HUMAN POWER VEHICLE HAS TO BE ANALYSED ACORDING TO HIS

PRINCIPAL FACTOR, SUCH AS: COSTS, DESIGN, LOGISTICS, AND

ENVIROMENT.

DISEÑO DE MÁQUINAS I

PROFESOR:

Wilmer Velilla Díaz

STUDENTS:

DANIELA BARCELÓ LLERENA

JEYSON REYNEL CASTILLO MENA

GUILLERMO CRUZADO CARRASCAL

MARIA ANGÉLICA MARTINEZ PEREZ

ANCIZAR JESUS RIZO AHUMADA

MARIO NELSON SERRANO MERIÑO

GROUP:

CD

UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DEL CARIBE

FACULTAD DE INGENIERÍA

BARRANQUILLA-ATLÁNTICO

2015

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................5

1. OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................6

1.1.General objective...............................................................................................6

1.2.Specific objectives.............................................................................................6

2. ALTERNATIVE 1................................................................................................7

2.1.Main table..........................................................................................................8

2.2.Costs..................................................................................................................8

2.3.Design................................................................................................................9

2.4.Logistics.............................................................................................................9

2.5.Environment.......................................................................................................9

3. ALTERNATIVE 2..............................................................................................10

3.1.Main table........................................................................................................10

3.2.Costs................................................................................................................10

3.3.Design..............................................................................................................11

3.4.Logistics...........................................................................................................11

3.5.Environment.....................................................................................................11

4. ALTERNATIVE 3..............................................................................................12

4.1.Main table........................................................................................................12

4.2.Costs................................................................................................................12

4.3.Design..............................................................................................................13

4.4.Logistics...........................................................................................................13

4.5.Environment.....................................................................................................13

5. ALTERNATIVE 4..............................................................................................14

5.1.Main table........................................................................................................15

5.2.Costs................................................................................................................15

5.3.Design..............................................................................................................15

5.4.Logistics...........................................................................................................16

5.5.Environment.....................................................................................................16

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES.......................................................17

6.1.Alternative 1.....................................................................................................17

6.2.Alternative 2.....................................................................................................18

6.3.Alternative 3.....................................................................................................18

6.4.Alternative 4.....................................................................................................19

7. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................21

REFERENCES.................................................................................................22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Main table...................................................................................................8Table 2. Costs..........................................................................................................8Table 3. Design........................................................................................................9Table 4. Logistics.....................................................................................................9Table 5. Environment...............................................................................................9Table 6. Main table.................................................................................................10Table 7. Costs........................................................................................................10Table 8. Design......................................................................................................11Table 9. Logistics...................................................................................................11Table 10. Environment...........................................................................................11Table 11. Main table...............................................................................................12Table 12. Costs......................................................................................................12Table 13. Design....................................................................................................13Table 14. Logistics.................................................................................................13Table 15. Environment...........................................................................................13Table 16. Main table...............................................................................................15Table 17. Costs......................................................................................................15Table 18. Design....................................................................................................15Table 19. Logistics.................................................................................................16Table 20. Environment...........................................................................................16

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Alternative 1..............................................................................................7Figure 2. Fastening point..........................................................................................7Figure 3. Fastening point..........................................................................................8Figure 4. HPV.........................................................................................................10Figure 5. HPV.........................................................................................................12Figure 6. HPV.........................................................................................................14

INTRODUCTION

When it comes to means of transportation, most people only think about cars or motorcycles to go from one place to another. However, these are not the only group of vehicles that can be used for transportation, since a bike can work in an effective way and it helps to reduce the contamination in the earth.

For this reason, in the following report four alternatives of trikes (bikes with 3 wheels) are going to be showed in order to find out which of them will be the best option to select according to its design, material, purchase of accessories, and its impact to the nature.

1. OBJECTIVES

1.1 General objective

Analyze the most principal factors that have to be considered by the time of working on a design project.

1.2 Specific objectives

Understand how the project has to be developed according to the considerations that have been taken, such as: design, material, purchase of accessories, and its impact to the nature.

Compare all of the four alternatives in order to decide which of them will be the best option to work with. So that, in general transportation and care for nature works in proper balance.

2. ALTERNATIVE 1

Figure 1. Alternative 1

From: http://www.catrike.com/#!700/c1dnt

Figure 2. Fastening point

Made in SolidWorks 2011

Figure 3. Fastening point

Made in SolidWorks 2011

2.1 Main table Table 1. Main table

Costs Design Logistics Environment Σ P.P

Costs 3 4 5 3 15 0,42

Design 0,25 3 3 3 9,25 0,26

Logistics 0,2 0,33 3 4 7,53 0,21

Environment 0,33 0,33 0,25 3 3,92 0,11

total   35,70 1

2.2 Costs

1.1: low inversion 1.2: cost of replacement parts1.3: cost of accessories

Table 2. Costs

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ   Absolute P.

1.1 3 5 5 13 0,32 0,141.2 0,2 3 4 7,2 0,18 0,071.3 0,2 0,25 3 20,2 0,5 0,21total   40,4 1 0,42

2.3 Design

1.1: fabrication of the main frame

1.2: fabrication of the transmission

1.3: Established weight

Table 3. Design

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ Absolute P.

1.1 3 4 3 10 0,33 0,081.2 0,25 3 2 5,25 0,17 0,041.3 0,33 0,5 3 15,25 0,5 0,13total   30,5 1 0,26

2.4 Logistics

1.1: Purchase of materials 1.2: Hand-make work 1.3: Purchase of accessories

Table 4. Logistics

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ Absolute P.

1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,061.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,041.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,11

total   36,5 1 0,21

2.5 Environment

1.1: Zero contamination 1.2: low noise 1.3: work without gasoline

Table 5. Environment

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ Absolute P.

1.1 3 5 3 11 0,34 0,041.2 0,2 3 2 5,2 0,16 0,021.3 0,33 0,5 3 16,2 0,5 0,05total   32,4 1 0,11

3. ALTERNATIVE 2

Figure 4. HPV

From: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=2936

3.1 Main table

Table 6. Main table

  Costs Design Logistics Environment Σ P.PCosts 3 4 4 3 14 0,39Design 0,25 3 4 4 11,25 0,32Logictcs 0,25 0,25 3 3 6,50 0,18Environment 0,33 0,25 0,33 3 3,92 0,11total         35,67 1

3.2 Costs

1.1: low inversion 1.2: cost of replacement parts1.3: cost of accessories

Table 7. Costs

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ   Absolute P.1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,121.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,081.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,20total   36,5 1 0,39

3.3 Design

1.1: fabrication of the main frame1.2: fabrication of the transmission1.3: Established weight

Table 8. Design

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ   Absolute P.1.1 3 4 4 11 0,34 0,111.2 0,25 3 2 5,25 0,16 0,051.3 0,25 0,5 3 16,25 0,5 0,16total   32,5 1 0,32

3.4 Logistics

1.1: Purchase of materials1.2: Hand-make work1.3: Purchase of accessories

Table 9. Logistics

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ   Absolute P.1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,051.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,041.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,09

total   36,5 1 0,18

3.5 Environment

Table 10. Environment

  1.1 1.2 1.3 Σ   Absolute P.1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,021.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,021.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,04

total   36,5 1 0,08

1.1: Zero contamination1.2: low noise1.3: work without gasoline

4. ALTERNATIVE 3

Figure 5. HPV

From: http://www.datuopinion.com/vehiculos-de-traccion-humana

4.1 Main table

Table 11. Main table

  Costs Design Logistics Environment sum p.pCosts 3 5 4 3 15 0,41Design 0,20 3 4 4 11,20 0,31Logistics 0,25 0,25 3 3 6,50 0,18Environment 0,33 0,25 0,33 3 3,92 0,11total         36,62 1

4.2 Costs

1.1: Low inversion 1.2: cost of replacement parts1.3: cost of accessories

Table 12. Costs

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sum   Absolute P.1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,121.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,081.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,20total   36,5 1 0,39

4.3 Design

1.1: : fabrication of the main frame1.2: fabrication of the transmission1.3: Established weight

Table 13. Design

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sumatoria   P. absoluto1.1 3 4 4 11 0,34 0,111.2 0,25 3 2 5,25 0,16 0,051.3 0,25 0,5 3 16,25 0,5 0,16total   32,5 1 0,32

4.4 Logistics

1.1: Purchase of materials1.2: Hand-make work1.3: Purchase of accessories

Table 14. Logistics

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sumatoria   P. absoluto1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,051.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,041.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,09

total   36,5 1 0,18

4.5 Environment

Table 15. Environment

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sumatoria   P. absoluto1.1 3 3 4 10 0,33 0,031.2 0,3333333 3 2 5,33 0,17 0,021.3 0,25 0,5 3 15,33 0,5 0,05total   30,667 1 0,11

1.1: Zero contamination1.2: low noise1.3: work without gasoline

5. ALTERNATIVE 4

Figure 6. HPV

From: https://martinreyesb.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/vth/

5.1 Main table Table 16. Main table

  Costs Design Logistics Environment sum p.pCosts 3 4 3 3 13 0,36Design 0,25 3 5 4 12,25 0,34Logistics 0,3333333 0,20 3 3 6,53 0,18Environment 0,33 0,25 0,3333333 3 3,92 0,11total         35,70 1

5.2 Costs

1.1: Low inversion 1.2: cost of replacement parts1.3: cost of accessories

Table 17. Costs

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sum   Absolute P.1.1 3 3 4 10 0,48 0,171.2 0,3333333 3 4 7,333333333 0,35 0,131.3 0,25 0,25 3 3,5 0,168 0,06total   20.8 1 0.36

5.3 Design

1.1: : fabrication of the main frame1.2: fabrication of the transmission1.3: Established weight

Table 18. Design

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sumatoria   P. absoluto1.1 3 4 4 11 0,53 0,181.2 0,25 3 3 6,25 0,30 0,101.3 0,25 0,3333333 3 3,58 0,172 0,06total   20.83 1 0,34

5.4 Logistics

1.1: Purchase of materials1.2: Hand-make work1.3: Purchase of accessories

Table 19. Logistics

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sumatoria   P. absoluto1.1 3 2 4 9 0,45 0,081.2 0,5 3 4 7,5 0,38 0,071.3 0,25 0,25 3 3,50 0,175 0,03

total   20 1 0,18

5.5 Environment

1.1: Zero contamination1.2: low noise1.3: work without gasoline

Table 20. Environment

  1.1 1.2 1.3 sumatoria   P. absoluto1.1 3 4 4 11 0,30 0,041.2 0,25 3 4 7,25 0,20 0,031.3 0,25 0,25 3 18,25 0,5 0,06total   36,5 1 0,13

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

6.1 Alternative 1 On this first alternative the values obtained according to the tables were the followings:

Costs : 0.36 Design : 0,34 Logistics: 0.18 Environment : 0.13

These values have to be multiplied by 100 in order to know the important of every factor or in other words its percentage. For this reason after multiplying, it was obtained that, the cost has a 36 %, the design has a 34 %, the logistics has an 18 %, and finally the Environment have a 13% in this alternative.

It’s clearly seen that the costs have the highest value among the others, so in this first alternative, the costs will be considered as the most important point to work with, this means, that, before making any decision the amount of money will be consider like the principal priority.

Apart from this, the impact to the nature has to be considered, so that, the project does not create any problem to the planet, so according to the table kkk, which is above, it is showed that the environment have a 13 %, so this means, that, this alternative does not affect the planet, because of his low value, but it helps to reduce the pollution, since it is not ridded by using any kind of gasoline.

6.2 Alternative 2On this second alternative the values obtained according to the tables were the followings:

Costs : 0.39 * 100 = 39Design : 0.32 * 100 = 32Logistics: 0.18 * 100 = 18Environment : 0.08 * 100 = 8

In this alternative, it is clearly seen that cost has the highest value with a 39 %, the design has a 32 %, the logistics has an 18 %, and the environment hast an 8 %.

As in the first alternative the cost has the highest value and the environment has the lowest one, so, this is the same case for this proposal. This means that if an eco-friendly project wants to be developed, then the amount of money in the project has to be increased in order to avoid generating contamination to the planet. On the other side, the design and logistics are important point to keep in mind, but if there is not money, then any effort will not make sense.

6.3 Alternative 3On this third alternative the values obtained according to the tables were the followings:

Costs : 0.39 * 100 = 39Design : 0.32 * 100 = 32Logistics: 0.18 * 100 = 18Environment : 0.08 * 100 = 11

In this alternative, it is showed that cost has the highest value with a 39 %, the design has a 32 %, the logistics has an 18 %, and the environment hast an 11 %.

The costs are the most important part to consider by the time of designing, because according to the table, this valued has de highest percentage, so, before going to make any decision, the person who want to design have to check his pocket and then proceed if he have the amount of money that is needed to develop the project. Also, the environment have to be consider, since, the impact to the nature cannot be forgotten.

The design and logistics are very important as well, but these factors are considered once the costs and impact to the nature (environment) are clearly studied.

6.4 Alternative 4 On this fourth alternative the values obtained according to the tables were the followings:

Costs : 0.36 * 100 = 36Design : 0.34 * 100 = 34Logistics: 0.18 * 100 = 18Environment : 0.13 * 100 = 13

As in the third alternative, the description can be the same:

´´ The costs are the most important part to consider by the time of designing, because according to the table, this valued has de highest percentage, so, before going to make any decision, the person who want to design have to check his pocket and then proceed if he have the amount of money that is needed to develop the project. ´´

The values has changed, but the balance is closely the same, so this means, that the costs have to be always considered, and the environment value has to be the lowest in the group, because the lowest this value will get, the more eco- friendly the project will become.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In the process of working in a design, there are 4 important factors to keep in mind, those are: costs, design, logistics, environment. Among these factors, the costs are considered as the most important value, because according to the investment, the project will develop the other factors.

In most cases, the costs receive the highest percentage, so, before making any decision the amount of money needed in the project will be consider like the principal priority.

If an eco-friendly project wants to be developed, then the amount of money in the project has to be increased in order to avoid generating contamination to the planet. On the other side, the design and logistics are important point to keep into consideration, but if there is not a monetary fund, then any effort will not make sense.

The impact to the nature has to be considered, so that, the project does not create any problem to the planet; the lowest this value will get, the more eco- friendly the project will become.

REFERENCES

[1] W. V. Diaz, «Conceptual design methodology, applied to the selection of a manipulator of drums for trucks load,» vol. 8, pp. 53-62, 2010.