mae 451: mini project 3

8/8/2019 MAE 451: Mini Project 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mae-451-mini-project-3 1/21

2010

Lucas Derejko, Brian Kimichek, Brian Pas

Rich Redding, John Scheda

University at Buffalo

12/6/2010

Mini Project 3: Restore and

Improve Urban Infrastructure



Problem Statement

Travelling within the United States can be a slow and troublesome process. Business travelers

that have to travel between cities for their job often will have to use their own vehicle which can be

damaging to the car in the car's lifetime, or they will have to use airlines for distance travel, which can

be costly to the company. Traffic problems are created by having a large amount of people flying or

driving on highways regularly. These problems can lead to flight delays as well as missing connecting

flights completely. In order to alleviate the stress of driving between cities, or dealing with the hassles of

flying, a public transit system should be created that would connect major cities in America to one

another.

There are some nations that have already developed systems that allow its citizens to commute

from city to city for work reasons. The most successful of these would be the Shinkansen in Japan. It is a

high speed rail line that connects every major city in Japan to one another, as well as many minor cities.

It allows people who live outside of a major city to commute to work every day from distances that

would otherwise not allow.

This project will develop a design that will connect major cities to one another via a mass transit

system. It will attempt to create an efficient system that will be able to carry many passengers at once to

various locations. The system will bring passengers to the cities in a fast and safe manner; it will also be

made to be affordable to everyone. By creating a system such as this, public transportation will be able

to branch out from individual cities to a system that connects the entire system.



Customer Requirements:

y Affordable Rates

o In order for the public to use this mode of transportation every day the expense to

travel must be affordable to many. This means that a standard rate should not fluctuate

greatly between financial quarters.

y Easy to Repair

o The means of transportation should be designed so that it is easily repaired and does

not delay passengers en route to their destination. This means that highly trained

personnel should be kept at a minimum to reduce larger fees from being incurred.

y Easy to Useo Passengers should not encounter any difficulty using this transportation method.

y Simple to Implement

o The designed transportation method should be implemented into existing methods of

mass transit, and done so in a cost effective manner.

y Has a Good Lifespan

o The system needs to be able to last long enough for the customer to consider it to be

worth the continuing use. If the product has to be repaired frequently the customer will

deem it a waste of time and money.

y Safe

o The system should not create dangerous situations for its passengers. There should be

no sudden system-wide failures that would cause fatal or catastrophic injury.

y Appearance

o Aesthetics are an important aspect to consider. The transport method should be

pleasing to the rider from the inside, as well as those viewing from the outside.

y Easily Accessible

o Mode of transportation should stop at all large cities within transcontinental limits.

y Time of TransportationMinimal

o System should be fast, getting passengers quickly to their destinations.

y Comfortable

o The way passengers are situated should be spacious, allowing for minimal interference

with other passengers.

y Easy Access to Personal Items

o There should be a sufficient amount of space for both the traveler as well as their

luggage. This luggage should fit easily in the designated area and be easy for the rider to

store and receive.



Engineering Specifications

y User Fair -> Affordable Rates

o Price of fair for the user measured in dollars per mile. This should be comparable to

current modes of transportation including airlines, buses, and trains. A target rate

should be no higher than $1.00 per mile.

y Steps for Repairs -> Easy to Repair

o Repairs the must be done must be easy to do. Therefore there must be a target number

of steps in order to get to the important components. In order to get to a major

component there should be no more than 5 steps taken.

y Construction Time -> Simple to Implement

o Time required to build the project should be kept to a minimum for each segment. To

connect between any two major cities should take less than one year.

y Frequency of Maintenance -> Has a Good Lifespan

o The system should only have at most 2 major maintenance sessions per year. Minor

maintenance should be able to be finished quickly during loading and unloading of

passengers.

y High Yield Strength -> Safe

o The system must be able to tolerate system-created stresses such as friction, and self

created loads. The system must also be able to tolerate stresses introduced from the

outside environment such as snow loads and wind which will create additional

normal/shear stresses. A target value is at a minimum a safety factor of 5.

y Speed -> Time of transportation

o The system should be able to get passengers from one city to the next in a timely

manner. In order to be competitive the system should be capable of speeds of at least

150 mph.

y Geometry -> Comfortable,Easy to access personal items

o The system should accommodate passengers so that they are comfortable when using

it. It should be wide enough and tall enough so that the passengers can comfortably ride

in the transportation. The inside compartments should be at least 7 feet high and 10

feet wide to fit a total of 4 people in one row, with personal cargo space.

y

Frequency of Stops ->E

asily Accessibleo The system should stop at major cities within the continental United States . A major

city classification includes all capitols as well as locations with populations over one

million.



y Steps to purchase and board -> Easy to Use

o For the system to be competitive, it should have a minimum number of steps to

purchase and finally board the system. It should take less than 5 steps to complete a

cycle of purchasing to sitting in the system.

House of Quality

The House of Quality is a tool used to help relate the customer requirements for a given design

problem to the relating engineering specifications. Using the set of requirements a specifications the

team can come up with direct relations to one another. You can also determine how the engineering

specifications specifically interact with each other as the variables change.

Customer Requirements

The following list shows the rank of each customer requirements as well as a brief description as towhy they were given their particular rank.

1) Affordable Rates 10.0

y In order for the public to use this mode of transportation every day the expense to travel must

be affordable to many. This was considered to be the most important customer requirement

because if the system is not competitive to other transportation methods it will not be used.

2) Time of Transportation 9.0

y The next requirement on the list is the time of transportation. If the system cannot compete

with other modes in terms of speed, people will not want to travel with it.

3) Easily Accessible 8.0y Mode of transportation should stop at all large cities within transcontinental limits. This

requirement was chosen as the third most important requirement because if a large portion of

the population cannot use the transportation it will not be effective for the task of country wide

transportation.

4) Safe 7.0

y The system should not create dangerous situations for its passengers. There should be no

sudden system-wide failures that would cause fatal or catastrophic injury. Safety is a big concern

because without a safe travelling condition the population will not use the transportation

system.

5) Comfortable 6.0y The way passengers are situated should be spacious, allowing for minimal interference with

other passengers. This was given a rating of 6 because people do not want to travel in an

uncomfortable manner, and spending a long time too close to another person would not be a

good way to travel.



6) Easy to Use 5.0

y This requirement was given a rating system of 5.0 because the users should have no problem

with purchasing and entering the transportation system. Potential customers should not get

frustrated when trying to use the system.

7) Good Lifespan 4.0

y This category was next on the list because if the system has a lot of down time it will not be

economically feasible for an institution to implement.

8) Access to Personal Items 3.0

y There should be a sufficient amount of space for both the traveler as well as their luggage. This

luggage should fit easily in the designated area and be easy for the rider to store and receive.

This was given the rating of 3.0 because if it is a little difficult to access and store the luggage,

customers will still be willing to use the system.

9) Easy to Repair 2.0

y The means of transportation should be designed so that it is easily repaired and does not delay

passengers en route to their destination. This means that highly trained personnel should be

kept at a minimum to reduce larger fees from being incurred. This particular customer

requirement was rated where it is because there can be an excess number of transportation

modules, so if repairs need to be done, they can be put aside while being fixed and not interrupt

the general transportation.

10) Simple to Implement 1.0

y This was given the lowest rating because if the system is not easy to implement into the current

infrastructure, there will be a large influx of jobs that would help to stimulate the economy. This

would result in a lower unemployment rate, and putting money back into the system.

Engineering Specifications

With the customer requirements defined our group was then able to convert them into

engineering specifications that would define the needs of the customer in a way that would be helpful in

the design process by creating measureable quantities. The house of quality was then able to determine

the relative weights of each specification based upon the relationship it has with the customer

requirements.



Decision Process

Once the house of quality was finished the group was then tasked with coming up with ideas

that would help solve the problem at hand. The first concept that was used was divergent thinking. For

the initial idea we used a morphological matrix. We Came up with ideas for a power type to drive the

system, where the system would operate (ground, air, water, etc), enclosed or open compartments,

whether or not the path was fixated or allowed to go on a variable path, and finally the medium in

which the passengers travel by. These ideas were compared to a datum within each topic to the

customer requirements. This greatly reduced the number of ideas that we would generate.

C o s t o f U

s e

E a s e o

f

M a i n t e n a

n c e

M a i n t e n a

n c e

F r e q u e n

c y

S p e e d

G e o m e t r y

E a s e o f U

s e

L i f e s p a

n

S a f e t y

S u m

Power Type

Datum

Inter nal Combustion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nuclear -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -4

Electric 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 5

Natural Gas 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -2

Steam -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -8

People Powered 1 1 1 -1 0 1 0 -1 2Hydrogen 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 1 -1 -3

Solar 1 1 0 -1 1 1 -1 1 3

Wind 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 1 1 1

Heat Transfer -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 -4

Magic Tubes -1 0 -1 1 -1 1 0 -1 -2

Sling shots 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2

Rockets -1 -1 -1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -5

Quantum Physics -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -2

Compressed Air 0 -1 0 0 0 1 -1 -1 -2

Methane -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -2

Animal Powered -1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 -1 1 -3

Tr avel Styles

Datum Ground 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Air -1 -1 -1 1 -10 0 -1 -4

Outer Space -1 -1 -1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -5

Underground 0 -1 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -1

Water 0 1 0 -1 -1 0 1 0 0



Compar tment Style

Datum Enclosed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Open -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 -5

Path

Datum Fixed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Variable -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -5

Medium

Rail 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 6

Datum Roads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Open Air -1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 1

Cables -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -7

Canals 1 1 1 -1 -1 0 1 0 2

Monorail Tracks 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4

Tubes -1 -1 -1 10

0

-1 -1 -4Gateways -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -2

Launch pads -1 -1 -1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 -5

Giant Trampolines 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -3

Skates 1 0 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -3

After this screening we came up with ideas that fit within the highlighted parameters. These final

ideas we put into a decision matrix that would then give us the best solution. The following provides a

brief description of each idea that is put in the decision matrix.

1) High Speed Monorail

y This is a monorail system that is capable of high speed travel over large distances. It

would be able to be built above the current roadway systems.

2) Bullet Train Design

y This design would be modeled off of Japans Shinkensen train. It is capable of very high

speed and high volume movement.

3) Mag-Lev Single Pod

y This design would consist of cars containing enough room for a few people. It will leave

the station when needed and the pods can combine mid travel to create a train.

4) Hanging Monorail

y This design would be similar to the high speed monorail system however, because it

would hang there would be less intrusion in terms of how how the system would have

to be.



5) Solar Tank

y This system would use the sun energy for a heat transfer process. As the sun heated the

track pieces (similar to tank tracks) a heat transfer would occur that would drive an

electromagnet to move the track to a cooler location.

6) Light Rail

y A system of rails that run along the roadway, with traffic. This would consist of trolley

cars that would take people from place to place.

7) PendulumMonorail

y A monorail system that stays on the track by its own weight. This is the slowest monorail

of the ideas.

8) Solar Ferry

y This is would be a ferry system operated on a canal way. The propeller would act in a

similar manner to the solar tank system.

9) Rollercoaster

y This design would be powered in similar fashion to theme park roller coasters with less

thrilling experiences.

10) Track Car

y This design is an electric personal car that is permanently fixed on the track system.

11) Counter-Weight Slingshot

y In the terminal, the car would be hooked by a wire in the undercarriage. A large

counterweight below would rapidly slide in the opposite direction that would propel the

system to the next terminal.

The next step in the process was to build a decision matrix with the research that was gathered

to determine the best possible solution. This process uses direct values for correlating the engineering

specifications and rates them based on those values. The rating system uses the relative weight of each

specification which was found within the house of quality. Once the information is placed in the matrix,

a summation of the normalized values is used to determine the best design alternative.

Final Decision

Based on the values obtained from the decision matrix, our final design solution was using the

Mag-Lev Single Pod system. This Design was the ideal choice because of its low user fair per mile, as well

as its top speed. The system also had a competitive start up and maintenance cost which helped it

become the leading candidate.



Project Description

Our product will be broken down into three major parts; The individual pods (cars) , the track system,

and the automated controls. we will cover individually how each part is designed and then later how it

works together to achieve the overall goal. The major factors considered during this analysis will be: end

user cost, speed of transportation, safety , green energy and overall system usability.

Pods

Firsts let's take a look at the individual cars themselves. The pods cars, or pods as they will be

considered from here on out will be our mode of transportation for individuals. Each car will be

designed to seat between 4 to 6 people comfortably. in addition each seating section will contain a

convertible exercise station. This idea is optional , and does not necessarily have to be implemented

into the final design. The built in exercise station would serve two purposes for the passengers: 1. to use

the commute time to get a work out, and 2. to allow the user to input electrical energy into the system

(green energy) and to reduce their travel cost. The pods primary power will be that of

electromagnetically powered (Maglev) systems. Secondary power, when available solar power will be

added into the system. Each pod will be capable of 75 MPH. The design will allow multiple cars to link,

and each car being a locomotive itself, the combined power of each will contribute to the system. As the

number of linked cars increases, the maximum speed of the overall train will increase, allowing for faster

travel times over longer distances.

Track

The Track Design will be that of a suspended monorail track for the Maglev pod cars. The Track system

will be designed to link major population centers from city to city. Within each city they will be a system

of interconnected sites to serve as a mass transportation system within the city. the tracks will be

suspended and built over existing roadways and travel areas. Because of this arrangement, the

additional Maglev system will not impede preexisting traffic systems. Maglev systems were also chosen

over other options because of safety and top speed abilities. There will be a main track system running

in each direction. At each individual terminal location the tracks will divide into 4 sections. The first will

the main track will be for through traffic (pods which do not need to stop will continue moving). The

second will be for adding additional passengers. The Third will be for unloading and loading new

passengers. The fourth and final section will be for complete unloads and empty cars. This would allow

for the fastest times for each different process allow cars that have the ability to move the quickest to

remain moving the most time. (see figure 1 below)



Figure 1

Automated Controls

the third part of our project involves the system controls. First we will look at the overall control

system, and then a walkthrough of the process a passenger will go through over the system. The entire

system will be automated in nature. Using Automated tellers, and ticket sellers, logistics controls and

computer controlled pods .

First looking at the ticket sellers. These automated ATM style control panels would allow the passengers

to purchase tickets, see travel times, and be directed to loading locations. This would be done in an

RFID tag or card with a magnetic strip which is linked to the individual passenger. Magnetic strip card

are preferred because they are easily replaced if the card is lost or stolen.

Over all the system while be monitored and controlled by a logistics system. When passengers purchase

tickets to designated locations, the system chooses which pod to direct to them. If need be disconnects

the pod from those it is linked to and controls the speed of each car accordingly. Depending on which

pod will be fastest for the customer to be picked up and taken to their destination. The system also

controls the optional linking mechanism and passenger assignment. If cars link together, it allows

passengers to be relocated to different seats within the pods themselves.(see figure 2 below) This way

passengers that are going to be moved to the same pod. Improving travel times and increasing speed.



Figure 2

The cars themselves will have several automated controls which are tied into the system. At each seat,

the passengers will swipe their car once seated. This allows the Logistics system to know the current

position of each passenger in each pod. This system also would record any exercise input that the user

does during their trip. (This is an optional design component) It also allows the system to optionally

rearrange the passengers in the linked pod arrangement shown above (optional to design, the user

would swipe the card at their current seat and swipe again at the new seat). Each pod is also remotely

monitored from a central location for safety and security. This is for safety of the passengers for

unforeseen events. The pods automated controls can be overridden in case of emergency as well.

Walkthrough.

To understand how the whole system works, let's take a look at what an average passenger would go

through. The passenger would approach one of the terminal locations and access the automated

purchase terminal. He would either swipe his existing card or input and purchase a new one. He would

input his destination and the system would give him a price per mile and an estimated ETA. At this point

with the ETA known the passenger can deny to purchase the ticket.

He chooses to purchase the ticket and the automated system directs him to a landing platform. Theautomated logistics system chooses the pod which is best suited for the passenger. The system uses

algorithms to figure out which car to choose, whether or not to use a car incoming which has empty

space, or one with similar passengers which is soon to unload at the station, or to choose a new car

altogether. The passenger would swipe their card at the platform which the system directed to,

allowing the system to know where they are. Once the pod is chosen, it will stop to pick up the



passenger. Once the passenger boards and is seated, they would swipe their pass at their seat location.

Then the doors would close and the pod is in motion.

While on route the system directs the pods path, deciding its speed and whether or not to change

directions, link to other cars or to stop and unload and/or load new passengers. The goal of the system

is to try to let passengers arrive at their destinations in the shortest time possible. While in transit theuser could potentially choose to use the exercise equipment in their seat. The system would record the

energy input by the user in the form of electrical energy and reduce the passengers ticket price

accordingly. If while in route the logistics system decides it's best to link the pods, the passenger may be

notified to move seats into a different car. If asked to do so, they can change positions and then swipe

their cards at the new location. This is an optional design component but would allow for large

decreases in travel times in certain situations. This may prove to be a design conflict with safety

concerns and linked pods.

When the passengers pod approaches the desired location, the pod will separate from the other pods,

(if need be) and be directed to the unload track (controlled by the logistics system) . Once the pod is

stopped, the passengers will disembark and swipe their cards to allow the system to charge their

accounts and show their seats as empty.

Overall Design Considerations

End User Cost

Passengers are charged per mile, instead of inflated prices from cab fair, etc. also because the system

travels directly toward the location, the user does not have to pay for additional time and mileage with

predetermined or time routes. Physical energy input with exercise equipment allows users to reduce

their fairs and get a workout on their commute.

Speed of Transportation

Speed of Maglev trains is faster than many other forms of transportation. Because all the trains are

going in the same direction on the same track, and the automated logistic system controls the speed of

the pods and when they disconnect, there is far less of a chance of traffic stoppage.

Safety

Safety of the system is very important. The safety of the passengers if they are in the pods (medical

emergencies, robberies, etc. ) and the monitored and automated systems can stop or redirect the pod

to the nearest location when necessary. The safety of the Maglev systems themselves is over all better

than most comparative systems. (built in functions for failure).

Green Energy

Using electric power, emissions are reduced to zero. Solar power panels, mounted to the top of each

pod allows for free energy input into the system, when available. Also the passenger exercise input

allows for additional free energy.



System Usability

Over all many usability features were considered. Allowing the passenger to board a pod at any location

and choose any end location stops users from wasting time changing terminals or making connections.

The system also allows the passengers to choose when to embark. This eliminates users waiting for or

missing designated disembark times (buses, subways, planes and trains) .

Map of Traffic

The following is a general path of the interstate system. It will be integrated directly along the path of

the current industrial trains that carry freight.



C AD Models

These are the two CAD model prototypes of our design concept. These designs show cart ideas the

passengers will reside in for their daily commute.

Model A



Model B



Appendix



Costs to Create and Maintain Rail Traffic

Monorail Pricing Figures

These figures are calculated by extrapolating data available in the public domain.

Figure 1: Various monorails in different geographic locations.



The cost-to-year ratio for these monorails is measured in $million/mile or $million/kilometer. The prices

vary widely with respect to their geographic location due to the factors discussed above.

Dual-Rail Pricing Figures

Figure 2: Various dual-rail configurations built in different geographic locations.



Figure 3: Light-rail fatalities in major US cities.

As shown, light rails which are in more traffic heavy areas have a higher casualty rate.

Works Cited

1. "HowMuch Does Monorail Cost?" The Monorail Society - Monorails: Safe, Fast, Economic, Green

and Proven. You've Arrived at THE Monorail Website! The Monorail Society, 11 Nov. 2009. Web.

01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/HowMuch.html>.

2. Zaretsky, Adam M. "Riding the Rails: A Look at Light Rail Transit." Federal Reserve Bank of St.

Louis | Economic Data, Monetary Rates, Economic Education. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,

Oct. 1994. Web. 01 Dec. 2010. <http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1890>.

3. Slack, Brian. "Cost / Benefit Analysis in Practice." Hofstra People. Web. 01 Dec. 2010.<http://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch9en/appl9en/ch9a2en.html>.

4. "MonorailMetro Competition." Meneren_Corporation_Home_Page. Web. 01 Dec. 2010.

<http://www.meneren.com/projects/transportation/ MetroComp.html>.

mae 451: mini project 3

Documents