Final Year Report: Kinetic Energy Recovery System

SHELL ECO MARATHON: KINETIC ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM (KERS)
SAM WING HONG
A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Engineering (Hons.) Mechanical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Science Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
April 2012
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this project report is based on my original work except for citations and quotations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it has not been previously and concurrently submitted for any other degree or award at UTAR or other institutions.
Signature :
_________________________
Name
_________________________
ID No.
_________________________
Date
_________________________
iii
APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION
I certify that this project report entitled SHELL ECO MARATHON: KINETIC ENERGY RECOEVERY SYSTEM (KERS) was prepared by SAM WING HONG has met the required standard for submission in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Engineering (Hons.) Mechanical Engineering at Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Approved by,
Signature : _________________________
Supervisor : Mr. Wong Hong Mun
Date
: _________________________
iv
The copyright of this report belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Intellectual Property Policy of University Tunku Abdul Rahman. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this report.
2012, Sam Wing Hong. All right reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank everyone who had contributed to the successful completion of this project. I would like to express my upmost gratitude to my research supervisor, Mr Wong Hong Mun for his invaluable advice, superior guidance and his enormous patience throughout the development of the research.
In addition, I would also like to express my gratitude to my loving parent and friends who had helped and given me encouragement to complete my project.
vi
SHELL ECO MARATHON: KINETIC ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM (KERS)
ABSTRACT
A KERS was used in Shell Eco Marathon competition as a strategy to minimize fuel consumption. The performance of the system was not up to expectations. Therefor experiments based on Taguchis Method for were conducted to analyse its problems. A new design of KERS which had a different method of engagement and also variable moment of inertia was also tested for improvement. However, from the experiments conducted, the efficiency of the system was considerably low due to losses of energy from the system.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF SYMBOLS / ABBREVIATIONS
ii iii v vi vii x xi xiii
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
1 1 2 2 3
1.1
1.2 1.3 1.4
Background Problem Statement Aims and Objectives Schedule
LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) 2.1.1 Components of Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS)
4 4
viii
2.1.2
Types of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) 5 9 11
2.1.3 2.2
Engagement of KERS
Prototype 1 by UTAR M.E 2.2.1 Design of Kinetic Energy Recovery System for Prototype 1 2.2.2 Technical Specification of KERS Model
11 14 14 15 15
2.3 2.4 2.5
Current Problem Faced Findings Possible Strategies 2.5.1 Reduce the Huge Relative Velocity Difference between Roller and Wheel 2.5.2 2.5.3 Improve on Surface of Contact Reducing the Moment of Inertia for the Flywheel for Energy Storage
15 16
16 16 17 17
2.6
Alternative Solution 2.6.1 2.6.2 Friction Jaw (tooth)
METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 Introduction Project Flow Chart 3.2.1 Problem Definition Literature Review Components Design and Simulation Experiment Verification Data Analysis Report
19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 22
3.2.2
3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Introduction
23 23
4.2
Introduction to Concept of Applying KERS in Shell Eco 23
Marathon
ix
4.3 4.4
Testing on existing KERS system Development of New KERS Design 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 Concept Evaluating the New KERS Design Evaluating on the Practicality of New KERS Design
24 28 28 30
40 42
4.5
Problems Encountered
CONCLUSION 5.1 5.2 5.3 Conclusion Recommendations on KERS Generation 3 Future Improvements on KERS Generation 3
46 46 47 47
REFERENCES
49
Appendx A
51
Appendix B
69
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1 2-1 4-1
TITLE Project Gantt Chart Technical Specification of KERS Summary of Energy Transfer Efficiency for Charging Experiments Summary of Energy Transfer Efficiency for Disharging Experiments Moment of Inertias for Different Positions Summary of Expected Mechanical Losses Comparison of Angular Acceleration for Different Positions Comparison of Percentage of Energy Transferred During Charging Comparison of Percentage of Energy Transferred During Discharging
PAGE 3 14
26
4-2
27 33 33
4-3 4-4 4-5
35
4-6
35
4-7
39
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 3-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8
TITLE Charging of Electrical KERS Discharging of Electrical KERS Mechanical KERS System (Ramirez, 2011) CFT Transmission by Flybrid KERS Isometric View KERS Front View KERS Side View KERS Top View Debris resulting from charging the KERS Project Flow Chart Existing KERS Testing Rig New KERS Design (Isometric View) New KERS Design (Real-time Isometric) KERS at Position 1 KERS at Position 2 KERS at Position 3 KERS at Position 4 Comparison (Charging) of Energy Transfer Efficiency
PAGE 6 7 8 10 11 12 12 13 14 20 24 30 30 31 31 32 32
35
xii
4-9 4-10
Force Analysis on KERS Comparison of (Discharging) Energy Transfer Efficiency
36
39 41 43
4-11 4-12
Graph of Deceleration of System Energy Loss due to Slippage
xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS / ABBREVIATIONS
cp v I r m E A F fdrag
specific heat capacity, J/(kgK) tangential velocity, m/s moment of inertia, kgm2 radius, m angular acceleration, rad/s2 mass, kg angular velocity, rad/s energy, J torque, Nm density, kg/m3 cross sectional area, m2 force, N frictional drag, N
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
With the growing demand for transportation from time to time, the number of vehicles owned in this world has increased exponentially, which in turn raises the demand for fuel. However, the supply for crude oil available on earth to provide fuel is diminishing quickly. Therefore change is needed to decrease the global reliance on oil and also to tackle the environmental problems caused by the usage of fuel, mainly the green house effects.
Investigations on the efficiency of combustion engines show that about 75% of the energy from fuel combustion generates heat rather than kinetic energy (John Walsh, 2011). Therefore approaches have to be carried out to enhance the efficiency of vehicle engines to reduce wasted energy. To deal with energy, a system called Kinetic Energy Recovery System or KERS can be utilized to help in reduction of the consumption of fuel in any vehicle.
Team UTAR M.E from the Faculty of Engineering and Science built a prototype car to compete in the 2nd Shell Eco Marathon Asia competition. The aim of the competition is to show how far a vehicle can go with just 1 litre of fuel. Therefore to meet this target, a Kinetic Energy Recovery System was installed aiming at saving the usage of fuel. However, there are several flaws that occurred when the system was brought into usage.
1.2
Problem Statement
The KERS installed on Prototype 1 was found to be performing below expectations.
1.3
Aims and Objectives
To develop an efficient charging and discharging mechanism for a mechanical Kinetic Energy Recovery System.
1.4
Schedule
The following shows the gantt chart for the entire project.
Table 1-1: Project Gantt Chart UTAR Semester I 1 Shell Eco Marathon Competition Problem Statement Literature Review Design and Simulations UTAR Semester III 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Experiment Verifications Data Analysis Completion of FYP Report Submission of FYP Report 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS)
Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) is a regenerative braking that stores the kinetic energy of a moving vehicle under deceleration. The main concept behind KERS is to recover any energy loss during the deceleration process of a moving vehicle for its acceleration which is supported by the basic principle of physics that states energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be endlessly converted. This reduces the amount of energy needed for the engine to deliver for the vehicle to pick up which leads to better performance as well as fuel efficiency.
2.1.1
Components of Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS)
The whole system of Kinetic Energy Recovery System consists of 4 sub-systems namely the braking system, energy storage system and the energy discharging system.
Braking system
This is the part where the energy to be stored is collected. It also acts as brakes for vehicles.
Energy storage system
This is the part where the energy collected form the braking system is stored.
Energy discharging system
This is the part where the energy stored is drawn to drive the vehicle.
Coupling and decoupling This is the part where the KERS is engaged for charging or discharging
2.1.2
Types of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS)
Generally, there are two types of KERS notably electrical (by battery) and mechanical (by flywheel).
2.1.2.1 Electrical Type For the electrical KERS, a motor generator in integrated in a cars transmission so that during braking, the system converts mechanical energy into electrical energy which is then stored in a rechargeable battery. When needed, energy stored in the battery will be released to assist in accelerating.
Charging phase
Figure 2-1: Charging of Electrical KERS (Formula One Management Limited, 2009)
The kinetic energy from the rear brakes is captured by an electric alternator/motor, controlled by a central processing unit (CPU), which then charges the batteries.
Discharging Phase
Figure 2-2: Discharging of Electrical KERS (Formula One Management Limited, 2009)
The electric alternator/motor gives the stored energy back to the engine in a continuous stream when the driver presses a boost button on the steering wheel.
2.1.2.2 Mechanical Type
In a mechanical KERS, the concept of flywheel energy storage is used. The inertia mass is accelerated to a very high rotational speed to maintain the energy in the system as rotational energy. The energy is then converted back by slowing down the flywheel. The performance of such technical approach depends heavily on the moment of inertia effect and operation rotational speed.
Figure 2-3: Mechanical KERS System (Ramirez, 2011)
Charging Phase
The energy captured from the driveshaft is transferred to the flywheel through a Continuous Variable Transmission (CVT) system. The CVT system allows a variety of gear ratios in order to charge the flywheel up to 60,000pm smoothly and efficiently.
Discharging Phase
Energy stored in the flywheel is drawn out to the drive shaft through the CVT which is also connected to an output gear train to drive the vehicle. The CVT controls the rate of energy release from the flywheel through multple gear ratios.
2.1.2.3 Electrical KERS versus Mechanical KERS
Between the two types of KERS, the mechanical approach is believed to be more efficient when compared to the electrical approach. According to Jon Hilton (2007), managing partner of Flybrid Systems, the overall in-out efficiency of a mechanical drivetrain feeding energy into a flywheel and back out to the vehicle again via an ancillary transmission system is approximately 65-70 per cent compared with 35-45 per cent for a hybrid battery-electric system. Fundamentally, this is because a purely mechanical system doesn't have to convert the kinetic energy into electrical and chemical energy as with a battery system where the energy transferred within the system does not change state.
Furthermore, Cross & Hilton (2008) commented that mechanical KERS has longer lifespan as compared to an electrical KERS which runs on batteries. In terms of safety, a mechanical KERS is safer as flywheels are established technology and guaranteed safe with the implementation of technologies provided by Flybrid. Unlike mechanical KERS, Electrical KERS which runs on Li-ion batteries occasionally experience thermal run-away, resulting in melting or bursting of batteries.
2.1.3
Engagement of KERS
With reference to Flybrid CFT KERS, the CFT transmission uses a number of discrete gears and special Flybrid-developed high-speed clutches that perform a controlled slip to transmit the drive, as shown in Figure 2-4.
10
Figure 2-4: CFT Transmission by Flybrid
When connected to an engine speed shaft within the vehicle transmission the three gears in the CFT KERS are multiplied by the number of gears in the main vehicle transmission to provide a large number of available overall ratios between flywheel and wheels. The efficiency of a slipping clutch depends upon the speed across it and with so many gears to choose from a high efficiency option is always available.
When the system is in use, a computer controller selects the most appropriate gear by partially engaging the high-speed clutch associated with that gear. The control system uses hydraulic pressure to close the normally open clutches and transmit the drive, seamlessly changing from one gear to another with no torque interruption as the speed across the engaged clutch reduces to near zero.
However, there are currently limited references regarding the performance and operation of the clutch system used.
11
2.2
Prototype 1 by UTAR M.E
For Prototype 1 by team UTAR M.E that participated in Shell Eco Marathon Asia 2011, a KERS system was implemented onto the vehicle aiming at saving fuel to improve the performance of the vehicle. The KERS was design to have two flywheels to store energy when the vehicle decelerates, and to assist in the acceleration motion of the vehicle. In the design, the two flywheels were charged and discharged by means of two separate rollers contacting directly on the rear wheel.
2.2.1
Design of Kinetic Energy Recovery System for Prototype 1
The design of the KERS system applied onto Prototype 1 is shown as below:
Figure 2-5: KERS Isometric View
12
Figure 2-6: KERS Front View
Figure 2-7: KERS Side View
13
Figure 2-8: KERS Top View
As shown in the figures above, the method used for charging and discharging of the flywheel are through two separate rollers that connect to the wheels. When the driver initiates charging, the charging roller will be brought into contact with the wheel. This will result in creating a braking effect onto to vehicle which slows it down. In the meantime, the roller brought into contact with the wheel will charge the flywheel at a train value of 1.60. When the driver intends to draw energy out from the flywheel to assist in pick-up, he initiates the discharging which the other roller (discharging roller) will be brought into contact with the wheel. Here, the roller will drag the wheels to cause the vehicle to move forward therefore helping in pushing the vehicle forward.
The design of the KERS system was aimed at saving 22kJ of energy when the vehicle brakes and to supply the stored energy to assist in acceleration. This can be achieved by accelerating the two flywheels up to 5000rpm.
14
The rollers used for charging and discharging the KERS were knurled during machining to provide a rough surface. This was aimed at providing sufficient grip for the rollers when brought into contact with the wheel.
2.2.2
Technical Specification of KERS Model
Table 2-1: Technical Specification of KERS Diameter of flywheels Total inertia masses of flywheels Maximum energy stored Maximum speed of flywheels Diameter of rollers Gear ratio for charging KERS Gear ratio for discharging KERS 320 mm 0.167409894 kg m2 22000 J 4500 rpm 25 mm 1.34 1.34
2.3
Current Problem Faced
Figure 2-9: Debris resulting from charging the KERS
15
When Prototype 1 was on track, the KERS was brought into usage. A serious problem occurred where the tyre experienced serious wear when the KERS was charging. This problem could lead to tyre puncture if the KERS was engaged for a period of time. Figure 2-9 shows the resultant debris produced from the operation of KERS left on the engine. The debris created might be suck into the carburettor of the engine and might lead to damaging the engine, affecting its performance. Therefore approaches have to be made to improve and overcome the current situation.
2.4
Findings
Due to the regulation of Shell Eco Marathon Asia 2011 stated that the vehicle has to start the race with zero energy, both flywheels were stationary. Therefore when the KERS was engage while the vehicle was travelling at high speed, a huge relative velocity difference occurred between the tyre and the charging roller. The inertia of the flywheels resisted the rollers from rolling when the rollers are in contact with the tyre. This in turn resulted in a situation where the metal rollers shredded the tyre instead of rolling.
2.5
Possible Strategies
2.5.1
Reduce the Huge Relative Velocity Difference between Roller and Wheel
In my opinion, in order to improve on current design focusing on reducing the damage to the tyre caused during KERS charging and discharging, the relative velocity difference between the charging roller and the tyre has to be reduced. The reduction can be done by increasing the diameter of the roller to a desirable size to reduce the force required to create torque for accelerating the roller thus reducing the friction force experienced by the tyre. This results in introducing less destruction to the tyre by the steel roller.
16
2.5.2
Improve on Surface of Contact
Apart from enlarging the size of the rollers, I would suggest to add-on rubber pads on to the rollers as rubber pads can be used to increase grip and reduce wear of the tyre. When knurled metal surfaces were used to provide gripping, the hardness of the metal surfaces caused damage to the relatively soft material of the tyre. Therefore through providing a softer material as a contact surface with the tyre, performance might improve while damage could be reduced.
2.5.3
Reducing the Moment of Inertia for the Flywheel for Energy Storage
As the existing KERS design equipped with two flywheels made of mild steel as energy storage was found to possess too much moment of inertia for acceleration, alternative materials of lower density could be considered as replacement for easier acceleration. This would reduce the energy wasted to accelerate the flywheels during the charging phase.
2.6
Alternative Solution
Power transfer through two rotating devices can be performed by friction or jaw (tooth) (How power transfers through a clutch or brake and the method by which the energy is transferred from one rotating device to a second non-rotating device). This can be accomplished in a form of mechanical clutch system.
17
2.6.1
Friction
When friction is concerned, friction clutches and brakes utilize friction plates to transmit power from one rotating device to another. The friction on the contact surfaces of both members allows torque transmission.
For friction clutches, the sequence and type of friction surface and the load presented onto the friction surface determine the size of friction surface required to transmit torque. Friction discs may be made up of various materials depending on the application or purposes.
Friction clutch will slip when the torque capacity of the disc turning friction surfaces in exceeded. Therefore during the engagement and disengagement period, the clutch will slip as the friction discs are being squeezed together gradually. The slip allows smooth transfer of torque from one device to another, which permits gradual starts.
2.6.1.1 Advantages of Friction Engagement
a. Allows soft engagement of the two devices to be coupled; b. Engagement speed is not limited
2.6.2
Jaw (tooth)
Jaw clutches make use of a serrated tooth design to transfer or absorb energy from a primary rotating device to a secondary rotating device. The friction between the surfaces of teeth of the rotating and non-rotating device allows the clutch to transmit torque.
18
There are various tooth forms as well as different physical numbers of teeth available depending on the field of application. The designs of the tooth forms will determine the torque capacity for a particular jaw clutch. Different designs of tooth forms allow the device to slip or disengage at a predetermined point as determined by the application requirements.
Like friction clutches, once the torque capacity of the jaw teeth is exceeded, the jaws will disengage dragging the teeth of one rotating device along the surface of the teeth of another rotating device. However, this is not the desired use of a jaw teeth clutch.
2.6.2.1 Advantages of Jaw Engagement
a. High torque capacity with relatively small size; b. Indexing or registration of input to output capable; c. Positive engagement of teeth allowing virtually zero backlash
2.6.2.2
Disadvantages of Jaw Engagement
a. Too much chock when applied suddenly
19
CHAPTER 3
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
This chapter studies the approach to be used to study on the improvement of KERS charging and discharging.
20
3.2
Project Flow Chart
Start
Problem Definition
Literature Review
Component Design and Simulation
Experiment Verification
Data Analysis
Report
End
Figure 3-1: Project Flow Chart
3.2.1
Problem Definition
The whole project started at identifying the problem being faced in the application of Kinetic Energy Recovery System in Prototype 1. In this case, the problem was identified as the method of charging and discharging the KERS. As mentioned in the
21
previous part, the roller used for charging the flywheels caused undesirable damage to the wheel of the vehicle which led to inefficient charging of the KERS. The tyre shredded off at a high rate where it might cause safety problems. Therefore alternative methods were developed to encounter it.
3.2.2
Literature Review
Having the problem known, literature reviews have been carried out to review on available information related to overcoming the problem. Sources either electronic or printed sources has been reviewed for reference in proposing a workable solution for the current situation.
3.2.3
Components Design and Simulation
When the literature review was completed, every useful findings were highlighted. With reference to available resources, workable solutions were proposed to overcome the problem. In this case, three main solutions were proposed: 1. Enlarging the diameter of the roller 2. Applying rubber coating on the roller 3. Redesigning the entire KERS
Designs for each solution were established in CAD drawings. Simulations will also be applied onto the design to provide first insight in testing the design.
22
3.2.4
Experiment Verification
After proposing the solutions, experiments were carried out for verifications. In this part, experimental jigs were built to perform try-out. Any relevant data were recorded for justification and reference. The goal of carrying out experiments was to test out the proposed solutions and assess the functionality of each method. Here, every expected problem that would occur was taken into account for reliable data analysis.
In the experiments carried out, the percentage of energy transfer for each condition was measured. The most important values obtained for analysis were time and revolution speed. The findings were compared to obtain for the best solution.
3.2.5
Data Analysis
Data collected from the experiments were evaluated and compared with the theoretical results. Other than that, every data obtained from the experiments were compared to obtain the best solution for the problem.
3.2.6
Report
The whole project was documented as a report for submission and also for future references.
23
CHAPTER 4
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1
Introduction
In this chapter, the testing on the existing KERS was conducted using Taguchi Method to determine the efficiency in terms of energy transfer. Then a new design of KERS was also tested for its efficiency in terms of energy transfer and was compared to the previous version for improvements.
4.2
Introduction to Concept of Applying KERS in Shell Eco Marathon
The concept of the KERS system in the Prototype 1 was aimed at recycling the energy of the vehicle during the race. It was planned to be brought into engagement for charging when Prototype 1 rolled downwards a hill. Having the KERS system charged, the driver would engage it for discharging going uphill in order to assist in fuel consumption.
24
4.3
Testing on existing KERS system
Figure 4-1: Existing KERS Testing Rig
A test rig was developed in the performance evaluation of KERS as shown in Figure 4-1. It was conducted to investigate the influence of 3 variables in affecting its performance. In real life applications, when the driver wishes to decelerate his vehicle, he engages the KERS for charging. During charging, the charging roller will be brought into contact with the wheel to decelerate it at the same time converts the vehicles kinetic energy into rotational energy in at the rotating flywheels. When the driver requires additional energy for acceleration, he engages the KERS for discharging where the discharging roller will be brought into contact with the wheel and transfers its rotational energy into the vehicles kinetic energy to provide boost. The study was conducted using Taguchis method. In this method, combinations of 3 control factors (moment of inertia of flywheel, gear ratio for charging and discharging and the condition for surface of contact) with 2 levels of factor of study were applied to investigate the best combination that provides the best efficiency.
25
When the experiment was initially carried out, the original KERS system used on the Prototype 1 was installed on to the testing rig. However, the original KERS system which its energy storage system consisted of mild steel was found to be not suitable for the investigation in the experiments. When the experiment procedures were applied on charging the KERS, it was noticed that the KERS did not charge up. Instead, the energy was lost in accelerating the high inertia of the mild steel flywheels. Therefore, flywheels made of lighter material with lower moment of inertias were used in the Design of Experiment. Eventually, flywheels made of plywood were used to replace the mild steel flywheels.
Referring to Appendix A, the following was observed:
1. For charging purposes, referring to Appendix A Table A-13, the optimum combination of the control factor is to have one flywheel, charging at a gear ratio of 0.75 without grip attached to the charging roller. While for discharging purposes, according to Table A-16, the better combination is to have 2 flywheels, discharging at a gear ratio of 0.75 without grip attached to the discharging roller.
2. Referring to Table A-15, the greatest factor that influences the charging efficiency of the KERS system on the testing rig was the contact surface of the roller with the wheel. The result shows that without grip attached to the roller, the system had a greater efficiency in terms of charging. This could be due to the greater friction that existed between the knurled roller and the wheel when compared to the contact between the grip and the wheel. Although the performance without the grip is better, the contact between the knurled roller and the wheel was not ideal as the roller shredded the wheel when contact was made. This situation is not desirable for long term usage as it would eventually damage the wheel.
3. For the case of discharging, gear ratio was the most significant factor the affected the efficiency of discharging the KERS according to Table A-18.
26
With a gear ratio of 0.75, energy stored in the KERS was able to be released more effectively compared to the usage of gear ratio of 1.33.
For further understandings on the 8 experiments conducted with different combinations of variables, analysis was performed to investigate the efficiency of energy transfer for each experiment. Refer to Appendix A, Tables A-19 to A-26.
Initially, for the charging case, the energy contained in the rotating mass was 156J. An investigation of the loss of energy is conducted by calculating theoretically the total energy contained in the entire system when the wooden flywheels were charged to maximum rotational speed. At the maximum rotational speed, the tangential velocity of the charging roller and the wheel are equal at a synchronised speed.
The sample calculations for energy transfer efficiency are shown in Appendix A. The summary of the analysis is shown below:
Table 4-1: Summary of Energy Transfer Efficiency for Charging Experiments Charging Experiment 1 2 3 4 Control Factors Flywheel 1 1 2 2 Gear Ratio 0.75 1.33 0.75 1.33 Contact Surface With grip Without grip Without grip With grip Percentage of Energy Transferred, % 18.50 33.86 26.72 11.13
27
Table 4-2: Summary of Energy Transfer Efficiency for Disharging Experiments Discharging Experiment 1 2 3 4 Control Factors Flywheel 1 1 2 2 Gear Ratio 0.75 1.33 0.75 1.33 Contact Surface With grip Without grip Without grip With grip Percentage of Energy Transferred, % 5.54 6.40 4.93 4.46
Referring to Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, from the 8 experiments carried out to test on energy transfer efficiency, it was observed that the best configuration for the charging was to have the configuration as in Experiment 2 which has an efficiency of 33.86% of energy transfer. On the other hand, the best configuration for discharging was to have the configuration as in Experiment 2, which had an efficiency of 6.4%. Thus, the combination of these two would generate an overall efficiency of 2.17% of energy recovery. This was undesirable to be used on Prototype 1 as the percentage of energy recoverable did not compensate the weight penalty induced by installing the KERS system on the vehicle to participate in a fuel save competition.
Referring Appendix A, from Tables A-19 to A-26, there are energy losses which lead to inefficiency of the KERS. For the charging cases, great amount of energy was used to accelerate the flywheel of the KERS to spin from idle state to maximum achievable rotational speed. Other than that, energy was also lost when slip occurred at the moment where the roller was brought into contact with the wheel during charging due to great difference in relative velocity. Furthermore, energy was also lost due to mechanical efficiency of the overall testing system.
From observation, according to Figure A-2, the better combination for charging was to have a single flywheel, charging with a gear ratio of 0.75 and the contacting roller without grip. According to Figure A-3, the better setting for discharging was to have two flywheels, discharging at a gear ratio of 0.75 and having a contacting roller without grip.
28
The outcome of the experiments was not satisfying. Therefore another contact method for the operation of KERS was proposed and tested to seek for improvements.
4.4
Development of New KERS Design
4.4.1
Concept
As mentioned in the previous section where the existing KERS design had failed to deliver a desirable efficiency of energy transferred, another approach in designing the KERS was initiated. This led to an idea of designing a different KERS that performs the same duty but at better performance and efficiency in terms of energy transfer. First of all, the new design had a different method of contact than that of the previous versions where its concept was similar to a clutch (friction engagement). Also, with reference to the commercially available KERS system (Flywheel KERS by Volvo) which uses a CVT to charge and discharge the energy storage flywheels, a similar concept was adopted with the combination of the following combinations: = I where : torque, Nm I : moment of inertia, kgm2 : angular acceleration, rad/s2 E = 0.5 I 2 where E : energy, J I : moment of inertia, kgm2 : angular velocity, rad/s I = 0.5 m r2 where I : moment of inertia, kgm2 m : mass, kg r : radius, m
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
29
Equation (4.1) shows that the torque required to accelerate a body is directly proportional to the moment of inertia of that particular body and also its angular acceleration. Therefore it is desirable to have the KERS system to accelerate at shortest time to avoid slip when it is engaged. Meanwhile, Equation (4.2) shows that energy stored in a rotating mass is proportional to the moment of inertia of the body itself and also the rotational velocity it spins at. Subsequently, Equation (4.3) shows that the moment of inertia of a round disc along the rotation axis is dependent on its mass and also its radius.
In this new design, the main idea was to have a rotating mass for the KERS which has a variable moment of inertia. The variable moment of inertia functions in a way that it can be accelerated under lower torque to minimize slip at the contact surface and also to increase its ability to absorb more energy with a greater moment of inertia at the same time decelerating the whole vehicle. This concept was based on the theory of conservation of energy, where at the same energy, a mass with greater diameter rotates slower than a mass with a smaller diameter which is illustrated in Equation (4.3).
For its application, when the driver would like to decelerate his vehicle, he would engage the KERS at its lowest moment of inertia to start for deceleration. If he would like to further increase his deceleration, he would increase the moment of inertia of the KERS to further decelerate his vehicle. On the discharging end, when the driver would like to release energy stored in the KERS to assist in acceleration, he would engage the KERS for discharging at its highest moment of inertia and gradually decrease its moment of inertia to further draw energy from the KERS.
30
Figure 4-2: New KERS Design (Isometric View)
Figure 4-3: New KERS Design (Real-time Isometric)
4.4.2
Evaluating the New KERS Design
In order to achieve a good understanding on how well the new design of KERS, experiment were run to test on its performance. The experiments were conducted by
31
assigning 4 different positions of the KERS storage as demonstrated in Figure 4-4 to Figure 4-7. Then the moment of inertia was determined experimentally for each position as shown in Appendix B and listed in summary in Table 4-3. Then the influence of moment of inertia towards its energy transfer efficiency was tested.
Figure 4-4: KERS at Position 1
32
33
Table 4-3: Moment of Inertias for Different Positions Moment of inertia, kgm2 Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 0.008483 0.006179 0.003770 0.001476
Before proceeding with the energy transfer experiments, expected losses especially friction forces were first determined experimentally. In this design, the determined friction forces were mechanical loss due to the two support bearings, the positioning bearing and the bushing of the flywheel mass. The details of data collection for friction losses are shown in Appendix B (Table B-6 to Table B-9) and are summarized as follows:
Table 4-4: Summary of Expected Mechanical Losses Losses due to:
Support bearings
-0.016295
Nm
Position bearing
-0.026824
Nm
34
Flywheel mass bushing
-0.038022
Nm
Total mechanical loss
-0.081141
Nm
The losses shown in Table 4-4 are accounted into the investigation of energy transfer efficiency of the prototype of the new KERS design. The reason behind this was to study how efficient could the new system perform by eliminating such mechanical losses. The mechanical losses listed in Table 4-4 can be minimized through improved design and material selection.
4.4.2.1 Charging
Table 4-4 below shows the summary of the results from the investigations carried out for charging. The results are also compared to the existing KERS design to check for improvements in terms of energy transfer efficiency.
The methods for quantifying are as follows: 1. The wooden flywheel was initially driven at a certain speed. 2. The KERS at each position was allowed to charge to obtain maximum speed. 3. The times taken and the maximum speeds of KERS were recorded and analysed.
35
Table 4-5: Comparison of Angular Acceleration for Different Positions Moment of Inertia, kgm2 Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 0.008483 0.006179 0.003770 0.001476 Angular Acceleration, rad/s2 20.97 24.18 32.74 45.26
Table 4-6: Comparison of Percentage of Energy Transferred During Charging Percentage of Energy Transferred During Charging, % Existing Design Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 33.86 33.86 33.86 33.86 New Design 14.18 12.02 11.34 8.96 New Design (w/o mech loss) 20.64 18.54 18.79 19.84
40 35 30
Percentage %
25 20 15 10 5 0 Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4
Existing KERS Design New KERS Design New KERS Design Neglecting Mechanical Losses
Figure 4-8: Comparison of Energy Transfer Efficiency (Charging)
Referring to both Table 4-6 and Figure 4-8, the efficiency of the new KERS design in terms of energy successfully transferred was found to be lower compared to the
36
previous design. From the result, with decreasing of the moment inertia of the KERS, less efficiency was observed. Theoretically, with decreasing moment of inertia, efficiency of energy transfer should be increasing as less torque was required to accelerate an object with lower moment of inertia. For the acceleration of an object with high moment of inertia, for instance at Position 1, greater torque is needed to accelerate the system from idle state thus more energy losses were expected especially due to slippage during engagement. In contrast, when the KERS was set at Position 4 having the least moment of inertia, needing the least torque for acceleration, should have delivered greater efficiency of energy transfer. Analysis was done to study the reason why the experiment outcomes did not comply with what was expected. Other than the losses listed in Table 4-4, the whole test also lost energy due to vibration and also wind resistance. Whereas for the KERS set in Position 2, Position 3 and Position 4 where the KERS had not expanded to maximum achievable diameter, the positioning bearing experienced extra axial load to maintain the KERSs position.
(4.4) where Fc : centrifugal force, N m : mass, kg v : velocity, m/s r : radius, m
Fc Axial Force Figure 4-9: Force Analysis on KERS
(4.5) where Fc : centrifugal force, N
37
Referring to Equation (4.4), the centrifugal force increases with increasing velocity and decreasing radius. And the axial force is related to the centrifugal force as shown in Equation (4.5). Thus when the axial force exerted on the position bearing increases from Position 2 to Position 4. As the positioning bearing was at a poor initial condition, extra axial load could worsen its performance. Thus more energy loss was expected to the positioning bearing to withstand the axial load subjected to it.
Also, the power loss of bearing is related to the rotational speed it runs at (M. Deligant, 2012). In their research, power loss of a bearing due to friction is also contributed by rotational speed. In other words, with an increase in rotational speed, the bearing experiences more power loss. Therefore when the KERS was charged at higher speed, more power loss had to be accounted for the bearing losses. This in turn reduced the efficiency of energy transferred at higher revolution speed as shown in the trend in Figure 4-8.
(4.6) where v : tangential velocity, m/s r : radius, m : angular velocity, rad/s
(4.7) where fdrag : frictional drag, N C A v : numerical constant : air density, kg/m3 : cross sectional area, m2 : velocity, m/s
(4.8) where : torque, Nm F : tangential force, N r : radius, m
38
When the KERS was expanded to obtain its maximum moment of inertia, it achieved its maximum radius. From Equation (4.5) and Equation (4.6), the effective wind resistance experienced is related to the angular velocity and its radius. Thus when the KERS was set at Position 1, wind resistance exerted on the KERS was thought to be significant at the maximum speed it was charged at. However, since the wind drag is also a function of velocity, it also influenced the performance of KERS to be charged at Positions 2 to 4 (as shown in Appendix B Tables B-12, B-14, B16 and B-18) where the maximum speed of KERS charged at these positions were increasing with decreasing moment of inertia. This could lead to greater wind resistance.
4.4.2.2 Discharging
Table 4-7 below shows the summary of the results from the investigations carried out for discharging. The results are also compared to the existing KERS design to check for improvements in terms of energy transfer efficiency.
The methods for quantifying are as follows: 1. The KERS was initially driven at a certain speed at each position. 2. The wooden flywheel was allowed to discharge the system to obtain a maximum speed. 3. The times taken and the maximum speeds of the wooden flywheel was recorded and analysed.
39
Table 4-7: Comparison of Percentage of Energy Transferred During Discharging Percentage of Energy Transferred During Charging, % Existing Design Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 10.19 11.55 7.55 New Design (w/o mech loss) New Design (Actual) 8.14 8.89 5.39 -
14 12 10
Percentage %
Existing KERS Design 8 New KERS Design 6 4 2 0 Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 New KERS Design Neglecting Mechanical Losses
Figure 4-10: Comparison of Energy Transfer Efficiency (Discharging)
Referring to Table 4-7 and Figure 4-10 to compare improvements in discharging, it was noticed that the percentage of energy transferred in the new KERS design was greater than the previous version. In the new design, percentage of energy transferred was peak at Position 2 at about 11.55% which outperformed the effective output of the previous design. During discharging, it was expected that the KERS having the maximum moment of inertia should provide the maximum efficiency in terms of energy transfer efficiency. This was because the KERS set at Position 1 had the
40
greatest moment of inertia among all as it had the largest radius. Thus it supposed to have the sufficient energy to accelerate the wooden rotating mass.
However in the experiment conducted, the efficiency of energy transfer of KERS set at Position 1 was slightly less compared to the efficiency of energy transfer of KERS set at Position 2. This could be due to the greater resistive torque that arose from wind resistance. This was because at greater radius, the effective torque introduced by wind resistance was greater. On the other hand, wind resistance turned to be increasingly significant at increasing velocity. When the system was set at its largest radius, the velocity at the edge of the radius travelled the fastest according to Equation (4.7). Thus, when the KERS was set to discharge at Position 1, it experienced the largest opposing wind resistance according to Equation (4.5), causing it to lose more energy on overcoming wind friction than accelerating the wooden rotating mass. Therefore, certain improvements have to be made to overcome such flaw.
It was noticed that when the KERS was set at Position 4, which had the least radius and moment of inertia among all 4 pre-set positions, the system halted once it was engaged for discharging. This was because at the pre-set rotational speed, it did not possess sufficient energy to accelerate the idling wooden rotating mass.
For experiments on both charging and discharging, slippage occurred at the interface where the KERS was connected to the wooden flywheel.
4.4.3
Evaluating on the Practicality of New KERS Design
Experiments were also conducted aiming at studying the practicality of the new KERS design. The experiments are listed in Appendix B.
41
4.4.3.1 Charging up the New Design KERS
RPM vs Time (s)

600 500 y = -40x + 527.33 400 RPM 300 y = -78x + 380.83 200 y = -52.988x + 262.98 100 0 0 2 Time, s 4 6
Deceleration of Combined System at Position 1 Deceleration of Combined System at Position 4 Deceleration of Combined System with Increasing Moment of Inertia of KERS Linear (Deceleration of Combined System at Position 1) Linear (Deceleration of Combined System at Position 4) Linear (Deceleration of Combined System with Increasing Moment of Inertia of KERS)
Figure 4-11: Graph of Deceleration of System From Figure 4-10, it was noticed that the gradient (deceleration, rad/s2) for the KERS can decelerate the wooden rotating mass by increasing its moment of inertia. When the KERS was fixed at either Position 1 or Position 4, the gradient was not as steep as in the process of increasing the moment of inertia of KERS. This showed that the KERS can function as a braking system to a rotating object. During the braking process, energy contained in the wooden rotating flywheel was shifted to the KERS, thus its rotational speed reduced. For the self-deceleration of KERS at Position 1, it was found to be slightly steeper compared to the self-deceleration of KERS at Position 4. This was due to the greater influence of wind resistance that introduced extra friction on the KERS.
Referring to Appendix B Table B-23, although the charging effect was observed where the KERS was able to decelerate the rotating mass, the study on its energy transferred showed low efficiency, at 17.75%. Despite accounting in the findings on known mechanical losses into the study, results still proved that there were still unknown losses the lead to low efficiency in energy transferred.
42
4.4.3.2 Discharging the New Design KERS
Referring to Appendix B Table B-30, it was observed that by discharging the KERS from maximum moment of inertia to least moment of inertia, it was able to accelerate the wooden rotating mass. From Table B-31, the study on its efficiency for energy transferred was determined to be 45% after accounting in the findings on known losses.
This proved that energy stored in the KERS was able to be transferred back to the master system. In Table B-32, the experiment conducted showed that when the wooden rotating mass had an initial rotational speed, it could provide a greater acceleration to the wooden rotation mass as less torque was required to accelerate it from a given initial speed compared to accelerating from idle. Also, due to the low relative velocity difference that existed between the surfaces of contact, slippage was also minimized. This condition was similar to a real-time application of KERS in assisting Prototype 1 to gain extra power for acceleration.
4.5
Problems Encountered
In the testing on the new KERS design, there are mechanical losses that could deviate the experimental outcomes. Hence, effort was put in to determine discoverable losses through experiments. As mentioned in Table 4-4, the losses included losses due to support bearings, losses due to position bearings and losses due to bushing. However, there were still two unquantifiable losses which were wind losses and losses due to slippage. Therefore in the experiments carried out, these two losses were grouped together as one.
43
Figure 4-12: Energy Loss due to Slippage
From Figure 4-12, it showed that the contact between the metal plate and the wooden flywheel was not at maximum where. Only part of the metal plate had made contact with the wooden flywheel. This was due to flaws in the manufacturing process where welding introduced deformation on the metal plate. Where nonmaximum area was allowed for contact, less grip was present which lead to slippage.
Another issue that also significantly influenced the performance of the third generation KERS was vibration. When the system was charged to high rotational speed, the whole rig started to vibrate. This was caused by the rotational imbalance of the prototype. As the wooden rotating mass was made of pieces of plywood, the pores within the plywood layers caused the centre of gravity of the rotating mass to be shifted away from its rotating axis, creating rotating unbalance when rotating.
In the overall project carried out to study on the efficiency of two KERS designs, there were certain factors that limited the reliability on the data obtained. Several improvements can be made to have a better study on this topic: 1. The handheld tachometer used is not good enough for this application. This is because the handheld tachometer could not provide the instantaneous
44
revolutionary speed and have it recorded from time to time. It only showed the reading when the sensor sensed the reflection paper and it possessed certain lag. Its memory is only limited to show the maximum and average revolutionary speed. If a computer tachometer could be used, instantaneous data logging was possible together with chart could be displayed in the computer for better analysis of the performance. 2. The design for testing the KERS system can also be modified to improve the performance. In this design, the self-made bearing housing for the KERS can be replaced by commercially available standard housings. However, in the experiment conducted for the new KERS design, effort was put into determining the known losses to obtain a better understanding on its overall performance. 3. The recorded timing might had certain influence towards the outcome of the experiments. As the tachometers are operated by man, the response time although could be considered insignificant, it still had the potential to affect the accuracy of the result. As a recommendation, computer software associated with appropriate equipment should be used to obtain accurate timing throughout the experiments.
In overall, from the tests performed, the original KERS installed on Prototype 1 was found to possess too high of moment of inertia where too much of energy was lost to accelerate the system. Thus, the second generation of KERS with its flywheels made of lighter material (plywood) was tested. This KERS was found to be performing better than its predecessor. However, in order to further improve the performance of KERS, and to eliminate the destruction that occurred during charging and discharging, another concept of KERS (Figure 4-2) was tested. The third generation of KERS was proved to perform better than the existing design in terms of energy transfer efficiency during discharging. For charging, the results shown that the third generation KERS performed worse. In terms of overall performance, the third generation KERS had an overall efficiency of 2.3% which slightly outperformed the existing version of delivering an overall of 2.17%. An absolute advantage of the third
45
generation over the previous two was that it had a different channel of charging and discharging energy, was not as detrimental as the method adopted in the previous versions.
Comparing to Flywheel KERS by Volvo, the first and second generation of KERS did not have the CVT that the model in Volvo has. This turned out to be a disadvantage of the two generations of KERS where there was only one gear ratio for charging and another for discharging, and this limited to maximum achievable speed of the flywheel mass to store and deliver energy efficiently. Unlike the first two generations of KERS tested, the CVT in Flywheel KERS has a wide range of gear ratio that enables it to charge and deliver energy efficiently. For the third generation of KERS test, although it has a variable moment of inertia that aimed at improving its ability in absorbing and releasing energy, its capacity of energy storage was limited by its maximum achievable speed, which is the synchronized speed between the wooden flywheel and the KERS. Thus when compared to Flywheel KERS of having a CVT, the CVT allows great gear ratio where the flywheel can be accelerated to high rpm even though the synchronized speed between the engagement interface is relatively low.
Besides that, Flywheel KERS has its flywheel made of carbon fibre which is relatively light in weight compared to the flywheels used in the 3 generations of KERS. Thus, the flywheel can be easily accelerated via the CVT to achieve 60,000rpm as claimed by Volvo. Derek Crabb, Volvo's Vice President for Powertrain Engineering explained that the carbon-fibre flywheel that rotates at 60,000rpm travels at Mach2 so the wheel has to be contained in a vacuum chamber to minimize friction. Whereas in the three generations of KERS tested in this project, the KERS was exposed to open air and thus a lot of friction occurred and limited its performance.
46
CHAPTER 5
5 CONCLUSION
5.1
Conclusion
Due to the inefficiency of the existing KERS which was mainly due to the contact slippage, a different concept of KERS was designed and tested for improvements. In the third generation KERS, it has the ability to increase its moment of inertia to provide smoother acceleration of flywheel and more energy can be stored at lower rotational velocity which at the same time decelerates the vehicle.
The third generation of KERS was proved to provide a more practical method for charging and discharging where it was not as destructive as the second generation. Nonetheless, from the results of the project, there were new problems that arose from the experiments, where the reason for the results obtained to be deviated from theoretical expectations. Other than unquantifiable losses that affected the performance of the KERS tested, the scale of the KERS models tested were not according to the actual scale of the prototype vehicle. Thus, the comparison for the second and third generation of KERS required further studies to distinguish the better of the two.
47
5.2
Recommendations on KERS Generation 3
However, for this new design to be implemented in Prototype 1, certain modifications have to be made in order to accommodate the entire KERS as its configuration was totally different. This KERS can be connected to the rear wheel of the prototype vehicle via chain rather than having a direct contact to the wheels as in the previous version:
5.3
Future Improvements on KERS Generation 3
As obtained from the results in Section 4.5, it was noticed that energy still lost due to two main factors: slippage and wind resistance.
The contact surface used in this prototype consisted of a metal plate and plywood. This was due to the relatively low coefficient of friction that exists between wood and clean metal is estimated to range from 0.2 to 0.6 (The Engineering Toolbox). Therefore in order to minimize slippage at the contact surface, alternative materials which has a greater coefficient of friction can be installed to provide better traction during contact. A proposed material to suit this purpose is rubber which has a coefficient of friction of 1.16 (The Physics Hypertextbook).
As wind resistance is proportional to the rotational velocity of the system, therefore when the system was charged at high initial rotational velocity to test for its discharging capability, a great amount of energy was lost to wind energy which caused the system to decelerate at a high rate. Also, as wind resistance was concerned, the larger the diameter of the rotating system, the greater the effect of the wind resistance was observed. This was due to at larger diameter, the effective counter-torque felt by the rotating system was larger. Referring to Equation 4.5, the frictional drag is also a function of the shape of the object. Thus, as a proposal to overcome such disadvantage introduced by the wind, an improved design of the system with a better aerodynamic approach should be adopted to reduce wind drag to the minimum. Furthermore, with reference to commercially available mechanical
48
KERS that allows its flywheel to rotate in a vacuum chamber for minimal air resistance, another proposal to reduce wind friction in the later KERS design is to have a chamber to cover the rotating system to avoid the influence of external wind.
49
5 REFERENCES
Rubber Friction. (2004, January 27). Retrieved August 17, 2011, from Inside Racing Technology: http://insideracingtechnology.com/tirebkexerpt1.htm
CFT Transmission. (2010). Retrieved May 3, 2012, from CFT KERS: http://www.cftkers.com/CFTtransmission.html
Ashley, S. (2011, July 12). Volvo to test flywheel-KERS hybrid cars. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from SAE International: http://ev.sae.org/article/9925
Friction. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2012, from The Physics Hypertextbook: http://physics.info/friction/
Friction and Coefficients of Friction. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2012, from The Engineering Toolbox: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-
coefficients-d_778.html
How power transfers through a clutch or brake and the method by which the energy is transferred from one rotating device to a second non-rotating device. (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from The Carlyle Johnson Machine Company L.L.C.: http://www.cjmco.com/power_transfer.htm
John Walsh, T. M. (2011). Design and analysis of kinetic energy recovery system for automobiles: Case study for commuters in Edinburgh. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 3.
Kinetic Energy Recovery System | KERS | Formula One (F1) KERS | How It Works. (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2011, from Mechanical Engineering A Complete Online Guide for Every Mechanical Engineer:
http://www.mechanicalengineeringblog.com/tag/kinetic-energy-recoverysystem/
50
M. Deligant, P. P. (2012). Experimental identification of turbocharger mechanical friction losses. Energy 39, 388-394.
Navarro, X. (n.d.). More details about the flywheel 'kinetic energy recovery system. Retrieved August 7, 2011, from autoblog-green:
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/31/more-details-about-the-flywheelkinetic-energy-recovery-system/
Panzariu, O. (2008, December 20). How KERS Works. Retrieved August 19, 2011, from Auto Evolution: http://www.autoevolution.com/news/how-kers-work2815.html
Ramirez, D. (2011, May 27). Volvo thinks of a KERS to reduce consumption. Retrieved August 21, 2011 , from Wikinoticia:
http://motorfull.com/2011/05/volvo-piensa-en-un-kers-para-reducirconsumos
Ward, W. (n.d.). RET-MOTOR.COM. Retrieved August 8, 2011, from Mechanical KERS: http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/1604/mechanical-kers/
Cross, D.; Hilton, J.; , "High Speed Flywheel Based Hybrid Systems for Low Carbon Vehicles," Hybrid and Eco-Friendly Vehicle Conference, 2008. IET HEVC 2008 , vol., no., pp.1-5, 8-9 Dec. 2008 URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libezp.utar.edu.my/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arn umber=4784374&isnumber=4784367
51
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Test on Existing KERS
Experiment Preparation
A testing rig for the KERS system used in Shell Eco Marathon Asia 2011 competition was built (Figure 4-1 and Figure A-1):
This testing rig has the following specification:
Table A-1: Testing Rig Specification Flywheel dimension Flywheel inertia Energy stored @ 200rpm Gear ratio between flywheel and wheel 550 mm 0.711502 kgm2 156 J 0.29
52
Figure A- 1: Testing Rig
Data Collection To collect data for analysis for the KERS system, an L4 array of Taguchis method of quality optimization was opted. In this design of experiment, three variables have been set to assess for the efficiency of charging and discharging of the KERS system: 1. The inertia of storage flywheel 2. The contact surface of the roller 3. The gear ratio for charging and discharging of KERS The design of experiment was done according to the following factors of study:
Table A- 2: Factors of Study Factors A B C Flywheel pieces Gear Ratio Contact Surface Level 1 1 0.75 With Grip 2 2 1.33 Without Grip
The experiment template for the L4 array is as the following:
53
Table A-3: Experimental Design Experiment 1 2 3 4 Factors A 1 1 2 2 B 1 2 1 2 C 1 2 2 1 Mean 1 Result (Energy, J) 2 3 Mean
Procedures in Conducting Experiments
Charging
1. The flywheel mass was rotated manually to achieve a rotational speed of 200rpm. 2. Once the rotational speed of 200rpm was achieved, the KERS was engaged by allowing the roller to contact with the wheel. 3. The maximum rotational speed of the KERS flywheel was recorded and converted into energy. 4. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 5 times to obtain more reliable results. 5. Steps 1 to 4 were repeated for each experiment 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Discharging
1. The KERS flywheel was charged to rotate at 2000rpm. 2. Once the rotational speed of 2000rpm was achieved, the discharging of KERS was engaged by contacting the discharging roller onto the wheel. 3. The maximum rotational speed of the flywheel mass was recorded and converted into energy. 4. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 5 times to obtain more reliable results. 5. Steps 1 to 4 were repeated for each experiment 1, 2 ,3 and 4.
54
Results
The initial parameters of the KERS flywheel are as follows:
Table A- 4: Parameters of KERS Flywheel 1-flywheel Moment of inertia 0.00872538 kgm2 2-flywheels 0.017556 kgm2
Charging
Experiment 1
Table A- 5: Results for Charging Experiment 1 Attempts 1 2 3 Average Result rpm 783.0000 765.5000 773.6000 774.0333 rad/s 81.9956 80.1630 81.0112 81.0566 Energy, J 29.3315 28.0351 28.6315 28.6660
Experiment 2
Table A- 6: Results for Charging Experiment 2 Attempts 1 2 3 Average Result Rpm 1040.0000 1028.0000 1021.0000 1029.6667 rad/s 108.9085 107.6519 106.9189 107.8264 Energy, J 51.7461 50.5589 49.8727 50.7259
55
Experiment 3
Table A-7: Results for Charging Experiment 3 Attempts 1 2 3 Average Result rpm 662.5000 657.7000 648.9000 656.3667 rad/s 69.3768 68.8742 67.9526 68.7346 Energy, J 42.2495 41.6395 40.5327 41.4739
Experiment 4
Table A-8: Results for Charging Experiment 4 Attempts 1 2 3 Average Result rpm 422.1000 421.4000 426.1000 423.2000 rad/s 44.2022 44.1289 44.6211 44.3174 Energy, J 17.1508 17.0939 17.4774 17.2407
Discharging
Experiment 1
Table A-9: Results for Discharging Experiment 1 Attempts 1 2 3 Result rpm 43.4700 42.4100 43.7800 rad/s 4.5522 4.4412 4.5846 Energy, J 7.3719 7.0168 7.4775
56
Average
43.2200
4.5260
7.2887
Experiment 2
Table A-10: Results for Discharging Experiment 2 Attempts 1 2 3 Average Result Rpm 37.3200 33.0700 32.6100 34.3333 rad/s 3.9081 3.4631 3.4149 3.5954 Energy, J 5.4336 4.2665 4.1486 4.6162
Experiment 3
Table A-11: Results for Discharging Experiment 3 Attempts 1 2 3 Average Result Rpm 53.4400 51.5500 50.3000 51.7633 rad/s 5.5962 5.3983 5.2674 5.4206 Energy, J 11.1413 10.3672 9.8705 10.4597
Experiment 4
Table A-12: Results for Discharging Experiment 4 Attempts 1 2 3 Result Rpm 38.0000 36.0000 35.0000 rad/s 3.9794 3.7699 3.6652 Energy, J 5.6334 5.0560 4.7790
57
Average
36.3333
3.8048
5.1561
Overall Results
Charging
Table A-13: Overall Results for Charging Experiment 1 2 3 4 Factors A 1 1 2 2 B 1 2 1 2 C 1 2 2 1 1 29.3315 51.7461 42.2495 17.1508 Result (Energy, J) 2 28.0351 50.5589 41.6395 17.0939 3 28.6315 49.8727 40.5327 17.4774 Mean Mean 28.6660 50.7259 41.4739 17.2407 34.5266
Table A-14: Response Table for Charging A Level 1 Level 2 Difference SSQ Rank Optimum 39.6960 29.3573 10.3387 320.6656 2 1 B 35.0700 33.9833 1.0867 3.5425 3 1 C 22.9534 46.0999 23.1465 1607.2863 1 2
58
Larger the Better

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Energy, J
Figure A-2: Response Graph for Charging
Table A-15: ANOVA for Charging of KERS Source A B C Error Pooled St Sm ST Pool 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000 SSQ 320.6656 3.5425 1607.2863 4.2395 3.5425 1935.7339 14305.0592 11.0000 1.0000 Dof 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 9.0000 Var 320.6656 3.5425 1607.2863 1606.9642 0.4711 0.3220 175.9758 8.4261 0.4353 SSq 320.3436 Rho 16.5489 0.0000 83.0158
1935.7339 100.0000
16240.7930 12.0000
Discharging
Table A-16: Overall Results for Discharging Experiment Factors A B C 1 Result (Energy, J) 2 3 Mean
59
1 2 3 4
1 1 2 2
1 2 1 2
1 2 2 1
7.3719 5.4336 11.1413 5.6334
7.0168 4.2665 10.3672 5.0560
7.4775 4.1486 9.8705 4.7790 Mean
7.2887 4.6162 10.4597 5.1561 6.8802
Table A-17: Response Table for Discharging A Level 1 Level 2 Difference SSQ Rank Optimum 5.9525 7.8079 1.8554 10.3277 2 2 B 8.8742 4.8862 3.9880 47.7127 1 1 C 6.2224 7.5379 1.3155 5.1917 3 2
Larger the Better

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Energy, J
Figure A-3: Response Table for Discharging
60
Table A-18: ANOVA for Discharging KERS Source A B C Error Pooled St Sm ST Pool 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 SSQ 10.3277 47.7127 5.1917 2.3258 5.1917 65.5578 568.0450 11.0000 1.0000 Dof 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 9.0000 Var 10.3277 SSq 9.8085 Rho 14.9616 71.9876
47.7127 47.1935 5.1917 0.2584 0.5192 5.9598 8.5558
13.0508
65.5578 100.0000
633.6029 12.0000
Investigations on Energy Transfer Efficiency
Charging Experiment 1 to Experiment 4
61
Record maximum achievable rotational speed of KERS flywheel in each experiment
Calculate for energy gained by KERS flywheel
Reverse calculations on the rotational speed of flywheel mass at the synchonized speed Calculate for energy left in flywheel mass at that particular speed
Calculate for initial energy contained in flywheel mass
Calculate for energy loss from flywheel mass
Calculate overall efficiency of energy transferred Figure A-4: Flow Chart of Data Analysis
For example, take Charging Experiment 1:
Maximum rotational speed of KERS flywheel = 774.03 rpm = 81.06 rad/s
Energy gained by KERS flywheel @ 81.06 rad/s = 0.5 I 2 = 0.5 (0.00872538 kgm2) (81.06 rad/s)2 =28.67 J
62
Rotational speed of flywheel mass = (774.03 rpm) (0.02172) = 16.16 rpm = 1.69 rad/s
Energy contained in flywheel mass @ 16.16 rpm = 0.5 I 2 = 0.5 (0.711502 kgm2) (1.69 rad/s)2 = 1.02 J
Initial energy content of flywheel mass @ 200 rpm = 0.5 I 2 = 0.5 (0.711502 kgm2) (20.94 rad/s)2 = 156 J
Energy loss from flywheel mass = 156 J 1.02 J =154.98 J
Percentage of energy successfully transferred = (energy gained by KERS flywheel) / (energy loss from flywheel mass) = 28.67 J / 154.98 J =18.50 %
Experiment 1:
Table A-19: Charging Experiment 1 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy gained by KERS flywheel @774.0333rpm: Rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy contained in flywheel mass @16.16rpm: 774.03 rpm 28.67 J 16.16 rpm 1.02 J
63
Initial energy content of flywheel mass @200rpm Energy loss from flywheel mass: Percentage of energy transferred:
156.00 J 154.98 J 18.50 %
Experiment 2:
Table A-20: Charging Experiment 2 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy gained by KERS flywheel @1029.6667rpm: Rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy contained in flywheel mass @39.7657rpm: Initial energy content of flywheel mass @200rpm: Energy loss by flywheel mass: Percentage of energy transferred: 1029.67 rpm 50.73 J 39.77 rpm 6.17 J 156.00 J 149.83 J 33.86 %
Experiment 3:
Table A-21: Charging Experiment 3 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy gained by KERS flywheel @656.3667rpm: Rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy contained in flywheel mass @14.2563rpm: Initial energy content of flywheel mass @200rpm: Energy loss by flywheel mass: Percentage of energy transferred: 656.37 rpm 41.47 J 14.26 rpm 0.79 J 156.00 J 155.21 J 26.72 %
Experiment 4:
Table A-22: Charging Experiment 4 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of KERS flywheel: 423.20 rpm
64
Energy gained by KERS flywheel @656.3667rpm Rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy contained in flywheel mass @16.34rpm: Initial energy content of flywheel mass @200rpm: Energy loss from flywheel mass: Percentage of energy transferred:
17.24 J 16.34 rpm 1.04 J 156.00 J 154.96 J 11.13 %
Discharging Experiment 1 to Experiment 4
65
Record maximum achievable rotational speed of flywheel mass in each experiment
Calculate for energy gained by flywheel mass
Reverse calculations on the rotational speed of KERS flywheel at synchronized speed
Calculate for energy left in KERS flywheel at that particular speed
Calculate for initial energy contained in flywheel mass
Calculate for energy lost from KERS flywheel
Calculate for overall efficiency of energy transferred Figure A-5: Flow Chart for Data Analysis
For example, take Discharging Experiment 1:
Maximum rotational speed of flywheel mass = 43.22 rpm = 4.53 rad/s
Energy gained by flywheel @ 43.33 rpm
66
= 0.5 I 2 = 0.5 (0.00872538 kgm2) (4.53 rad/s)2 = 7.29 J
Rotational speed of KERS flywheel = (43.22 rpm) / (0.03862) = 1119.11 rpm = 117.19 rad/s
Energy contained in KERS flywheel @ 1119.11 rpm = 0.5 I 2 = 0.5 (0.00872538 kgm2) (117.19 rad/s)2 = 59.92 J
Initial energy content of KERS flywheel @ 2000 rpm = 0.5 I 2 = 0.5 (0.00872538 kgm2) (209.44 rad/s)2 = 191.37 J
Energy loss from KERS flywheel = 191.37 J 59.92 J = 131.45 J
Percentage of energy successfully transferred = (7.29 J) / (131.45 J) = 5.54 %
Experiment 1:
Table A-23: Discharging Experiment 1 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy gained by flywheel mass@43.22rpm: 43.22 rpm 7.29 J
67
Rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy contained in KERS flywheel @1119.11rpm: Initial energy content of KERS flywheel @2000rpm: Energy loss from KERS flywheel: Percentage of energy transferred:
1119.11 rpm 59.92 J 191.37 J 131.45 J 5.54 %
Experiment 2:
Table A-24: Discharging Experiment 2 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy gained by flywheel mass@34.333rpm: Rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy contained in KERS flywheel @1580.71rpm: Initial energy content of KERS flywheel @2000rpm: Energy loss from KERS flywheel: Percentage of energy transferred: 34.33 rpm 4.60 J 1580.71 rpm 119.54 J 191.37 J 71.83 J 6.40 %
Experiment 3:
Table A-25: Discharging Experiment 3 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy gained by flywheel mass@51.7633rpm: Rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy contained in KERS flywheel @1340.324rpm: Initial energy content of KERS flywheel @2000rpm: Energy loss from KERS flywheel: Percentage of energy transferred: 51.76 rpm 10.46 J 1340.32 rpm 172.93 J 385.04 J 212.11 J 4.93 %
Experiment 4:
68
Table A-26: Discharging Experiment 4 Energy Loss Max rotational speed of flywheel mass: Energy gained by flywheel mass @36.33rpm: Rotational speed of KERS flywheel: Energy contained in KERS flywheel @1672.652rpm: Initial energy content of KERS flywheel mass @2000rpm: Energy loss from KERS flywheel: Percentage of energy transferred: 36.33 rpm 5.16 J 1672.65 rpm 269.32 J 385.04 J 115.73 J 4.46 %
69
Appendices
APPENDIX B: New Design KERS
Experimental Preparation
Before any investigations on the performance of the new KERS design, the initial parameters of the prototype listed below were first determined experimentally. 1. Moment of inertia for each of the 4 preset positions of the KERS 2. The moment of inertia of the wooden rotating mass 3. Mechanical losses
Figure B-1: Setup for Measuring Moment of Inertia of KERS Experimentally
Test 1: Experimental method to determine moment of inertia of KERS:
70
1. The KERS was set up as Figure B-1 and to Position 1 (Figure 4.3) 2. A load of 0.46kg was placed along the perimeter of the shaft (d = 0.0158m) of the rotating KERS system and was allowed to drop freely. 3. Both the maximum speed and the time taken for the system to achieve maximum speed were recorded. 4. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data. 5. Steps 1 to 4 were repeated for Position 2 (Figure 4.4), Position 3 (Figure 4.5) and Position 4 (Figure 4.6).
Figure B-2: Determine for Moment of Inertia of Wooden Flywheel
Test 2: Experimental method to determine moment of inertia of wooden rotating mass: 1. A load of 0.175kg was placed along the perimeter of the wooden rotating mass (d = 0.287m) and was allowed to drop freely. 2. Both the maximum speed and time taken to achieve maximum speed were recorded. 3. Steps 1 and 2 were repeated for 4 times to obtain reliable data.
71
Figure B-3: Determine for Support Bearing Losses
Test 3: Experimental method to determine for support bearing losses: 1. 2. 3. 4. The KERS was set up according to Figure B-3 The KERS was given an initial rotational speed of 200rpm. The time taken for the system to drop to 100rpm was recorded. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
Figure B-4: Determine for Positioning Bearing Losses
Test 4: Experimental method to determine for position bearing losses: 1. The KERS was set up according to Figure B-4 2. The KERS was given an initial rotational speed of 200rpm. 3. The time taken for the system to drop to 100rpm was recorded.
72
4. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
Figure B-5: Determine for Bushing Losses
Experimental method to determine for bushing losses: 1. 2. 3. 4. The KERS was set up according to Figure B-5 The KERS was given an initial rotational speed of 200rpm. The time taken for the system to drop to 100rpm was recorded. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
Results
Test 1:
Table B- 1: Data for Moment of Inertia at Position 1 Position 1 Time, s 1 2 3 4 Average 9.40 9.14 8.84 8.60 9.00 Max speed, rpm 193.40 190.10 200.40 200.00 195.98 Angular acceleration, rad/s2 2.15 2.18 2.37 2.44 2.28
73
Table B-2: Data for Moment of Inertia at Position 2 Position 2 Time, s 1 2 3 4 Average 5.75 5.48 6.06 5.80 5.77 Max speed, rpm 173.80 170.10 170.50 176.30 172.68 Angular acceleration, rad/s2 3.17 3.25 2.95 3.18 3.13
Test 2:
74
Table B-5: Data for Moment of Inertia of Rotating Wooden Mass Rotating Wooden Mass Time, s 1 2 3 4 Average 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.79 Max speed, rpm 50.23 51.45 51.95 52.35 51.49 Angular acceleration, rad/s2 6.57 6.73 6.80 7.12 6.80
Test 3:
Table B-6: Data for Determining Support Bearing Losses Support Bearing Losses Start speed, rpm 1 2 3 Average 217.00 200.40 192.30 203.23 Time, s 10.44 11.50 11.30 11.08 Angular deceleration, rad/s2 2.18 1.82 1.78 1.92
Test 4:
Table B-7: Data for Determining Support Bearing Losses and Positioning Bearing Losses Support Bearing Losses + Position Bearing Losses Start speed, rpm 1 2 3 Average 210.40 199.20 201.00 203.53 Time, s 4.28 4.20 4.10 4.20 Angular acceleration, rad/s2 5.15 4.97 5.13 5.08
75
Test 5:
Table B-8: Data for Determining Support Bearing Losses and Bushing Losses Support Bearing Losses + Bushing Start speed, rpm 1 2 3 Average 243.00 248.00 258.00 249.67 Time, s 4.00 4.10 4.15 4.08 Angular acceleration, rad/s2 6.36 6.33 6.51 6.40
Calculations for moment of inertia of the KERS at Position 1:
When the test for moment of inertia was conducted, consider only support bearing losses: (0.45 kg) (9.81 m/s2) (0.0075 m) Nm (1.921 I) Nm = (2.28154 I) Nm (4.2 I) Nm = 0.0357 Nm I = 0.008483 kgm2
Having the moment of inertia for Position 1 known, the losses can be calculated:
Table B-9: Torque Loss due to Each Factor Deceleration, rad/s2 Support Bearing Losses Positioning Bearing Losses Bushing Losses 3.17 Moment of inertia, kgm2 0.008483 Torque loss, Nm 0.016295
1.63 2.64
0.008483 0.008483
0.026824 0.038022
76
Thus the moment of inertia for the Position 2, Position 3 and Position 4 can be calculated:
Table B-10: Moment of Inertia for Various Positions Acceleration, rad/s2 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 3.13 5.13 13.11 Torque loss, Nm 0.016295 0.016295 0.016295 Net Torque, Nm 0.019355 0.019355 0.019355 Moment of inertia, kgm2 0.006179 0.003770 0.001476
Refer Test 2 for the moment of inertia for the rotating wooden flywheel:
Table B-11: Moment of Inertia of Rotating Wooden Mass Acceleration, rad/s2 6.80 Net Torque, Nm 0.246354 Moment of inertia, kgm2 0.03621
Test for KERS Performance
77
The testing was separated into charging and discharging. Each of the tests was conducted at the 4 pre-set moment of inertia determined in the previous section.
Figure B-6: Method for Taking Wooden Rotating Mass RPM
Figure B-7: Method for Taking KERS RPM
78
Experimental method for Charging: 1. The KERS was set up according to Figure 4.3 for Position 1. 2. The wooden mass was given an initial velocity of 650rpm. 3. The KERS was engaged. The maximum achievable speed and the time taken to achieve maximum speed was recorded. 4. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 4 times to obtain reliable data. 5. Steps 1 to 4 were repeated for KERS set up at Position 2 (Figure 4.4), Position 3 (Figure 4.5) and Position 4 (Figure 4.6).
Record rotational speed of wooden rotating mass when KERS started to engage
Record maximum achievable rotational speed of KERS
Reverse calculations on the rotational speed of wooden rotating mass at synchronized speed
Calculate for energy loss in wooden rotating mass at that particular speed
Calculate for energy gained by KERS at that particular speed
Calculate for energy gained by KERS without mechanical losses
Calculate for overall efficiency of energy transferred
Calculate for efficiency of energy transferred if mechanical loss was eliminated Figure B-8: Steps in Data Analysis
79
Results
Charging at Position 1:
Table B-12: Data for Charging at Position 1 Rotating Mass, rpm 1 2 3 4 Average 643.6 650.5 654.8 659.8 652.2 KERS Maximum Charged, rpm 391.2 407.1 406.3 397.0 400.4 Time, s 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.4
Sample Calculations: Average Torque on KERS =I = (0.006825 kgm2) (17.84 rad/s2) = 0.1228 Nm
Compensated Torque on KERS = average torque + mech loss = 0.1228 Nm + 0.0508 Nm = 0.1726 Nm
Compensated Acceleration of KERS = (compensated torque) / (moment of inertia) = (0.1726 Nm) / (0.006825 kgm2) = 25.2906 rad/s2
Energy Loss by Rotating Mass in 2.4s = 0.5 I (02 12) = 0.5 (0.031298 kgm2) [(652.2 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm)]2 - [(400.4 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm)]2 = 52.61 J
80
Energy Gained by KERS in 2.4s = 0.5 I (12 02) = 0.5 (0.006825 kgm2) ](400.4 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm)]2 = 7.4573J
Total Radians Covered in 2.4s = 0 t + 0.5 t2 = 0 + 0.5 (17.84 rad/s2) (2.4 s)2 = 49.2675 rads
KERS Energy Gained Inclusive of Mech Loss = (compensated torque) (radians covered) = (0.2325 Nm) (49.2675 rads) = 11.4549J
Energy Loss due to Slippage and Wind = 52.61 J 11.4549 J = 41.1551 J
Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred = 7.4573 J / 52.61 J = 14.18 %
Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred = 11.4549 J / 52.61 J = 21.77 %
Table B-13: Summary of Data for Charging at Position 1 Average Rotating Mass RPM 652.2 rpm
81
KERS Charged to Maximum RPM Average Time Taken Average Acceleration of KERS Average Torque on KERS Expected Mechanical Loss Compensated Torque on KERS Compensated Acceleration of KERS Energy Loss by Rotating Mass in 2s Energy Gained by KERS in 2s Total Radians Covered in 2s KERS Energy Gained Inclusive Mech Losses Energy Loss Due to Slippage and Wind Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred
400.4 rpm 2.0 s 20.97 rad/s2 0.1779 Nm 0.0811 Nm 0.2590 Nm 30.5297 rad/s2 52.6099 J 7.4572 J 41.9298 rads 10.8595 J 41.7505 J 14.17 % 20.64 %
Table B-15: Summary of Data for Charging at Position 2 Average Rotating Mass RPM KERS Charged to Maximum RPM 625.0 rpm 469.0 rpm
82
Average Time Taken Average Acceleration of KERS Average Torque on KERS Expected Mechanical Loss Compensated Torque on KERS Compensated Acceleration of KERS Energy Loss by Rotating Mass in 2.4s Energy Gained by KERS in 2.35s Total Radians Covered in 2.35s KERS Energy Gained Inclusive Mech Losses Energy Loss Due to Slippage and Wind Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred
1.8 s 24.179 rad/s2 0.1494 Nm 0.0811 Nm 0.2305 Nm 37.31 rad/s2 45.50 J 5.47 J 36.60 rads 8.438 J 37.0669 J 12.02 % 18.54 %
Table B-17: Summary of Data for Charging at Position 3 Average Rotating Mass RPM KERS Charged to Maximum RPM Average Time Taken 649.6 rpm 469.0 rpm 1.5 s
83
Average Acceleration of KERS Average Torque on KERS Expected Mechanical Loss Compensated Torque on KERS Compensated Acceleration of KERS Energy Loss by Rotating Mass in 1.3s Energy Gained by KERS in 1.5s Total Radians Covered in 1.5s KERS Energy Gained Inclusive Mech Losses Energy Loss Due to Slippage and Wind Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred
32.74 rad/s2 0.1234 Nm 0.0811 Nm 0.2048 Nm 54.2693 rad/s2 40.11 J 4.55 J 36.84 rads 7.54 J 32.57 J 11.34 % 18.79 %
Table B-19: Summary of Data for Charging at Position 4 Average Rotating Mass RPM KERS Charged to Maximum RPM Average Time Taken Average Acceleration of KERS 671.0 rpm 607.0 rpm 1.3 s 45.26 rad/s2
84
Average Torque on KERS Expected Mechanical Loss Compensated Torque on KERS Compensated Acceleration of KERS Energy Loss by Rotating Mass in 1.3 Energy Gained by KERS in 1.3s Total Radians Covered in 1.3s KERS Energy Gained Inclusive Mech Losses Energy Loss Due to Slippage and Wind Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred
0.0668 Nm 0.05811 Nm 0.1479 Nm 100.22 rad/s2 27.01 J 2.42 J 36.21 rads 5.36 J 21.65 J 8.95 % 19.83 %
Practicality of the New KERS Design: Method:
Test for Deceleration of Combined System at Position 1 1.1 The KERS was engaged all the time at Position 1 to the wooden rotating mass. 1.2 The whole system was charged at a specified speed. 1.3 The time taken for the whole rotating system stop was recorded to get deceleration. 1.4 Steps 1.1 to 1.3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
Test for Deceleration of Combined System at Position 4 2.1 The KERS was engaged all the time at Position 4 to the wooden rotating mass. 2.2 The whole system was charged at a specified speed. 2.3 The time taken for the whole rotating system to drop to a specified speed was recorded to get deceleration. 2.4 Steps 2.1 to 2.3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
85
Test for Deceleration of Combined System at with Increasing Moment of Inertia of KERS 3.1 The KERS was engaged all the time at Position 4 to the wooden rotating mass. 3.2 Once the external torque applied on the system was taken off, the KERS was adjusted gradually from Position 4 to Position 1. 3.3 The time taken for the whole stroke and the rotational speed at the end of the stroke were recorded. 3.4 Steps 3.1 to 3.3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
Table B-20: Test for Deceleration of Combined System at Position 1 Test for Deceleration of Combined System at Position 1 1 Initial Speed of Whole System, rpm Final Speed of Whole System, rpm Time Taken, s Whole System Deceleration, rad/s2 Initial Energy Contained in Combination, J Energy Content in Combination Eventually, J Energy Loss to Friction, J Power Loss to Friction, watt 2 3 Average 262.98 127.33 5.54 2.56 16.94659 3.972922 12.97367 2.340409
258.90 257.30 272.75 128.50 126.00 127.50 5.18 2.64 5.44 2.53 6.01 2.53
Table B-21: Test for Deceleration of Combined System at Position 4 Test for Deceleration of Combined System at Position 4 1 Initial Speed of Whole System, rpm 2 3 Average 108.97
106.75 107.65 112.50
86
Final Speed of Whole System, rpm Time Taken, s Whole System Deceleration, rad/s2 Initial Energy Contained in Combination, J Energy Content in Combination Eventually, J Energy Loss to Friction, J Power Loss to Friction, watt
0.00 4.16 2.69
0.00 4.25 2.65
0.00 3.94 2.99
0.00 4.12 2.78 2.453271 0 2.453271 0.595936
Table B-22: Test for Deceleration of Combined System at with Increasing Moment of Inertia of KERS Test for Deceleration of Combined System at with Increasing Moment of Inertia of KERS 1 Initial Speed of Whole System, rpm Final Speed of Whole System, rpm Time Taken, s Whole System Deceleration, rad/s2 2 3 Average 380.83 255.25 1.61 8.17
379.50 388.50 374.50 242.10 271.50 252.15 1.75 8.22 1.48 8.28 1.60 8.01
Table B-23: Study on Energy Transfer in System Wooden Flywheel Initial Energy Content, J Final Energy Content, J Energy Difference, J 28.79203 12.93403 15.858 KERS 1.173928 3.030545 1.856617
87
Mech Energy Loss, J (refer Table B-21) Energy Gained including Friction, J Percentage of Energy Transfer Observed, % Percentage of Energy Transferred after Compensation for Mech Loss, %
0.959457 2.816074 11.71 17.76
Experimental method for Discharging: 1. The KERS was set up according to Figure 4.3 for Position 1. 2. The KERS was given an initial velocity of 750rpm. 3. The KERS was engaged. The maximum achievable speed of the wooden rotating mass and the time taken for it to achieve maximum speed was recorded. 4. Steps 1 to 3 were repeated for 4 times to obtain reliable data. 5. Steps 1 to 4 were repeated for KERS set up at Position 2 (Figure 4.4), Position 3 (Figure 4.5) and Position 4 (Figure 4.6).
88
Record rotational speed of KERS when started to engage for discharging
Record maximum achievable rotational speed of wooden rotating flywheel
Reverse calculations on the rotational speed of KERS at synchronized speed
Calculate for energy loss in KERS at that particular speed
Calculate for energy loss by KERS without mechanical losses
Calculate for energy gained by wooden rotating flywheel at that particular speed
Calculate for overall efficiency of energy transferred
Calculate for efficiency of energy transferred if mechanical loss was eliminated Figure B-9: Steps for Data Analysis
89
Discharging at Position 1:
Table B-24: Data for Discharging at Position 1 KERS Charged, rpm 1 2 3 4 Average 768.1 710.7 752.1 750.0 745.2 Rotating Mass Maximum, rpm 107.2 121.2 127.1 105.0 115.1 Time, s 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.8
Sample Calculations
Energy Loss by KERS Observed = 0.5 I (02 12) = 0.5 (0.006825 kgm2) [(745.2 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm)2 (115.1 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm)2] = 25.2159 J
Energy Gained by Rotating Mass in 1.8s = 0.5 I (12 02) = 0.5 (0.036206 kgm2) [(115.125 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm)]2 = 2.6311 J
Total Radians Covered by KERS in 1.8s = 0 t + 0.5 t2 = (745.225 rpm) (2/60 rad/rpm) (1.8 s) + 0.5 (-37.174 rad/s2) (1.8 s)2 = 79.9599 rads
Negative Torque to Decelerate KERS from Observation = (Energy Loss by KERS in 1.8s) / (Total Radians Covered by KERS in 1.8s) = (25.2159 J) / (79.9599 rads) = 0.3231 Nm
Summation of Negative Torque
90
= Negative Torque to Decelerate KERS from Observation + Mech Loss = 0.3231 Nm + 0.0811 Nm = 0.4042 Nm
Energy Loss by KERS Including Mech Loss = (Summation of Negative Torque) (Total Radians Covered by KERS in 1.8s) = (0.4042 Nm) (79.9599 rads) = 32.3204 J
Percentage of Observed Energy Successfully Transferred = (Energy Gained by Rotating Mass) / (Energy Loss by KERS Observed) = (2.6311 J) / (25.2159 J) = 10.44 %
Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred = (Energy Gained by Rotating Mass) / (Energy Loss by KERS incl. Mech Loss) = (2.6311 J) / (32.3204J) =8.14%
91
Table B-25: Summary of Data for Discharging at Position 1 Average KERS RPM Rotating Mass Maximum RPM Average Time Taken Average Acceleration of Rotating Mass Average Deceleration of KERS Energy Loss by KERS Observed in 1.8s Energy Gained by Rotating Mass in 1.8s Total Radians Covered in 1.8s Negative Torque to Decelerate KERS Observed Summation of Negative Torque Energy Loss by KERS Including Mech Loss Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred 745.225 rpm 115.125 rpm 1.8 s 6.8 rad/s2 37.174 rad/s2 25.2159 J 2.6311 J 79.9599 rads 0.3231 Nm 0.4042 Nm 32.3204 J 10.44 % 8.14 %
92
Table B-27: Summary of Data for Discharging at Position 2 Average KERS RPM Rotating Mass Maximum RPM Average Time Taken Average Acceleration of Rotating Mass Average Deceleration of KERS Energy Loss by KERS Observed in 1.7s Energy Gained by Rotating Mass in 1.7s Total Radians Covered in 1.7s Negative Torque to Decelerate KERS Observed Summation of Negative Torque Energy Loss by KERS Including Mech Loss Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred 831.4 Rpm 116.8 Rpm 1.7 s 7.006 rad/s2 42.89 rad/s2 22.9573 J 2.7059 J 86.63 rads 0.2703 Nm 0.3515 Nm 30.4486 J 11.79 % 8.89 %
93
Table B-29: Summary of Data for Discharging at Position 3 Average KERS RPM Rotating Mass Maximum RPM Average Time Taken Average Acceleration of Rotating Mass Average Deceleration of KERS Energy Loss by KERS observed in 1.6s Energy Gained by Rotating Mass in 1.6s Total Radians Covered in 1.6s Negative Torque to Decelerate KERS from Observation Summation of Negative Torque Energy Loss by KERS Including Mech Loss Percentage of Energy Successfully Transferred Observed Percentage of Compensated Energy Transferred 897.8 Rpm 79.6 Rpm 1.6 s 5.2085 rad/s2 53.5540 rad/s2 16.5302 J 1.2572 J 81.8829 rads 0.2035 Nm 0.2846 Nm 23.3052 J 7.60 % 5.39 %
Practicality of New Design KERS in Discharging
Method:
Test for Discharging with Decreasing Moment of Inertia of KERS 1.1 The KERS was engaged all the time at Position 1 to the wooden rotating mass. 1.2 The entire system was charged at a specified rotational speed. 1.3 Once the external torque was removed, the KERS was adjusted from Position 1 to Position 4. The time taken for the adjustment and the maximum rotational speed achieved by the rotating mass was recorded. 1.4 Steps 1.1 to 1.3 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data. Test for Discharging with Decreasing Moment of Inertia of KERS onto Rotating Wooden Mass with Initial Rotational Speed 2.1 The KERS and rotating wooden mass were charged up to a specified speed. 2.2 Once the KERS was engaged for discharging, the KERS was adjusted from Position 1 to Position 4. The time taken for the transition was recorded
94
together with the rotational speed of the rotating wooden mass right before engagement and the maximum rotational speed it achieved. 2.3 Steps 2.1 to 2.2 were repeated for 3 times to obtain reliable data.
Table B-30: Test for Discharging with Decreasing Moment of Inertia of KERS Test for Discharging with Decreasing Moment of Inertia of KERS 1 Initial Speed of Entire System, rpm Maximum Rotational Speed Achieve after Discharging, rpm Time taken Acceleration 221.00 227.50 0.44 1.55 2 225.00 230.50 0.36 1.60 3 219.00 227.00 0.45 1.86 Average 221.67 228.33 0.42 1.67
Table B-31: Study on Energy Transfer in System Wooden Flywheel Initial Energy Content, J Final Energy Content, J Energy Difference, J Percentage Observed, % Mech Energy Loss, J (refer Table B-21) Percentage of Energy Transferred after Compensation for Mech Loss, % 0.45 of Energy Transfer 9.75 10.35 0.60 KERS 2.29 0.42 -1.86 Total 12.04 10.77 -1.27 31.96
0.25
95
Table B-32: Test for Discharging with Decreasing Moment of Inertia of KERS onto Rotating Wooden Mass with Initial Rotational Speed Test for Discharging with Decreasing Moment of Inertia of KERS onto Rotating Wooden Mass with Initial Rotational Speed 1 Wooden Rotating Mass Speed before Engage, rpm Maximum Speed of Wooden Rotating Mass after Discharged, rpm Time Taken, s KERS Initial Rotational Speed, rpm Acceleration Introduced by KERS on Wooden Rotation Mass, rad/ss Initial Energy Content in KERS, J Initial Energy Content in Wooden Rotating Mass, J Maximum Energy Content in Wooden Rotating Mass after Discharged, J Energy Gained by Mass, J Percentage of Energy Transferred, % 51.50 2 56.50 3 49.80 Average 52.60
97.50 1.20 457.00 4.01
112.00 1.43 467.00 4.06
112.00 1.50 460.00 4.34
107.17 1.38 461.33 4.15 9.90 0.55
2.28 1.73 17.48

Final Year Report: Kinetic Energy Recovery System

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Final Year Report: Kinetic Energy Recovery System

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

SHELL ECO MARATHON: KINETIC ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM (KERS)

SAM WING HONG

Faculty of Engineering and Science Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION

Supervisor : Mr. Wong Hong Mun

2012, Sam Wing Hong. All right reserved.

SHELL ECO MARATHON: KINETIC ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM (KERS)

ii iii v vi vii x xi xiii

Background Problem Statement Aims and Objectives Schedule

Types of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS) 5 9 11

2.3 2.4 2.5

Alternative Solution 2.6.1 2.6.2 Friction Jaw (tooth)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Introduction

Introduction to Concept of Applying KERS in Shell Eco 23

TABLE 1-1 2-1 4-1

4-3 4-4 4-5

Force Analysis on KERS Comparison of (Discharging) Energy Transfer Efficiency

Graph of Deceleration of System Energy Loss due to Slippage

LIST OF SYMBOLS / ABBREVIATIONS

The KERS installed on Prototype 1 was found to be performing below expectations.

Aims and Objectives

Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS)

Components of Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS)

Energy storage system

Energy discharging system

Types of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems (KERS)

2.1.2.2 Mechanical Type

Figure 2-3: Mechanical KERS System (Ramirez, 2011)

2.1.2.3 Electrical KERS versus Mechanical KERS

Figure 2-4: CFT Transmission by Flybrid

Prototype 1 by UTAR M.E

Design of Kinetic Energy Recovery System for Prototype 1

Figure 2-5: KERS Isometric View

Figure 2-6: KERS Front View

Figure 2-7: KERS Side View

Figure 2-8: KERS Top View

Technical Specification of KERS Model

Current Problem Faced

Figure 2-9: Debris resulting from charging the KERS

Improve on Surface of Contact

2.6.1.1 Advantages of Friction Engagement

2.6.2.1 Advantages of Jaw Engagement

Disadvantages of Jaw Engagement

a. Too much chock when applied suddenly

Project Flow Chart

Component Design and Simulation

Figure 3-1: Project Flow Chart

Components Design and Simulation

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Introduction to Concept of Applying KERS in Shell Eco Marathon

Testing on existing KERS system

Figure 4-1: Existing KERS Testing Rig

Referring to Appendix A, the following was observed:

Development of New KERS Design

Figure 4-2: New KERS Design (Isometric View)

Figure 4-3: New KERS Design (Real-time Isometric)

Evaluating the New KERS Design

Figure 4-4: KERS at Position 1

Figure 4-5: KERS at Position 2

Figure 4-6: KERS at Position 3

Figure 4-7: KERS at Position 4

Table 4-4: Summary of Expected Mechanical Losses Losses due to:

Flywheel mass bushing

Total mechanical loss