $7,470.65
Power Film P7.2-75 Amorphous Flexible 12.86 67.32 $7,470.65
Considerations for Alternative Types of Solar Arrays
DECISION METHODOLOGY
DECISION MATRIX FOR SOLAR ARRAYS
Brand Model Type Total Weight Total Power Output Total Cost Total
ALPS ALPS-85 Polycrystalline 3.8 7.6 5.0 16.3
BP Solar BP3125J Polycrystalline 2.4 8.9 4.9 16.2
ALPS ALPS-123 Polycrystalline 2.6 8.8 4.7 16.1
Suntech SunTech65 Polycrystalline 2.1 9.3 4.2 15.6
BP Solar BP3115J Polycrystalline 2.4 8.1 5.0 15.6
Suntech SunTech80 Polycrystalline 1.0 10.0 4.4 15.4
Suntech SunTech45 Polycrystalline 1.4 9.7 4.3 15.3
Power Film P7.2-150 Amorphous Flexible 10.0 1.0 2.3 13.3
Power Film PT15-75 Amorphous Flexible 9.9 2.4 1.0 13.3
Power Film P7.2-75 Amorphous Flexible 9.9 1.0 1.0 11.9
Scale
1- Heaviest
5- Medium
10- Lightest
1 – Lowest
5 – Medium
10 – Highest
1 – Highest
3 – Medium
5 - Lowest
DECISION METHODOLOGY
Strength Weakness
Simple Design
Reliable Operation
Mounting Variety
Long Life
Variable Frequency
Source
Requires Expensive
Controller
Industrial Applications
Full Size Vehicle
Inability to Operate at
Low Speed
Overload Damage
Opportunities Threats
SWOT Analysis for Electric Motors
DECISION METHODOLOGY
Strength Weakness
Easy Design
Simple Speed Control
Simple Torque Control
High Maintenance
Physically Larger
Inexpensive Drive
Design
Efficient at Low Speed
Overload Damage
Opportunities Threats
AC DC
CONSIDERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF DC MOTOR
DECISION METHODOLOGY
Brand Model TypePower
(W)
Weight
(lb)
Torque
(Nm)RPM
Relative
Cost
FreeenergystoreHigh Speed
Hub Motor
Brushless
Hub1000 11.9 30 450 $600.00
Golden Motor MagicPie PM Hub 1000 16.53 27 2500 $293.00
Electric
Motorsports
EVT Hub
MotorPM Hub 1086 18 25.5 676 $750.00
Perm-Motor PMG-132 PM 7220 24.25 20.5 2200 $1,024.95
Koford5.07 inch
seriesBrushless 1000 9.7 40.7 2563 $1,200.00
MMP D40-675D-
48V 1215 25 30.5 285 $1,150.00
Torque Provided By MEM Team = 29.5 Nm
DECISION MATRIX FOR DC MOTOR
DECISION METHODOLOGY
Brand Model Power Rating WeightTorque
RatingCost Total
FreeenergystoreHigh Speed
Hub Motor 1.0 8.7 10.0 7.0 26.7
Golden Motor MagicPie 1.0 6.0 7.0 10.0 24.0
Electric MotorsportsEVT Hub
Motor 1.1 5.1 8.0 5.5 19.7
Perm-Motor PMG-132 10.0 1.4 5.1 2.7 19.3
Koford5.07 inch
series 1.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 17.0
MMP D40-675D-
48V 1.3 1.0 9.0 1.5 12.8
Scale
1- Lowest
5-Neutral
10- Highest
1 – Heaviest
5 – Medium
10 – Lightest
1- Non-desirable
5- Neutral
10- Desirable
1-Expens.
5-Neutral
10-Cheap
Strengths Weaknesses
Store Energy
Provide Power
Small/Portable
Lightweight
Easily Mounted
Life Cycle
Gets Hot
Time to Charge
Monitoring System
May Fail
Readily Available
Common Use
Variety of Voltages
Variety of Current
Series or Parallel
Capable
HighTemperature
Environment
Fire Risk
Short Circuit Risk
Capacity Overload
Loss of Charge
Opportunities Threats
SWOT Analysis for Battery and Super Capacitors
DECISION METHODOLOGY
Strengths Weaknesses
Store Energy
Long Life
High Rate of Charge
High Rate of Discharge
No Overcharging
Varied Voltage
Energy per unit stored
Electronic Control
Energy Loss
Dielectric Absorption
Readily Available
High Energy Density
Rapid Energy Release
Large Energy Release
Opportunities Threats
CONSIDERATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF BATTERY
Brand Model TypeVoltage Rating
(Volts)
Discharge Rate
(KWh)
Weight
(kg)
Energy
Density
(KWh/kg)
Cost ($)
Apple A1185 Li-Ion 10.8 0.061 0.454 0.134 $38.59
Apple B-APL-06-O Li-Ion 10.8 0.048 0.454 0.106 $76.00
NYCEWheels TOYO-USP SLA (Lead acid) 12 0.228 5.94 0.038 $54.95
Electric Scooter
PartsUB12180 SLA (Lead acid) 12 0.222 5.94 0.038 $54.95
Dell B-5908H Li-ion 11.1 0.072 1.36 0.053 $82.88
HP RQ204AA Li-Ion 7.2 0.018 0.5 0.036 $84.99
DECISION METHODOLOGY
DECISION MATRIX FOR BATTERY
Brand ModelDischarge
RateWeight
Energy
DensityCost Total
Apple A1185 1.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 16.8
Apple B-APL-06-O 1.6 5.0 3.9 1.8 12.2
Dell B-5908H 5.0 1.0 1.1 3.6 10.7
HP RQ204AA 4.9 1.0 1.1 3.6 10.6
Electric Scooter
PartsUB12180 2.0 4.3 1.7 1.2 9.2
NYCEWheels TOYO-USP 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 8.0
Scale
1 – Lowest
3 – Neutral
5 – Highest
1 – Heaviest
3 – Medium
5 – Lightest
1 – Lowest
3 – Medium
5 – Highest
1 – Expensive
3 – Neutral
5 – Inexpensive
DECISION METHODOLOGY
PSpice Circuit Model
Castaner, Luis (2002). Modeling Photovoltaic Systems Using PSpice. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
Simulink Model
MATLAB R2010b, Matlab Solar Cell Demo. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, 2000
TECHNICAL DIAGRAMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Asaf ErlichTeam Lead
Alexey LeontyevCorrespondence
Conjee YeungLiaison
Mingming LiuPublicist
Andrey ShumTreasurer
Dr. FontecchioAdvisors
Dr. Layton
David HoMEM Team Lead
TEAM ROLES
Asaf Erlich
• Simulink, Programming and Script Development
Conjee Yeung
• Matlab Expertise and Battery Expertise/Researcher
Alexey Leontyev
• Power Systems and Motor Expertise/Researcher
Mingming Liu
• Matlab Expertise and Solar Panel Expertise/Researcher
Andrey Shum
• Power Systems Expertise
• System Analyst
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TECHNICAL ROLES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
INDUSTRIAL BUDGET
Wages
Category Expense Cost/Unit
Total
Units Total Cost
Initial Design Project manager 40 200 $ 8,000.00
Electrical Engineer(4) 35 200 $ 28,000.00
Construction Project manager 40 300 $ 12,000.00
Electrical Engineer(2) 35 300 $ 21,000.00
Technician (2) 25 300 $ 15,000.00
Testing Project manager 40 40 $ 1,600.00
Electrical Engineer(4) 35 40 $ 5,600.00
Documentation Project manager 40 40 $ 1,600.00
Electrical Engineer(4) 35 40 $ 5,600.00
$ 98,400.00
Materials/Equipment/Overhead
Expense Category Costs
Electrical
Components
Solar Panels $ 4,000.00
Motor/Controls $ 3,000.00
Batteries $ 6,000.00
Wires $ 200.00
Nuts/Bolts/Screws/Fasteners $ 150.00
LED, Gauges, Switches $ 500.00
Equipment Multi-meters $ 200.00
Ammeter $ 200.00
Joulemeter $ 200.00
Hand Tools $ 750.00
Software Pspice $ 500.00
MatLab/Simulink $ 500.00
Microsoft Office $ 300.00
$ 16,500.00
Estimated Overhead Costs 50%
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
OUT OF POCKET BUDGET
Part Est. Price How to Obtain Sponsorship Budget Hess Garage
Lights - Garage X
Wiring - Garage/Budget X X
Connectors/Switches - Garage/Budget X X
Joule-Meters/Monitoring Devices - Provided X X
Battery/Monitoring $1000 Budget X X
Solar Panels $2200 Donation X X
Rectification System - Build X X
Motor/Controls $1,000.00 Donation X X
Total $4,200.00
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
GANTT CHART
Tasks
20
-S
ep
-1
0
27
-S
ep
-1
0
04
-O
ct -
10
11
-O
ct -
10
18
-O
ct -
10
25
-O
ct -
10
01
-N
ov -
10
08
-N
ov -
10
15
-N
ov -
10
22
-N
ov -
10
29
-N
ov -
10
06
-D
ec -
10
13
-D
ec -
10
20
-D
ec -
10
27
-D
ec -
10
03
-Ja
n -
11
10
-Ja
n -
11
17
-Ja
n -
11
24
-Ja
n -
11
31
-Ja
n -
11
07
-F
eb
-1
1
14
-F
eb
-1
1
21
-F
eb
-1
1
28
-F
eb
-1
1
07
-M
ar
-1
1
14
-M
ar
-1
1
21
-M
ar
-1
1
28
-M
ar
-1
1
04
-A
pr
-1
1
11
-A
pr
-1
1
18
-A
pr
-1
1
25
-A
pr
-1
1
02
-M
ay -
11
09
-M
ay -
11
Design
Preliminary Research
Matlab/Simulink Block Diagram
Decision Matrix
Completed Power System
Design
Calculate the Power Required
Determine the available Power
from Solar Panels
Ensure the system will
complete the required
objectives
Construction
Gathering Components
Connect From Motor To Battery
Add Solar Panels
Finish Construction Finishing
Touches
Debugging/Testing/Prepping
Competition
Model Simulation in Simulink
Circuit Simulation in PSpice
Ordering Parts
Construction
Testing
Competing in Shell’s Eco-Marathon Challenge On April 14th 2011!
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FUTURE STEPS TO TAKE
CONCLUSION
The final product will be a vehicle
power train that will be safe,
lightweight, cost-effective, and meet
the requirements to compete in the
Shell Eco-Marathon Challenge 2011
in Houston, Texas